New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

dirac_10 - 08:45pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4943 of 4955)

almarst-2001 - 08:22pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4932 of 4941)

A lot of people may not know about lasers. But many do.

A very small minority on these forums.

That makes me wonder "Why no one thought about an possible accidental laser fire as the reason of downing the TWA flight 800?

Nah. It was a plane originally intended for sale to Iran. Need I spell it out?

lunarchick - 08:45pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4944 of 4955)
lunarchick@www.com

'Don't worry be happy' .. not quite .. it's saying have a grasp of what is important to you, do-able, work-able ... and forge ahead.

gisterme - 08:47pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4945 of 4955)

MOBILE PHONE TECH MAY FOIL 'STEALTH' BOMBERS

That idea of using a low power "blanket" of radiation energy from an array of many omnidirectional transmitters sounds workable in theory but it has a few obvious problems:

1. The laptop computer must be able to process the data from the large array of transmitters and triangulate the location of a disturbance (that may or may not be an aircraft) within ten meters. No laptop I've seen yet is quick enough to do that in real time. Doesn't do much good to know where an aircraft WAS within 10 meters. You already know that before it takes off.

2. The laptop would not only have to know exactly where it's receiver is (per GPS) but would also have to have similar data for every cell tower in the array along with the transmitted power of each. That in itself is not so hard, it's just that the whole picture would be skewed if some cell towers are off line, especilly if you don't know which.

3. Radio transmitters are truly omnidirectional in theory only. In practice there are all kinds of RF signal path and reflection problems that would make things very difficult, especially if the receiver were not in a fixed position. These kinds of problems can vary depening on the time of day, weather, what the sun is doing, etc.

4. Cell towers are just fixed RF transceivers, easily located. Simply re-tuning existing anti-radiation missiles would make cell towers easy targets. No need to bomb the whole place or develop any new and exotic technology. All that would happen if cell towers were used for aircraft detection (stealth or otherwise) would be that cell towers would just become another class of target.

5. A couple of high speed jammers could really screw up the performance of such a system.

6. Other moving objects like cars and trucks would also refelct energy from a blanket system like that. Those reflected signals would be many times stronger than from a steath aircraft. Existance of such false targets would greatly complicate the signal processing required for such a system.

I wouldn't say it can't be done, almarst, but I think shooting down missiles is easier than detecting and tracking aircraft, stealth or otherwise in that way; especially if someone doesn't want their aircraft to be tracked.

Actually that article almost sounds like something that would be floated by a defense contractor to justify building more sophisticated anti-radiation missiles.

almarst-2001 - 08:48pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4946 of 4955)

"We do not know why the president failed to offer a de-alerting proposal January 27. The word is that the Joint Chiefs presented an interesting package, which Defense Secretary William Cohen and his civilian advisers did not push. Clinton has never been a visionary on nuclear matters; but when the military does the hard work on arms control, and civilian honchos drop the ball, the republic is truly hurting." --Mike Moore - http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1998/ma98/ma98moore.html

lunarchick - 08:51pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4947 of 4955)
lunarchick@www.com

Adventis Prize winner:

Mapping the Deep (Sort of Books £8.99) is described as a state-of-the ocean report on the sea and its science.

Robert Kunzig draws on the voices of oceanographers past and present - scientists, pioneers, maverick thinkers, deep-water divers and submersible pilots.

Kunzig is the European Editor of Discover magazine, based in Dijon, France. His writing about the ocean has already won him the AAAS-Westinghouse Science Journalism Award, presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science Journalism

dirac_10 - 08:51pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4948 of 4955)

almarst-2001 - 08:39pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4938 of 4943)

I assume Dirac just took a nap and "overlooked" this small abuse. I am sure however, he will still remain "proud to be an American";)

The suffering of the Iraqi people is completely Saddam's fault. The United Nations would be thrilled to let the Iraqi people have all the food and medicine they want. It is Saddam and Saddam alone that limits it.

Duh.

It is a measure of the great enlightment of Western Civilization in particular that the citizens of the country can be used as hostages by the leader of the country. That we care more about the people of the country than their own leader. Milosevic is another perfect example. This is brand new in World History.

And it makes me very proud to be an American.

almarst-2001 - 08:52pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4949 of 4955)

The funny thing - we continue talking on this subject.

The not so funny thing, (at least for me), to learn more and more about morals, motives and minds of people (do I spell it correctly?;) like Dirac (who incidently is proud to spare my life;)

Why after that do I feel so bad?;)

lunarchick - 08:53pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4950 of 4955)
lunarchick@www.com

http://www.discover.com/

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense