New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

manjumicha2001 - 11:44am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#717 of 724)

I think Bush's political machine deserves an acardemy award for best producer and scenario award. They sure are geniuses at recycling decades-old programs and having Bush claim the credit. After their hollywood job, he comes out like a lone texas ranger who finanlly does something about bad guys in the town. Their newest project is so-called bunker-busting mini nukes......like it is new idea? Like no one has been researching and developing precisely those weapons for the past 20 years.....:-) Well, the problem with all these political advertising is that it really knocks the foundation out of the global nuke control regime. Granted, Bush's hawks argue that such control systems are wishful thinking and it is true such regimes do rely on mutual fiction on occasion but US also has been the biggest benificiaries of it.

Quite frankly, I think Bush's people are losing a grip on some pretty fundamental issues because of 911 shockwaves and the huge pressure being piled on them for new approach to global threats......people in the know should be very worrried about them losing the direction and focus.....cowboy foreign policy might be a good domestic politics but carries a huge risk to the natinal strategic interests.

rshow55 - 12:39pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#718 of 724)

"Quite frankly, I think Bush's people are losing a grip on some pretty fundamental issues" . . . .

I think that's right. I spent some time this morning searching the use of the word "trust" on this thread from September 2000 on - - as posters taking US administration positions use the word "trust." - - - The "logical structure" of their positions made more sense to me, every time I looked, if there was a substitution.

Instead of

" trust us" . . . substitute " submit to us"

. . . .

For "we need more trust" subsitute "we need more submission."

For "there's more trust between us" read "they're more submissive to us."

The presumption that the US is free to lie, and manipulate and bias information whenever it suits the purposes of the military - is now very deep. Our relations with our "vassals" in NATO (see quote from Chirac, MD276 lchic 3/9/02 3:45am ) take that for granted. Communication to the American people, far too often, takes that for granted.

I find this very dangerous -- because there ARE reasons out there why the US military needs to be strong, and part of stong alliances. Lies are unstable.

They are very dangerous -- dangerous physically, and dangerous to the ideals that we treasure -- the ideals that often make us proud to be Americans - the ideals that make our lives worth living.

gisterme - 12:41pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#719 of 724)

http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/ift8.html

"...The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced today it has successfully completed a test involving a planned intercept of an intercontinental ballistic missile target..."

"...The test successfully demonstrated exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) flight performance and "hit to kill" technology to intercept and destroy a long-range ballistic missile target. In addition to the EKV locating, tracking, and intercepting the target resulting in its destruction using only the body-to-body impact, this test also demonstrated the ability of system elements to work together as an integrated system. The test involved the successful integrated operation of space and ground-based sensors and radars, as well as the Battle Management, Command Control and Communications (BMC3) function to detect the launch of the target missile, cue an early warning radar to provide more detailed target location data; and integration of a prototype X-Band radar (based at Kwajalein) to provide precise target data to the EKV, which received the target updates from the In-Flight Interceptor Communications Systems (IFICS) at Kwajalein..."

The EKV separated from its rocket booster more than 1,400 miles from the target warhead. After separation, it used its on-board infrared and visual sensors, augmented with the X-Band radar data provided by BMC3 via the In-flight Interceptor Communications System, to locate and track the target. Sensors aboard the EKV also successfully selected the target instead of three balloon decoys. Only system-generated data was used for the intercept after the EKV separated from its booster rocket. A C-band transponder aboard the target warhead did not provide any tracking or targeting information to the interceptor after the interceptor was launched..." [emphasis added]

Can't work, Robert??? That's four out of six...sounds like now that the x-band radar is working there's no further need to use GPS data to simulate that radar's presence in the system.

We learn to walk by taking one step at a time, right, Robert?

rshow55 - 12:55pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#720 of 724)

Nice to have you back, gisterme - - many of your contributions (90 search pages, as I recall) are now in a hidden archive.

It can't work against any reasonable countermeasures. Something that Postol, and many others, have pointed out.

How 'bout a fight , gisterme - - where you can't just run away -- on terms we've discussed before?

Back in a bit -- I was posting something else.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense