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.

rshow55 - 07:24am Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14778 of 14779)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Cooper's right about weight and simplicity.

From Cooper's Cato quote above http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-337es.html :

"First, any NMD system will probably have at least two different media for the detection and discrimination of incoming warheads—radar and infrared (IR). For the NMD system to be fooled, effective countermeasures would have to successfully simulate both the radar and IR signatures of a real warhead.

The statement makes a lot of assumptions about what our sensors, guidance, and delivery systems can actually do do. Or could possibly do.

1667 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ktQSbbmnNdN.1900822@.f28e622/2087

Key questions about specific missile defense systems can be discussed without using any classified information at all.

Here are the key questions, for any specific system:

Can it see the target?

Can it hit the target?

Can it hurt the target?

The most specific information about these questions will be classified, and rightly so.

But the most fundamental information cannot be classified - because it is deeply embedded in the open literature, and based on simple physics an engineering.

What can be done in the open literature? Would it take miracles for the system, in terms of details that are open, to see , hit , and hurt the target?

How many miracles, in terms of countermeasures that have to be expected?

Searching the phrases "see the target" ; "hit the target" or "hurt the target" brings up a lot of material relevant to the case. Cato's argument is grossly, grossly misleading.

But to check - it is necessary to "connect some dots."

Here are two great posts from lchic - one on Postol - the next on problems we all have when "connecting the dots" goes against our "wiring to be nice" and the injury we all feel when people are not nice. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/1316

Rejection really hurts finds brain study http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994257

Cooper, great references above.

Mostly I'm resting and reflecting this weekend - but did want to post this.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense