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 - 04:42pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14791 of 14792)
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.

ABM systems were one part of the board's subject matter - and there was a lot of discusion on that topic - which continues.

Gisterme led me into a discussion of missile defense many times - for instance here on Jul 2, 2001 - and after a light transition - I got into the questions of what a system can see, and hit (the discussion happened to be about lasar weapons - but said solid, basic things about sensors. )

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6404.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6409.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6410.htm controls: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6415.htm

error buildup, radar signitures, and "honest North Carolina people" : http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6420.htm

and a bobble by gisterme: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6424.htm

Almarst put technical issues in a political perspective, and speaks of "trust" and concern about intentions between nation states here: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6433.htm

Telescopes - and claims that can be checked against open literature knowledge: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6729.htm Resolution - tracking - and hurting a target with lasars: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6733.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6736.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6740.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6747.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6751.htm

Nukes still "keep the peace" - in a dangerous way - and there are problems where computers are slow . http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7099.htm

Gisterme " agrees to disagree" when he should check: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7105.htm

An ExxonMobil op-ed on corruption seemed to fit: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7110.htm

A summary - there really are show stoppers: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7138.htm

It ain't true that "if you can see it you can hit it" - and seeing isn't even easy - but a lot of people are working. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11215.htm

Some interesting, cocksure muddle from gisterme - ( with some especially bad physics involving electromagnetic waves ): http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11367.htm

There has been a lot about controls - a lot about decoys and countermeasures - a lot about basic technical issues. Plus a lot else. I thought that was intended.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense