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.

gisterme - 11:31am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15153 of 15166)

Jorian -

Bluestar asked what are those fundamental facts that show that a BMD system isn't workable?

You said:

"...No workie..."

To that I answer "Four out of seven!". That's not "no workie". How many rockets do you suppose the world blew up before it managed to orbit an artifical satellite? Would you say that the ratio of success to failure in rocket launches has imrpoved since, say, 1957?

"No workie" is the comment I'd offer about the viability of the argument you're trying to make.

wrcooper - 11:39am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15154 of 15166)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.eHMfbz7xOYo.2819928@.f28e622/16856

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/16857

gisterme

When the scale of the project is one that is "globe spanning" as this one is, sometimes the only way to test is at the "real" scale. There's no way to do that in a lab.

There is no way to do it operationally, either. The problem is a fundamental one of how to discriminate real-world countermeasures from actual warheads. How will deploying ten interceptors that are incapable of fulfilling their mission advance the goal of building a reliable NMD system?

ALASKA TEST BED

A lot of the work being done in Alaska right now with this "deployment" is on systems and components that are long lead, low risk things like launch structures and thier logistical support bases

See:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=854

TESTING ISSUE

Until the Columbia flew for the first time, the orbiter, main fuel tank and SRBs had not been tested together as a structure. They were tested subsystems of an untested whole. Thanks for the excellent example of what I meant by testing at the "real" scale….Ultimately, the only way we can find out what "full scale" problems might be is to work at full scale. To learn such things in a lab or by computer modelling is way beyond our current ability…That's a highly subjective statement, Will. What information from the test program do you have that would back that up?

See:

UCS links:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=575

http://www.ucsusa.org/bmd/bmd_test.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=599

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=600

"Pushing the Limits": A Discussion of the Welch Report:

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/nmdbook00technology.htm

MORE

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense