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.

wrcooper - 01:09am Oct 18, 2003 EST (# 15211 of 15221)

In re: <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.dUTFbJ7aPj9.3403195@.f28e622/16861">gisterme 10/16/03 11:11am</a>

So far in a test program there has been very good success. Four out of seven hits aint bad

The tests lacked only a single convincing quality—realism. The radar and infrared characteristics of the targets were programmed into the receptor’s tracking computer in advance; plus, the decoys and the actual target had distinct, easily discernible differences. I hardly call these "hits," to be glibly rated as hits scored in a realistic test that simulated the uncertainties of an actual strike when the characteristics of the decoys and the targets would be unknown.

"...Furthermore, none of the military’s public announcements has adequately addressed the issue of countermeasures..."

Why should they? What do you mean by "adaquately addressed"?

Good heavens! They should address this issue, because it’s the crux of the matter, the sharp edge of the knife that will determine whether current ABM technology has a fleeting radar ghost’s chance in a blooming infrared signature’s hell of succeeding. Read UCS’s report on countermeasures, which I linked previously. We shouldn’t just take the government’s word that everything will work fine and dandy. The radars and infrared detectors that form the backbone of the system will not be able to distinguish between decoys as fashioned in the manner that the UCS report outlines—the mylar balloons will be opaque, and the mass differential between fakes and warheads indistinguishable, while heaters inside the balloons will confuse the infrared signature detectors. Elected representatives at the national level have criticized the program on these grounds. Until satisfactory answers have been provided to the problem of countermeasures, the public would be foolish to accept the simple promises made by the people who have personal stakes in building it that the system will work as advertised.

Wouldn't you agree that "how" interceptors might distinguish between decoys and actual warheads and "how" interceptors would engage their targets might be among those bits of information that deserve to remain classified?

No. Not entirely. At least our elected representatives with clearance on these questions should know how. But these same people are criticizing the system—Joseph Biden is an example. Top scientists, experts in the field, criticize it on these grounds. Theordore Postol is an example. I agree of course that the details of the system should be classified, but we already know that the nature of the radars and infrared detectors to be used. Those systems will not be able to discriminate between decoys and actual wareheads if an attacker were to disguise them similarly to the design UCS outlines.

How do you distinguish between bowling balls and balloons?

Bear in mind that in space if the bowling ball and balloon were the same size and were painted with the same radar reflective material, say aluminum, they would be impossible to distinguish by radar. In the vacuum of space they would move uniformly. No difference between them. If their temperatures were different, say if the bowling ball were intrinsically warmer than the balloon, a heater could be inserted in the balloon so that the surface of the balloon had the same heat signature, as perceived by an infrared detector.

MORE

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense