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 - 05:13pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15245 of 15247)
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.

For example, 15018 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.O9erbfCRP1f.3545369@.f28e622/16729 says "I think getting this solar energy project done would be worth more to the US national security than anything that can possibly happen in Iraq.

13039 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.O9erbfCRP1f.3545369@.f28e622/14716

13040 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.O9erbfCRP1f.3545369@.f28e622/14717

13041 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.O9erbfCRP1f.3545369@.f28e622/14718

13042 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.O9erbfCRP1f.3545369@.f28e622/14719

The process of generating and perfecting such solutions - and checking them - is clearer than it used to be - because of work lchic and I did together - especially this http://www.mrshowalter.net/DBeauty.html

That doesn't depend at all on what some people say about my sanity in 1988 - or now - for people who look at the work, and judge for themselves.

If I had a stable answer to my security questions - that could be used administratively - I'd be out of my current effective house arrest.

And I'd be free to discuss "how crazy I'd been" with a lot of people I can't talk to comfortably now. Including some old AEA investors - who might find it an interesting "story".

And this thread would remain as big as it is - and as full of interesting posts (even if you happen to discount mine). http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

fredmoore - 05:21pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15246 of 15247)

wrcooper - 09:43am Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15231 of 15242)

Will,

'How would the US know what was a decoy and what wasn’t? Also, such tests could be designed to provide misinformation, possibly, were the US spy sats able to monitor them closely.'

It would be too expensive for attackers to mount such tests for a deception only. Once tests were in the MIRV phase US satellites and ground bases could characterise ALL materiel and log the different signatures for cross referencing. This database would assist in future detection and discrimination. With advanced portable HPCS systems the RV's could be probed beyond any Aluminium shields and definitive information on their contents might well be possible. I agree however that chemical or biological contents would be a bit more tricky to deal with ... but not impossible. .

'The US detection capability may not be up to scratch as we post but from my limited knowledge of coherent source techniques, I can see the possibility of ultimately ruling out realistically fielded decoy countermeasures

Why? 'If a warhead were encapsulated in an aluminized mylar balloon, it would be indistinguishable during midcourse flight from an empty balloon. Infrared signature differences between the warhead package and decoys could be simulated with simple heaters in the decoys. Such decoys would be relatively easy to make and a large number of them could be contained in the rocket nose cone with the warhead. '

Now I'm not saying that portable HPCS methods are available yet. However I don't see any reason why a motivated R&D effort in defence labs and universities could not come up with such technology. Essentially, by targeting RV's with a coherent high PRF source you could cause ionisation and related HHG (high order harmonic generation) emissions from within a target beyond any shields. Detection of the resulting HHG can give significant information about the target and its contents during the MIRV phase. Like I said, I'd rather be on the 'Blue team' with the advanced R&D facilities than on the 'red team'.

Cheers

mazza9 - 05:27pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15247 of 15247)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

WRCooper:

You and I agree that the NMD money would be better spent on Lunar or Mars Colonies.

That being said, what is the modus operandi for weaning mankind away from the concept of the sword is mightier than the pen? Our friend Spock would say that WAR is not logical but we live in a world where logic is often ignored! In the game of chess a rook can be taken "en passant!" But when a passant country like North Korea rattles sabers what do we do, ( or as in the case of Madeline Kahn's line in Young Frankenstein..."What, exactly, is it that you do do?") The Clinton idea was to eschew launch on warning, the Cold War strike authorization paradigm. He retargetted our missiles to aim points in the Pacific Ocean where many tuna would be casseroled. He then adopted the launch on attack. I wonder how many US citizens and cities would mark the threshold for nuclear response?

Some say that MAD is sufficient. I don't. The art of war and peace is yet to be enumerated so that we could be building Clarkopolis or Zubrinopolis. At least a defensive system articulates our position. There are certain kooks, (Robert and Looney), who believe that we would use the defensive system as a means to the conquer the world. We haven't done it when we held offensive superiority. Why now?

NMD is insurance. Iraq rebuilt is insurance. We're good people and our children deserve to be safe from the slings and arrows.....

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense