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 - 07:14pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15250 of 15263)
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.

and http://www.mrshowalter.net/ScienceInTheNewsJan4_2000.htm ends with this:

If a scientist, to scientific group, or journalist, was faced with a person claiming paradigm conflict, they could say:

" We have an institutional arrangement for that. The procedures are rough, but fair - go through channels."

Anybody who had a good idea (and any academic group which had a good reason to contest the stance of another) would have a good chance of both being heard, and being validated to a limited but significant extent, by such a procedure.

And the crackpots, who really do exist, would be less trouble.

A problem I'm having, guys, is that it is hard to summarize while fencing - and especially so while laughing . . .

Some things are only so funny. Though from a certain perspective - a lot of things are. What, Me Worry About Insults? http://www.mrshowalter.net/What,%20Me%20Worry%20About%20Insults.htm

We are sociotechnical beings - and as such we have a lot to hope for - and a lot to fear - from changes in ordering. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Kline_ExtFactors.htm

A lot has happened since I sent this postcard - and it is interesting - and "funny" from a number of perspectives. http://www.mrshowalter.net/LtToSenateStffrWSulzbergerNoteXd.html

People may be muddled - and I may be more muddled than many. It takes people a while - but we can get useful results - and break "codes" and "mysteries".

We're now at a point where - for people in power to keep that from happening - they have to say:

. NO FAIR connecting those dots in interconnected ways - and keeping at it enough for focus !

The nature of that fight - which is an essential fight in our time - is getting clearer. The fight is being clarified, and fought, on this thread.

14706 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ncKgbVZcQAT.3612895@.f28e622/16417

A big objective of mine:

I'm trying to explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often. How to costruct and trim stable oscillatory solutions - where nothing else can possibly work - and where these solutions can do well - if people take their time and fit them carefully. 7789-90 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.07AHagLY0sj^0@.f28e622/9314

Not a lot harder, once people grow up a little, than learning to tie their shoes.

A lot works well - but - in a few spots - even The New York Times may have to do some changing.

Seems to me that it may be happening.

It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to work out patterns that would get right answers even when people involved were angry enough to call each other "crazy. http://www.mrshowalter.net/ScienceInTheNewsJan4_2000.htm

- - -

If the answer is right - the source might not matter at all.

wrcooper - 11:16pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15251 of 15263)

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ncKgbVZcQAT.3612895@.f28e622/16959

Fred:

It would be too expensive for attackers to mount such tests for a deception only.

Really? How would you know that? Also, if it isn’t too expensive for such a nation or group to buy or build an ICBM system tipped with a nuclear, chemical or biological (NBC) warhead, then I fail to understand why a much simpler addition of countermeasures wouldn’t lie within their power.

Once tests were in the MIRV phase US satellites and ground bases could characterise ALL materiel and log the different signatures for cross referencing.

Log away.How would we distinguish warhead from decoy. They might not even launch an actual warhead in a test. So all the signatures we logged would not tell us what the actual warhead looked like.

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.

Huh? Probed with what? I assume that an HPCS system is a high-productivity computing system, right?

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

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.

I assume you referring to the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) in radar systems? As I understand it, HHG is produced when a material absorbs and re-emits photons. So you’re talking about focusing a laser beam on a mylar balloon, is that it? But how would such a field penetrate a reflective aluminized surface? Maybe it would allow you to determine what the balloon is made of, but not what’s sealed inside it.

Detection of the resulting HHG can give significant information about the target and its contents during the MIRV phase.

How? You haven’t explained how photonic energy could penetrate the aluminum skin of the balloon. What you’ve said strikes me as dubious at best, Fred.

Like I said, I'd rather be on the 'Blue team' with the advanced R&D facilities than on the 'red team'.

You haven’t made any sort of case that reliable detection technology exists and would therefore justify the near-term deployment of an ABM system. Building countermeasures is still a heck of a lot easier than building interceptors.

Cheers

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense