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.

bbbuck - 12:51am Aug 20, 2002 EST (# 3822 of 3830)
'How many[moms]do you have?'...'two'...'I see...where are they?'...'in the club with madame'...

wow. you are cryptic.
Are you posting I'm a neo-conservative?
Damn. No wonder no one tries to communicate with you.
I will report you to my local 'long range missile' group.

lchic - 01:43am Aug 20, 2002 EST (# 3823 of 3830)

Sorry!

Neither missiles or friendly fire permitted .... the last time your guys were over here they killed an emu ... wildlife rangers are still 'in recovery'!

If you fix your eyes for a minute or so on the spinning spiral pattern that appears to shrink and then look a something else, such as someone's head, it will appear to be expanding. http://jjlahr.com/science/Illusions/fbkspin.html

On how 'neo-Conservatives' view each other!

lchic - 01:47am Aug 20, 2002 EST (# 3824 of 3830)

FISK http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=325986

lchic - 01:50am Aug 20, 2002 EST (# 3825 of 3830)

An Islamic high court in northern Nigeria rejected an appeal yesterday by a single mother sentenced to be stoned to death ...

Clutching her baby daughter, Amina Lawal burst into tears as the judge delivered the ruling.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=325978

Nigeria - one sick nation ...

no superheros

lchic - 05:45am Aug 20, 2002 EST (# 3826 of 3830)

Almarst see

http://abc.net.au/4corners/

'The House of War'

rshow55 - 07:05am Aug 20, 2002 EST (# 3827 of 3830)

mazza9 8/19/02 5:03pm says, correctly, that " when you build the capability into a simulator you are one step closer to an operational weapon."

But how many other steps are there? And how hard or impossible are those steps?

These things should have been done ten years ago - - and if the weapons had much credibility at all - would have been finished a long time ago. But they are steps worth doing in a weapons development program - and, of course, cheap public relations when the program has to be able to point to some progress:

"an F-16 simulator to include high-energy laser weapon computer models. Pilots of the New Mexico Air National Guard's 150th Fighter Wing at Kirtland AFB, N.M. (where Air Force directed energy efforts are headquartered) are testing one design for air-to-air combat and another for attacking ground targets. The models take into account energy losses due to atmospheric transmission, the boundaries of lethal target engagements and laser limits and ranges, according to Rudy Martinez, a strategic planner with the Air Force Research Laboratory. A near-term goal is to use the simulator in war games to determine the utility of high-energy lasers against conventional weapons. The simulator is"scheduled for system evaluation this year."

It is the simulator that is scheduled for evaluation this year. On a multibillion dollar program that has been ongoing for many years - not very impressive.

And the simulator is to model an application of lasers that is probably still impractical from a weapons system point of view - but nevertheless an application that is vastly easier than any MD application of lasers.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense