New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

rshowalter - 10:29am Jan 7, 2001 EST (#540 of 550)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If there is any valid reason to expect that any of this stuff works, I'd be glad to know of it - references anyone?

The fact that the Israelis bought a prototype, given US - Israeli military-aid-intelligence relationships, says NOTHING about how valid or useful the hardware is. If the purchase by the Israelis gives "rhetorical cover" for a project, and the US asks, Israel will do what makes sense for it - which, subject to negotiation, is to go along.

I would be FOR a missile defense that actually worked. I see none in prospect. Perhaps I'm behind the times? Well, then what references might I read? My guess, from what I know about lasars, and controls, and optics, is that the "child's play" of putting effective missile defense together with lasars, either ground or space based, could not stand reasonable crossexamination.

dirac_10 - 02:50am Jan 8, 2001 EST (#541 of 550)

rshowalter - 10:29am Jan 7, 2001 EST (#540 of 540)

If there is any valid reason to expect that any of this stuff works, I'd be glad to know of it - references anyone?

What stuff? Can you be a little more specific. Sounds like a lot of work to look everything up for you.

The fact that the Israelis bought a prototype,

More than a prototype. A production version installed and functional.

given US - Israeli military-aid-intelligence relationships, says NOTHING about how valid or useful the hardware is.

You gotta' be kiddin'. The Israelis are such poor businessmen and so poor at military things that they are going to buy junk for this absolutely critical weapon?

Riiiight.

If the purchase by the Israelis gives "rhetorical cover" for a project, and the US asks, Israel will do what makes sense for it - which, subject to negotiation, is to go along.

Oh sure, we force them to buy our worthless military junk all the time. Like all those F-15's for instance.

I would be FOR a missile defense that actually worked.

An entirely reasonable position.

I see none in prospect. Perhaps I'm behind the times? Well, then what references might I read?

In reference to the details of the new Israeli 10km. death ray laser? The newspaper articles? Some peer-reviewed article on the top secret test results? The blueprints? Just what is it you are looking for?

My guess, from what I know about lasars, and controls, and optics, is that the "child's play" of putting effective missile defense together with lasars, either ground or space based, could not stand reasonable crossexamination.

Well, how about some of that blistering crossexamination? Why just the talk?

Here, let me help. I'll sketch out a general plan, and you tell me where the engineering/physics is wrong.

Keep in mind that all axiomatic systems are incomplete. This one is too.

The energy available for brief times to large ground based lasers is far in excess of what it takes to incenerate any ICBM and chaff. If it gets even a tiny efficiency.

Delivering this energy to the target at continental distances is most of the problem. Frequencies, most likely in combination, must be chosen so as to make the weather meaningless. Space based lasers may be a part of the solution, at least enough ground based lasers and mirrors in orbit to get the job done in the holes in the atmosphere.

In addition to lasers natural tendency to not disperse, we focus it at a point. As best we can. Other than the atmosphere, no problem. Now, the new telescopes they are building can largely cancel out the distortion of the atmosphere by using the data from other telescopes aiming through the same spot in the atmosphere at fixed stars. This data is used by the computer to adjust the individual mirrors that focus the telescope. Supposed to make the Hubble obsolete. Ground telescopes are expected to finally win because of this trick of focusing past the atmosphere.

Do you see any reason this won't work to focus the laser in precisely the same way?

There are so many engineering tricks available to get the job done... Blast through the same point in the atmosphere where not even the readjustment of the telescopes aim is required, and use a mirror in orbit to refocus it to a deadly point and deflect it horizontally to the target.

You would probably do a little of several plans. It would make our axiomatic system stronger to have the extra axioms. Kinda like plywood.

Now, one might complain that the target could be reflective just like our mirror. But can it? Even if Saddam's mirror technology was our equal of ours, couldn't we make the mirror specially tuned to a certain secret wavelength or whatever? And since the laser may/can be less than focused at a point after passing through the

dirac_10 - 02:52am Jan 8, 2001 EST (#542 of 550)

Now, one might complain that the target could be reflective just like our mirror. But can it? Even if Saddam's mirror technology was our equal of ours, couldn't we make the mirror specially tuned to a certain secret wavelength or whatever? And since the laser may/can be less than focused at a point after passing through the atmosphere, and can be very precisely focused at a point in outer space, the target gets a much more deadly shot.

Now some would claim that any old mirror that Saddam came up with would do the job. I wouldn't bet the ranch. The efficiency of any mirror is finite. If well enough focused, the energy density is near infinite. Will burning a hole through or cutting the ICBM in half have a positive effect?

If the current toy laser can zap a katushka in 10 seconds, one of these Manhattan project type monsters could zap an ICBM in a millisecond. Given the efficiency is there. It can zap ICBM's as fast as the mirrors can move. Thousands of ICBM's in seconds.

Thousands of ICBM's cost vast amounts of money, electricity is cheap. Electromagnetic energy in the required quantities is much cheaper to put out to orbital distances than the required mass. That goes for chaff too. Poof.

Does that help? Sorry about no top secret blueprints. Maybe on the CNN forum...

rshowalter - 01:53pm Jan 8, 2001 EST (#543 of 550)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Gorbachev's letter to Bush

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense