New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 04:56pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3696 of 3703)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

One thing, that Almarst is concerned about, seems completely clear to me. Any nation that believes it should or can achieve unilateral hegemony is doing something dangerous, and damaging to the world, and attempting the impossible.

We need military balances.

We also need to do everything we can reasonably do to keep nuclear weapons from expoding and killing people. I think that, for this purpose, diplomacy, communication, and prohibition are the most hopeful ways to proceed.

rshowalter - 04:58pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3697 of 3703)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

But if I saw a realistic role for missile defense technology, I'd listen hard to that, as well. I haven't seen such a realistic approach. Diplomacy and some MD are not at all mutually exclusive. Especially if the major nuclear powers (Russia, China, France, GB) - are kept informed, so that destabilizing steps do not and cannot occur. Even more if they actually participate in the work.

What I WOULDN'T do is commit much resources to a system that didn't work WELL on paper when calculations were checked to high engineering standards -- and I don't believe that anyone is anywhere close to that. And the problems with the system are not "pure science" problems at all -- the game is all Newtonian physics.

Exactly because Newtonian physics and applications, such as servomechanism theory, ARE understood - because they are engineering and not science, we can, and ought to, insist on REALLY GOOD ENGINEERING ANALYSIS -- with independent checking teams paid to find errors -- not cover them up.

1-2 billion a year, year after year, looking for such a good design might be money well spent -- but UNTIL THE BASIC CALCULATIONS LOOK GOOD TO INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS, WELL ABLE TO CHECK, serious deployment money shouldn't be spent. And if a design is really good, development should be cheaper than before -- because people will be attempting a possible job, rather than the impossible job they are attempting now (if you're asking for a real MD).

At the same time, other people should be working hard to make prohibition of nuclear weapons work. I think they'd have much the easier job, and would win the "race."

rshowalter - 05:04pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3698 of 3703)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If the US and Russia were both down to 100-200 warheads, for instance, with very good mutual checking also in place to make first strikes entirely implausible, then absolutely everybody would be considerably more comfortable about MD.

Though prohibition would be still better.

Why we can't convert from "Mutually Assured Destruction" to "Mutually Assured Deterrance" I don't understand.

applez101 - 05:24pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3699 of 3703)

To some extent, the thinking is that Deterrence needs the full potential of Destruction in order for it to be viable.

rshowalter - 05:24pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3700 of 3703)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I have to worry some about my own destruction. If the "How the Brain Works" board in the "Mysteries of the Universe" forum disappears, as it may on Monday, I will have been badly hurt -- and I think the cause of neuroscience will be set back some. The cost of archiving that board, which involves high quality science discussion, and many, many superb citations by Dawn Riley - would be small -- I'd gladly pay for that actual cost, whatever it is, myself. The cost of moving the "How the Brain Works" forum to the SCIENCE section would- I believe, approach 0. And I feel that the "How the Brain Works" board belongs in SCIENCE -- there's a great deal of solid stuff in that thread.

rshowalter - 05:27pm May 11, 2001 EST (#3701 of 3703)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That thinking is irrational, and would not stand up to cross-examination -- it is the sort of thing this thread, and threads like it, might examine in detail.

The idea that "maximal threat" is "ideal threat" is just wrong -- threaten human animals too much, and they fight. That's a fact.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense