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?

almarst-2001 - 05:38pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6077 of 6096)

I think it is safe to assume, no one ever will know for sure the true capability of MD. Because it will never be tested in realistic situation against a real attacking missle, likely enchenced to increase its survivability to an unknown degree.

All parties will have to work in a "dark" assuming the worst possible scenario. And making the best effort to overcome the foe.

And, if convinced that the "conventional" responce may not be sufficient, the unconventional "alternatives" will be developed.

Additionally, once Cold War treaties are abandoned, including the control and verification mechanisms, the intelligence agencies everywhere will get a "free hand" to shape any perception on a possible treats. They will effectively get the long lasted chance to shape the foreign and military policy. This is a real danger.

gisterme - 05:39pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6078 of 6096)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 6/26/01 3:48pm WRT gisterme 6/26/01 3:13pm ): I had not intended to be deceptive. But what I said WAS intended to get a reaction from you -- and I'm glad of the one I just got, as far as it goes.

I'll have to remember that one, Robert...not deception, just a ploy. Seems like a fine line to me... :-)

"...while we're at it -- is there any objection to checking what the capabilities of equipment in the open literature are -- so that we can say -- on a clearly checkable basis..."

Of course not, Robert. That's what you've been doing with your guesstimations about what a BMD control system MIGHT need to do. Wasn't that question was answered in the last post?

"...If the DOD classified labs are to do this thing -- within the framework of what they've publicly disclosed -- then they have to deal with these specific, specifiable problems..."

That's an assumption, Robert. Yes, there are problems that have to be solved, but you and I can't say for sure what ALL the problems are and which ones have already been solved.

By the way, what in the world would dirac or I "looking back at differential equations" have to do with our understanding of BMD problem solutions? That's a revealing request Robert. Makes me think your background may not be as "technical" as you imply. I can't speak for dirac but for myself I'd say you're pushing the edge of your own technical envelope there, Robert.

I'll say again, the problems that need to be solved for BMD are NOT theoretical but rather technological. THEORETICAL missiles should NEVER miss their THEORETICAL targets. The trick is getting technology to operate close enough to theory to achieve an acceptable level of reliability. The physics involved with BMD are Newtonian. The methods of solving the theoretical problems associated with BMD have been understood for hundreds of years.

"...If that is permissable -- then discussions of the credibility of classified claims can be done, in a free society..."

Of course they can, Robert, but without any specific knowledge to base the discussion on it's all guessing...and I'm not aware that we've been informed of any "classified claims". If they were classified, we wouldn't know about 'em.

"...and in a way such that -- when questions of fraud reasonably arise, they can be dealt with..."

Claiming fraud or conspiracy is always easy when there's no way to back up the claim, or as you say, to CHECK. That's exactly the same worn out shoe that tried to step on stealth technology while its existance was still classified. That's just "naysaying".

It's my understanding that the Wright brothers didn't get any real credit for their first flight for a couple of years in the mainstream media because there were so many intelligent and knowledgeable folks who just didn't believe it was possible for "man" to fly. They were ALL wrong, every one. If claims of "can't be done" had been listened to by the Wright brothers, they would have never flown. But somebody else would have...right, Robert? Somebody with enough faith not to believe the naysayers?

rshowalter - 05:40pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6079 of 6096)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Sending in clear -- getting answers straight, and making reasonable deals, is both cheaper and much safer.

almarst-2001 - 05:45pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6080 of 6096)

gisterme 6/26/01 5:39pm

"because there were so many intelligent and knowledgeable folks who just didn't believe it was possible for "man" to fly."

Same argument goes in any direction. When would you KNOW the REAL effectiveness of MD when the missiles' capabilities are continuesly upgraded as well?

rshowalter - 05:47pm Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6081 of 6096)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , it seems to me that I asked a reasonable question in 6075.

Language has an unfunny characteristic -- that is, it in nonquanitative -- so, as any academic knows, people can quibble forever.

We're talking here about huge costs and huge risks to the world.

What about my question in 6075 -- because if enough constraining questions get asked -- and don't get answered -- then the credibility of proposals - in a world where money is limited -- fades away.

For instance -- lasar missile defense requires, at MANY stages - system precision greater than has been achieved on the Space Telescope. That's a checkable fact.

The implications, followed through -- can make your quibbling insane -- unless, when somebody gets too close to a clean rule-out -- the government can always yell classified --- and save any assertion at all, no matter how ridiculous or (and the word bears repeating) fraudulent.

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense