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 - 01:19pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8107 of 8109)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD8100 wrcooper 8/24/01 10:11am says:

" Either they have darn good reasons for deploying this thing--reasons we civvies sans security clearances don't know about--or else it's just a bad hangover from the Cold War.

" And contrary to what you said, I don't think we can find out from publicly available documents. You'd have to demonstrate your prowess in that department if you want to convince me.

Let's consider what can , and cannot be discussed in terms of the open literature (not only publically available documents, but also public knowledge embodied in the ordinary practice of engineers.) You cannot say that something is "impossible in general" if "in general" is broadly enough construed.

But you CAN say that a specific, well enough specified thing is impossible. Some times, when you plug numbers, something just can't work.

Other times, with less specification, but still a clear picture of what is being discussed, you can say that a job is very far beyond what can be done, in terms of what is available in the open literature. Engineers make this sort of decision all the time, on subject matter that's clearly stated.

So in terms of specific things that are being proposed to be done in specific ways -- you can say - - - - "to do this would take a "miracle" -- a large advance over the state of the art." And be clear about how large the advance has to be, specifically.

I believe that, on the missile defense projects that are being proposed (for example, the one that is subject to the Coyle report) -- getting to tactically sensible levels of performance takes one miracle after another.

On the lasar weapons, which are key elements to proposed weaponizations of space, the technical requirements can be set out clearly -- whether the setting out is right or wrong - - and what is said can be checked. I think I've done that, with respect to points made by gisterme cited in MD7136 rshowalter 7/17/01 12:05pm in the case of the lasar weapons:

MD7137 rshowalter 7/17/01 12:08pm . . . MD7139 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:24pm
MD7140 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:25pm . . . MD7141 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:26pm

rshowalter - 01:23pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8108 of 8109)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD7653 rshowalter 7/31/01 2:54pm reads in part:

" Dawn and I have been suggesting that crucial issues about missile defense, and related matters of military balances, be checked in detail, in ways that other people could judge. In a real sense, for people with enough interest, background, and attention span, this thread has shown some of that checking and shown how more checking can be done. But the evidence wouldn't work well in a courtroom, for real jurors, and probably wouldn't work as well as it "logically" should even for juries of engineers. The jobs of persuasion and illustration done here may be good in some ways, but in other ways they fall short of standards that are needed to convince real people. Especially, to convince enough people.

. . .

" The requirements of that checking are small compared to the stakes, but they may, given the barriers, involve some institutional responses. There have to be ways to get things to closure.

The requirements are comparatively small, but they involve resources that no one person can bring to bear. Including illustration and evidence presentation skills. For example, I've shown, in words, simple calculations, and references, that lasar based space militarization is technically hopeless. Unless I've made some mistakes that can be pointed out. Logically, and in words, I feel that the job is pretty good. And subject to correction in public.

"But by the standards of exposition needed, in a competitive environment, before juries, the presentation is nothing like complete. With a few tens of thousands of dollars worth of effort, spent on skills I lack, that case could be much better.

I think this sort of thing is practical to do, illustrating particular points already made, and related points, and that the issues could be checked to closure. On questions of technical fact , perhaps people who write the professional engineering exams could umpire questions, if questions arise. In public -- basic questions of "what is possible in terms of the open literature" may not arise at all -- because some arguments, solidly enough embedded in matrices of knowledge and practice, are undeniable.

Here's one example. It is easy to protect missiles and warheads with high reflectivity coatings. After 99/100ths of the energy in the lasar is reflected away, even with everything else about the lasar weapon perfect, there isn't enough energy left to do the heating needed to damage the target.

I can't for the life of me see how a "lasar death ray" weapon can work for missile defense. http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense