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?

kangdawei - 05:56am Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9895 of 9900)

On the subject of whether the ABM treaty is still in force:

Defending the West: Current Debate over Ballistic Missle Defense

It is also worth noting that the Soviets, and today the Russians, likewise thought it absurd. No sooner was the ink on the Treaty dry than were the Soviets building an air and missile defense for Moscow that today includes some 9000 interceptors according to ex-CIA analyst and author, William Lee. Although under the terms of the Treaty 100 interceptors were allowed for each nation's capitol (none were ever built or deployed for Washington, D.C.) the current Russian force, however effective, would provide a significant defense for Moscow, Russia's main population center.

Many legal scholars, including Robert Turner at the University of Virginia, believe that the Treaty no longer exists since the Soviet Union no longer exists. Even so, the President can give, under the terms of the Treaty, six months notice of our intent to withdraw from the Treaty, as is possible under Article 15, if we declare that it is in our supreme interest.

It's seems like the Russians have already violated it... even back when it WAS an actual treaty.

rshowalter - 07:44am Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9896 of 9900)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD7141 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:26pm includes this . . .

" The lasar weapons programs are fatally flawed because reflective coatings are so effective (and can easily shed 999/1000ths of the energy that hits them http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm ) but even if that wasn't true, they require totally implausible optical resolution -- especially for a high power system. Perhaps the easiest, and most basic arguments against them depend on understanding what resolution is -- something nicely illustrated in nice links from Dawn on the Hubble Space Telescope http://www.astrophys.org/high_2001.html

You quibbled with a number gisterme - - - but where do you have a problem with this argument?

Did you, or people you consulted, actually read the links in MD9833 rshowalter 9/28/01 8:16pm , or did you simply sieze on a numerical issue that doesn't make your case, or, properly interpreted, invalidate anything substantial I've said, and assume that suffices?

The refective coating issue seems decisive - - have I missed something? The reflective coatings are easily enough made and applied to surfaces. Anybody who has ever used contact paper, or put a decal on a plastic model, knows how easy.

Gisterme, while I'm dealing with your responses in a way that is both on point, in proper context, and polite (and take my time doing it) you might consider this decisive issue of reflective coatings.

The same coatings that are applied to make the lasar weapon work without destroying itself can be used (and much less advanced coatings can be used) to immunize the target. The US has published the wavelength of the lasar it is developing - tuning a coating is easy.

Workable defenses have to work - - and committing to defenses that are stupid , and known to be so, is not effective warfare, or psychological warfare.

The human and organizational resources applied to the fool's errand of lasar weapons ought to be redeployed to serve interests of the United States in ways that can work.

kangdawei - 08:18am Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9897 of 9900)

If you blast them in the boost phase, the effectiveness of their decoys are greatly reduced.

Besides, just as Rumsfield talked about the political effectiveness for Saddam if he has ICBM nuke capability (doesn't have to use it), so there is great political effectiveness for NMD. As long as it's CREDIBLE, it doesn't have to be 100% leak-proof.

And one thing I'm sure of, making it credible to the bad guys of the world will be lots easier than making it credible to the naysayers in the USA. Which is a good reason to ignore the naysayers and go about the important task of shielding Americans from the bad guys.

rshowalter - 10:08am Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9898 of 9900)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The bad guys can be competent. We need to set up our defenses in ways that can work.

When a program is hopeless saying "nay" is important.

There are possible things to do to defend ourselves - - we shouldn't waste time on things that are impossible.

rshowalter - 10:14am Sep 29, 2001 EST (#9899 of 9900)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Now, I have agreed that some boost phase approaches might work. And, perhaps, other things might work. But when a specific program is specifically flawed in a lethal way - - it shouldn't continue to merit human or financial resources.

We have enough problems that it doesn't make sense to spend our time on things that can't work.

And missile defense programs, including those involving lasar weapons, those involving orbital "smart rocks", and those covered by the Coyle report, are full of fatal flaws. And evidence of corruption, where a lot of people avoid the plain interests of the United States, just to keep their head in the trough.

After September 11, we've shown what can be done when the US is really threatened.

We can handle the threats that missile defense is supposed to handle in straightforward ways that can work.

We need ways to handle our problems that work.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense