New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 06:40pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1239 of 1241)

MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm includes this:

Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
MD728 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@201.y53waaNKHLT^40354@.f28e622/906... MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 9:32pm
MD730 rshow55 3/20/02 9:37pm

Counterchallenge:
MD764 gisterme 3/22/02 1:34pm

Comment and response:
MD780 manjumicha2001 3/23/02 2:28am ... MD783-784 rshow55 3/23/02 11:15am
MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 11:52am

Perhaps I have been moving slowly. One reason is that I've felt that things have been moving toward a situation where a lot of things could get solved. Another reason is that it is essential to get situations set up where right answers are possible -- rather than certain to be evaded.

Circumstances are coming into focus where right answers may be possible -- the credibility of the Bush adminstration outside the United States may be lower than the credibilty of any other administration in this century -- for very good reasons. Reasons that should concern responsible Americans.

Here are questions and issues set out in MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 9:32pm , that don't depend at all on my background, or on any classified material at all:

The technical questions set out in bold below may seem dry - and to many people, such as Professor Postol, they seem fully answered already. But the arguments involved with them haven't been fully set out by the standards expected in a court of law - - or the standards that are now possible on the internet, with some organization and umpring.

The arguments involved haven't been contested , with technical questions that required decision decided by very widely respected judges, for reasons that could themselves be judged.

The issues haven't been illustrated, numerically and pictorially, to the standards expected in a court of law - with arguments that would work for real juries.

But these questions could be answered to these high standards, and answered beyond any reasonable doubt.

With the whole world (and reponsible politicians) watching.

QUESTIONS: :

" How technically challenging are the missile defense programs that have been set out in public (laser and midcourse interception ) in terms of what is known, and what has been achieved, in the open engineering and scientific literature? Are the objectives for these specific kinds of systems compatible with the laws of physics? To work, these systems have to do specific things, and do these things together. Are the technical objectives these systems have to meet reasonable in terms of known laws of physics, and relevant experience in engineering?

" If function of these systems requires breakthroughs, compared to previous open literature theory or experience --- what are these breakthroughs? How do the results needed compare quantitatively to results that have been achieved in the open literature by engineers, applied physicists, or other people who measure carefully? If breakthroughs are required, how do they compare to test results that have been made available to date?

These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can reasonably be expected and specified.

rshow55 - 06:44pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1240 of 1241)

There would have to be "fights" about these questions -- contractors, and the military, would have to be forced to contest these issues. - Or accept anwers on a clear nolo contenre basis. If world leaders wanted to bring this force to bear -- one way or another -- it could be done -- and pretty gracefully.

These "dry technical answers" would make a practical difference on larger questions, of concern to all citizens of the world.

The answers would be clear, and would exist in clear logical contexts. Contexts that could be set out in "decision trees" such as the decision making/tree, expert systems set out it MD634 lchic 3/18/02 12:51pm

When the technical answers are clear -- many clear conclusions will follow about the rationality and good faith of military-industrial patterns in which the whole world has an interest.

Sometimes, to sort out a mess, you have to get SOME key relations clarified. It would be possible to clarify these relations. That done -- conditions would be in place for "breakthrough negotiations" that are deeply in the interest of the United States of America, and the rest of the world as well.

Many details about this have already been set out at length on this thread - and discussed with gisterme , who, at the time, gave every indication of having discussed these issues with her (his) colleagues.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense