JDG wrote:
>Dan M. wrote:
> >That's not the problem. The problem is building it before we have the
> >technology. For the last 30 years an effective missile defense program
has
> >only been 5 years away. :-)
>
> Given the hysterics that have surrounded every test of the technology
under
> development, that characterization seems inaccurate to me.
Have your read the proponents projections for the proposed ABM system in the
late 60s and early 70s? Have you seen the original proposal and timetables
for Star Wars of the early 80s? I was fairly young (about 15-16) when the
first ABM proposals came out before the treaty. I was definitely an adult
in the 80s. The blue sky projections for Star Wars were a wonder to behold.
I won't bore the list with all of them. My favorite is the 1,000,000 lines
of code that will work flawlessly the first time it is used. The reason for
this? As far as I can recall, its because the software would be written in
Ada: a language that had natural immunity to bugs.
I suggest that you go back and read the 1980s Scientific American articles
on Star Wars. Counter measures were available at a cost of pennies on the
dollar to the measures. And, that was for the full blown system with all
the bells and whistle. What we plan on initially deploying now is even
easier to counter.
Remember, I was part of the scientific community at the time of Star Wars.
The word was that all one had to do was say "Star Wars" application and any
research was funded. That's a bit of an overstatement, but not as much as
you might think. One of my colleagues suggested naming our new spectral
gamma tool the SDI (Spectral Density Instrument) in order to get DOD
funding.
The feel I have for the missile system is the same feel I have for
controlled fusion. With the former, deployment plans are made ahead of
development of the underlying technology. With the latter, engineering is
done before the science. That is a recipe for repeated failure.
Dan M.
