From: David Lubkin (lubkin@unreasonable.com)
Date: Thu Oct 14 1999 - 11:06:10 MDT
On 10/14/99, at 3:14 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>Well Spike, if we have gotten to the point where we can build very fast
>and very cheap anti-missle missles then I will be in favor of that.
>You would have to sit me down and show me quite concretely however
>that such devices would cost less than the offensive weapons they
>are attempting to destroy.
Back when my father was active in military technology development for
the US and the Israelis, he was part of an ad hoc group within military
circles that sought cheap, effective solutions to defense problems.
As opposed to the status quo -- ineffective, gold-plated solutions.
Unfortunately, I've seen no signs that the group has more than marginal
success.
A great example is drone aircraft. Either autonomous or remotely
pilotted. In the '70's, he built a prototype for the Israelis in our
living room. Balsa, plywood, a lawnmower engine, camera, and a radio
transmitter. He could make a good profit selling them at $5000.
They carried a payload of 150 lb.
There are dozens of clever uses for such a vehicle. You can launch it
almost anywhere, including a speedboat. Send waves of them out at the
beginning of a battle, carrying 150 lb of explosives. Whenever you see
anything that costs more than the plane, crash into it. And almost
everything in a battlefield costs more than $5000.
When the US military adopted drone aircraft, they added so many
requirements that the cost rose to $500,000 for the cheapest model.
They're still useful but not nearly as much so. And they're still loath
to use them, because they're not sexy. There's no pilot with a leather
jacket and a white scarf.
There's a long cover story on this in Tuesday's _Wall Street Journal_
entitled "Why the Pentagon Is Often Slow to Pursue Promising Weapons:
Resistance and Neglect Kept Drones From Soaring, Despite Their
Advantages." It's on-line, at http://www.wsj.com , but you have to
be a subscriber.
So, yes, I believe affordable, effective ballistic missile defense is
*technically* possible. But I doubt that the Pentagon and the defense
industry could deploy a working system for less than $1 trillion.
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:31 MST