Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial article

maveric149: I linked SDI so that people could easily look up other meanings of the initialism. This may or may not be a good idea, and I suspect that it's been discussed before, and you're probably just correctly enforcing policy by removing the link. But do you know where I can look up the discussion? — Toby Bartels, Thursday, July 18, 2002

Not Technical

Not a single technical detail present. National security or laziness? Mikkalai 03:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uninformative

This article is uninformative to the point of laughable. I believe the contention that Clinton abandoned the SDI program is false, but I have not edited anything because I've got to get sources. Also, it is worth noting that an SDI missile interceptor base in Fort McGreely, Alaska is now fully operational. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.33.128.142 (talk • contribs) . 11 August 2005

Effectiveness

Was not there a scandal that congress had been told "it's working", but it actually didn't? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.245.50 (talk • contribs) . 30 September 2004

So, who's been talking to the prime minister of the USSR?

..and I quote "As the Soviet Union was failing, the only advantage they held was the threat of nuclear war, leading to why Gorbachev would so vehemently oppose a defensive weapon" thank's for telling us what Gorby was thinking, as this is both relevant to the article, and non-vandalistic --172.128.124.231 21:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

SDi was Reagan's petproject which he didn't want to trade down. Gorbachev was initially eager to negotiate American withdrawal from the SDI but after Soviet scientists came to conclusion that the SDI is impossible, Gorbachev stopped discussing it and wasting billions of dolars didn't help American case in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.251.240.117 (talk • contribs) . 8 January 2006

Biased opinion not fact

"Gorbachev's October 1986 meeting in Iceland, Gorbachev ardently opposed this defensive shield, and blocked discussing anything else. Supporters claim that this is because Gorbachev was worried about losing his only threat: nuclear weapons"

now i could change this but thought it should be discused first surely the inclusion of the fact that SDI implimentation would break the balance of the nuclear threat given by the MAD doctrine! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.247.91 (talk • contribs) .

SDI article doesn't even mention Brilliant Pebbles, even though Brilliant Pebbles redirects here

Brilliant Pebbles was a pretty central part of the later Cold-War SDI plan. Why isn't it even mentioned? And who says that SDI was intended to rely almost entirely on nuclear lasers? Brilliant Pebbles has nothing to do with lasers. It's basically like hundreds or thousands of orbiting PAC-3 missiles with integrated communications and a protective shell with integrated solar power. It was designed to be cheap (only hundreds of thousands of dollars per missile), somewhat autonomous (must be authorized to engage the target), robust (many independent missiles meant you had to take out a majority of the "pebbles" before the system is crippled), and overwhelmingly effective (with like 10 "pebbles" for each enemy missile). It was to intercept enemy missiles right after they left the atmosphere (and therefore, before the enemy missile's multiple warheads were released).

Brilliant Pebbles was even tested (not operationally, but the technologies were tested). Unarmed "pebbles" were launched into space to test their communications and target-tracking capabilities. I think the end of the Cold War pretty much ended their development. Perhaps their cheap ability to defend against the entire Soviet threat was one reason for the end of the Cold War (and also why development of Brilliant Pebbles was stopped, perhaps by of the insistence of the Russians since the Brilliant Pebbles would have made the entire Russian missile fleet pretty much obsolete, and done so at quite a low cost, i.e. less than $30 billion).

Here's a quote from the report that sort of sums up the idea: "Imagine thousands of tiny satellites orbiting the earth. Each is actually a little rocket, no more than 40 inches long and capable of tracking objects in space on a minute’s warning. Imagine an enemy launching hundreds of nuclear ballistic missiles at the United States. The attack is detected, the tiny space rockets are activated, and they race toward the enemy missiles. At the edge of space, just above the earth’s atmosphere, these missiles encounter a hail of fire as they crash into hundreds of the small rockets. Many enemy missiles are destroyed, along with their nuclear warheads, as if blasted by a gigantic, spaceborne shotgun." [1] Robotbeat 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a paragraph or so in the Project and proposals section as well as a small amount in the Anti-satellite weapon article. If you have some material to add to this article, feel free to add it. If you have enough for a separate article, make a new Brilliant Pebbles article and replace the redirect. I'd say to be careful with your sources, the Heritage Foundation might not be considered an unbiased source on Wikipedia. If it's not balanced with some opposing viewpoints it will probably be pounced on. I don't know too much about BP, so I look forward to reading the new article. --Dual Freq 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, The Heritage Foundation didn't write the article, it just has it on their website. And also, there is a smaller version of Brilliant Pebbles planned for in-orbit testing of a five satellite experimental test bed starting in 2012, and proceeding to an in-orbit thin deployment of about 100 such interceptors starting in 2016 (thousands of such interceptors would be needed to counter a threat from, say, the former USSR, so although 100 sounds big, it's really no bigger than a lot of the other currently planned/deployed ABM systems). This scaled-down Brilliant Pebbles would be only one of many layers (ABL, GMD, KEI, Aegis, THAAD, Patriot missiles, etc.) in the currently deployed and planned US Missile Defense. [2] Robotbeat 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Aegis Defense System is National Missile Defense, not Strategic Defense Initiative

The previous version of the Project and Proposals section, "...in early December of 2005, the US Navy's Ticonderoga-class (Aegis) guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie successfully intercepted a missile during its boost phase, leading some experts in the field to suggest that the system was capable of shooting down medium and long-range ballistic missiles launched from locations relatively (200 miles) close to the coast" was horribly misleading. It could easily be interpreted that the USS Lake Erie used x-ray lasers to shoot down the missile. I added "using Standard missiles as part of the Aegis system," because that is how it was done. See Ageis combat system and Aegis Combat System. Overall, this article is misleading, mixing the facts and events regarding the x-ray laser based technologies with those of the Aegis Defense System technologies. These technologies are very different, even thought they have the same purpose. It is my understanding that the Strategic Defense Initiative, what was known as "Star Wars," was only in reference to the space-based, x-ray laser technologies. Current successes with new technologies (as those achieved by the USS Lake Erie) fall under the category of National Missile Defense. Please note that the successes of the USS Lake Erie are listed in the Recent Developments section of the National Missile Defense article. I would appreciate some comments before I start overhauling this page to make it more accurate. -Iamthealchemist 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think SDI, under the SDIO covered all ABM efforts until it was replaced / renamed BMDO. "By the fall of 1987, SDIO had developed a national missile defense concept called the Strategic Defense System Phase I Architecture, which was composed of a space-based interceptor, a ground-based interceptor, a ground-based sensor, two space-based sensors, and a battle management system." (PD-US-GOV)[3] Aegis TMD was under BMDO, which replaced SDIO, which, I think, is all under MDA now. --Dual Freq 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So I take it that you agree that the information regarding to Aegis should be explicitly labeled as such and that it falls under MDA's oversight of National Missile Defense. I suggest that an explicit section or statement be placed in the article regarding what you mentioned about the renaming of the agencies. Are you interested in doing that, Dual Freq? -Iamthealchemist 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a scalpel sharp enough to cut only what needs to be cut here. What is the focus of this article? Is it to simply define the term SDI or is it to detail each program that fell under the authority of the SDIO while it existed? Is there a difference between SDI and SDIO? Is SDI the name of the program for space based weapons and SDIO is the organization that managed all ABM efforts of the 80's and early 90's? Somebody who can sort out the mess of articles should take this one on. FAS has a timeline to 1998, [4] that could help sort it out. I guess, pull everything out of the article from 1993 on and point to articles about its successors, ie BMDO/MDA. --Dual Freq 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You have both included more thought in your comments than exist in the entire article. I don't know the answer, but I know two things: (1) Your points illustrate an issue that needs resolving, and (2) The article is in bad shape and needs help.

Re #1, of course it's vital to define the article scope. Regarding this you both mentioned good points. The Aegis stuff just doesn't belong. It was never part of SDI. In general I think it should include the early SDI concept AND how it evolved until SDI was officially abandoned in 1993 and the establishment of BMDO. It should include as many systems for which good information exists.

SDI originally envisioned an array of technologies, including ground-based and space-based lasers, orbital nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers, particle beams, and orbital laser relay mirrors. SDI as named ran from about 1983 to 1993. However in 1991 Pres. G. H. W. Bush called for a more limited version using rocket-launched interceptors based on the ground at a single site.

During the late 1980s, Brilliant Pebbles became emphasized. The article spends two lines on this. Much more detail is needed, as it came closer to production than any other SDI system I'm aware of.

The technologies investigated by SDI evolved over time, and the article can mention that. However it should be VERY crisp about what was part of SDI and what was not. It should not mix-and-match stuff from NMD and SDI, as it now does. The goal is document SDI, not talk about Patriot and Aegis.

Right now the article contains little informative material other than a few brief sentences about X-ray lasers. The bulk of the article is spent discussing who was against it, why it wouldn't have worked, etc. An all-too-typical Wikipedia flaw, where the reader can go away knowing little about the topic other than it was controversial. The bulk of the article should discuss and describe what SDI is, what systems were investigated and why, which ones were dropped and why, how the SDI vision evolved with changing technical and political developments, etc. Mentioning the controversy is OK, but it shouldn't outweigh the descriptive information.

Anybody who wants to tackle it, go ahead. You can't possibly do any worse than the current article. Joema 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Article changes

I pulled some of the non-SDIO stuff out and added a larger see also section to lead the reader to other related articles. I also reworked the intro and programs paragraph. This article spends a lot of time on the X-ray laser system, makes the system sound like only a lunatic would believe it would work, then launches into criticism. I guess I need to read up on this X-ray laser and get some unbiased info on it into the article. Of course, maybe it is exactly as the artcle describes. --Dual Freq 00:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What you've done is already a major improvement. I wish you luck in looking into the X-ray laser information. I'll do the same. -Iamthealchemist 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that the X-ray laser may just be something that gets tossed into the argument just to detract from the successes of SDI. This article treats it like it was the cornerstone of SDI, but I'm not finding much about it. LLNL has a bit about it on thier 80s timeline. The nuclear test mentioned in this article, from what I can find, was called the Cabra event, and the DOE's list of Nuke tests puts it as part of Operation Phalanx testing in March 26, 1983. [5](PDF) SDIO wasn't established until late '83 early '84 after the "evil empire" and star wars speeches mentioned in this article as laying the groundwork for SDI. Those speeches occurred March 8, 1983 [6] and March 23, 1983 [7]. How could the x-ray laser be part of SDI if the test occurred before SDI even existed? This NY Times letter to the editor argues that the X-ray laser wasn't central to SDI. In any event from the MDA history / timeline, it's clear that there were other programs. FAS Star wars programs and completed programs pages don't say much about this 'Excalibur' nuke pumped X-ray laser either. Do a google search and most of the entries for this laser are Wikipedia and its mirrors. It should not dominate this article. Other programs and spinoffs should be in this article. The Clementine mission is a good example of how SDI research yielded science for other purposes, I'm sure there are more that can be added to this article. --Dual Freq 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work. The NYT article (and related chronology issues) is very interesting, and shows the risk of relying on superficial "conventional wisdom" sources. As you said nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers shouldn't dominate the article if they didn't dominate the SDI program. Coverage for an item should be preportional to its significance, NOT because it makes a convenient target for criticism.

At the same time, I'd recommend coverage be mostly restricted to SDI and associated systems during that period. I'd keep any coverage of Clementine, BMDO, etc, very limited and write a separate article (or stub) for more detailed coverage.

This is a complicated article to write well, since it involves so many systems which evolved over the years. Some were dropped, some developed a little, others a lot. The vision itself likely evolved, and uncovering exactly when, how, and why is challenging. Joema 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a skeletal programs section with links to the references. Hopefully those can be expanded upon later. I also moved the X-ray laser portion to the programs section and listed dates for the experiments. I still don't think the X-ray laser program was the "focus" of SDI, but it's still in there. --Dual Freq 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Star Wars" term

Would like some SDI experts to weigh in here.

This article claims the "Star Wars" term originated with Carol Rosin. Am currently debating the notability of a Robert M. Bowman who claims to have coined the phrase, but so far the only primary source has been himself and he's prone to exaggeration. Was Dr. Bowman prominent in the anti-Star Wars movement and did he coin the term originally? --Mmx1 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about him more than what his bio on his home page says.In the bio he claims to be a past Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division when "star wars" was top secret, prior to 1982. This article states that SDI was based on speeches in 1983 and SDIO was created to manage the program in late 83/early 84, so I don't know if he was actually associated with SDI. His name used to be on this page, but I removed it since I couldn't find any information that said he ran SDI after the SDIO was established. I don't have any special knowledge on this topic, though. I'm sure space weapons were researched prior to SDI, but I don't know any details. There was a working ABM program in the early to mid 70's called Safeguard, but I doubt research completely halted after that program was cancelled. --Dual Freq 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. His campaign bio lists him as the director of Advanced Space Development programs, which seems more fitting for an O-5 than SDI, which was headed by an O-9. He retired in 1978 so any official involvement is out. He became an ardent anti-SDI campaigner, we were more curious about his involvement with the anti-SDI campaign after his retirement and if he was of any note in that campaign. --Mmx1 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Two bullet points in criticism section

These two points don't seem have anything to do with SDI:

Other criticisms of SDI on technical grounds included:

• It would require an estimated one hundred million lines of computer code to perform flawlessly the first time.
• Heavy clouds and moderately dense smoke–common in war conditions–can severely reduce the effectiveness of lasers, especially at X-ray wavelengths.

I have removed them on the following grounds. The code point, Why would the code never be tested prior to usage and what is the source of this criticism? Heavy clouds / smoke, How does this affect the majority of the flight profile of a ballistic missile? These missiles fly above clouds and smoke for most of the time they are airborne. Additionally, this point has no source information. Also, the point about Reagan being influenced by a James Bond movie seems POV and is not sourced. How did that get into the article? --Dual Freq 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Cuckoo's Egg

The reference which says:

Clifford Stoll's novel The Cuckoo's Egg refers to SDI and SDINET

is not correct. The Cuckoo's Egg is not a novel but rather autobiographical reporting. I will leave it to someone else to change the article. --Bob Bolin

Removed non-fictional book from fiction section. --Dual Freq 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added it (before seeing this section). The section is (now) called "Novels" so I don't see that it's inappropriate. I've tried to make it clear that it's an "account", it's not a "story". Stevage 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with the real SDI. They baited some hacker with SDI information, word-searching the online book it has only a few references to SDI. As I added to the pop culture section (which I personally think is nearly worthless): Because of public awareness of the program and its controversial nature, SDI has been the subject of many fictional and pop culture references. This is not intended to be a complete list of those references. Before adding to this list, please consider if the addition actually adds to this topic, Strategic Defense Initiative. There are plenty items here that probably represent the rest adequately. There is no need for an extensive list of pop culture references here. Thank you. I'd prefer to remove the entire list, but since everybody wants to list a book or a movie I reason that a token list is fine, but I intend to keep it as small as possible. --Dual Freq 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of SDI

I think what this page is missing in the criticism section is the moral criticism of the concept of strategic nuclear defense. The entire section focuses only on technical and feasability criticism, not whether or not it is moral or right to create a defensive system capable of preventing a nuclear attack. The entire reason why the US and the Soviet Union built huge arsenals of nuclear weapons was not to potentially gain a first strike advantage, but rather to prevent the other side from being able to win a nuclear war. That is the whole reason behind the mutually assured destruction strategy, it prevents stupidity from occurring on either side. But when the US begins developing a system capable of defeating an opponents deterrent, what is to stop the US from making a first strike on the opponent once the system is operational? Absolutely nothing. The critcism shouldn't be about whether or not the system can work, it should be about whether a system that allows a country to murder hundreds of millions of innocent civilians without fear of an effective reprisal is morally right. Sarcastic Avenger 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Soviet SDI research and its moral issues. See SOVIET STRATEGIC DEFENSE PROGRAMS October 1985. They had the only operational ABM system in the world when SDI was conceived. --Dual Freq 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe the topic, not critique it. Machine guns killed millions of people in World War I, but you won't find moral criticisms of this in the article on machine guns. Why? Because that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Such issues obviously exist, and there is no shortage of venues to pursue those -- Usenet, discussion forums, newspaper editorials, letters to editors, civics debates, etc, etc. There are obviously moral issues associated with warfighting strategies, especially of the nuclear variety. However an encyclopedia article is not the place to debate those. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it's not Usenet. For comparison see the Encarta, Britannica, World Book entries on similar subjects. You won't see significant sections on morality or criticism. Those don't belong in an encyclopedia. Joema 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Moral outcry is encyclopaedic. We do not attempt to determine the validity of those complaints, but if significant public debate occurs, it should be here. See circumcision, abortion and Hamas if you want some examples. Stevage 12:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic: development history, who invented it, how does it work, etc. Your abortion reference illustrates this. Despite the moral issues, the Wikipedia abortion article is largely devoid of moral debate. The title is abortion, not abortion debate. The debate and moral arguments are reserved for a topic with that name: abortion debate. Likewise this article is called SDI, not SDI debate. Like the abortion article, this article already has a modest criticism section of appropriate size and scope. If people want to pontificate on the SDI debate, that's reserved for a separate article with that title. Joema 14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Anyone out there have an idea for an image for this article. I'm sort of looking for an SDI logo. I've found some on Google image search, but they are not PD, so I can't use them. Maybe someone has an SDI patch they can photograph or something similar. If not I think I'll just take a US Gov artist concept of Brilliant Pebbles and put it up. Any other ideas? --Dual Freq 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Found logo on MDA website biography page. Need some more images, maybe system test images, etc. --Dual Freq 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Reagan SDI speech, HOE, ERINT and MIRACL images, any other suggestions? --Dual Freq 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Added LACE and Delta Star images, See here for more info on Delta Star. And see here for Delta star and other Delta 3000 launches (some other SDI ones there). Any ideas for other images? I'll try to come up with a paragraph on the Delta Star for the sensor section. --Dual Freq 22:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Added 2 USAF concept art images from 1984. They weren't specifically labeled SDI in the DOD image archive, but they appear to apply to the topic. Any other ideas for photos? --Dual Freq 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger

So far the Advanced Space Programs Development is very stubby, I tried to dig out some interesting info but little luck so far. But since it seems to be the predecessor of the SDI program, let's merge it here. 84.145.241.165 12:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is: a) not the predecessor according to any source than Robert Bowman, who I'll discuss later b) was an O-6 (or O-5) command which is not that notable c) The principal source for it is a Robert M. Bowman, the former head, who has some serious credibility issues: Of the awards he cites, 2 are wholly nonexistent as far as google can tell, the Eisenhower Medal and the Kennan Peace Prize (the first two he names). Moreover, there is a prestigious Eisenhower medal awarded to the likes of Colin Powell, George HW Bush, and other such figures, which he did not win. I see this as a misleading attempt to imply that he did. Moreover, he does not win the SAME gold medal even once, not twice as he claims.

This is an also-ran political candidate trying to shore up his qualifications. He was a critic of SDI and it would have been to his advantage to have played up the "Advanced Space Programs Devlopment" angle.

Personally, I say delete the stub. Google turns up NOTHING if you remove Bowman's self-propaganda [8] The only reference is to a program with the same name, at Boeing.

--Mmx1 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need ASPD merged into SDI especially if there are no reliable references. I thought the Safeguard Program was the main ABM program that preceded SDI, though there really was no agency that preceded the SDIO. I believe that once the SDIO opened, many of the DARPA, Air Force, Navy and Army programs relating to Ballistic missile defense were all snapped up and pulled under the central control of the SDIO. So in that respect there isn't exactly a preceding agency, just a bunch of separate programs that came together under the SDIO. --Dual Freq 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

R. Bowman isn't in the Air Force Bio pages. MAJOR GENERAL GERALD K. HENDRICKS was probably the one actually responsible for Advanced Space Programs in the 70s. In March 1974, "He was also responsible for all Air Force Systems Command research, exploratory and advanced development programs"[9] (PD-US Gov). Interesting that Bowman's own bio claims he was a part of the Air Force Space Division in 1978[10], but according to his Air Force bio, "General Hendricks assumed duties as vice commander, Space and Missile Systems Organization, Los Angeles Air Force Station in July 1978. In October 1979 the organization was redesignated Air Force Space Division." indicating there was no AF Space Division until October 1979. --Dual Freq 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Bowman retired an O-6 so he's not going to show up in the official bio pages. --Mmx1 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Australia's role

I would love to see something developed about Australia's role. As part of the free trade agreement, we signed up for SDI. We provide radar facilities, early warning and data processing. They provide, uh, well, um, they give us a pat on the back and say "thanks!" Stevage 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick google search doesn't turn up much information about Australian assistance regarding SDI. Several links indicate that communication sites in Australia were specifically excluded from SDI testing in the 1980s at the Australian government's request. It does appear there was some cooperation with BMDO during the 90s, but I can't see any support during the SDI program. This article covers SDI from roughly 1983 - 1993. If you're talking about Dundee, thats a BMDO program, not SDIO. --Dual Freq 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's really odd that we have two separate articles simply because of the name change? In any case I'm referring to us signing up to assist with the program in about 2002 or 2003 (or was it 2004?). Sorry I can't be very specific. I don't seem to be able to recall whether it was related to the free trade agreement, or the invasion of Iraq. Either way, it was presented to the Australian public as "We're buddies with the US now, so obviously we're signing up". Stevage 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OIC it looks like it was referred to on that DUNDEE page: "In July 2004, the United States and Australia signed a memorandum of understanding pledging cooperation on missile defense for the next twenty five years." The link is dead though. Stevage 02:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Australia and the US have been allies and trading partners for decades, it's no surprise that they would cooperate with military exercises and weapons research. Wikipedia has a couple articles that illustrate that cooperation, Jindalee Operational Radar Network and ANZUS. There are at least 3 articles that apply to Ballistic missile defense programs in the US starting in the 1980s. This one, which covers Ballistic missile defense under the SDIO, BMDO and MDA. Ballistic Missile defense has been around since WWII and it will be around as long as there are ballistic missiles. The US is not the only country researching ballistic missile defense, Russia has had an ABM system in place since the '70s and there is also interest in western Europe in light of the proliferation of longer ranged ballistic missiles, but that's not really the point of this article. --Dual Freq 04:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re two separate articles simply because of the name change, SDI refers specifically to the massive Reagan inititive for defending against an all-out ICBM attack involving many thousands of warheads. It (initially at least) prioritized space-based assets such as large laser battlestations and nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers, thus the slang term "Star Wars". The greatly scaled down follow on programs under other agencies aren't really SDI as originally envisioned and named, thus separate articles seem appropriate.

As Dual Freq said, until the very recent activation of the limited Alaska-based U.S. NMD system, the only ICBM antimissile system was the Russian system around Moscow. Israel has a fully operational national missile defense based on the Arrow missile, but I think it only handles short and intermediate-range missiles, not the faster-moving ICBMs. We could possibly differentiate this a little better in the 1st section of this article. Joema 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Repetitive Wording

thebeatlesanthol: Stop using the word "initial." It's boring.

Thanks for pointing that out in the polite fashion that you did. I probably subliminally added them some time ago and just never noticed the 6 or 7 uses in the article. You could have simply changed some of them yourself instead of making your "boring" comment and ordering that usage be stopped. --Dual Freq 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts versus Opinions

Hanuman: I feel this article has been written with a very favorable view of SDI. I recently tried to make some changes which I felt would make the article more neutral. For instance, early in the article, Edward Teller is noted for his support of SDI and called "the father of the H-bomb". This reference more properly belongs in the biography page of Edward Teller, not in an article about SDI. It seems this phrase is used to try to support a contentious program using the persona of a famous figure. Teller was certainly a great physicist, and he certainly did support SDI. But he was also a rabid anti-communist, and this fact is also relevant to his support of SDI, as SDI was directed against the communist USSR. He was also an ambitious scientist-politician who testified against a fellow physicist before the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and this is also very relevant to the article, as it shows Teller's shrewd political instincts and willingness to harm others to achieve his own ends. Moreover, calling ET the father of the H-bomb ignores the contribution of S. Ulam, who was jointly listed on the H-bomb patent application with Teller.

On the whole, the article seems to cheerlead SDI, rather than presenting the facts neutrally.

You must be looking for the Criticism of Edward Teller article. This article is about SDI and the programs that the SDIO directed. Edward Teller's article calls him the Father of the Hydrogen bomb, so this one describes him that way as well. It is only to describe Teller in a brief manner, the reader needs only to click Hydrogen bomb or Edward Teller to read more detailed information about him or the bomb. There is no need to include every person associated with the H-bomb, because this article only talks about Teller, not Ulam. If Ulam was in the article, then it would need to explain who Ulam is. I will admit this article has a bit of POV, after all there are 5 or 6 paragraphs devoted to criticism of SDI. That's not something you'd normally find in an encyclopedia. The rest of the article appears to be fact based, it's cited by various sources, unlike the criticism section. I'm reluctant to remove the criticism section, but if you want to remove it make your case on this talk page before you do. --Dual Freq 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change the topical heading of this section from "Facts versus Opinions". I was actually looking for "SDI from a neutral viewpoint". Also, I think you have missed my point. You wish to give a describe ET as "the father of the h-bomb" in an article about SDI. It would be just as valid to describe him in the other ways I have indicated. That you have chosed to describe him in a particular way and refuse any compromise indicates you have some motivation for describing him the way you do. It is just about as brief, but ever so more accurate, do describe him as the co-designer of the H-bomb along with S. Ulam. I am surprised that you would feel the need to then elucidate on S. Ulam, as hyperlinks were explicitly designed with this purpose in mind - to give the reader an opportunity for further study on a topic of interest. Those wishing to know more about ET or S. Ulam need only to click on the link to find out a great deal more information. Amusingingly, at the time of this writing, 2006-07-07, there are only 4 paragraphs in the "Controversy and Criticism" section. Paragraph 1 both criticises and supports SDI, par 2 criticises SDI, par 3 supports SDI, and par 4 supports SDI. Thus, there are 1.5 paragraphs of criticism and 2.5 supportive paragraphs in the "Controversy and Criticism" section. Finally, it is suggested early in the article that Hans Bethe opposed SDI on political grounds - what evidence is there that his opposition was political and not technical? Perhaps one should also write Teller supported SDI on political grounds. --Hanuman 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article largely describes what SDI is -- that does not equate to cheerleading, any more than describing Adolph Hitler without criticism advocates his life and policies. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe, not editorialize. This isn't like a political debate where each party gets equal time to state their position. The primary goal is to simply describe the topic. Compare Encarta and Britannica articles on various topics, and you'll see that's the general stance. That said, having a criticism section isn't wrong, provided (1) The size is small relative to the article (2) The content is quoted or referenced, not outright statements by the editor (3) Referenced content is authoritative, meaningful and relevant. I think the criticism section could be modestly improved somewhat, but the goal isn't to provide "balance" in a pro/con sense. Likewise the goal isn't to pass judgement whether the topic is good or bad, would have worked or not, etc. The goal is to describe the topic so the reader goes away understanding what it is, the concept behind it, who invented it, historical milestones, etc. Joema 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't defend the Splendid Idea section so strongly, it was added by an anonymous editor here along with the criticism section. Based on that, I assume the Father of the H-bomb note came from someone who opposed SDI. I don't think Ulam needs to be in the article, because he has nothing to do with SDI, I'm sure his is referenced in the H bomb and Teller articles. Based on the previously mentioned diff, I must conclude that all that stuff you removed came from a different book by William J. Broad, Star Warriors: A penetrating look into the lives of the young scientists behind our space age weaponry. So, thanks for removing one quote from one of his books and replacing it with a different quote from another one of his books. I have to assume good faith on the quotes added, because I'm not going to waste my time reading one of Broad's several anti-SDI books. Also, if a reference is added to the bottom, it can lead people to think the entire article is referencing the books and it makes fact checking things a lot harder. I haven't moved the other two out of there, because I don't know what parts referenced them. As for the facts vs opinion heading, where is the opinion? --Dual Freq 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, different people involved in this discussion have different viewpoints. This is a Good Thing. I am not objecting to a lack of balance, so long as the lack of balance results from facts, not opinion or speculation. Here are some examples I see in the current article: Ronald Reagan was told of Hagelstein's breakthrough - wouldn't "discovery" (of more efficient nuclear weapon driven x-ray lasing by choosing metals with a high atomic number) be more accurate and less of a value judgement/opinion? bringing the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point - the most critical point I would think would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the development of SDI, so this is again an opinion. Research and development initiated by the SDIO created significant technological advances in computer systems, component miniaturization, sensors and missile systems that form the basis for current systems. Well, it is hard to know if this is true or not, but certainly this doesn't seem to fit in a section entitled "Projects and Proposals". Perhaps we should have a new section "Legacies" for these kinds of statements? Critics often cite the X-ray laser system as the primary focus of SDI and its apparent failure becomes a main reason to oppose SDI. However, the laser was never more than one of the many systems being researched for ballistic missile defense. Oops, wouldn't his be better under "Criticisms and Controversies"? Despite the apparent failure of the Cabra test, the long term legacy of the X-ray laser program is the knowledge gained while conducting the research. Several spin-offs include a laboratory x-ray laser for biological imaging and creation of 3D holograms of living organisms, creation of advanced materials like SEAgel and Aerogel, the Electron-Beam Ion Trap facility for physics research and enhanced techniques for early detection of breast cancer. Again, wouldn't a section called "Legacies" be better for these kinds of statements? According to the BMDO, the research on neutral particle beam accelerators, which was originally funded by the SDIO, could eventually be used to reduce the half life of nuclear waste products using accelerator-driven transmutation technology. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Again, nothing concrete, only speculation. John H. Nuckolls, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1988 to 1994, described the system as “The crowning achievement of the Strategic Defense Initiative”. Not fact, but obviously biased opinion. and SDI technologies may also have a role in future missile defense efforts. True, or they may end up in the dust-bin of history. Speculation. I would like to make many of the changes I indicate above, but I have a feeling my changes would be quickly reverted. --Hanuman 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You've added the opinion of Bethe, months ago I added the cited opinion of the director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1988 to 1994 to explain Brilliant Pebbles. Someone who was in a position to make that statement, and his statement is sourced. Cabra event and X-ray laser are points of controversy and are targets of critics most of the previous article was spent criticizing the X-ray laser. I added and sourced spinoffs from the laser experiments. Accelerator-driven transmutation technology is also sourced. Seagel/Aerogel, also sourced. How is that opinion? It goes right with the proposal, no sense listing the proposal then listing spinoffs separately, wouldn't that make the article more difficult to read? I didn't elaborate further on those items because as not to overweight the article toward being a list of spinoffs. As for the critical point, I didn't put it in there, but go back and look at media from the early 80's and you'd swear world war 3 was only a few moments away. The miniaturization and basis for current systems is also true, not cited because it summarizes the rest of the article that follows and is illustrated be the information following it. None of the research was thrown away, much of it was improved upon and formed the basis of todays ABM systems. I've added each proposal and stated what the program was, what its result was, I don't know what else needs to be in there. Removal of accurately cited material would likely be reverted. --Dual Freq 15:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, I added Bethe's opinion with cite to replace supposed Bethe quotes without cites. I would be happy to see the whole kit-and-kaboodle moved to a controversy and criticisms section and Legacies section as I outlined above. From the Wikipedia NPOV policy, If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. Finally, cited speculation about the benefits of SDI regarding transmutation is still speculation - a citation does not change this. I could as easily add cited speculation that SDI deployment was going to financially cripple the United States, but such speculation would be better in the Controversies section--Hanuman 20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change the topical heading of this section from "Facts versus Opinions". I was actually looking for "SDI from a neutral viewpoint". Also, I think you have missed my point. You wish to give a describe ET as "the father of the h-bomb" in an article about SDI. It would be just as valid to describe him in the other ways I have indicated. That you have chosed to describe him in a particular way and refuse any compromise indicates you have some motivation for describing him the way you do. It is just about as brief, but ever so more accurate, do describe him as the co-designer of the H-bomb along with S. Ulam. I am surprised that you would feel the need to then elucidate on S. Ulam, as hyperlinks were explicitly designed with this purpose in mind - to give the reader an opportunity for further study on a topic of interest. Those wishing to know more about ET or S. Ulam need only to click on the link to find out a great deal more information. Amusingingly, at the time of this writing, 2006-07-07, there are only 4 paragraphs in the "Controversy and Criticism" section. Paragraph 1 both criticises and supports SDI, par 2 criticises SDI, par 3 supports SDI, and par 4 supports SDI. Thus, there are 1.5 paragraphs of criticism and 2.5 supportive paragraphs in the "Controversy and Criticism" section. Finally, it is suggested early in the article that Hans Bethe opposed SDI on political grounds - what evidence is there that his opposition was political and not technical? Perhaps one should also write Teller supported SDI on political grounds. --Hanuman 07:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article largely describes what SDI is -- that does not equate to cheerleading, any more than describing Adolph Hitler without criticism advocates his life and policies. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe, not editorialize. This isn't like a political debate where each party gets equal time to state their position. The primary goal is to simply describe the topic. Compare Encarta and Britannica articles on various topics, and you'll see that's the general stance. That said, having a criticism section isn't wrong, provided (1) The size is small relative to the article (2) The content is quoted or referenced, not outright statements by the editor (3) Referenced content is authoritative, meaningful and relevant. I think the criticism section could be modestly improved somewhat, but the goal isn't to provide "balance" in a pro/con sense. Likewise the goal isn't to pass judgement whether the topic is good or bad, would have worked or not, etc. The goal is to describe the topic so the reader goes away understanding what it is, the concept behind it, who invented it, historical milestones, etc. Joema 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't defend the Splendid Idea section so strongly, it was added by an anonymous editor here along with the criticism section. Based on that, I assume the Father of the H-bomb note came from someone who opposed SDI. I don't think Ulam needs to be in the article, because he has nothing to do with SDI, I'm sure his is referenced in the H bomb and Teller articles. Based on the previously mentioned diff, I must conclude that all that stuff you removed came from a different book by William J. Broad, Star Warriors: A penetrating look into the lives of the young scientists behind our space age weaponry. So, thanks for removing one quote from one of his books and replacing it with a different quote from another one of his books. I have to assume good faith on the quotes added, because I'm not going to waste my time reading one of Broad's several anti-SDI books. Also, if a reference is added to the bottom, it can lead people to think the entire article is referencing the books and it makes fact checking things a lot harder. I haven't moved the other two out of there, because I don't know what parts referenced them. As for the facts vs opinion heading, where is the opinion? --Dual Freq 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, different people involved in this discussion have different viewpoints. This is a Good Thing. I am not objecting to a lack of balance, so long as the lack of balance results from facts, not opinion or speculation. Here are some examples I see in the current article: Ronald Reagan was told of Hagelstein's breakthrough - wouldn't "discovery" (of more efficient nuclear weapon driven x-ray lasing by choosing metals with a high atomic number) be more accurate and less of a value judgement/opinion? bringing the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point - the most critical point I would think would be the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the development of SDI, so this is again an opinion. Research and development initiated by the SDIO created significant technological advances in computer systems, component miniaturization, sensors and missile systems that form the basis for current systems. Well, it is hard to know if this is true or not, but certainly this doesn't seem to fit in a section entitled "Projects and Proposals". Perhaps we should have a new section "Legacies" for these kinds of statements? Critics often cite the X-ray laser system as the primary focus of SDI and its apparent failure becomes a main reason to oppose SDI. However, the laser was never more than one of the many systems being researched for ballistic missile defense. Oops, wouldn't his be better under "Criticisms and Controversies"? Despite the apparent failure of the Cabra test, the long term legacy of the X-ray laser program is the knowledge gained while conducting the research. Several spin-offs include a laboratory x-ray laser for biological imaging and creation of 3D holograms of living organisms, creation of advanced materials like SEAgel and Aerogel, the Electron-Beam Ion Trap facility for physics research and enhanced techniques for early detection of breast cancer. Again, wouldn't a section called "Legacies" be better for these kinds of statements? According to the BMDO, the research on neutral particle beam accelerators, which was originally funded by the SDIO, could eventually be used to reduce the half life of nuclear waste products using accelerator-driven transmutation technology. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Again, nothing concrete, only speculation. John H. Nuckolls, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1988 to 1994, described the system as “The crowning achievement of the Strategic Defense Initiative”. Not fact, but obviously biased opinion. and SDI technologies may also have a role in future missile defense efforts. True, or they may end up in the dust-bin of history. Speculation. I would like to make many of the changes I indicate above, but I have a feeling my changes would be quickly reverted. --Hanuman 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You've added the opinion of Bethe, months ago I added the cited opinion of the director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1988 to 1994 to explain Brilliant Pebbles. Someone who was in a position to make that statement, and his statement is sourced. Cabra event and X-ray laser are points of controversy and are targets of critics most of the previous article was spent criticizing the X-ray laser. I added and sourced spinoffs from the laser experiments. Accelerator-driven transmutation technology is also sourced. Seagel/Aerogel, also sourced. How is that opinion? It goes right with the proposal, no sense listing the proposal then listing spinoffs separately, wouldn't that make the article more difficult to read? I didn't elaborate further on those items because as not to overweight the article toward being a list of spinoffs. As for the critical point, I didn't put it in there, but go back and look at media from the early 80's and you'd swear world war 3 was only a few moments away. The miniaturization and basis for current systems is also true, not cited because it summarizes the rest of the article that follows and is illustrated be the information following it. None of the research was thrown away, much of it was improved upon and formed the basis of todays ABM systems. I've added each proposal and stated what the program was, what its result was, I don't know what else needs to be in there. Removal of accurately cited material would likely be reverted. --Dual Freq 15:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, I added Bethe's opinion with cite to replace supposed Bethe quotes without cites. I would be happy to see the whole kit-and-kaboodle moved to a controversy and criticisms section and Legacies section as I outlined above. From the Wikipedia NPOV policy, If we're going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. Finally, cited speculation about the benefits of SDI regarding transmutation is still speculation - a citation does not change this. I could as easily add cited speculation that SDI deployment was going to financially cripple the United States, but such speculation would be better in the Controversies section--Hanuman 20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

After freshly re-reading the article several more times, I think Hanuman has some valid points. In a few cases the tone smacks of fishing for positive statements, and is not immediately pertinent to understanding SDI itself. E.g, the statement "...could eventually be used to reduce the half life of nuclear waste products...". While Encarta, Britannica, etc. sometimes include a few items like this, IMO there's a little too much in this article. The article shouldn't be peppered with positive spin-off statements as if SDI requires justifying. Our job is to document it from a historical standpoint. While that may include some beneficial spin-offs, the number chosen and wording should not convey a cheerleading tone. E.g, the Project Apollo article doesn't contain any wording on beneficial spin-offs.

Some earlier versions of this article had more criticism than substantive material explaining the topic: [11]. This is very typical in Wikipedia articles on certain subjects, and it's frustrating to deal with. DualFreq and others have done a great job at improving the article. You only have to compare the current version to the old one to see how much. However we should also guard against statements that could give the impression of advocacy. There's no rigid formula for what's too much along these lines, but after further consideration I think the sum total of those statements is probably a little excessive. Any concerned parties, please further discuss here. Joema 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article provides a good source of info on SDI. I have not looked at older versions, but would not be surprised if there had been a great improvement in quality through the efforts of DualFreq. Nonetheless, as someone who eventually developed an unfavorable view of SDI, I would rather the various spinoff statements be collected under a separate section. I also of course do not like some of the quotations, especially when they come from officials within the program, whose future careers depended on the success SDI.--Hanuman 11:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving New Sections

Please do not move sections contributed by others until there has been discussion of the proposed move (as I did above). The issue of cost is a fact, not an opinion, and was contributed as a fact by me. Just because someone feels it is an unflattering fact does not justify its move to the Criticisms section. Various countermeasures had to be considered by SDIO itself, so it would not be accurate to say only critics brought these points up, and so this also does not belong in the criticisms section. Protection against countermeasures were a design requirement. Please do not treat this article as your own personal web page. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative effort. Show consideration for other contributors.--Hanuman 12:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-wrote Countermeasures section

I think the countermeasures section fills a valid need, but there were several problems with it as written. Re-wrote to improve clarity and readability for the general audience. Also moved an out-of-place criticism sentence to the criticism section. Explanations follow:

• Verbiage such as "No discussion of SDI would be complete without...", and "there was the question of whether they" unnecessary and wordy. Removed. See Elements of Style, and Omit needless words .

• The term "countermeasure" in warfighting typically refers to the immediate tactical action such as flares, chaff, decoys, etc. In a broader sense it can refer to any counter-strategy; re-wrote to clarify this.

• Removed judgmental phrases such as "could be easily targeted".

• Emphasized SDI-era aspect. There's a tendency among both readers and editors (myself included) to drift beyond SDI and begin discussing missile defense in general, including current U.S. NMD system. Article should focus just on SDI and issues involved during that period.

I tried to make it as encyclopedic and unbiased as possible. I agree article could use improvement in other places as well. Joema 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding whether the Countermeasures section belongs under Criticism or not, there are two issues:

• It's true countermeasures are an intrinsic technical and planning aspect of designing a defending system. That was part of SDI. In that sense it would belong under a stand-alone Countermeasures heading. Thus worded it would emphasize the technical aspect, strategy and planning of using and countering countermeasures in SDI.

• Countermeasures as an issue were often used by SDI opponents. Rather than emphasize an encyclopedic description of countermeasures, technology and tactics, these treatements emphasized the futility of building SDI, citing countermeasures as a reason.

Our goal should be to roughly segregate the above two types of countermeasure material to their respective sections where they best fit. It doesn't have to be perfect -- even the re-written Countermeasures section has some criticism. But I think it's more clear, unbiased and encyclopedic in tone and content than before. We can discuss further if needed. Joema 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes and the above analysis. Both do help maintain a more Neutral Point Of View (which I am finding can be difficult when disagreements arise).--Hanuman 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Added pre-SDI section

People frequently misunderstand the historical context of SDI. They confuse SDI with missile defense in general (tactical, strategic) and with more recent missile defense items (Patriot, Arrow, NMD). Reading only this article, they could go away thinking SDI was the first ICBM defense system. Added a brief section to help clarify this. Don't want to sidetrack the main article, but I think most readers are aided by first having the historical context into which the article info applies. Joema 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Outer Space Treaty

The Outer Space Treaty only applies to nuclear weapons or other WMD right? Based on that, the only nuclear weapon under SDI was the X-ray laser. I believe all the other weapons were hit-to-kill or non-nuclear directed energy which are certainly not WMD. Wouldn't it be wise to amend the treaty section to clarify that not all SDI researched weapons were nuclear? I thought this was fairly clear in the rest of the article, but maybe it was omitted. In the past this article seemed to latch on to the X-ray laser and treat it like it was the sole purpose of SDI. It was just one component researched. Many option and many layers from ground to space were researched. --Dual Freq 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. We should be clear the Outer Space Treaty would only have impacted orbital nuclear pumped lasers, not SDI as a whole. Joema 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the X-ray laser note to the text, though a better word-smith might say it better than I did. I do feel it is important to note that the majority of SDI wouldn't violate this treaty. I don't think we need the article to return to an X-ray laser bashing article since it was just one part of SDI. --Dual Freq 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

MAD

As for MAD, the whole point of SDI was Strategic defense, not strategic offense (ie MAD) which is completely useless vs accidental or rogue state launches. I also thought that SDI technology was offered to the USSR to prevent a buildup and to facilitate a change of doctrine from MAD to defense, reducing the need for large arsenals of nuclear weapons. --Dual Freq 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The SDI criticism based on MAD was this: however crazy, MAD has achieved an apparently stable equilibrium and SDI threatened to disrupt that. Yes, MAD was useless for accidental launches, non-state entities, or irrational opponenents. All those were arguements for SDI. However our goal as editors is to document history, which includes the criticism of SDI based on weakening MAD, not evaluate the rationality of the criticism. Re offering SDI to USSR, yes that was done by Reagan himself. Many questioned this reasoning (including Gorbachev), but Reagan was quite insistent on this point. See facinating actual transcript of Reagan-Gorbachev discussion on SDI: [12] Joema 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You should add these comments to the appropriate C&C section.--Hanuman 10:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a try. Change as you see fit. Joema 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Testing

I'm not sure I understand the There was also the question of how to test criticism. How is any complex system tested? How were Apollo or the Space Shuttle tested? Wouldn't individual systems and components be tested? What about the strategic triad, bombers, subs and ICBMs? They were part of MAD, how were they tested for a massive counterstrike? The answer is that individual system testing is adequate to test a complex system. This criticism, is probably based on the X-ray laser system, which as mentioned above, is the primary system criticized. Should we also clarify this and tie that criticism to the X-ray laser portion? --Dual Freq 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the testing criticism applies to most of the systems contemplated by SDI. Complex systems should be tested as complex systems because of emergent behavior not present in any system separately. During war game exercises, do we only have the navy conduct an exercise, followed by the marines, followed by the army, followed by the air force? I would think the best war games (which are a test for actual combat) involve simultaneous exercises involving all branches of the military, just as would be required for for actual combat. Otherwise, one might find that the different branches of the military cannot communicate with each other because of different radio equipment and codes, that there are questions of chains of commands, that each service does not understand the needs and functions of the other service. Regarding Apollo, there were quite a series of launches of increasing complexity - check out Apollo 6, for instance.--Hanuman 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We must differentiate between our perceived validity of criticism (which we can discuss here), vs historical reporting of that criticism in the article. Personally I think DualFreq has a point -- the very nature of strategic nuclear arms (offensive and defensive) means they cannot be totally tested. E.g, no U.S. ballistic missile (even unarmed) has ever been tested on the polar trajectory it would fly in wartime. There are unknown details involving atmospheric composition (which affects warhead targeting) gravitational anomalies, etc. The Space Shuttle (STS-1) was not flight tested before launch. It was "all or nothing". Unit testing, subsystem testing, simulation and operational redundancy ensured it worked the first time. To me, the criticism that SDI probably wouldn't work because of no "all up" test seems uninformed and illogical. That said, the criticism was frequently made, so it seems we should report that.

Also the validity and applicability of the "not fully tested" criticism varies based on what exact SDI architecture you're considering. The earlier heavily centralized design using laser battle stations would have been more dependent on command and control with the attendant testing issues. By contrast later schemes such as Brilliant Pebbles used swarms of mostly autonomous vehicles. Joema 16:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of nuclear liability because of the testing problem was one which was heavily debated in the 1960s and was a major military and technical issue (the Dominic Frigate Bird test was meant to try and relieve the issue but it had so many caveates that it didn't do the trick). I just bring this up because the question of testability, when one is talking about nuclear arms (or anti-nuclear arms), was taken seriously by serious scientists and politicians, in part because the entire issue of nuclear credibility rests on the reliability of the system. (A wonderful book which describes this in detail is Donald MacKenzie's Inventing Accuracy). It's not illogical at all, even if it is ultimately unresolveable. --Fastfission 02:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Adaptive Optics

The statement "The research efforts of LACE eventually led to civilian uses such as adaptive optics, a technique used to remove atmospheric distortions" seems like an exaggeration, in the sense that Horace Babcock of the Mount Wilson Observatory proposed the first Adaptive Optics system in 1953. Moreover, the first working AO systems were built somewhere around 1972 to 1977 by John Hardy. Could we change this statement to "The research efforts of LACE eventually led to improvements in civilian adaptive optics systems, a technique used to remove atmospheric distortions."--Hanuman 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the AO statement, however I was under the impression that AO was basically impossible without complex computer systems ala those available in the 90s. --Dual Freq 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are various types of adaptive optics, each with attendant computational requirements. E.g, visible light AO requires much more computational power than infrared. Doing more AO corrections per second requires more CPU. Doing AO over a wider angle is more challenging. Doing AO for a complex 2-D object is more challenging than for a point source like a star. I believe even in the mid-1970s small embedded minicomputers could do Fast Fourier transforms (a key AO algorithm) in a few milliseconds, which is probably enough for infrared AO, at least under some conditions. However to illustrate the range of AO difficulty, it is still impossible even today to do visible light imaging AO over a wide angle. It is believed that capability will exist within a few years, at which point ground based telescopes will in most ways surpass the Hubble Space Telescope.

Oftentimes a concept will predate the ability to realize it. I'm not familiar with the origin of AO, but it's plausible it was independently (or even originally) first conceived in the civilian sector. But SDI had the motivation, need and resources to advance it. Once some of that was declassified, there were many accounts in various astronomy publications about using newly-released military AO technology. Obviously this wouldn't have happened had SDI not advanced AO beyond the civilian state of the art. Joema 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The information I found on the origins of AO I found on a few different web sites talking about the history of AO. At least one of those websites states that military applications are more demanding than civilian applications.--Hanuman 12:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

X-ray laser

Critics often cite the X-ray laser system as the primary focus of SDI and its apparent failure becomes a main reason to oppose SDI. However, the laser was never more than one of the many systems being researched for ballistic missile defense.

This is a bit disingenous. The reason the X-ray laser is cited so much by opponents is because 1. a BIG deal was made about it, more than the other plans with the later exception of Brilliant pebbles, 2. it was completely oversold in terms of its technical feasibility, and 3. the fact that Teller and Wood were deliberately overselling it to Reagan became a big scandle when they fired the Livermore whistleblower. To dismiss it as "never more than one of the many systems" is a bit false (it was certainly sold as a major contender) and the reason why a lot of people make a big deal about its failure is because its technical failure was directly connected to the political hype of SDI in a rather nasty way. --Fastfission 02:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the image current illustrating the X-ray laser is wrong. I don't know what kind of laser that is, but it is definitely not the bomb-surrounded-by-rods X-ray laser (which I have not seen depicted too many places but believe looks more like this from the descriptions). I think it's somewhat misleading to have a different system displayed there... --Fastfission 02:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dual Freq-

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and someone is hacking onto my account. I'm sorry for the trouble my account caused on the SDI page, and I've dealt with the persons responsible.

Rail gun = 'directed energy?'

Is it really appropriate to call a hypervelocity rail gun a directed-energy weapon? Granted, you're directing a hell of a lot of kinetic energy at the target, but to my understanding the term is only used for 'death ray'-type weapons. -Toptomcat 03:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Railgun

The explanation of the mechanism of a railgun isn't how a true railgun works, check out the railgun article on wikipedia. What has been described is the mechanism of a coilgun. I'm not changing it because I am not entirely sure of the type of system that was tested.