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 - 11:26am May 18, 2003 EST (# 11759 of 11791)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Some - but you won't like them at the level of structure - because some things have to be done in stages.

Give me a bit - I'll take the liberty of putting in a format I've thought about - a "self centered" format, if you will.

What would I try to do, if I had my security problems dealt with, and a bit of help from a nation state in those few, but decisive, cases where I'd need it?

Based on what was actually set up, and almost done, at AEA - with help from Ford Motor Company, the University of Wisconsin, The Johns Hopkins University - and some of the most admirable (and long-suffering) investors anybody ever had. And some help and hinderance from Casey.

Here's a key point.

There's one problem getting really sure of what needs to be done - and can actually work.

A second problem actually doing it at full scale.

With different costs. Different procedures that have to be applied. Different organizations needed. With interfaces that have to work.

If a permanent solution to the world energy problem was pretty certain after a few hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and very certain at all technical levels after a billion dollars was spent -

but then required an investment (fully amortized in two years) of 400 billion to implement

- would that be a cost more or less than your $250 billion dollars?

You could answer either way.

(Crude sales run at roughly 800 billion dollars/year.)

rshow55 - 11:27am May 18, 2003 EST (# 11760 of 11791)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

My previous posting responded to fredmoore's http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.bIDuaBPcar4.433611@.f28e622/13369

rshow55 - 02:56pm May 18, 2003 EST (# 11761 of 11791)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Fredmoore asked me for a costing of some projects, but cost often hinges on procedures.

The world faces some big problems that are soluble - but that do involve difficulties of procedure - and cultural acceptability.

In some ways, these problems are more readily soluble than ever before. In some other ways, problems are harder to solve than they would have been a century or a century and a half ago - and often harder for reasons that we're proud of.

Let me generalize some language from 1171 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.bIDuaBPcar4.433611@.f28e622/13371

If a major business-technical solution involving a very large payoff, and many economic and political impications could be shown to be pretty certain after a few hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and very certain at all technical levels after a billion dollars was spent - who, as a practical matter, could make the investments of money and effort to get the solution done? What protection and social-political-cultural support would they need?

If that major business-technical solution then required a very large financial investment (that could be rapidly amortized, if the enterprise was protected) who, or what organization, could make the necessary investments? What protection and social-political-cultural support would they need?

These are general questions that apply to every one of the "large scale technical solutions" that I've ever thought about - for reasons that I suspect are unavoidable.

In some ways answers to these sorts of questions are easier than they've ever been before - because so much technical information is known, and our simulation and communication abilities are so good.

In some other ways, the challenges are tougher than they would have been a century or a century and a half ago.

(30 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense