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 - 05:29pm Jun 18, 2003 EST (# 12579 of 12606)
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.

I think President Bush is right to say this - and say it so clearly. Exactly the same point needs to be made to North Korea - as clearly as necessary.

Bush Says 'We Will Not Tolerate' Nuclear Arms in Iran By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iran-bush.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said Wednesday the international community must make clear to Iran that "we will not tolerate" construction of a nuclear weapon by Tehran.

As much craziness as the North Koreans and Iranians have shown - we have a right to take care of ourselves - and the reasonable interests of the whole world.

Carefully.

To do that well - there has to be good staff work - and the possibility of good staff work - and reasonable simulations so that people can weigh consequences - on the part of a number of countries. We have a stake in good judgement - in areas where the notion of "good judgement" is quite objective, as applied to leaders - regardless of whether you're "on their team" or not.

There are leaders who can be very effective leaders by some basic standards - and yet have bad judgement. It matters.

Kim Jong Il , and his father - have been very effective leaders of their people in some plain and important ways.

So have the clerical leaders in Iran been very effective leaders in some plain and important ways.

But in some other ways - that are clear and objective - they have shown very bad judgement. There ought to be wide agreement about that - in terms of the performance of their societies. If that could be agreed on - performance could be improved - step by step - in ways that the people involved might well consider fair.

If their fallibility was clear - as the fallibility of Bush, Blair and others is clear - there would be room for significant improvements from the reasonable points of view of all the peoples involved.

- - -

A problem is that the situations involved are poisoned and paralyzed by deception.

fredmoore - 09:28pm Jun 18, 2003 EST (# 12580 of 12606)

Robert ....

The following article is about Australian Governments putting caps on fertilizer use in the catchment areas feeding the Great Barrier Reef. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/17/1055828329218.html Up to now there has been denial that 'agri' runoff was a probable cause. Global warming was the straw man of choice as I recall. This supports my call for wetland technology as part of a KAEP (Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol) to control EMERGY in riverine catchments in a way that controls soil fertility, base energy needs, biodiversity, health control and climate change issues. I cannot see any reason why a KAEP cannot, with 1/200 Global GDP funding provide a consensual and sustainable framework for solving all mankind's energy needs into the next century and beyond. The above article is encouraging. It is a fine piece of the KAEP jigsaw.

An effective Kyoto Alternative Energy treaty would link all countries 1. In a 10 year plan 2. With countries providing funds on a percentage of GDP basis ... up to .5% by mutual agreement. 3. For an international research and implementation program for: A. Converting one major power station in every city over 1 million people to dry rock geothermal B. Developing and implementing Thermoelectric fabrics (eg polythiophene) for urban and agricultural power generation. C. Developing space based solar collectors and microwave transmission of power from space D. Terminating every stormwater and major farm runoff in an engineered wetland in order to conserve land based EMERGY and avoid catastrophic buid up of emergy at coastal boundaries (climate change). This Kyoto Alternative Energy protocol would be profit generating, whilst producing clean, sustainable electric power for all nations. It would also generate cooperation and potential for peace among all nations. As for the current CO2 limiting treaty. Well, this has already generated mistrust among nations, downgrades profits in developed countries and doesn't focus on alternative power sources to fossil fuels.

Which brings me to North Korea.

North Korea is a vestige of the cold war. It has been time and temperature frozen, locked into an increasing Entropy cycle by being cut off from its neighbours who traditionally supplied it with the necessary TRADE to ensure its survival. It would be stupid under these circumstances NOT to acknowledge NK's need for Nuclear Power ... its need to survive. Ideologically the country is pride bound into 'holding face' so renegotiating the necessary historic trade links is impossible. However, as a KAEP member, NK would gain the immediate benefits of Geothermal power and wetland technology to help lower its ENTROPY and increase its ORDER. For the other parts of the KAEP research, NK, as I understand it, has some of the finest Hi Tech minds on the planet and I think they would be eager to show their abilities in light of the KAEP Space and Thermoelectric research effort.

The bottom line ... yes, NK is a threat ...no, it doesn't have to be ... and yes, a KAEP can manage the conundrum more efficiently than any current diplomacy. KAEP gets to the heart of the NK problem, which is ... increasing Disorder, increasing Entropy and increasing human suffering.

fredmoore - 10:25pm Jun 18, 2003 EST (# 12581 of 12606)

Robert ...

It has just been brought to my attention that multinational KAEP research will involve space and nanotech technology transfers to participating countries. There is concern that these transfers could be abused, even under a well meaning KAEP umbrella.

Do you have a solution to this problem?

Thanks

(25 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense