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.

fredmoore - 02:01pm Jun 25, 2003 EST (# 12682 of 12690)

Gisterme ...

Can't argue with your last comments.

KAEP? Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol. Do a search on this thread ... I have covered it in some detail.

Cheers

gisterme - 02:34pm Jun 25, 2003 EST (# 12683 of 12690)

Thanks Fred. I'll check it out.

mazza9 - 12:15am Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12684 of 12690)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

KAEP! Over on the Space Exploration thread I have stated my opinion about where we should focus our energy to improve our lot on this planet. The old saw "infinite wants limited resources" is changed when you look up and realize that there are infinite resources!

My Space University concept at www.nssnt.org is the way to achieve the O'Neill dreams of a self funding space program. The giant solar power generating stations in orbit would mean that burning wood, oil, gas, coal or uranium in the atmosphere could be replaced by exo-atmospheric power generation. Move all heavy industry off planet by 2050 and we can reduce the stress on the planet.

All of mankind can participate in this new frontier. Maybe, then maybe we can stop throwing rocks at each other as we expend our energies on counquering the universe!

gisterme - 12:53am Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12685 of 12690)

Fred...

What you've written about the KAEP idea is interesting and I'm ceratinly in favor of developing energy sources that are viable alternatives to fossil fuels, even if the only reason is that fossil fules exist in finite supply.

I must confess that I seem to have an ingrained aversion seeing my nation enter into agreements that transfer control of aspects industrial decision making to some mostly foreign committee that is most likely made up of economic competitors. That's especially so when the committe decisions could adversly affect our own relative economic competitiveness.

Am I in favor of clean air? Of course. However, in my view the reason we should clean up our own doorstep is because we've decided that to do so is in the best interst of the nation. Not because we need some agreement to make us do so.

And what if there were such an agreement? Who would enforce it domestically? Well, the government of course and there's another layer of bureaucracy for sure. But what if other nations also agreed to the accord and then didn't enforce it at home? What then? Economic sanctions? I'd surely hope not. There's really no way to cause anybody to comply with such an agreement and there's no easy way to tell if someone isn't complying. The problem I'd anticipate is the same problem that tends to occur everywhere else where small groups control large cash flows...corruption and cheating. Our government can have reasonable control over that here at home; but would have no say at all in foreign nations.

No doubt somewhere down the line an "air use" tax on citizens would be proposed to pay for all this... :-) ...and certainly, later once alternative energy sources are in place and the atmosphere is cleaned up, another rationale would be found to continue the air use tax. The whole thing sounds like a perfect excuse for lawmakers to dip into our wallets once again.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense