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 - 02:38am Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12686 of 12690)

Gisterme ...

"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"

Whoa! Hold on a minute ....

The coordinated introduction of wetland technologies at stormwater outlets around the planet will be self evident and immediately useful. EG such a program would mitigate events such as the recent Dakota tornadoes.

The gradual phase in of one Geothermal power station for all cities over 5 million (eventually 1 million) will also be immediately evident and will provide US business with solid growth as the plan is expanded.

The research on thermoelectric fabrics and Space based Solar will commence immediately and involve the best scientists of all participating nations and NOT politicians. That too will be be self evident. As there will be no single national interests classifying the research, it will be constantly reported on, on an appropriate web site for all to see and discuss (especially by Mazza and Coop I might add).

The sentiment and incentive are already simmering as seen in :

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/25CARB.html

where many industrialised and developing nations are represented. They are already looking at alternative energy technology research as an option and the CO2 storage technology they mention in the article, while not on my list is a good addition. I would add to that the possibility of using powdered coal in large fixed 'FBI' facilities using giant carbide based electrolytes.

As for Mazza's proposals ... I agree with him but such plans don't provide the immediacy of sentiment, incentive, finance or staged objectives that a KAEP can do and is from implications in the article, doing already. Unfortunately Lou's plans are 'High-bar' plans that would spend the next 100 years in congress awaiting solid tech breakthroughs for approval. EG we can't even get appropriations for a space plane, let alone the funding for the maglev or high lift approaches so necessary for regular space access. With KAEP, ALL nations will provide that funding and more on a regular basis over 10 years.

Judging by the above article, KAEP may well already be HAPPENIN'.

fredmoore - 02:41am Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12687 of 12690)

Gisterme ...

"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"

Whoa! Hold on a minute ....

The coordinated introduction of wetland technologies at stormwater outlets around the planet will be self evident and immediately useful. EG such a program would mitigate events such as the recent Dakota tornadoes.

The gradual phase in of one Geothermal power station for all cities over 5 million (eventually 1 million) will also be immediately evident and will provide US business with solid growth as the plan is expanded.

The research on thermoelectric fabrics and Space based Solar will commence immediately and involve the best scientists of all participating nations and NOT politicians. That too will be be self evident. As there will be no single national interests classifying the research, it will be constantly reported on, on an appropriate web site for all to see and discuss (especially by Mazza and Coop I might add).

The sentiment and incentive are already simmering as seen in :

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/25CARB.html

where many industrialised and developing nations are represented. They are already looking at alternative energy technology research as an option and the CO2 storage technology they mention in the article, while not on my list is a good addition. I would add to that the possibility of using powdered coal in large fixed 'FBI' facilities using giant carbide based electrolytes.

As for Mazza's proposals ... I agree with him but such plans don't provide the immediacy of sentiment, incentive, finance or staged objectives that a KAEP can do and is from implications in the article, doing already. Unfortunately Lou's plans are 'High-bar' plans that would spend the next 100 years in congress awaiting solid tech breakthroughs for approval. EG we can't even get appropriations for a space plane, let alone the funding for the maglev or high lift approaches so necessary for regular space access. With KAEP, ALL nations will provide that funding and more on a regular basis over 10 years.

Judging by the above article, KAEP may well already be HAPPENIN'.

And one other thing: never teach the baby to do the 'Bay to Breakers' Marathon ... at least till he can crawl!

lchic - 03:20am Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12688 of 12690)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

China seems to be doing 'badly' as in 'very badly' in the pollution stakes .... won't be long before a billion Chinese will be seeking entry into those countries of the world that still have 'air' and 'soil'!

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense