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.

lchic - 03:27pm Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12693 of 12715)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Liar Liar Pants on Fire - bbc:TonyBlair

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,985407,00.html

fredmoore - 07:16pm Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12694 of 12715)

Mazza ...

Personally I like your proposal but .... historically Congress won't buy it and free enterprise won't buy it because there are no IMMEDIATE profits.

As for the Aerospike engine .. I reported it on the Space forum a month ago and no one responded .. more interested in space gourmet I gather!

Get behind KAEP ... you'll solve the Space Exploration dilemma and a lot more as well. We do need a paradigm shift ... besides space exploration is not just about a few elite with the so called 'right stuff', it is about every man, woman and child on this planet.

Additionally, a historical analysis shows we are headed for a future where all people have more and more energy at their disposal. This is a growing trend, not Utopia. You can get to the future by random war/terror/isolationist approaches or by setting up a future growth plan (a KAEP) which focuses on optimising low ENTROPY or order which is the 'raison d'etre' of all human beings. What's your pleasure?

gisterme - 07:51pm Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12695 of 12715)

fredmoore - 02:41am Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12687 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.wEZ0b1YKkab.710267@.f28e622/14355

"...Whoa! Hold on a minute.

"...The coordinated introduction of wetland technologies at stormwater outlets around the planet will be self evident and immediately useful..."

Okay, but what if somebody who signed up doesn't do it? Does that mean that nobody has to? Or will they expect American taxpayers to take care of that for them instead?

I'll agree that works at stromwater outlets would be reasonably easy to verify. However that's probaby not so with power generation emissions.

I think you've kind of dodged the whole question you intended to respond to, Fred.

The question is: "What happens when somebody doesn't comply with the agreement?". Who's goning to do anything about it? Would we continue at reduced economic advantage, being nice guys and honoring the agreement anyway while others continue with the relatively increased economic advantage resulting from not honoring the accord?

Everybody wants clean air and everybody wants long-term energy resources. Personally I think we should take care of our own needs to maintain our own environment and energy supply. If China doesn't want to clean up it's exhaust gas emissions, no piece of paper is going to make them do it. It's not like the technology isn't available right now. However, the incentive to sign such a treaty, even if there's no intention to honor it, is huge because of the economic advantage it will give those who don't honor it. To not honor it would mean $$$ in their pockets.

Who would prevent that from happening? Hans Blilx? I don't think so.

gisterme - 07:56pm Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12696 of 12715)

Robert...

I've had other things to do for a while so instead of 90 I was about 900 posts behind. Just don't have time to go back through all of those. I'll bet the world will go on anyway. :-)

Did you take a vacation in California?

mazza9 - 08:52pm Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12697 of 12715)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Historically our Congress has backed frontier exploration and exploitation. 2003 is the 200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. 2003 is the Centennial of fligth celebration. Both of these events encouraged exploration and industrial, agricultural and mineral development. Many of the people who did not like the Apollo program said it was just a "job" program. Well, DUH!

I know that Robert and Lchic will blanche but it's a fact that the US has been in the forefront for the past two centuries. No time to stop leading now!

Were we to pursue the plan laid out in O'Neill's "High Frontier" we would pursuing the same frontier thesis espoused by that emminent 19th-20th Century American historian Mahan, He believed that our uniqueness and greatness arose from our struggling and conquering the frontier as we built our society. Hasn't changed. The resources ae there for the taking.

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense