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.

hoorganviser - 12:15am Jul 2, 2003 EST (# 12799 of 12806)

The satellite defense system I submitted to Nixon in 1970 used particle beam weapons to destroy missiles and warheads. The battle stations that will have offensive and defensive power rays need my injection reactor or an equally powerful reactor to work. Yes, a beam from a station will be able to destroy ground targets and given enough time penetrate to the core of the earth. Either beam penetration or slicing will destroy missiles and warheads in seconds and cost less than 1% of the price of missiles that might do what a dozen beams of charged particles cna do in half an hour against over 2000 missiles and warheads. If my system works, it should have existed in orbit over a decade ago. Sure the anti-nuclear people will complain. But their be nice so our enemies will be nice policy will mean the deaths of tens of millions during a nuclear war. The choice is do we want to protect most Americans or let a vast portion of this country become a nuclear wasteland because we listened to people who let those who hate us launch a missile attack we couldn't defend against? It's been over 30 years. What's taking us so long?

fredmoore - 05:02am Jul 2, 2003 EST (# 12800 of 12806)

Hoorganviser ....

Can you give more details on the injection reactor. Enough to establish legitimacy shall we say. Oh and what power source did you envisage to drive these weapons?

Mind you every terrorist on the planet will be waiting on the answer, so don't be too liberal.

Cheers

lchic - 06:06am Jul 2, 2003 EST (# 12801 of 12806)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

.... does 'cna' preceed 'dna' ... 'can' 'dan' .... does 'Dan' Dare?

lchic - 06:30am Jul 2, 2003 EST (# 12802 of 12806)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" ... The volcanoes produced two gases: sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The sulphur and other effusions caused acid rain, but would have bled from the atmosphere quite quickly. The carbon dioxide, on the other hand, would have persisted. By enhancing the greenhouse effect, it appears to have warmed the world sufficiently to have destabilised the superconcentrated frozen gas called methane hydrate, locked in sediments around the polar seas. The release of methane into the atmosphere explains the sudden shift in carbon isotopes.

Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The result of its release was runaway global warming: a rise in temperature led to changes that raised the temperature further, and so on. The warming appears, alongside the acid rain, to have killed the plants. Starvation then killed the animals.

Global warming also seems to explain the geological changes. If the temperature of the surface waters near the poles increases, the circulation of marine currents slows down, which means that the ocean floor is deprived of oxygen. As the plants on land died, their roots would cease to hold together the soil and loose rock, with the result that erosion rates would have greatly increased.

So how much warming took place? A sharp change in the ratio of the isotopes of oxygen permits us to reply with some precision: 6C. Benton does not make the obvious point, but another author, the climate change specialist Mark Lynas, does. Six degrees is the upper estimate produced by the UN's scientific body, the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), for global warming by 2100. A conference of some of the world's leading atmospheric scientists in Berlin last month concluded that the IPCC's model may have underestimated the problem: the upper limit, they now suggest, should range between 7 and 10 degrees. Neither model takes into account the possibility of a partial melting of the methane hydrate still present in vast quantities around the fringes of the polar seas. ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,988440,00.html

lchic - 06:36am Jul 2, 2003 EST (# 12803 of 12806)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

RU billionaire buys UK club

http://www.itv.com/news/1149599.html

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense