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 - 08:00am Jul 7, 2003 EST (# 12874 of 12879)
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.

The Thinkable By BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/magazine/04NUKES.html deals with nuclear terror - and thing we should do to cope with it.

Keller's piece includes a number of important ideas. He makes a point about the beliefs, and failed hopes surrounding the Nonproliferation Treaty.

The essential bargain that induced nonnuclear states to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty was this: If you pledge to refrain from arming yourself with bad atoms, you will be rewarded with a supply of good atoms -- a peaceful nuclear energy program. Inspectors from the I.A.E.A. will drop by occasionally to make sure you stay within bounds -- that the nuclear fuel for generating electricity is all properly booked and sufficiently diluted. (The most difficult ingredient for a bomb maker to come by is not the design or the engineering; it is uranium or plutonium, distilled to a weapons-grade concentration.)

At the time when that was sold, peaceful nuclear energy was thought to be a solution for the essential energy problems the developing nations faced then, and face now.

For development to the standards of the rich nations to be possible for the poor nations - without an huge string to technical miracles happening together, there has to be much more energy available, and available cheaply, than is available now.

That fact used to be "obvious" - it was taken for granted by most leaders at the UN in the 1950s and 1960s - and it is still true. We need much more of a world energy supply than we have for rapid development of less developed countries to be possible.

Many, many people thought that problem could be handled by "atoms for peace." That hope is gone now.

We need to find a workable substitute.

The problem is huge but it is also simple - and specific proposals are simple enough to simulate - and simulate well enough so that it will be possible for people to be sure they're right - sure enough for good action.

There's a short list of possible kinds of solution. Solar energy is on that list. The key technical problems involved in fully solving the world's energy supply problems using a solar approach appear to be much, much less than the cost of the Osprey program - largely because the job involves challenges that engineers know how to evaluate.

rshow55 - 08:17am Jul 7, 2003 EST (# 12875 of 12879)
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.

Making Oil Transparent http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06SUN2.html

Around the world, governments and oil companies are beginning to embrace a simple change that can help poor countries that strike oil: strip the secrecy from the deals.

When you have to find oil fields - when many stages of many negotiations and power plays involve the question "are you buying or selling?" - and when, for many players, holding wealth means hiding the extent of the wealth, and the way it was gotten, the forces for secrecy are strong.

It should be possible to float the "oil fields" that the world needs - and develop them for costs less than the costs involved in finding and developing oil now.

The possibilities for openness would be much greater.

And it would be possible to supply the world with all the energy that people need for better lives. Forever.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense