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 - 08:28pm Jul 9, 2003 EST (# 12921 of 12923)
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.

Since 12738 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/14406 I've been discussing actually solving some key world problems - in detail. 12738 included this:

My guess is that, if someone with REAL power wanted the world energy problem solved - and wanted to get global warming solved as part of the same technical organizational solution - we could be CERTAIN that these job could be done within 12 months of today - have hydrogen on line at significant volume in 3 years - and have as much hydrogen as the market could reasonably absorb within a decade.

12855 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/14524 restated the objective above, and went further -

And be reversing global warming within that same period - on a basis that is both sustainable and under controls the great majority of the people in the world would call just, and even beautiful.

To do it - there would have to be an orderly industry - on equatorial oceans - with safety standards and environmental concerns adressed - and it would need to pay taxes to the United Nations - according to patterns consistent with the Law of the Sea - or a modified Law of the Sea.

It may be that I will have to personally set up a small organization of my own to do that - because the job to be done presents problems that the US government, and established organizations are not set up to face.

Jobs that the big energy companies can't really deal with - at least not at the start - because they disrupt established power relations - and psychological patterns, as well.

Organizations are set up to do just what they do - and modifications are hard - even "expected action" is hard - if it disrupts the organization. The responses at NASA that led to the Challenger disaster - and the bureacratic response to it - are examples that are not exceptional.

Problems Eisenhower was well aware of those problems, and I was asked to work on them - and glad to work on them.

7331 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/8854

AEA was set up by me, with Casey kibbitzing, partly to address those problems. There are times when you need planning - in great detail - applied to the level of assemblies - and then - at least at the level of simulation - or prototyping - you have to actually try the solution out - and then - when you have it working - make a transfer - step by step - to modify a system without killing it.

AEA almost worked. It was stopped at a key point by Casey - and there were other problems - but if lchic had been involved then - as she is now, and knowing what she knows now, it would have worked. 11735-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/13345

I would like to be able to set up something very much like AEA again - and do it honestly - and work with Lchic in that format.

I'd like to be able to do that with people involved in AEA fully informed, and satisfied to the extent that was reasonably possible.

In ways that were reasonably satisfactory to my wife, her husband, the New York Times, other members of families involved, the federal government, and other people more-or-less connected. In ways that most people at the UN, if they happened to notice, might think fair.

11885 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/13508

12263-4 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/13909

12271 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.opeLbbYZoi3.220679@.f28e622/13909

References to Godel's proof, and a related c

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense