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.

gisterme - 02:23am Jul 29, 2003 EST (# 13173 of 13267)

fredmoore - 02:22am Jul 27, 2003 EST (# 13154 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?16@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2132736@.f28e622/14833

"...Who says they (emhjoules) are only past tense"..."

Umm...I thought that was by definition. Wasn't the defintion that emjoules were units of energy used to do some particular work? Maybe I should check again.

"...As open systems absorb energy and reduce their entropy, they increase their ORDER..."

That's clear to me.

"...Its resultant EMERGY when it is consumed is not only a record of its thermodynamic inputs, it is also the amount of available energy that can be obtained from it..."

How does that differ from energy potential in the traditional sense? Don't we know how many BTU buring a pound of coal or gasoline will produce...how many joules they can release under various burning conditions? Those aren't rhetorical questions.

I guess the fundamental puzzle to me is "how do you expend emjoules and not expend joules?".

You didn't answer the other non-rhetorical question I asked before about energy efficiency. How does wanting maximum emergy differ from wanting maximum energy efficiency? I'd really like to know.

Sorry I didn't see your post yesterday or I would have answered then.

gisterme - 02:31am Jul 29, 2003 EST (# 13174 of 13267)

Will...

I have to agree with you about the letter that Robert sent to Mr. "XXXX XXXXXXXX" (I wonder what that signiture looks like)...If somebody had sent me a letter like that I would get though about the first couple of sentences before practicing my slam-dunk.

Robert... If you really did send a letter like that to somebody I'd say you're your own worst enemy.

gisterme - 02:52am Jul 29, 2003 EST (# 13175 of 13267)

Robert...

One other thing I forgot to mention...the CIA only deals with foreign intelligence gathering not domestic intelligence gathering or law enforcement. If you really were under some sort of house arrest, it would the FBI that you'd need to deal with. That you don't even know that pretty much wipes out any remaining shred of credibility you might have had with me...the foundation of any impulse I might have had to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Since you are a US citizen living in the CONUS, sending a letter like that to the CIA (even if it made sense) would be like calling your dentist to report your car stolen...or the police when you have a toothache.

rshow55 - 06:11am Jul 29, 2003 EST (# 13176 of 13267)
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.

I was told that an officer of the University of Wisconsin had already sent a request for clarification to FBI - the "XXXXXXXXXXXXX of the University of Wisconsin referred to in the letter - prior to writing that letter.

I'm visiting with my family, and taking some rest and sun - and then I'll try again.

(91 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense