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 - 04:28pm Aug 6, 2003 EST (# 13256 of 13267)

"...That's an abnormal circumstance for a person to be in - ..."

Robert, that's an entirely unbelievable circumstance for a person to be in.

rshow55 - 05:10pm Aug 6, 2003 EST (# 13257 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.

You can choose to believe or not - but the solar energy project set out (with some responses to comments by you) is an example of just that situation.

13039 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133552@.f28e622/14716

13040 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133552@.f28e622/14717

13041 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133552@.f28e622/14718

13042 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133552@.f28e622/14719

Everything Eisenhower wanted me to do - the "Robert Showalter" problems - were like that.

The technical jobs weren't insurmountable (for example, the optimal design jobs done at AEA were straightforward) but every one of them required, and continues to require - some help from a nation state.

You can't do a workable job "building a railroad" - or doing other stark, large scale optimal jobs - starting from small - without government help well prior to fruition. That's just the way things are.

If someone with . . stature and connections . . . . were involved - the work could actually get done. By getting the backing needed by a nation state.

Some things "free markets, starting small" cannot do.

Eisenhower was dead clear about that.

fredmoore - 09:15pm Aug 6, 2003 EST (# 13258 of 13267)

Rshow,

"Some things "free markets, starting small" cannot do."

Hear hear! And I would add to that:

Some things "free markets, starting small" Will not do ... such as instigate any program that will undermine personal or institutional power garnered by fossil fuel preeminence.

Sad but so. This short sighted GREED edict enslaves each and every person on this planet. It forces us to live in a medium of our own waste in such a way that our personal progress is unsustainable and eventually life threatening. For example as we prosper we buy SUV's which in great numbers keeps the corporate STATE and ourselves happy but which also condemns us to early enfeeblement and death due to toxic emissions that destroy human immune systems.

One particular case in point: Nanoparticulation of Platinum and Rhodium catalysts is totally effective in breaking down ALL organic compounds, inside and outside the human body. As little as one gram of such catalysts divided into single atomic form as is the case at tailpipe exhausts, will potentially devastate an entire city with medical effects equivalent to Gulf war Syndrome. Initially such catalysts destroy blood cells but as lines of defence are worn away the impact on the body becomes irreversible. Unleaded petrol is only less acute in its effects than leaded petrol, not less dangerous.

The answer is clearly to invest in ways to "as directly as possible garner just those energy possibilities closest to the energy sources ... geothermal and space based solar". This doesn't have to be a big financial burden if planned over several years and if it involves all nations whose interests in freedom and progress are a priority. The only barrier I can see is the primal edict of the corporate state ... maintain the status quo.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense