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 - 12:42pm Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13807 of 13824)

"...All cities have a number of suitable locations..."

That's not obvious to me, Fred. What do you base that statement on?

"...The half life of such geothermal power stations is of the order of thousands of years and the geological effects are negligable except in unstable fault zones..."

That last clause rules out Los Angeles, Mexico City, Tokyo, Seattle, San Diego, San Francisco and all the other large cities around the Pacific Rim. That would also affect most large cities in the Mediterranean area. I seems that we like to build where the seismic action is happenin'.

Also, even if the dry rock geothermal powerplants are as viable as you suggest, there'd need to be more than one-to-one replacement of fossil plants because energy demands are growing with increasing population and industrialization.

"...B. Fund thermoelectric fabric research.

Along with other direct-electric technologies. I think we need to learn to glean energy wherever it can be found.

"...Research and implement Space based solar collectors which are capable of supplying ALL earth's future power requirements..."

That's a good enough idea but sounds like something for the far distant future. I guess you have to start sometime.

"...Create a program for deployment of 1-2 acre Engineered wetlands...The area around engineered wetlands experience what I term ' local climate control'. Clearly this will reduce energy consumption in these areas...Entropy will be dissipated more slowly from these areas with a resultant calming effect on local temperature ranges..."

How many acres of "local climate control" would you expect from a 1-2 acre engineered wetland? Whose 1-2 acres of waterfront property would be used?

"...Also, because of the lower entropy in these areas there will be an increase in thermodynamic order..."

At some scale.

"...This translates into a feeling of well-being and intelligence at the human level ... the very things which we use so much ENERGY in trying to attain..."

That "translation" and conclusion seem like a giant leap of faith to me, Fred. What do you base them on? Certainly we use energy to promote feelings of "well-being" like keeping warm or sparing our legs by driving...but "intelligence at the human level"? Please explain that.

"...The Financial structuring for KAEP would require all signatories to contribute a percentage of GDP to a global fund to implement the 4 schemes over the 10 year period. Larger countries will thus contribute more but in return they get a broader knowledge base, a cleaner, more environmentally motivated planet and a good will factor that translates into peace and prosperous markets..."

Larger countries already have a broader knowledge base and a cleaner, more environmentally motivated industiral base. To just continue that wouldn't change anything as far as I can tell. Why would it? Why would there be more good will if KAEP offers the same conditions that already exist? I think peace and prosperous markets depend on a lot of other factors as well.

"...The last benefit alone would pay for the US contribution many times over as we have seen in the '$120 billion plus' price tag of the Iraq war..."

KAEP will make evil dictators go away and all people reasonable? What does that translate from?

"...The cost for all 4 schemes over ten years would be about $500 billion and ALL nations would be contributing..."

Problem is that the nations wanting the most will be contributing the least. How can such inequity translate to peace and prosperity? And if such inequity doesn't exist, that is, nations can fund their own needs, then why would something like KAEP be needed?

In my opinion "redistribution of wealth" schemes haven't yet and won't ever satisfy the insatiable...the jealous, the greedy or the plain old lusters for power.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense