![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
    (5899 previous messages)
lunarchick
- 06:54pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5900
of 5906)
lunarchick@www.com
A refugee?
Under the UN Convention, a refugee is described as someone
who "has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion; is outside the country they belong to or
normally reside in, and is unable or unwilling to return home for
fear of persecution. Well run Nations lessen upheavals and
displacement
rshowalter
- 06:58pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5901
of 5906) 
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
They sure do. And that's a reason why well run and well
defended nations, that also have their internal affairs in order
- are important. So militaries have their uses -- if they are used
to enforce peace in a dangerous world -- that is, are used in a
"defensive" rather than an offensive way.
rshowalter
- 07:05pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5902
of 5906)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
almarst has come up with reference after reference for a
reason that "defense" can take "offense" according to a simple
logic, that both Americans and Russians can find compelling
Here's an example:
MD3871 almarst-2001
5/14/01 10:32pm
gisterme 5/14/01 7:58pm ---- gisterme
5/14/01 7:58pm
"It is interesting you decided to dig back into
the events of WWII. I never intended to go that far, but if you
will, here what I believe.
"The WWII was all about one thing - the energy
resources - the coal and oil. Remember, that was an age of the
heavy industry and electricity - the source and the key to the
prosperity of a nation.
***
almarst cited more references than I was able to read -
framing military conflicts as a struggle for energy resources.
A really strong argument that the American military uses - - and
right as far as it goes -- is that the US, which vitally depends on
oil supplies, has to fight for them -- no matter what.
You can still ask "when is enough enough?"
But you can see, perhaps, why the connection between military and
oil matters has been so close -- in the United States especially --
You can also see some very solid reasons for trying to get
our energy dependences under control.
That's an argument for other energy sources -- including nuclear
energy, or solar energy.
If the US was not totally dependent on oil resources from
abroad, the only solid argument I've heard for the US's need for
"overwhelming force" would be removed.
rshowalter
- 07:21pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5903
of 5906)
Robert Showalter
showalte@macc.wisc.edu
MD4524 rshowalter
6/5/01 9:08pm
MD4611 rshowalter
6/8/01 1:58pm .... MD4612 rshowalter
6/8/01 1:59pm
"In some other areas -- solar energy and global
warming control, for instance - we face large scale but simple
problems. With loose tolerances, and many different ways to
proceed on many of the technical details involved.
"The estimate of all the conventional oil that
there ever was or ever will be is less than the amount of sunlight
that hits the earth in one day. http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm
Exactly the kind of "wing it" approach Rumsfeld just proposed for
MD might actually work for solar energy -- we need to find ways to
use very extensive areas available on earth -- and the equatorial
oceans look like a good place. For "space available" we might
SOLVE essential military and economic problems for the whole world
--
MD4613 rshowalter
6/8/01 2:13pm MD4614 rshowalter
6/8/01 2:14pm
"The key technical problem is floating thin
assemblies of sheet plastic (perhaps 30 microns thick in all,
including top sheet, bottom sheet, and bubble floatation) with
very extensive areas -- and having the assemblies stand up to
wind, rain, wave, and whale problems, on the equatorial seas.
At 5% net efficiency, the area needed would be a square 450 km on
a side (which would practically disappear on a map of the equatorial
seas, which are much bigger). That would supply all the energy needs
of the world. And the technology, once developed, could be expanded
far into the future - and produce all the energy one can forsee
people needing -- ever.
"A sloppy kind of engineering problem. Once it was
solved - getting photocells onto the top surface would be
straightforward. From there to a hydrogen based economy -- the
engineering is all doable. - And the world's energy problem would
no longer be the current "hopeless" one. Easier than Star
Wars.
"Actually doable. By engineers and institutions
that have been struggling with missile defense, and failing.
" And more important, just in military terms,
than a limited missile defense could ever be.
Not just something the US could do -- Russia, or the EU, or Japan
or even Australia, could probably do it, too.
Other possibilities? Sure. The point is, this looks doable, and
could remove some essential reasons for war, and make the
world more hopeful and prosperous, too.
  (3
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
