![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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.
 
  (1849 previous messages)
lchic
- 07:36pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1850
of 1866)
Mix a little GU.com with NYT.com - NET the wider
perspective!
Remember the ideas, innovations, money and trade floating around
in the USA are mainly 'WORLD' stuff -- and if they were taken to
EU-RU (REU - coined it!) zone -- as they soon might be, then the USA
would drop from being a
SUPERPOWER
to a
superpower
-
fast!
mazza9
- 07:38pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1851
of 1866)
Louis Mazza
Robert:
The first step in colonizing the galaxy is to "solve" the energy
and resources issues on planet earth. It begins at sea with the
construction of Aquarius. He mines and farms the sea and creates the
wealth to fund the space program by producing these goods for all
mankind. If you read between the lines you might be surprised.
LouMazza
rshow55
- 07:39pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1852
of 1866) 
There has been a really significant gain in the prestige and
power of Russia since March 2001 - could as much increase occur
again? If so, it would be "fighting at the same weight" as the
United States, as far as persuasiveness goes, in a lot of areas.
That may not be impossible -- both because Russia is moving up in
credibility, and because the US is moving down.
Seems to me that, for Russia, the same things that have been
effective over the last year need to be refined, built on, and
continued.
If Russia and EU were well organized, there would be more stable
balances, peacefully, and it could happen pretty soon.
rshow55
- 07:40pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1853
of 1866)
mazza9
4/28/02 7:38pm . . . ! . . . I might, at that.
lchic
- 07:41pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1854
of 1866)
Mix a little GU.com with NYT.com - NET the wider
perspective!
Socialists across Europe must wake up and show they have a
purpose / Neil Kinnock
NYT also have a Europe-Right article.
lchic
- 07:45pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1855
of 1866)
Mix a little GU.com with NYT.com - NET the wider
perspective!
Sheep v wolf's clothing ...
they're all sheep
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/international/middleeast/28MIDE.html
they're all sheep ...
death by slaughter
Peace is better - try a piece!
lchic
- 07:49pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1856
of 1866)
Mix a little GU.com with NYT.com - NET the wider
perspective!
The last chamber pot in the USA
STONEWARE MISCELLANEOUS:
1) Blue banded chamber pot with suitcase handle lid. 2 flat areas
on pot from the mold. Handle on pot was broken off and glued. Chips
on ring on underside of lid. $165
Alas detained 'tourists' in Cuba
rshow55
- 07:59pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1857
of 1866)
MD1584 almarst-2001
4/20/02 9:39pm . . . MD1585 rshow55
4/20/02 11:37pm
Some of the biggest problems are "simple" once one finally
understands some key truths, which may be distasteful to look at. In
The Great Divide http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html
, Paul Krugman suggests that we're at "the ending of an era of
laxity." To some extent, in ways that are a credit to the United
States (and the New York Times) I think that's proven to be true.
But we've got farther to go.
The question "what for?" needs to be answered about US
military policy - including missile defense, nuclear weapons, and
much else. Problems Bill Casey was terribly concerned about remain
problems -- and there need to be workable answers - in a workably
true context.
Technical issues about missile defense would be a good start,
because they are so technically clear, and lend themselves to
umpired discussion to closure. For the specific MD programs on which
money is being lavished - the key questions are simple, for each
system, considered under realistic tactical conditions, with
countermeasures that have to be expected.
Can it see the target?
Can it hit the target?
Can it hurt the target?
The answers are straightforward, involve simple physics and
engineering -- and can be checked. Checked on an umpired basis, in
public.
We are facing a lot of problems now that can be solved, much
better than they are being solved, once we solve problems of
closure that are largely organizational -- and where patterns
of solution that are workable seem within reach.
out.
 (9
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
