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.

rshow55 - 05:48pm Apr 8, 2002 EST (#1191 of 1208)

I mentioned what I'd heard at the OTA in my next meeting with Bill Casey. He then gave me some advice set out in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/289 .

Community standards are vital, and some of the best ones in America are reflected, focused, and formed at The New York Times.

Almarst , lchic , and I disagree on some things, but we agree that, in order for the world to be more peaceful and prosperous, some community standards and community perceptions in the United States need to be reassessed - discussed in more detail, with a more careful, more balanced "connecting of the dots." I feel honored to be permitted to post here.

There are issues about "missile defense" that ought to be checked, and explained so that better decisions can be made. MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am

lchic - 08:37pm Apr 8, 2002 EST (#1192 of 1208)

On 'getting things done' the Nation State or an amalgamation of States - can find capital. As pointed out (above) the laying down of infrastructure often depends on initial finance from the State. At a later time when the project is up and running as a business giving returns - then the State may offload to private sector who look for profits.

If the USA were truly 'capitalist' it wouldn't collect taxes - it does!

almarst-2001 - 09:12pm Apr 8, 2002 EST (#1193 of 1208)

"If the USA were truly 'capitalist' it wouldn't collect taxes - it does!"

I found less problem with the fact that taxes are collected then with the way they are spent. I feel that an ordinary US taxpayer does not get nearly his money back. Unlike in Europe, for example, where the taxes are high but are spent on a social programs and improvement of a communal quality of living to the much greater extent.

rshow55 - 10:03pm Apr 8, 2002 EST (#1194 of 1208)

Almarst , you asked extremely good questions in MD1140 almarst-2001 4/6/02 9:32am and I'm going to respond.

It would be easier to answer, in detail, if some of the issues connected to MD1152 rshow55 4/6/02 4:47pm were clarified. That would require checking.

To get some important kinds of jobs done, nation states have to be able to be involved. Sometimes, the best results are possible if government and capitalistic mechanisms are mixed.

Just a question. Suppose that all the technical problems involved in the proposal for large scale solar energy set out in MD1130-1133 rshow55 4/5/02 8:39pm were solved. Now, to get a going enterprise -- how much money would it take, before break-even cash flow?

Payoff would be worth trillions of dollars. But to get to payoff would require nation state level protection, and capital flows of political size.

Capitalism could get to "proof of principle" -- but only if there was a reasonable change of getting the VERY large investments necessary, when the time came.

Frm 1149 --- MD669 lchic 3/18/02 11:51am -- decision tree-- expert systems.

Sometimes, at some levels, nation states have to be involved.

If someone checked the AEA program, it would look very "strange" -- unless you assumed, as I did when I was running AEA, that a nation state was involved, and prepared to provide backup, for capital, once "proof of priciple" was far enough along.

It almost worked. At a decisive stage, that neither Casey nor I predicted, I failed physically.

rshow55 - 10:07pm Apr 8, 2002 EST (#1195 of 1208)

Almarst , with good luck, I'll be able to get you a good answer to the question with which you end MD1140 almarst-2001 4/6/02 9:32am , tomorrow.

I have a question in my mind now. Posting on this forum is all very well. But suppose I asked for a hearing at the Russian Embassy - for a business proposal.

What would happen to me?

I'm finding that an interesting question, and have some high anxieties about the answer.

. . . .

It seems to me that if the U.S. government wanted to talk to me, they would have done so some time ago.

rshow55 - 10:20pm Apr 8, 2002 EST (#1196 of 1208)

MD671 rshow55 3/18/02 12:01pm

-- on beauty, ugliness -- and promise.

We are special animals -- and capable, often enough, of unbelievable brutality, duplicity, and ugliness.

We'd be safer if we were clearer about that.

Still, just now, I feel like posting some beautiful things from museums and artistic sites, mostly Russian, collected by lunarchic last year.

We need to remember both the ugliness, the danger, and the good -- and do as well as we can, without lies that mislead, brutalize, and endanger us.

. . . .

If we play some things straight, and don't cling to fiction-boondoggles like "missile defense" -- we can be safer and more comfortable than we are.

We could even learn to make peace. We've got some reason to think we could.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense