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.

lchic - 09:49am May 15, 2003 EST (# 11675 of 11713)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Rummy says the locked up looters for 48 hours, now they lock them up for 3 weeks.

Whatever happened to the educational leaflet drops ?

-------

lchic - 09:50am May 15, 2003 EST (# 11676 of 11713)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

'' … getting all your points on a straight line, doing the technical work very well, craftsmanship, will get you through''

Sir Paul M. Nurse, a 54-year-old Nobel laureate http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/science/13CONV.html

I have an idealistic view of science as a liberalising and progressive force for humanity. Better understanding of the natural world not only enhances all of us as human beings, but can also be harnessed for the better good, leading to improved health and quality of life. It is also a truly international activity which breaks down barriers between the peoples of world, an objective that always has been necessary and never more so than now. Scientific understanding is often beautiful, a profoundly aesthetic experience which gives pleasure not unlike the reading of a great poem. It has been a privilege to pursue knowledge for its own sake and to see how it might help mankind in more practical ways. I hope that the future will allow me to continue that pursuit for as long as I am able.

From Les Prix Nobel 2001.

http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/2001/nurse-autobio.html

fredmoore - 10:50am May 15, 2003 EST (# 11677 of 11713)

Lchic ...

Can you price that Fred?

Say every country put up 1/2% GDP, then developed countries would put in more but in return they get 1)developing countries dependent on clean sustainable power ... a huge saving on military expenditure 2)new trade options 3)new technology development imperatives similar to Apollo but with globally shared cost and 4)access to clean energy. Further, without competition for energy resources there won't be a lot to fight over and during the introductory 10 year protocol program international cooperation will be high!

Very roughly I estimated (from discussions on the Space forum) a basic space power generation system would cost about $250 billion over 10 years. The other 3 components (Geothermal/Thermoelectric/Wetland Eng) would probably be around that as well. Total cost say $500 billion over 10 years.

Sounds a lot? It would be 1/200th of the world's GDP which is not a lot to spend to steer the planet in a new more secure and sustainable direction. The only other way to achieve this result would be WW5 ( as someone recently pointed out, we've had WW3 and are in the middle of WW4) as levels of cooperation in the world today when it comes to oil are unstable and indeed, downright nefarious.

rshow55 - 11:21am May 15, 2003 EST (# 11678 of 11713)
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.

Fredmoore - solving energy problems - and lots of other problems - wouldn't have to be that expensive in money - and could be done, when heavy money flows were involved - in a profit-making way - within the framework of a reasonably regulated capitalism.

But no one's particular pet idea is, or should, be applied until it is actually worked through to the point where it is reasonably sure to be the right one - or one of a very short list of carefully checked right ones.

On Jan 4, 2000, I made a posting on Science In the News suggesting an institutional response to such problems. There are enough of them, that we need institutions to handle them.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/ScienceInTheNewsJan4_2000.htm

It would even help if there were some institutional changes in journalism - including the journalism of The New York Times. The New York Times needs better institutional responses to the challenge of checking for validity. The Blair case makes that clear, and a good deal associated with this thread ought to support the same point.

10798-99- http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.o3LeaD1s9bU.722904@.f28e622/12350 cite some extensive discussions lchic, almarst, and I had on journalistic issues that seem pressing now.

There are some basic problems that require institutional changes - and changes that fit within the traditions and imperatives of the institutions being changed.

The Eisenhowers, Casey, and a lot of other people have worried about that over time - and I have, too.

If I could get past some personal security limits - I might be able to do a good deal, now, it seems to me.

Problems do get solved. Often in quite satisfactory ways that seem "obvious" in retrospect. Full solutions to our energy, global warming, and nutrition problems ought to be possible - and a lot else, too - but not unless they can be worked through starting from the institutions we actually have - with changes that can be made step by step.

(35 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense