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 - 12:04am Jun 27, 2003 EST (# 12705 of 12715)

fredmoore - 10:59pm Jun 26, 2003 EST (# 12702 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.wEZ0b1YKkab.710924@3d7aa9@.f28e622/14370

"...Firstly there will be an administrative body with funds to structure the program..."

Funds from where? I hope you don't mean the 0.2% of GDP. That's because the 0.2% of GDP is what should be spent internally to actually get the work done where it's needed, not to fund administration. I hope you don't envision all that money going into some kind of slush fund to be doled out by the administrative body.

"...As for not installing their wetlands or geothermal plant(s)? They wouldn't sign up if they did not agree..."

Why not? But what I was really talking about, the biggest deal right now, is exhaust emissons from the burning of fossil fuels. Besides that, there's nothing to stop anyone from building whatever they want right now, without an agreement.

"...If they change their minds they (presumably) won't put in their next sceduled payment..."

Scheduled payment??? Huh? You are thinking of a slush fund!

"...and the worldwide implementation teams and contracted (largeley US and European initially) companies will not proceed with their next scheduled entitlement..."

Entitlement? Is this some sort of an energy welfare program?

"...No guilt or punishment , just international cooperation..."

Sure, that's exactly what they'll be saying when the slush fund is found to be a few billion dollars short. :-)

"...If the nation cannot afford the scheduled step then they can be ignored (insofar as the program) or assisted depending on circumstances..."

And of course, all the time they're being ignored they're enjoying the relative competetive benefit in the world market of not having their economy bled while others are.

I like the idea of establishing better energy sources and cleaning the air (although I'm not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions are the principal cause of global warming).

I don't think the way to accomplish that is to create a bureaucracy that sits upon a big pile of money. To whom would this bureaucracy be accountable for how the money is spent?

fredmoore - 12:29am Jun 27, 2003 EST (# 12706 of 12715)

Gisterme ...

You are not working the problem. You are just reacting. You strike me as being bright enough to see that your questions are easily answered and that the system will work. EG Who pays for the admin of KAEP? WELL who pays for KYOTO now? If you have KAEP you won't need KYOTO GWP and the admin will transfer. All your questions are answered as easily! I'd rather you thought about it honestly than offending you with what I have thoroughly thought through an which works. I can only think of one area of concern ... when and if you catch up I will discuss it with you.

You appear to have some parochial issues to deal with before contemplating a 'new deal' for all nations. I am certain FDR would understand the concept OK. If FDR hadn't included all US citizens in his 'new deal' where would you be today? Equally if we don't include all nations in a 'new deal' for tomorrow where will the world end up?

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense