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 - 09:54am Jul 21, 2003 EST (# 13068 of 13068)
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.

rshow55 - 04:46pm May 15, 2003 EST (# 11694 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2Kj5bis2rPK.137493@.f28e622/13304

If a nation state actually took an interest, it might then be possible to count the deceptions and mistakes representatives of the administration have made about missile defense on this thread.

insert: Searching " UN or U.N. " would offer a good start.

Attack on the Ad Man http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2Kj5bis2rPK.137493@.f28e622/8784

Basic procedural patterns in http://www.mrshowalter.net/ScienceInTheNewsJan4_2000.htm could be institutionalized and handled by the UN, or nation states besides the United States - and it would be a good thing if they were.

Fredmoore points out that "you need a plan, Stan" and the point has been discussed for a a while. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2Kj5bis2rPK.137493@.f28e622/13371 includes this:

"What would I try to do, if I had my security problems dealt with, and a bit of help from a nation state in those few, but decisive, cases where I'd need it?

"Based on what was actually set up, and almost done, at AEA - with help from Ford Motor Company, the University of Wisconsin, The Johns Hopkins University - and some of the most admirable (and long-suffering) investors anybody ever had. And some help and hinderance from Casey.

"Here's a key point.

There's one problem getting really sure of what needs to be done - and can actually work.

A second problem actually doing it at full scale.

"With different costs. Different procedures that have to be applied. Different organizations needed. With interfaces that have to work.

"If a permanent solution to the world energy problem was pretty certain after a few hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and very certain at all technical levels after a billion dollars was spent -

"but then required an investment (fully amortized in two years) of 400 billion to implement

"- would that be a cost more or less than your $250 billion dollars?

"You could answer either way.

" (Crude sales run at roughly 800 billion dollars/year.)

Could such a thing be done? To see why it is difficult - you might think about what I've been through - and the way I've been dealt with - on this thread.

See Berle's Laws of Power http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2Kj5bis2rPK.137493@.f28e622/826

The stakes are large.

almarst2003 - 09:00pm Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9903 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2Kj5bis2rPK.137493@.f28e622/11447 speaks of key issues:

" Control of Oil and impact on a World wide economy, Iraqi's geo-strategic and demographic potential, credibility of Bush and his Administration, future of Blair's Administration, future of UN, NATO and international law, relationship between US, Britain and "old"-Europe+Russia, degree of antiAmerican anti-Western radicalization of Arab and Muslim nations (1,5 bn in total as I think), Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution."

All vitally important - big scale issues - that matter now.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense