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 - 08:19pm Aug 9, 2003 EST (# 13278 of 13281)
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.

assume . . . assume . . . assume . . . there are ways to check assumptions - that take risks way down.

"Anybody who claims an impasse, at the level of paradigm conflict, about an issue in science, medicine, or engineering ought to meet some careful standards to get a hearing. But the standards ought not to be impossible. And the consequences ought not to be draconian for the people involved."

I proposed a basic format for checking long ago that ought to be elitist enough to appeal to the TIMES. To deal with such a checking procedure - classification issues have to be dealt with.

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

Fredmoore , you say that

1. Modern corporate states are incontrovertably linked to fossil fuel empires around the globe. Any technology which challenges that status quo will not be allowed to reach full fruition till an emergency situation presents itself and the status quo is aware for the need to make changes.

Most companies depend on reliable, reasonably priced sources of energy. Corporate states are "linked" to all sorts of interests. A lot of people seem "aware of the need to make changes" already.

I'd bet that most senior officers in the U. S. Military are aware of the need to moderate our dependence on Mideast Oil, for instance. And most officers of most corporations - "if only we could do it" - for a price.

Engineering works as well as it does because, quite often, costs and risks can be estimated pretty well.

The towed PV array concept is only one concept among an uncountable number. You can propose another - or many others. The question is

Which is the one to choose?

Real alternatives narrow down in a hurry - when subjected to competent scrutiny. In the end, the orders of merit boil down to cost and reliability.

To be workable, the "one to choose" has to be fundable.

For a towed equatorial array - weather risk approximates 0.

Fredmoore , of course I don't know if you're associated with The New York Times - - but if you are - you've missed some opportunities to contest basic facts, rather than distract.

I'm glad of that. If I can get some facts clear - I can get some work done, for real.

Fredmoore , you're entertaining, but not always as entertaining as The Onion 12989 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.7UulbtMSxMO.2618607@.f28e622/14665

fredmoore - 09:13pm Aug 9, 2003 EST (# 13279 of 13281)

Robert,

How many Thermoelectric units could you sell at a profit margin of say $85? Can you see how this creates wealth at the same time as developing a sustainable distributed energy base for the whole planet?

That is no less feasible than a towed PV array. Where is the distraction?

robkettenburg03 - 01:05am Aug 10, 2003 EST (# 13280 of 13281)

SHOOTING DOWN MISSLE DEFENSE (Even the Pentagon admits the program is in trouble) - http://slate.msn.com/id/2086724/

MY HOME PAGE - http://geocities.com/robkettenburg2002

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense