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.

cantabb - 12:00am Sep 21, 2003 EST (# 13818 of 13824)

gisterme - 11:42pm Sep 20, 2003 EST (# 13817 of 13817)

jorian - "...I do not simply scroll past, because cantabb has been a vital contributor, with both commentary and links, to other discussions in the past..."

gisterme: I've read posts from him elsewhere where he seemed entirely reasonable too.

Thus begins arm-chair pshychoanalysis of yet another poster. Could identity speculations be far behind ?

Would be LOT easier if you ALSO read [carefully] what is posted here for you.

What do you supposed happened to him?

Sure, Jorian319 is THE poster to ask this question !

'His' sin: 'He' disagreed with the regulars. And with the self-contradictory game they play: the regulars know the patient is long dead and say so, but do NOT want to hear that from a new comer who has not been here long enough for them. They hope for a miracle resurrection, which the regulars seem not interested in or can not do, and ask the blasted ill-informed newcomer, supposedly unfamiliar with its "history" to help what the regulars wouldn't/couldn't do.

Think very recent history [past 2-3 days; NOT 2-3 years and "history" ]. Unprovcoked personal attacks -- right from 'his' very first post ! And more of the same since. Ring a bell ?

fredmoore - 06:31am Sep 21, 2003 EST (# 13819 of 13824)

Gisterme,

Thanks for the post.

The purpose of MD is to create peace ... correct?

If an alternative to weaponry can do that, is not that alternative "equivalent" to MD and therefore on topic?

Now on to your questions. I find them frustrating beacause the answers are so simple and obvious I'm not sure you aren't just toying with me.

1. The western seabord cities are on a faultline but are close to the Rockies' foothills which are stable. The Med has stable accessible locations as well. Some of Frisco's power comes from Hoover dam. Certainly you could get a geothermal plant closer than that for example.

2. "even if the dry rock geothermal powerplants are as viable as you suggest, there'd need to be more than one-to-one replacement of fossil plants because energy demands are growing with increasing population and industrialization. "

With the proposed 10 year $500Bn KAEP plan, you would only do what was deemed most efficient for world peace and prosperity and what was affordable in the KAEP budget. One step at a time. Well begun is half done !!

3."I think we need to learn to glean energy wherever it can be found."

The thing about geothermal and solar is that they are THE only two energy sources. The closer we get to those sources without secondary processes, the more efficient and cost effective it becomes. Certainly in a worldwide cooperative pilot like KAEP we should concentrate on the tightest most efficient sources ... the 4 I have mentioned. KAEP won't interfere with sovereignties' or private investments in other technologies because of the way KAEP is structured. So, existing alternative energy programs will continue ... at least until KAEP dwarfs them by its successes.

4."That's a good enough idea but sounds like something for the far distant future. I guess you have to start sometime."

You answered your own question.

5."How many acres of "local climate control" would you expect from a 1-2 acre engineered wetland? Whose 1-2 acres of waterfront property would be used? "

Riverine catchments focus hydrology from huge areas to choke points. These choke points are generally within existing EASEMENTS. 1-2 acres of wetland is sufficient because it can can control a disproportionate amount of hydrological flow through the hydrological focussing effect. In fact this is why our seemingly insignificant prescence has such a dramatic effect on localised climates.

6."That "translation" and conclusion seem like a giant leap of faith to me, Fred. What do you base them on? "

In Thermodynamics, Entropy has 2 definitions. A The Internal order of a system and B The amount of thermal energy not convertible into mechanical energy. They are equivalent definitions and thus any other equivalent measure of order such as intelligence and well being also have a thermal energy equivalent. In short, if you live in an area that has low entropy you will experience higher levels of order and thus intelligence (within the scope of your genetic make up of course).

7. "Larger countries already have a broader knowledge base and a cleaner, more environmentally motivated industiral base. To just continue that wouldn't change anything as far as I can tell. Why would it? Why would there be more good will if KAEP offers the same conditions that already exist? I think peace and prosperous markets depend on a lot of other factors as well."

Peace and prosperity do depend on many factors, but all those factors can be analysed in terms of thermodynamics. Ultimately therefore, peace and prosperity are related to the order in social and economic systems and thus the lowest possible entropy thermal energy inputs to those systems. In short, if you provide large middle eastern, Indonesian, Indian and Chinese cities with sustainable solar and geothermal sources you will create strong intelligent allies. Politics is what people do with the system at hand. Optimising Thermodynamic i

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense