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 - 11:18am Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14978 of 14988)

klsanford0: This Forum can always use fresh thoughts, fresh ideas, new posters.

More of the same from the 'regulars' is not progress.

fredmoore - 11:38am Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14979 of 14988)

fredmoore - 10:47am Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14973 of 14973)

Cantabb: A Picayune & a Sore LOSER!

KAEP: 1. A 10 year plan

2. With countries providing funds on a percentage of GDP basis ... up to .5% by mutual agreement.

3. For an international research and implementation program for: A. Converting one major power station in every city over 5 million people to dry rock geothermal. B. Developing and implementing Thermoelectric fabrics (eg polythiophene) for urban and agricultural power generation. C. Developing space based solar collectors and microwave transmission of power from space D. Terminating every stormwater and major farm runoff in an engineered wetland in order to conserve land based EMERGY in riverine catchments - from where it originates. This avoids the localised and catastrophic build up of energy at coastal boundaries around the planet, which is what we perceive as Climate Change.

With all nations working together as partners, created equal and working together for a simple common KAEP goal, defence from missiles of all kinds will be Guaranteed.

I win .... THIS game!

The problem with not comprehending that you ARE in the BARNYARD cantabb, is that you will be looking the other way when the farmer comes around with his axe.

I don't expect a chook like you to understand the complexities inherent in a KAEP defence doctrine, so I will continue to shove it in your beak for the benefit of others who may come to appreciate its power.

Keep pecking!

rshow55 - 11:39am Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14980 of 14988)
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.

Gisterme has worked hard on this board - http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm and Almarst has, too http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Almarst.htm

Today gisterme asked what it was that I'd been trying to accomplish on the board - and what perhaps we'd collectively worked to accomplish on this board - and asked some other good questions, too.

A technical summary of discussions on Missile defense just after this board was restarted at the beginning of March 2002 is set out with links in 84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.uicsbaqOOYn.2469208@.f28e622/99

The day before the board was restarted - there was summary discussion on issues that still seem fresh - including some very good questions and comments from manjumicha2001 - and while I'm mulling over responses to Gisterme's posts this morning - it seems sensible to post them - as summaries of the first 12,000 or so postings on this board.

Clear communication - Iran, Iraq, NK - and threats - what's reasonable? : http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11916.HTM

Response to manj -and "two long sentences of summary": http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11920.HTM

Responsibility to be clear and to expect clarity: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11926.HTM

Basic human needs - and key question from manj: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11928.HTM

"Idealism" or "realism" - and manj on pathos versus logic: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11931.HTM

Nukes are still terribly dangerous - and key question by Almarst: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11932_11939.htm

Two long summary sentences I wrote at manjumicha's request:

If the United States could, and would, explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests of its military-industrial complex, and explain how its interests fit in the interconnected world we live in -- and do it honestly, and in ways that other nations could check, it could satisfy every reasonable security need it has, without unreasonable or unacceptably unpopular uses of force.

The rest of the world, collectively, and in detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it understood them, and could reasonably believe and respect them.

For the separate, and distinctly different cases of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, there would be different sentences - - but the two long sentences above seem to me to be most important.

- -

Here is almarst-2001 - 10:55pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11939 of 11939)

The just released Wite House tapes releaved that Nixon was ready to order the nuclear strikes against Vietnam, being stopped by Kissinger.

Can any nation in the World afford placing its fate in the hands of a couple of the "wise man" in Washington?

That remains a question that has to be considered seriously. Perhaps now more than ever.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense