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 - 04:35pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6805 of 6822)
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.

wrcooper 12/17/02 3:40pm

"Or else a deliberate sop to the defense contractors."

Sometimes, the objective is partly to spend money. That isn't always entirely unjustified. The market for commercial aircraft is very low, right now. What happens to Boeing, if it doesn't have military contracts?

What happens to the rest of the military-industrial complex?

These are serious questions. There are serious adjustments that need to be made - and not everything being done is stupid.

I feel like moving slowly.

A lot would change if the percieved and real threats from N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran were much less.

How far are we from getting real changes there?

On the Korean peninsula - a lot is happening - and an election is only a few days away.

wrcooper - 04:51pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6806 of 6822)

I'm not against the government's spending billions of dollars on aerospace projects, civilian- or defense-related, if they're warranted and justifiable.

I don't think that missile defense fits the bill at the present time. We could handle the N. Korean threat in other ways, principally diplomatically. We persuaded the Kim Il-sung regime to back down before. We can do it again.

I can think of any number of worthwhile aerospace projects that the U.S. should be investing heavily in. Bush's priorities are skewed. He cancelled the X-33 because of problems with its carbon composite fuel tanks. As the result, the ISS will probably never fulfill its scientific potential because it will be undermanned.

A recent Phase I study for NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts suggests that a space elevator may now be possible, given the discovery and mass production of carbon nanotubes. Such a structure would make possible the full commercialization of space, ending the search for cheap access to orbit. Current estimates suggest it could be made for $20-30 billion within 12 years. Will we launch a massive national effort to build it? I doubt it. We could also be developing a SST that could link any two points on the globe to a matter of a few hours of travel time. We won't do that either.

But we will be developing missile interceptors to stop a virtually nonexistent threat when there are other less expensive and risky means to do the job. This is about defense establishment economics and politics. It isn't about real defense.

Doesn't make sense.

commondata - 05:36pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6807 of 6822)

wrcooper 12/17/02 4:51pm

The space elevator is a breath taking idea. What would we do once we'd shimmied off into the vacuum? Colonise the planets, mine minerals, and just boldly go? Can an economic case be made for doing it or is that not the point? Am I on the wrong thread?

wrcooper - 05:48pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6808 of 6822)

commondata 12/17/02 5:36pm

Indeed, the space elevator is a breath-taking idea.

We've been discussing it (in between the UFO rants) in the Space Exploration forum.

IF you want to read Dr. Bradley Edwards's Phase I NIAC report, click HERE, then follow the link to "Phase I Final Report". Be advised that it's a 15.3 Mb pdf download. (I hope you have a high-speed connection.

Cheers

almarst2002 - 05:48pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6809 of 6822)

Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein - http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=721&e=7&u=/ap/20021217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_nuclear

almarst2002 - 05:50pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6810 of 6822)

almarst2002 12/17/02 5:48pm

Surprise, surprise! Its not N.K. after all;)

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense