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.

lchic - 03:18pm Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8461 of 8472)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Shuttle - London Guardian

""Residents of Nacogdoches in Texas last night reported that pieces of metal were falling all over town. A dentist reported that a large chunk of the craft had come through his roof. 'It's all over Nacogdoches,' said barber-shop owner James Milford. 'There are several little pieces, some parts of machinery.'

Nasa issued warnings not to handle any of the material because of fears of radiation contamination.

Amid a deepening sense of gloom in America, there was speculation last night that an earlier accident on Columbia could have loosened a heat-resistant tile, which was supposed to ensure the craft did not catch fire as a result of the friction generated by re-entering the atmosphere.

Shortly after Columbia lifted off, two weeks ago, a piece of insulating foam on its external fuel tank came off and was believed to have struck the left wing of the shuttle, possibly loosening a tile. ..... http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,887231,00.html ... it emerged last night that Bush and senior officials were warned that Nasa was facing an unprecedented crisis over its safety management and was in danger of a 'catastrophic disaster' during a shuttle mission.

In a series of public interventions, senators, aerospace experts, the US government's own general audit office and even former Nasa engineers have warned over the past two years that budget problems at Nasa had made safety improvements 'optional'.

almost 17 years to the day that the Challenger shuttle exploded - on 28 January, 1986

Amid fears contamination, Nasa said: 'Any debris that is located in the Dallas-Fort Worth vicinity should be avoided and may be hazardous due to the toxic nature of propellants used

lchic - 03:34pm Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8462 of 8472)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

A costly business

Jan 30th 2003 From The Economist Global Agenda

The prospect of war in Iraq is already heaping costs on business. Companies are becoming increasingly worried about a rising oil price, disruption to their supply chains, boycotts and falling demand

IN A play on the old market adage, “Buy on the rumour, sell on the fact”, market wags now advise punters to “Sell on the sabre-rattling, buy on the bullets”. Even though a war with Iraq has yet to begin, the prospect of fighting is already taking its toll on business, in terms of higher oil prices and a paralysing uncertainty. ..... http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1559501 ..... business costs that are clearly attributable, at least in part, to the impending war. The most obvious of these is the price of oil, which has hovered above $30 a barrel for the past month ..... experts calculate that there is a $5-a-barrel “war premium” in the oil price .... not uncommon for a high oil price to clip a quarter or even half a percentage point off economic growth in the biggest oil-importing countries. That is particularly worrying at a time when growth is so lacklustre. Ironically, continental Europe, which has been reluctant to support war, seems to be losing out more than America from the oil-price surge, thanks to a higher import rate than either America or Britain, which pump their own oil.

turmoil in stockmarkets has also restricted businesses’ freedom of action. Few companies are brave enough to seek to raise capital from frightened investors

businesses have put off the big, headline-grabbing deals, they are also stalling on smaller, in-house projects

worried that a long war could send the prices of its energy inputs rocketing and cut demand for its products

insurers, high-tech companies and airlines reporting that war worries were slowing their businesses

Nissan, a carmarker, now reckons that, because of the war, it will sell some half a million fewer cars

[Boycotts - on USA goods in Middle East ]

increase in trade and just-in-time manufacturing in recent years has left companies vulnerable to supply disruptions

businesses find it hard to know which contingencies to plan for. Setting up alternative distribution centres or supply chains costs money, and extra costs are particularly unwelcome at a time when they are finding it tough to grow sales and sustain profit margins. The easiest strategy is to do as little as possible: no hiring, no expansion, no deals. That is why business organisations such as Britain’s Institute of Directors have argued that the best outcome now would be a war rather than a long period of diplomacy and uncertainty

http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1559501 http://www.economist.co.uk/

lchic - 03:45pm Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8463 of 8472)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Art |

http://www.gene-sis.net/art_online.html

http://www.seemyad.com/museum_1.htm http://dmoz.org/Reference/Museums/Military/ error - 403 Forbidden

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense