New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (11758 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:26am May 18, 2003 EST (# 11759 of 17697)
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.

Some - but you won't like them at the level of structure - because some things have to be done in stages.

Give me a bit - I'll take the liberty of putting in a format I've thought about - a "self centered" format, if you will.

What would I try to do, if I had my security problems dealt with, and a bit of help from a nation state in those few, but decisive, cases where I'd need it?

Based on what was actually set up, and almost done, at AEA - with help from Ford Motor Company, the University of Wisconsin, The Johns Hopkins University - and some of the most admirable (and long-suffering) investors anybody ever had. And some help and hinderance from Casey.

Here's a key point.

There's one problem getting really sure of what needs to be done - and can actually work.

A second problem actually doing it at full scale.

With different costs. Different procedures that have to be applied. Different organizations needed. With interfaces that have to work.

If a permanent solution to the world energy problem was pretty certain after a few hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and very certain at all technical levels after a billion dollars was spent -

but then required an investment (fully amortized in two years) of 400 billion to implement

- would that be a cost more or less than your $250 billion dollars?

You could answer either way.

(Crude sales run at roughly 800 billion dollars/year.)

rshow55 - 10:27am May 18, 2003 EST (# 11760 of 17697)
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.

My previous posting responded to fredmoore's http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1133271@.f28e622/13369

rshow55 - 01:56pm May 18, 2003 EST (# 11761 of 17697)
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.

Fredmoore asked me for a costing of some projects, but cost often hinges on procedures.

The world faces some big problems that are soluble - but that do involve difficulties of procedure - and cultural acceptability.

In some ways, these problems are more readily soluble than ever before. In some other ways, problems are harder to solve than they would have been a century or a century and a half ago - and often harder for reasons that we're proud of.

Let me generalize some language from 1171 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1133271@.f28e622/13371

If a major business-technical solution involving a very large payoff, and many economic and political impications could be shown to be pretty certain after a few hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and very certain at all technical levels after a billion dollars was spent - who, as a practical matter, could make the investments of money and effort to get the solution done? What protection and social-political-cultural support would they need?

If that major business-technical solution then required a very large financial investment (that could be rapidly amortized, if the enterprise was protected) who, or what organization, could make the necessary investments? What protection and social-political-cultural support would they need?

These are general questions that apply to every one of the "large scale technical solutions" that I've ever thought about - for reasons that I suspect are unavoidable.

In some ways answers to these sorts of questions are easier than they've ever been before - because so much technical information is known, and our simulation and communication abilities are so good.

In some other ways, the challenges are tougher than they would have been a century or a century and a half ago.

More Messages Recent Messages (5936 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense