New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators
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.
(4534 previous messages)
rshow55
- 04:19pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (#
4535 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.
Now, for the first year or two (unless the engineering
teams in schools are a little faster than I think they'd be) a
"dogfighting" competition might require a "follower" to be
MUCH more agile (capable of more accelleration, more speed)
than the "target" plane.
The engineering teams would need to get good "transfer
functions" on how throttle and flap changes change follower
flight paths, and get the following logic straight - but
they'd know that if they did that - they could "follow" the
lead plane almost perfectly - there would be no "misses."
After a little while, that would get boring, I think. Every
team would work out essentially perfect following - for
followers much faster than the lead planes. That would be
boring.
But the game could go on, and would stay interesting, if in
successive years the difference between the "lead" planes and
"follower" planes got less.
rshow55
- 05:37pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (#
4536 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.
As of now, we'd be quite close to stability - with military
technology and human patterns in place -- if we didn't have
bombing.
No one would question US dominance if there was no bombing
(or if Americans understood bombing to carry the expenses and
exposures that it carried for most of the 20th century.) But
the idea that the United States could kill, at a distance,
with complete impunity would be gone.
If that idea was gone - we'd be pretty close to the
conditions a stable peace requires --- now.
lchic
- 06:17pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (#
4537 of 17697) ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to
be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong
foundation
" .... if Americans understood bombing to carry the
expenses .... "
Were the concept of war made redundant, the
UN declaring there to be NO SUCH THING
Exepting of course 'corrections' made by the UN to bring
'intolerable' situations to an accepted norm Then there
would be no 'unexpected bombing' from the sky.
A lot of international work would have to be done regarding
models of leadership. Too many x-leaders/leaders have
literally put their national treasurey billions into Swiss,
and other international, bank accounts in their family name.
To have good leadership requires the implementation of
standards. The development of trading blocks such as the EU is
one method for incremental improvement.
The current situation where a country can -war- another
without an international procedure needs upgrading.
The USA have war-ed their way through the twentieth century
(rightly or wrongly) leaving the debris of war - that still
kills - behind.
Looking at the current Iraq situation, where lots of folks
are ALL FOR WAR - could the concept of war be personalised.
How about a tv channel public link-ups with families from
the USA (who are all for war) with the families they are
voting to obliterate.
Would the similarities of same age children, similar jobs,
suburban or country lifestyles, ambitions for children,
leisure activities and the like, that names are people, that
people breath and dream .... wouldn't this bring home the
point that there needs to be CIVIL reorganisation rather than
blind warfare !? Current technological links can enable
this.
$200 billion dollars is one estimate of the cost of war
with Iraq. (The clean-up will not be included - the US doesn't
clean-up much post war).
Spending $200 billion
nb and money has to be GOT before it can be spent - the got
bit can be hard earned
What outcomes would the USA public want to achieve as they
to 'spend' $200 billion ....
Divide the number of USA-shareholders-of-USA-inc(entire
population) into that figure - how much per head are they each
spending? What are they getting in return? Projecting forward
- do they 'like' what they see?
lchic
- 06:25pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (#
4538 of 17697) ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to
be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong
foundation
States-man Daschle gets tough on younger-Bush
"" Mr. Daschle practically shouted his disdain for those
words today. "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World
War II they are not interested in the security of the American
people" because they are Democrats, Daschle said. "That is
outrageous. Outrageous."
Senator Daniel K. Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii who lost
an arm fighting in World War II, said, "It grieves me when my
president makes statements that would divide this nation."
Several Democrats shook hands with Mr. Daschle after his
speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/politics/25CND-CONG.html
(13159 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|