Star Wars doomed to failure?

Soccerman

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,378
0
0
a month or two ago I recieved my monthly edition of the Scientific American magazine..

I was surprised (and yet happy) to find an editorial about the Star Wars program...

I scanned the editorial and put it on my webpage for those interested.
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
Great article - so far SciAm is 2/3 (as far as I know) against Bush and his agenda. They've come out with an unbiased article that shows how drilling in Alaska could be done with minimal effect on the environment (they ask the reader to weigh the minimal impact on the environment versus the economic impact).
 

chainbolt

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2000
1,101
0
0


<< Without Princess Leia in her skimpy outfits,it most certainly is >>




Leia and Prez Bushinsky, that would make a nice couple :)
 

Phunktion

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2001
2,502
0
0
I'm glad he shares my down-to-earth view of the unfeasability of fighting missiles with missiles but who knows, maybe it could be made into a solid defense shield.. either way it's all a political tool..
 

Soccerman

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,378
0
0
what gets me is that he's spending billions of dollars on this.. Does the public even care about this?

and btw things such as this have already been proved nearly pointless, becuase of new research like this.
 

goshdarnindie

Senior member
May 6, 2001
652
0
0
Thanks for the article, however, it must be stressed that this is an editorial. Thus it is one person's view and not necessarily the view of SAM.

I am not the type of engineer (i.e. practical scientist) who believes things can't be done. Perhaps a technology can not be implemented today, but if it is a goal to achieve, then I have no doubts in this countries ability to realize it. If NMD is a real goal, and we ignore the same politics that took place during the space race, then I believe that the scientific and engineering community can not only build a system that works, but over time develop measures to counter other countries counter-measures to our NMD system.

The art of war has always been a game of cat and mouse, its time the US start looking at buying another cat.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Ok, first off the author takes a huge chunk out of his credibility when he states that the Bush administration, &quot;gave up a campaign promise to control emissions of carbon dioxide and withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol.&quot; Bush has not stated that he is abandoning effective and fair measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but the Kyoto treaty was ridiculous and would have cost this country billions of dollars worth of productivity. The author goes on to state exactly why abandonment of Kyoto is wise: &quot;its emission targets represent a diplomatic agreement rather than any careful weighing of cost and benefit.&quot; Well, nitwit, why don't we actually work on a treaty that makes sense rather than going gangbusters for something that is patently biased against the US while favoring to countries such as India and China, no slouches for CO2 production?

The author decries the Bush administration for a lack of consistency and then blatantly supports inconsistency in the exact oppposite manner from the administration! How's that for hypocrisy? Allegedly protect the environment based on questionable science and an imperfect treaty, but damn it all if we can't pursue a system to protect ourselves against nuclear annihilation because of questionable science (for which we can't spend any more money to come up with strong science, of course) and an outdated treaty agreed to by a now-dismembered country.

Anyway. What I enjoy about the NMD debate is that the opponents of the system seem to say that while current technology is inadequate to build such a system, we should not spend any money to develop an effective system with new technology. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If they had said the same thing back in the '60s, perhaps we would have never landed anyone on the moon.

Incidentally, there was a recent test of the Patriot system, and it shot down two out of three targets. Oh, it failed once -- cancel it! Sure, let's forget about trying to improve it. Let's just quit. Nice.
 

ManSnake

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
4,749
1
0
Of course it is doomed to failure, war is bad, world war is worse, war fought in space is the worst!
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
What are you talking about? War is good -- it keeps me in a job!

U.S. Air Force -- Aim High :D
 

Soccerman

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,378
0
0
AndrewR, so you don't believe it's a fairy tale when NASA could go to MARS, or build a much cheaper to maintain reusable launch vehicle, or any number of things that are theoretically possible, but all of which need the money to do.

Why don't they do such things? They benefit the country much better, and make people (in other countries) feel less threatened..

wouldn't you much rather be aiming MUCH higher?