----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
> At 16:08 20-6-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > Here's a thought: instead of wasting zillions of dollars on some
missile
> > > shield, let's spend that money on research into renewable energy.
> >
> >I've been skeptical of the claims of feasibility for both systems. I'm
> >curious as to what your position is. Is it that renewable energy
production
> >is more practical than a missile shield, or that a missile shield is a
bad
> >idea?
>
> Both, actually.
>
> We need to invest in renewable energy production now, because sooner or
> later we're going to run out of alternatives (those oil wells *will* dry
up
> eventually). If we don't invest in it, because "we still have enough
fossil
> fuels to last us a century", future generations will pay the price for our
> ignorance.
>
The difficulty I have with this argument is that it assumes that investments
in present day technology will lead to the future solution. A review of
history of the development of technology tends to indicate otherwise.
The day when fossil and nuclear fuel will run out is at least a century
away...probably several centuries. If the solution will take on the order
of a century to develop, then it is not simply a technological problem.
Basic science has to be developed first in order for the technology to be
developed.
If, the solution is a better application of the renewable energy technology
that is now under development, then we do have plenty of time to wait. I
don't think that is the case, I think that it is really a hard problem.
One way to evaluate to see if the present development holds a lot of promise
is to determine if one is on the steep part of the technology learning
curve. Following the year to year drop in costs is a good way is to check
this. With a billion a year plus in investments, one should have sufficient
economics of scale for a technology that is on the edge to take off. This
technology has not taken off. Compare the progress in computers with the
progress in solar energy between 1980 and 2000.
Let me try to give an analogy. Looking at present technology to solve a
problem that will take decades to solve is like looking at the problem of
setting up an internet in terms of twisted copper pairs and vacuum tubes.
Pouring billions of dollars into reliable tubes would not have been a good
investment.
> The missile shield is a bad idea, because (1) the taxpayers will have to
> pay billions of dollars for a system that doesn't come with a 100%
> effectiveness garantuee
Well, it shouldn't be deployed until it is quite effective. But, assuming
that it can be 95% effective, what is wrong with reducing 20 destroyed
cities to just one?
>(2) it might very well lead to another arms race.
That is true, China may feel the need to upgrade, which might affect India.
That does not seem worthwhile for a system that has little chance of
working.
But, for a system that does have a good chance of working, the positives do
seem to outweigh the negatives.
>
>
> >If the former, could you discuss your technical analysis of both to
> >show why you consider economical renewable energy more likely to be
feasible
> >than an effective missile shield.
>
> Sorry, no long technical analysis. Certainly not at 11 pm...
>
I understand that, but can I assume that you have not made such an analysis
yet? I have a feeling that the protagonists for both the missile shield and
renewable energies are unreasonably optimistic about the system they favor
while realistic about the one they don't. I'm the contrarian: I like both
in principal, but don't think we are at the point where either is feasible.
>
> >If it is the latter, could you explain
> >why you don't think protecting the United States, Europe, Japan,
Australia
> >from a potential threat from North Korea or Iran is worthwhile.
>
> North Korea and Iran may seem (or even be) agressive, but I don't think
> that threat is so great that it validates such a huge expenditure on a
> missile shield.
Let us assume that a shield is possible. Would Iran and North Korea having
the capacity to hit the US and Europe be enough for you to change your mind?
Actually, they aren't the ones that worry me the most. I'm concerned about
Russia continuing to decay and losing command and control of their missiles.
That could turn into a nightmare, with a small group of fanatics holding the
world hostage with 3 or 4 MIRV missiles.
Dan M.
