[paraclete]

Tom, I don't know what your problem with windmills is, you have lots of them and so do we, but they are not a solution, merely an investment sink.

If you think the Obama subsidies somewhat Quixotic, I would agree with you but where would we be without the impossible dream? We would still think the Moon comprises green cheese

[tomder55]

The moon mission was a doable project . We knew that before the investment .

There are lots of things wrong with banking on windmills... ask the Spanish . They don't solve anything . The problem with them is not energy ;it's energy storage and transport. If you were going to put them on or near homes to supplement the energy supply then fine ;let the homeowner invest if they choose. However ;all these cute alternates will never represent more than a small proportion of the energy requirements of the world .

[paraclete]

Tom I agree that windmills offer no solution didn't I just say that and whether the windmill is large or small makes no difference but that is the whole problem with all electricity generation, it cannot be stored for a convenient time. So we are not at odds here except to say you have to try something sometimes and this is what BO did. It is unfortunate that the projects were ill-concieved failures.

[TUT317]

So we are not at odds here except to say you have to try something sometimes and this is what BO did. It is unfortunate that the projects were ill-concieved failures.

What the Obama administration has wasted on ill-conceived projects seems poignant because it it happening at the moment. One would only have to go back over recent history to see that both sides of politics are equally guilty. Moot point really.

Tut

[tomder55]

Moot point ? That is a flippant point . Because there have been bad calls in the past we should dismiss the current one ?
Here's a thought . The collider happened when the US economy was in the middle of an almost 20 year expansion.
The Obama green project is happening with the US on the verge of a real debt crisis.
I would also add that splitting /smashing the atom was a known doable before the project was proposed. This is much different . This is trying to invent an industry the market is not demanding .

[NeedKarma]

This is trying to invent an industry the market is not demanding .

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cu..._1999_2009.png

[tomder55]

wow! 2 million in a decade!! 2 over priced cars that have gas engines supplementing short range batteries . I can assure you they are fringe at best . A Corolla is a much better value buy.

[TUT317]

Moot point ? That is a flippant point . Because there have been bad calls in the past we should dismiss the current one ?

No, but tell me that things are going to change in the future

Here's a thought . The collider happened when the US economy was in the middle of an almost 20 year expansion.
The Obama green project is happening with the US on the verge of a real debt crisis.

Does that mean the same administration should have wasted an incredible 20 billion dollars or so on the S D I (Starwars) project.

I would also add that splitting /smashing the atom was a known doable before the project was proposed.

True, but 'Starwars' was not. Only after the money was spend did we realize that humans didn't have the level of science and technology to actually make it work.

This is much different . This is trying to invent an industry the market is not demanding .

Ideologically it is if you don't like government intervention in the market place.

Tut

[tomder55]

Does that mean the same administration should have wasted an incredible 20 billion dollars or so on the S D I (Starwars) project

Only after the money was spend did we realize that humans didn't have the level of science and technology to actually make it work

SDI was money well spent.And yes ,everyone knew that with the technology available that missile defense was doable... the fact that it was practically employed shortly after the proposal in the Gulf War proves that point.

But even if it was a bluff ;it was a threat the Soviets couldn't compete with and in the end it helped put the coup d gras in their evil empire.

[TUT317]

SDI was money well spent.And yes ,everyone knew that with the technology available that missle defense was doable ...the fact that it was practically employed shortly after the proposal in the Gulf War proves that point.

You mean you have satellites that can shoot lasers at incoming missiles?

But even if it was a bluff ;it was a threat the Soviets couldn't compete with and in the end it helped put the coup d gras in their evil empire.

OK. This is different altogether. Here you are talking about unintended consequences.

I would also be interested in hearing about how 'Starwars' helped end the Soviet Empire.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

"The point of SDI was to stop nuclear weapons from reaching their objective. The first nation that got it would have a tremendous advantage because the whole military balance would change. So, it was of supreme importance." -Margaret Thatcher

With a defensive system the balance tilted from MAD to the U.S. SDI gave us leverage in negotiations, we had an emerging computer technological boom while the Soviets did not and they knew it.

Reagan was willing to put everything, all our might, technology and wealth into developing a defensive system that would render the Soviets arms buildup obsolete. Reagan's refusal to budge on SDI is what kept the Soviets in check and accelerated their bankruptcy due to all they spent on trying to keep up during a bad Russian economy. Reagan and his vision of "peace through strength" gave the U.S. the upper hand and the Soviets had nothing to answer it with.

SDI is what prompted virtually all of the Soviet's reactions from the day Reagan announced it until the day they collapsed. That's how, in a nutshell.

[tomder55]

Tut . I could not definitively tell you that we do or don't have missile killing satellite . It's not really the main issue . The fact is that the ground based anti-ballistic systems we do employ are a direct result of the investment .By the time of deployment the goal of stopping a massive 1st strike changed to counter the possibility of launches by rogue nations like the NORKS . I'll wager the Aussies are happy such an umbrella exists .
Did you note the panic the Russians showed when we announced we were going to deploy them in Eastern Europe ? They never caught up to the technology. The Chinese however have continued and have successfully taken out satellites .

Steve is absolutely correct in the Soviet reaction . I would argue that Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost never would've happened without the realization that they could not keep up with the developments from SDI.
I used to laugh at the nay sayers . They would alternately say that the system would never work at the same time they said such a system would be destabilizing .

[paraclete]

I'll wager the Aussies are happy such an umbrella exists .

Candidly Tom I don't think such a system is of much consequence to us. There are a couple of targets here which are basically US communications/spy sites that might be taken out but the rest of our places of consequence are too far away. We find missile submarines to be a far greater threat and no system half a world away will protect us from those. Now I can see that you would want to defend your west coast from a NK threat and your various interests from the Iranians but if you stop goading these regimes you might find they would like to invest their resourses elsewhere. Have you notioced that as you are not in Ahamadjihad's face since Bush left he has not been so active and what ever happened to Iran's nuclear missile within eighteen months? Have you noted that as you are not in Kim's face, NK isn't doing so much sabre rattling?