Just to set the record straight:
Agree EESTOR=Snake Oil, but EESTOR did not receive a penny from public money.
EESTOR did attempt to defraud DOD, DOE, and DARPA with their claims. When Air Force Research Lab and Sandi Lab asked for EESTOR to submit a sample for testing, Mr. Weir (CEO EESTOR) stated to them the prototypes all gone, lost or destroyed. Read the following email obtained from Freedom of Information Act:
"Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:01 AM
Subject: RE: EEStor ‐ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It has been well over five years since --- and I first had dialogues with Dik Weir (EEStor
chief alchemist) about his miraculous claims. At that time it was requested he submit a
sample to demonstrate the reality of the claims. He replied that he had previously made and
tested samples but they were all gone, lost or destroyed. When asked why he couldn't make
some more very small proof of principle samples; his reply was that his objective was to set
up a high volume production line but needed several million dollars to accomplish it. Over
the intervening years he managed to get millions from Zenn Motors, L‐M and various venture
capitalists. To this very date he has never produced a single working sample of the
dielectric, nor has Northrop Grumman. A simple analysis of the various recipes conflicts
with basic physics and the known characteristics of the materials; unless we allow for a
slight modification in the speed of light. Of course this is something that we must ignore to
avoid offending those who have faith in this cult of electro‐pornographic fiction. We are all
waiting with bated breath for the messiah to return from space with sample in hand and
without the millions of dollars, well spent of course."
“Your assertions are based on what I deem to be a false predicate. …”
There are significant holes in your logic.
“Given that we know that they are not researching for nuclear weapon capability, …” Where’s the source for your claim? You are writing to more than one. You’re writing to whoever reads your post.
“Given that there's a high likelihood that they probably already possess such weaponry and have since the fall of the Soviet empire, …”
Source? “…probably…” That implies a wide range of capability.
“…Given that Mutually Assured Destruction still exists and thataa fledgling nuclear arsenal would only bring down on them sufficient destruction to eradicate them from the face of the earth, …”
And how might you know the source, in order to not destroy an innocent target? Further, it seems you are contradicting yourself.
“…Given that despite their rhetoric they are men (and women) with families and loved ones that they will be extremely reluctant to sacrifice in such a fashion, …”
So all the stories of using women and children as weapon delivery systems (suicide bombers) are false?
“…And lastly, as previously stated, the world lacks legitimate authority to tell another sovereign nation what to do internally. …”
And what if they are merely a puppet that will carry out the wishes of a major power (Russia? China? >> Iran, Venezuela, Cuba?) since they have already stated that tendency, whereas such originating powers (Russia, China) would wish to have plausible deniability?
“…Why do we not throw our weight around with the Chinese or the Russians? We don't, but we sure as heck will bully those that we know we can whip...sort of like the playground thug if you ask me. …”
Or is it “kind of like” the mafia don ordering his “soldiers” (puppet countries) to carry out some evil deed?
“…Let me say that if there were clear evidence of impending danger or even evidence of intent, the Constitution provides for Letters of Marque and Reprisal to deal with the situation…”
You are a couple hundred years behind the times, as when this was written into the US Constitution it applied to privateers (pirates). Ron Paul attempted to clarify the concept to modern times to target perpetrators, and not whole nations, but his bill was not enacted. If Osama bin Laden was the perpetrator why did it take 10 years to eliminate him as the perpetrator of 9/11 instead of going after whole nations with Rumsfeld’s shock and awe? It seems that Eisenhower’s warning of the military industrial complex was at play.
“…Trust but verify was a catchy phrase that had little basis in fact; it was a wonderful marketing tool. …”
Or was there more to it than just “marketing”? Why do you imply that it was just “marketing”?
Your assertions are based on what I deem to be a false predicate. That is why I did not address your question directly, but only tangentially.
Given that we know that they are not researching for nuclear weapon capability,
Given that there's a high likelihood that they probably already possess such weaponry and have since the fall of the Soviet empire,
Given that Mutually Assured Destruction still exists and thataa fledgling nuclear arsenal would only bring down on them sufficient destruction to eradicate them from the face of the earth,
Given that despite their rhetoric they are men (and women) with families and loved ones that they will be extremely reluctant to sacrifice in such a fashion,
And lastly, as previously stated, the world lacks legitimate authority to tell another sovereign nation what to do internally. The only reason that it is being done is Iran, like Iraq, Libya and even North Korea, is a third or fourth rate rate power. Why do we not throw our weight around with the Chinese or the Russians? We don't, but we sure as heck will bully those that we know we can whip...sort of like the playground thug if you ask me.
Let me say that if there were clear evidence of impending danger or even evidence of intent, the Constitution provides for Letters of Marque and Reprisal to deal with the situation (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Letter_of_marque_and_reprisal). All this global jockeying and sabre rattling has grown old especially knowing that American intelligence says that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weaponry.
Trust but verify was a catchy phrase that had little basis in fact; it was a wonderful marketing tool.
The problem is that you refuse to address the value of a “trust but verify” policy, saying that, in Iran’s case, it is nobody’s business what their intent is with their nuclear program. In some respects there could be agreement, but only if there is an offsetting guarantee that America’s defenses are impenetrable (which is unlikely, manufacturing having been almost totally outsourced, and our borders having become completely porous to those who do not enter legally). What those at risk from Iran in other countries do should also be none of our business, however.
Those whose mortality is at obvious risk will do what it takes to ensure their existence, at least at the top of the economic/political pile, and most times to the detriment of everyone else, which is too long to discuss here.
Nicola Tesla, when in some economic straits, conferred with JP Morgan for funding his project which would have created virtually free energy from the magnetosphere. He was initially turned down, so he fronted the idea that his proposal could be used as a weapon to destroy any spot on the globe from any other spot against the country’s enemies. This had the potential to destroy the Earth as well. It is unknown whether JP Morgan’s response in declining the proposal was public spirited or because it would have put the oil industry out of business.
It is also unknown whether Tesla was exaggerating claims about the capability of his discoveries. Inventors have a habit of doing this when they need funding to advance their ideas. There are many recent examples of those who have applied to governments for funding, been granted it only to squander public money with no results to show for it. The following are examples:
en Wikipedia org/wiki/Solyndra (replace all spaces with a period to access)
en wikipedia org/wiki/EEstor
en Wikipedia org/wiki/Rossi_Reactor
What characterizes all of the above is that there is a promise, never fulfilled, to provide working prototypes. Typically when planned milestones are reached the date is continually extended.
There should be NO public funding of such projects. Only private funds should be put at risk to help guarantee results or place failure on those who are providing the financial support.
It did not go without notice that Tesla was mentioned in the link you provided.
Don’t be scammed by scientific “snake oil”.
I don't buy the jihad fear stories. I'm old enough to know that we never had an "Arab problem" until we decided that we were the global version of John Wayne mixed with Attila the Hun acting like we were in charge and everyone needed to be like us. Whether they liked it or wanted to be was beside the point.
Add to that our own effort to radicalize the Arab world in order to keep the Soviets from gaining the same resources that we lusted for, denying those people the opportunity to exploit them as they saw fit and in turn maximize their worth.
We've still paid the premium price that some would have you believe our meddling has precluded. I wonder what the real price of gasoline really is once you factor in the associated costs of the still ongoing generational wars to "promote democracy".
HapiWondrer: “..Is that what you are proposing in the case of Iran? …”
Moses: “Yes,…” (It is unclear to what that “Yes” refers to.)
We now reside in the nuclear age, which wasn’t the case pre-WWII. So are you saying that the loss of Tel Aviv, New York City or Washington, DC would be an acceptable way to get the public on board for hostilities against Iran?
Again let’s go back to the original question:
Hw: “It does seem very suspicious that the “trust but verify” strategy is completely absent from any news reports…”
To which your reply was…
Moses: “On the other hand, Iran is a Sovereign amongst Sovereigns and instead of replying to meddlers that have no authority, they are in essence saying, "Mind your own business and quit sticking your nose where it doesn't belong."
It is understood that, like most of us, the loss of most of those who appear to not be in the service of We The People would not be a loss, except a loss of someone like Ron Paul certainly would be. Wars have a habit of destroying the good with the bad. The mass media, to include those who are conservative pretenders, would still be in place, as would the Fed, and those who have amassed great wealth by cheating everyone with funny counterfeit monopoly money, meaning the attendee representative descendants, including the descendants of those they represented at Jekyll Island in 1910.
We will never experience Nirvana here on Earth, but only have ways to employ better options, which, it seems, are not being pursued in order to pursue the war option.
Yes, FDR's junta knew that Yamamoto's carrier task force was headed toward Hawaii. Afterall, American intelligence (is that an oxymoron now?) had broken every maritime code the Japanese had, from merchant marine to naval, some 13 months in advance of the attack.
They sacrificed obsolete WWI iron so that the flag could be fired upon and Americans would be really angry. Sound familiar? It works every time.
Of course, history books gloss over the fact that FDR purposefully backed the Emperor into a corner and the Japanese came out fighting. They even factored in their propensity for sneak attacks, but there was a Japanese delegation in Washington, DC expressly to deliver a formal declaration of war. So, it really wasn't a sneak attack by any stretch of the imagination.
“…"Mind your own business and quit sticking your nose where it doesn't belong."…”
Would that have applied to Japan prior to WWII? Many have said that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known by FDR in advance of the attack. Is that what you are proposing in the case of Iran?