This is long winded. Please distill it and pass it on to the others. We need to side with those who promote peace--not the mercenaries.

Thanks for trying to accommodate my suggestion(s). But I will illustrate by a few quick examples:

If anyone were to develop Tethered Flight Technology -- even if it were just to monitor anyone or everyone they chose -- I would not want them to receive any information I develop. America already is an unimaginably greater super-power than any other country and has satellites that are so accurate they can see when there are cracks in the tiles of any roof worldwide. The only reason they should ever really need or desire additional monitoring capability through Tethered Flight Technology is because they wish to be able to deprive the rest of the world of their right to live their lives anonymously and to work anonymously. In other words, by our actions we would intentionally be depriving the monitored people of their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." After all, who can be really happy if their every action is so intimately scrutinized.

Moreover, since the Pentagon already has the ability to monitor anywhere and everywhere, they want to by satellites; adding this new Tethered Flight Technology may only be to be able to monitor anywhere and everywhere simultaneously and/or at less cost. But I think it is far more likely that their intention is to get their foot in the door by looking as though their intent is to monitor only. But they have already seen how these things go. They have already seen how remotely controllable drones--that were once only intended to monitor--have rapidly been approved to control and destroy by deploying munitions and other weapons also. But the bottom line is that--whatever reasons our military might choose to use Tethered Flight Technology, it is clear that the other countries they choose to fly over would see any or all flights of our military over their country without their approval as being very destabilizing -- and rightfully so.

But the most significant point of all is: whatever goes around comes around. Remember how gleeful our president was when he showed the world how wonderful it was to kill Japanese a million or more at a pop? And then how un-gleeful he was that the Russians could kill significantly more at a pop? And then we all moved from fission to fusion. Wasn't that a scream? 

But now the potential is far worse. Even North Korea can now make pleasing little nukes -- because we showed them how wonderful it is to do so. But they suffer from missile fizzle. In other words, all they really need is a good example of how wonderfully we can bomb Afghanis, so they can see how wonderfully they can nuke us. At that point the military might wake up to the fact that not all demonstrations of our military might are good and appropriate -- unless they are absolutely needed. Even now the government is saying that within ten or fifteen years they expect a terrorist group is going to set off a nuclear bomb in the United States. They also say that it is likely within about ten or fifteen years that terrorists are going to let off biological weapons in the United States also. I suggest that we set up signs directing North Korea to Washington D.C. for having no clue that what D.C. had developed against others would be used against us now. And yet they persist in this same crazy vein by wanting to develop any and every Tethered Flight Technology that can be monitored and controlled like a computer game by teenagers,  provided we buy them pizza and smuggle in beer. They might even be able to pay real money to blow away real people-- provided the military says it's okay. Now the military could have their own source of funding. Wouldn't that be great? It would make great military sense. So why not do it. At least until the teenagers on the other side did the same back again. And this should probably be one of the greatest fears-- even for those devoid of conscience.  Inevitably, Tethered Flight Technology would be the weaponry of choice for people on both sides of a conflict who would likely be hunkered safely down in their underground barracks eating stale pizza and warm beer as they zap all the innocent sand unsuspecting bystanders on the top.

No. But really, what goes around comes around. The sooner we use Tethered Flight Technology to pick off our opponents without any honor or bravery on our part, the sooner they will do the same to us.

But perhaps the saddest thing of all is that all of the applications for peaceful applications of Tethered Flight Technology would likely also be shot down by one or more people thinking they might be militarized versions of Tethered Flight Technology disguised as though they were intended for peaceful purposes. This would probably be the worst travesty of all. In effect, this would probably prevent the deployment of Tethered Flight Technology products for peaceful purposes. And, if it became obvious that peaceful applications would be shot down, if they were deployed, there would probably be far less effort to develop those peaceful applications--though they are the ones that would truly benefit people--and help people come together to benefit in their manufacture and deployment.

The bottom line is: let's not be so completely short sighted as we have been in the past. Let's not foolishly think that anything we use against others will not be used against us in short order. If we do not want to play with nukes or biological weapons let's not aid and assist others in making Tethered Flight Technology to toss nukes and biological weapons back and forth at each other. And let's stop aiding and assisting others who would be happy to develop technology when these actions would obviously be their eventual goals. Such mercenaries should not be allowed to benefit from the developments of those intent on seeing peace, freedom, and prosperity prevail. Some people will do anything for a dollar. Those of us of integrity should not be required to let them glean knowledge from us--particularly because we only glean fear, hostility, and warfare from them.

(This has been rather long winded. But it should make clear my concerns about allowing this technology to greatly benefit countries who reign superior over their adversaries already. Also, I think that it should make clear to JohnO why I think that if we really did pursue integrity that we would not allow our ) [[Ed: Wayne has been asked about what seems to be a missing phrase]]

-- Wayne German

• Nov. 21, 2010: If I am right NASA promotes the military use of Tethered Flight Technology.  Even if they also promote good appropriate purposes for Tethered Flight Technology we should have the integrity to not jump into bed with them.  How can you say it is good to be affiliated with organizations that pursue military applications a half or a third of the time?  And if you do what is the magical ratio we should choose to tolerate.  And if we decide that no magical ratio should apply, and if we decide that it is better to go with the front runners at this point regardless, then how are we any better or have any higher moral ground than just anyone else?  And at that point wouldn't we have to conclude that we, ourselves, are really just would-be-mercenaries ourselves.  After all, we should not jump into bed with NASA if we would not jump into bed with just any organization that pursues military applications for Tethered Flight Technology as part of their mix.  No doubt this would be a very difficult stance, but demonstrating integrity often requires taking such difficult stances.  Let's not just choose to be mercenaries who would gladly sacrifice conscience for dollars like those who now have no conscience and just meager dollars compared to what is possible.  If you believe in God you should believe that He is not too likely to believe in you if you just sell out for money like everyone else who have no faith or conscience -- but whose hope is in dollars.  -- Wayne German
•