New Mars Forums

Chinese have 2 main advantages :
(1) cheaper workforce
(2) a more stable political environment

(2) deserves a few details. In the USA, you've got elections every 2 years, big ones every 4 years, and never-ending electoral campaigns. In the meantime, not much is done. Europe is worse : as there are many deciders, and always one or two involved in an electoral campaign, clear goals are never set for a long amount of time. China is a dictatorship, which has a lot of drawbacks(primary higher corruption levels and less creativity allowed due to the need of controlling people), but also a few advantages : they change of leadership every 10 years, and the process is rather smooth. This allows to plan for long-term projects, and more efficient planning.

Plus, but this is not inherent & just a matter of skill, they are just better in project management, those days. a 6-years old example of their skill in terms of project management.

Russian attack on Poland would make no sense at all. There is no Casus Belli, no russians there, and the counter-attack opportunities would make it easy for NATO to exterminate the attackers. Remember that Belarus is, more or less, a buffer state. With a much better army than Ukraine.

No, if Ukraine falls, the only possible next targets are Moldavia & Baltic states. Lots of russians there, defendable front.

I've read we are sending a few fighters in the Baltic, but sending a few Leclerc would also be a message. After all, those babies have been specifically designed for fighting Russia in the Eastern European plains... A direct, ground threat, 150 km from Saint-Petersburg(home town of the Putin Clan, very important town), would force Russians to spread their forces, and they don't have the supplies for that.

Of course, the risk is an unwanted escalation(as USA-Japan in the late 30s, each intimidation move designed to slow down the other part made it react more agressively). Question is, is Putin a Tojo(who reacts badly when feels threatened) or a Hitler(with plans for conquest of whole Europe as soon as 1936)? Dynamic of the events makes me think he's more a Tojo. He just wanted some financial control over Ukraine, and began crazy things only when the jackasses in Maidan kicked him out. Multiplying NATO forces in the baltic could remind him he's outnumbered, but could also trigger a preemptive strike from him, out of paranoia. I'm not sure.

If there was not this former agrement on nukes(thanks GW for pointing that out), I'd advocate leaving the russians building back their sphere of influence. EU is already far outstretched, & can't afford to babysit Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, or the Caucasus.

But there is this point, & the likely consequence is a rush towards more nukes, as they are, in this century, the ultimate safety. All other safeties, including the USA umbrella, seem moot today. Everyone will have nukes, soon. That's the risk.

That's the point. USA did push Ukraine in EU's arms while EU was reluctant. EU was reluctant but faked interest. Ukraine was fool enough to think they were free to do whatever pleased them without taking reality in account(reality : Putin could help them far much than EU could, and they need that kind of help desperaltely). Russia...well, let's hear Tom - he's right on this point.

Everyone is to blame, & everyone's reputation is very low.

But Tom, there is apoint you wompletely miss. The rest of the world does not care a shit whether the USA is a democracy. They judge USA from its acts outside the USA. And there, USA is no better than Putin. The annexion of Crimea, seen from far, is probably more legitimate than the invasion of Iraq. As Crimeans did ask for Russia. Someone living in Madagascar, or VietNam, or Bolivia, is bound to think that USA is no better than Russia.

Putin has lost a lot in terms of reputation by annexing Crimea, but for those folks, he's just as low as Obama. Legend says in 2008, when Putin was in war against Georgia, and was about to transfom Tbilissi into an omlet, Sarkozy told him to stop :
"_You can't do that, Vladimir.
_I will. I will hang Saakachvili with its bowels.
_No, you won't, it's not civilized, it's a war crime you are planning.
_I will, he did attack Russian-protected regions! He's the agressor! I've got the right with me this time!
_And you will look like some kind of George W Bush? The whole worls will compare the both of you, and find no difference!
_You've got a point, Nicolas."
And the war did stop 70 kms from Tbilissi.

I have no clue wether the legend is true, half-true, or completely false. (Sure thing is, Sarkozy spoke to Putin, and Putin stopped the war - yet noone knows if both facts are linked). But it is credible in most parts of the world, that's the point. Reputation and soft power don't come from democracy, they come from proper behaviour outside borders. If tomorrow you invade Cuba, whatever the Cuban thinks, your world reputation will, once again, plummet. Like Russia's reputation after Crimea's events.

I wouldn't like it, you're right, but nobody outside this new empire would like it, and most people inside would neither. That's exactly my point. Conquest of foreing countries is felt very bad by anoyone who is not the conqueror, those days. Putin really appears as a bad boy after its Crimea conquest - and that was not even a conquest by war.

Duh. In 1940, De Gaulle was an obscure General having barely won 2 tank skirmishes. A few weeks before the defeat, he was named subsecretary of state. He was only Churchill's third(and last) choice to lead Free France, but Reynaud(who felt he was too weak, and was probably true) and Mandel(who felt he was too jew, and that his judeity would hinder Free France's Capacity. He died as a resistance hero, btw). De Gaulle had power only a few months in 1945, then 1958-1969.

But you're right, France could have reacted otherwise(not sure we had the army to do the job, we were backwards in terms of doctrines, but at least a little raid in Rhenania could have been a diversion). Guilty leaders are Pétain and Daladier, Not De Gaulle(he's got a few other crimes on his belt, though).

You don't get how psychology works. USA is already the most powerful country in the world. Even China does not match(yet?). If it goes on war unprovoked, the rest of the world will shit in its pants, and try to plot USA's power. As a defensive, preemptive measure. If they invade Cuba, they can invade anyone. Let's unite to survive.

IMHO, it's rather tough to control what language people speak. Usefulness usually precedes standard. I know it from near because I'm french, my wife is polish, & we speak together in english. that is, each year God makes, the "english" is more & more polluted by Polish or french words, or even sentence structures. My own daughter is perfectly biligual, yet clueless in english(age 6).

Therefore I've read quite a few books on the topic, and my uneducated guess is that there will be a local pidgin for Martians, a kind of mix between origin languages, plus new words specific to local conditions. Later it should evolve in a creole, and, finally, after a few centuries, in a full language, as wicked as current ones. I don't believe in a standardized, simple language like esperanto, for the very reason that useful languages evolve as quick as their environment. Whatever the original language.

Tom;

I'm french & my wife is polish(she grew up under a communist dictatorship, therefore). In other words, I perfectly know the events you are speaking of. What you don't say is that 1945 has been a big, massive move of people. Lv'yv area used to be polish, but all polish people has been relocated to modern day Poland, many of them in Silesia. All germans from Silesia, at the same time, were expelled more to the west. My german neighbour was born in west-germany, soon after his parents were expelled. My father-in-law family was ethnic Silesian(neither polish nor german) & therefore didn't move - but they were not numerous.

In those conditions, Poland has more to lose than to win annexing Western Ukraine. Locals are not Polish, by far. Russia, OTOH, has a lot to win taking eastern Ukraine - and only eastern Ukraine - as the more you go to the west, the less Russians you'll find. History shows that invaders are welcome only in 2 circumstances :
(1) they leave quiclky after kicking some bad guy's bottom.
(2) they share common identity feelings with locals.

Old methods of forced cultural shift are out-of-fashion(and would not work well in an internet-infested world anyways). Rome made Gaul Roman, but it's no more possible to imitate them(unless you kill everyone, which has several drawbacks; notably diplomatic & moral ones - even Putin does not do so). Putin himself limited its actions to Crimea because it was the easier choice. Even in the rest of eastern Ukraine are too many ukrainians.

Just remember that both in 1914 & 1939, France was Germany's 1st economic partner - and Germany was France's one. When things go sour, rationality is thrown away.

Fortunately, for a war like WWI to happen, both sides must be willing to fight, & noone in the west seems willing to die(or send professionals to die) for Crimea.

Ah, I forgot a little detail : polymers do not recycle well. In fact, they lose 20/30% of their mechanical properties upon recycling(i.e. heating them again & transforming them again into some useful shape).

Reason is the following one : polymers are veryyy long molecules. Like 3 meters-long spaghettis, scaled down. Each tile you heat up & transform the stuff, spaghettis get broken. Get shorter. Lose mechanical qualities.

And it is worse for thermosets : you just don't recycle them at all. Once the molecules are "cooked", they get 3D structures, which simply gets destroyed by heat long before melting.

The only solution for having back proper molecules is pyrolysis. 800°C for PET(the plastics you make water bottles from), IIRC. Energy costly, again.

Last but not least : radiations of all kinds cut the molecules, and therefor also degrade the qualities of the polymer. That's why lifespan of plastics outside is limited, to a few dozen of years. That's not really a problem for interiors, but for outdoors, plastics will not last long.

tough  thing is that you need plenty of simpler things to make more complicated things...and plenty of people to make those things. IMHO, you need a few dozen million people before electronics becomes thinkable.

Just collecting raw materials, with enough different elements, & refining them will be a daunting task.

This 3D printing madness must stop. There is no added value for building a greenhouse having a 3D printer. It is the opposite. If you take the polymer path, extrusion is much more efficient for making surfaces or long beams. It you go with metals, rolling is the way to go.

3D printing focuses on smaller elements, where the shape is the essence of the piece. It will be very useful for avoiding molding of complex parts(especially if we make steam machines), yet, it is not a magic bullet that solves every problem. It is very unadapted for mass production, or production of big elements, or elements with specific mechanical requirements, or specific surface requirements.

In the specific case of the greenhouse, the size of elements is the main obstacle. There will also be the need for assembling everything together; a tough task, even for modern robots.

IMHO, we need some variation. I'd get crazy eating the same quinoa morning, noon & evening. OTOH, alternating with Buckweat or other things would do wonders for my morale.

Guys there will have a tough life.