New Mars Forums

I am in agreement about the ideals, except for that constitution's "no weapons" clause.

While the ideals are noble, we need to make sure our ideals can result in a functional system that actually furthers those ideals. The Soviet Union was founded on well-meaning principles, but the results were horrendous.

It's been awhile since I read "Blue Mars" and "The Martians", but I do recall having several problems with that constitution. I know I'm not alone in this, anyone who has objections please chime in while I re-read the relevant sections of the books.
That constitution, while certainly making some good points, is largely based on trendy, unproven and unrealistic leftist politics. It has merit, but it needs an overhaul.

The term "space imperialist" is growing on me. For all the problems of the old colonial model, it had the one unquestionable virtue of having worked. To hell with scrapping the treaties, America can continue its historical pattern of simply ignoring them.
On to Mars!

(A certain degree of sarcasm is intended.)

And when is the last time anyone paid attention to one of those warnings? The attention span of the average American is so short that one terrorist attack isn't going to create a pervasive atmosphere of fear. Terrorists threaten to attack, no one cares. They need to actually DO something, and on a regular basis. The terror is heightened if they up the ante with each attack as well, hence the attraction of biological and nuclear weapons.

As this is the only reasonable point made in the post, It should be addressed. The threat of nuclear weapons is one thing. The reality of their use is quite another. Osama and crew can threaten to nuke cities all they want, it is meaningless unless a nuke actually wipes out a city, thereby lending credibility to the threat. A weapon unused is a useless weapon, one might say. LA or New York in smoldering radioactive ruins will inspire terror, I guarantee it. Yes, people will be angry and will be out for blood, but they will be afraid.
This is why Saddam won't use them. He has a country. We know where he is. Al Quaeda is not burdened by the baggage of residing in a nation-state. That makes a world of difference.

Uh oh, here goes Cobra Commander on a rant again...

There's been a lot of talk about about what al Quaeda would do IF they had access to nuclear weapons. This seems to be a bit optimistic. There is no if, but when. Russia cannot account for as many as 100 nuclear weapons. These are complete, functional atomic bombs, not just nuclear materials, though that situation is just as alarming. The US measures weapons grade plutonium in milligrams. The Russians have inventoried theirs by the barrel for the past decade. A few of those oil-drum size barrels have been "misplaced" over the years.
Whether or not Osama bin Laden is alive, (I'm inclined to think he is) al Quaeda is still out there, and they have access to chemical, biological, and almost certainly nuclear weapons. Maybe America is thowing its weight around on the world stage, but that's not why we have enemies. If we suddenly started "being nice" to everyone, they wouldn't stop wanting to kill us.
People are going to die on both sides, this can't be avoided. After it's over there will be plenty of time for historical analysis, criticism, and outright whining; but when in a struggle with an enemy determined to destroy you, you don't have the luxury of beating yourself down for a few past lapses of your ideals. Restaint will be measured in lost American lives. When the first nuke detonates in an American city, then we'll see.

The rant concludes now.

Just for the record: The Scud is a (relatively) short range ballistic missile developed by the Soviet Union, based on what they learned from captured German A-4's. It's crude and cheap, as far as ballistic missiles go. While not a WMD in and of itself, it can be used to deliver nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. In fact, that's about their only real value as they are horribly innaccurate, as demonstrated during the Gulf War. Hope that helps for anyone who cares.

You have a point, but there is something that should be kept in mind. Middle Eastern oil supplies a significant percentage of US fuel consumption (the last figure I read put it around 40%, certainly significant). They can hurt us.
However, their entire national econmies are based on selling the oil, the vast bulk of it going to the US. We could get our oil from other places if we needed to, they'd have a much harder time finding markets if we stopped dealing with them. They would certainly have to lower prices to stay in business.
Of course fuel cells hold a lot of promise even with relatively cheap foreign oil. The sooner we can tell the Saudi's to "perch and twirl" the better off we'll be, in my oh-so-humble opinion.

Here's what he actually said:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."

In all fairness, I often have this same thought myself.

I'm getting this weird image of people goose-stepping through red dirt with big clunky boots and helmets on. Comical, more than anything. Ah, the spectacle of Martian Fascism.

Might have to get a t-shirt with this Earth flag for the next conference. If nothing else, it's more aesthetically pleasing than that red-green-blue tri-color.

Ein Volk, Ein Mars. (Don't read too much into that.)

Not a bad idea. The symbol for Earth is a cross within a circle, or perhaps better described as a circle divided into four equal parts.
Given the recent discussion, I'm gonna suggest we use that symbol in black, on a white circle centered on a red field. 

I was going to leave the 'Swastikas over Mars' issue alone, but this just segues too well into it. I've always thought of the Federation as quasi-fascist. First off, it's a militarized society. It has succeeded in melding humanity into a fairly homogenized whole, which believes itself to be superior to its somewhat barbaric ancestors (us!). This certainly fits with the new man/new society aspect of true Fascism. Strange that so many condemn Fascism on principle but hold up the idealistic vision of Star Trek as something for humanity to strive for.

Regarding symbols, let's forget about the swastika and look at the less-villified fasces, the symbol of Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party, and now the generic emblem of fascism. (In fact, the word fascism derives from fasces.) Now, for those that don't know, a fasces is simply a bundle of rods bound together with an axe. It originated in Rome, where it was used as a symbol of authority and of the strength and unity of the empire. Because of the unity and strength associations, the fasces was borrowed for centuries by other nations, including the United States (there's two great big ones in the Senate chamber, check out C-SPAN). Now, the symbol is much less popular, due in large part to Mussolini's use of it. Of course Fascist Italy is only viewed as unfavorably as it is because of its association with Nazi Germany.
The point being, the fasces symbolise an unpopular political philosophy but I don't see anyone sand-blasting them off the monuments in DC. Symbols mean what we believe they mean, nothing is offensive unless we choose to take it that way. Now I don't think we should go to Mars and plant swastika flags all over, but it would be no worse than planting the hammer and sickle.
Again, I have rambled. I yield the floor.