Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-16 05:22:33

You are talking as if (A) and (B) are positively correlated. In general, recent history suggests the opposite. Vigorous economic cooperation (B) occurs when the lower tax rate occasioned by lower defense spending allows for more investment of funds in business enterprises.

But economic development is not what I'm talking about, but raw technical progress. A stagnant society with a strong economy will not make much real progress in technology, their capabilites will be essentially set unless faced with extreme pressure to improve them. Competition in many forms can provide this pressure, but the fact remains that a huge percentage, perhaps the bulk of human technological advancement has been the direct result of military advances. The machines that allow us to even seriously consider colonizing other worlds are the direct result of our proclivity for violence.

This is not to say that we are forever doomed to slaughter each other. But perhaps we need to keep honing our skills in that regard, keep tension in the system. Keeping us from slipping into a stagnant comfort which will in time consume us.

Morris · 2004-09-16 08:06:44

But economic development is not what I'm talking about, but raw technical progress. A stagnant society with a strong economy will not make much real progress in technology, their capabilites will be essentially set unless faced with extreme pressure to improve them.

An interesting distinction. My feeling would be that it is impossible to have a strong economy without technological progress, but, upon reflection, it might be possible for an economy with essentially no competition to remain undisturbed for a long period. If there is any significant competition then that competition would almost certainly be based on technological improvements in the products. What civilizations do you have in mind as examples of strong economies without significant technological improvements?

This is not to say that we are forever doomed to slaughter each other. But perhaps we need to keep honing our skills in that regard, keep tension in the system. Keeping us from slipping into a stagnant comfort which will in time consume us.

Well, I agree that we need to keep honing our skills in that regard, not because it is necessary for technological development in general but because there are too many identifiably nasty folks out there who would take instant advantage of whatever military weaknesses they perceive.

Economic/social superiority should be our strong right hand, but we should keep a knockout punch in our left.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-16 08:21:06

If there is any significant competition then that competition would almost certainly be based on technological improvements in the products.

Quite true, but there is something else we need to consider. In a military confrontation the struggle is life and death, which makes one open to all sorts of fantastical proposals. If the competition is economic the tendency will be toward steady improvement of existing "products" rather than tremendous leaps forward.

For example, from an economic standpoint a kilowatt from nuclear power is the same as a kilowatt from burning coal. From a military standpoint, a reliable nuclear reactor that can fit in a submarine is well worth the effort to develop.

Military developments spur our entire technological base forward, while purely economic progress is much more incremental, much more likely to stagnate.

What civilizations do you have in mind as examples of strong economies without significant technological improvements?

In the modern world none come to mind. However the ancient world offers some partial examples, since technological development was of a much lesser degree in most cases. Still, it's a flawed example as military confrontation exerted a tremendous pressure. The crux of the argument here revolves around a type of civilization that has to our knowledge never existed. I'm suggesting that it can't for any length of time.

Economic/social superiority should be our strong right hand, but we should keep a knockout punch in our left.

Which is essentially what I'm suggesting.

smurf975 · 2004-09-16 17:14:38

Cobra Commander, we are using "mature" in different ways. By "mature" I mean a society that has learned how to channel aggression and thus avoid violence and war; a society that has instituted means for establishing justice.

Do you know that more humans have died in the last 100 years due to human agression then in any other point of human history?

RobS · 2004-09-16 22:52:46

Absolutely true that more people have died in the last century. We now have the ability to wipe out everyone, something the Mongols couldn't do (and they tried, destroying entire cities that resisted them, building small hills of skulls as a warning to those who resisted them). Technology has made the wars bigger and more deadly, not aggressiveness. And in the last century humanity has also built an incredible array of institutions to bring people together and make a more peaceful world possible. The international postal union was the first international agency, established about 1880, so that letters could be mailed between countries without having a series of stamps from different countries on them. Our everyday life has been immensely improved by these organizations, which do their work without political fanfare or publicity. UNICEF has kept millions of starving human beings alive. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent is incredibly important in our world. There are thousands of international nonprofit organizations as well, trying to exchange medical knowledge, improve legal systems, strengthen labor and environmental laws, assist rural people in the third world, etc. The League of Nations and United Nations are just the most visible international agencies. All these agencies, organizations, and efforts are an immense maturation of humanity and the beginnings of a global society.

In many ways this global society is already here. My wife was born in Iran and raised in Morocco. Her aunt lives in France. She has relatives in Britain, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Botswana, Australia, Brazil, Bosnia, Italy, New Zealand, and even a few still in Iran. Her French-Iranian cousin is married to an Ethiopian-French woman. It makes world travel pretty easy; we can visit relatives anywhere we go! It also makes family gatherings interesting, because common languages are rare; the older generation speaks Persian but most of the younger ones know English plus a local national language. Another friend of mine, an American raised in Hawaii, lived in New Zealand many years. Her daughter is married to a Zambian and lives in London, her son to an American who is half Iranian and half Mexican.

Not many people on this Board have an experience like this, but it is becoming more and more common all the time. And this tying together of the world population through kinship, while still relatively small, is growing and will be a factor in creating a common world culture. Such a culture, with strong regional and national subcultures, is already taking shape.

-- RobS

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 08:56:32

Reaching way back to something Bill mentioned,

No rogue, wildcat settlers will be permitted access to significant quantities of high grade reactor material.

Which got me thinking, just maybe this is what we want to do.

"Cobra's finally lost it" I know you're thinking. Maybe, but hear me out. Clearly there are people, communities really that would be eager to settle a barren frozen hellhole if it meant they'd be left alone to their own devices and weird political experimenting. Anarchists, commies and fascists. Oh my. The common element is that they are dissatisfied with the present system, violently pissed off in some cases. In centuries past they could just up and leave for the frontier. Since that is no longer an option, that safety valve is gone and pressure builds up. The increasing polarization of American politics is a symptom of this. No escape.

Now say we open Mars to settlement, who's gonna want to go? Scientists of course, but they can't build a colony on their own. You need a wider cross-section of skills. The average citizen won't go, "Mars is cold and miserable, are you crazy?" But if we go with the "wildcat settlers" Bill refers to we have large groups of willing colonists with a wide cross-section of skills while at the same time we get some organized malcontents off the planet.

But we have to send them at great expense and give them nuclear reactors. Why would any government send people hostile to that government to another planet at the cost of billions of dollars, then give them the very thing we're trying to keep away from foreign nutjobs?

The Martian nuclear issue, from a Terran perspective, is largely irrelevant. Are they going to launch a first-strike from Mars? Missiles en route for months, ooh, hardly a surprise attack there. Even if they do; nukes, Deimos or a big ball of iron; it's all the same. They can really only hurt themselves, and simple screening can root out the suicidal factions from the workable dissidents.

But why pay for it? They can build up infrastructure better than anyone. They'll be motivated not only by practical concerns, but they'll have something to prove. The commie colony will do its damndest to out-build the Mars Fascists, for example and vice-versa. Keep 'em far enough apart that they don't bump into each other and any real problems can be minimized. As long as the colonists are considered American for international purposes, the land they reside on can be considered "American" as well. We don't even have to overtly dump the Outer Space Treaty, just form some shell corporation for the colonists and call it private. AnarCorp, building new worlds. With US launch facilites leased at cut-rate prices. We get rid of some malcontents, they get their chance to live as they choose, we get a steadily growing infrastructure on Mars and first dibs on whatever trade options open up. Everybody wins. Plus, it gives us an excuse and the means to step up our presence later on, the planet is full of our citizens after all. And in time, as tends to happen with radical groups, time and numbers moderate the original stance. Mars will never be the midwest, but perhaps it can be Utah. Weird religion, but essentially American. Not full assimilation into mainstream culture, but close enough.

Of course there's a possibility that somewhere along the line there will be an "incident" or "skirmish" or maybe a "civil disturbance." Horrible, people dead, new infrastructure damaged. A black mark on the project. But from a cold, reasoned perspective we still have more than we started with. We're still ahead. Now those crazy wildcat settlers built up a bunch of stuff for us and had the courtesy to die off. Cold, but there's a vacant city needing only minor repairs ready for re-colonization by whomever we choose.

The threat is negligible, the benefits are many. If we're willing to let some dirt fly and maybe let a little blood spill we can pull off the colonization of Mars. The unpleasant apsects will arise anyway, we might as well at least consider running with it. It's all volunteers, they know what they're getting into. The only way the nation loses is if they blow themselves up on the way out.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-17 09:42:16

What dreadful way to look at it Cobra Commander. But, I'm sure that the U.S. Government could get some taker on that deal though. Maybe you can convince the U.S. Government to do that and you can lead the charge and I think I will sit back and watch to see what happens.

Larry,
.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 10:18:16

Maybe you can convince the U.S. Government to do that and you can lead the charge and I think I will sit back and watch to see what happens.

As most sane, well-adjusted people would. That's the point. Trudging off into a frontier that no one else wants is something best accomplished by us fringe crazy types.

It'll be hard work, there will be few comforts, and people will die. Those colonists will need a strong sense of community and purpose. We can create it, or we can use people who already have it.

smurf975 · 2004-09-17 14:03:09

Absolutely true that more people have died in the last century. We now have the ability to wipe out everyone, something the Mongols couldn't do (and they tried, destroying entire cities that resisted them, building small hills of skulls as a warning to those who resisted them).

You have a very interesting family.
---
Anyway, it was not the goal of the mongol rulers to kill everyone even if they could (which they could even with their primitive arms). Its just that they wanted to keep their own losses down and actually the losses of the other party also low. Hey, a kingdom with out people is useless.

They did this by rulling by fear. You would be to afraid to stand up and fight, which made things simpler for the mongol rulers. People were to afraid to fight and start a war which kept losses low on both sides.

I'm not saying its good to terrorise other peoples but its an effective way of ruling a great empire and to get the war over with, instead of stretching it out like WWI and WWII Korea and Vietnam. Look even Hitlers Generals at first used the mongol strategies (Blitzkrieg or shock and awe from GWII) and WWII was over in a couple of months. However they were not able to kill of Russian and English resistance, which streched out the war and made Germany lose the war.This why america lost vietnam and is having military problems in Iraq. Like the mongols you just do whats needed to end any form of resistane. That is if you want to win the war.

Morris · 2004-09-17 15:32:13

Well, this is an exceptionally interesting post. However, let me express some skepticism on a couple of points.

The Martian nuclear issue, from a Terran perspective, is largely irrelevant. Are they going to launch a first-strike from Mars? Missiles en route for months, ooh, hardly a surprise attack there. Even if they do; nukes, Deimos or a big ball of iron; it's all the same.

Let's say that some deeply hidden terrorist group manages to get, or take over shortly after formation, one of the settlements. Since you have already specified that the settlements should be widely spread to reduce the chances of armed conflict, how would anyone know when a nuclear missile is being launched? Any random rocket might simply a return ship carrying "end-of-tour" military or science/industry specialists together with the results of their work or conceivably even some product light and valuable enough to be worth shipping back. And, if the settlements are widely spread one might even get off without anyone knowing about it. Are our Earth scanners so good that any incoming rocket will be picked up for sure? And even if it was picked up and someone said this was a return rocket, how would anybody suspect a danger until far too late to do anything about it? No the safeguards have to be right there on Mars, on a settlement by settlement basis.

They can really only hurt themselves, and simple screening can root out the suicidal factions from the workable dissidents.

Many screening techniques are fairly effective on a group (statistical) basis. However, I don't think that we have any which will identify all the potentially suicidal ones, especially ones which may be suicidal for ideological reasons.

Of course there's a possibility that somewhere along the line there will be an "incident" or "skirmish" or maybe a "civil disturbance." Horrible, people dead, new infrastructure damaged. A black mark on the project. But from a cold, reasoned perspective we still have more than we started with. We're still ahead. Now those crazy wildcat settlers built up a bunch of stuff for us and had the courtesy to die off. Cold, but there's a vacant city needing only minor repairs ready for re-colonization by whomever we choose.

What, they are all going to use neutron bombs in order for the cities to remain intact? Doesn't seem typical of earth wars to me. So much depends on the reasons for the war. If it's just a thieving thing, like so many of the mideast wars from time immemorial, you may be right.

On the other hand, when the Muslims captured a Crusader city or fort, they often destroyed it rather than occupying it in order to keep strong points from being retaken. They didn't need walled cities to control their own people and without walled cities the Crusader states were simply too vulnerable.

However, the use of Mars to get rid of people (e.g. prisoners) that Earth doesn't want is interesting, though unlikely. The expense of sending them vs keeping them would seem to be too great, at least at first.

Now if, like the Pilgrims, a religious or social group finances itself, that's another matter.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 17:07:33

Let's say that some deeply hidden terrorist group manages to get, or take over shortly after formation, one of the settlements...

Yes, valid concern. It would be reasonable to have a regular communication arrangement, if not between colonies than at least with Earth, make it one of the terms.

Now assuming they break it and stay quiet. Everyone, so it's not suspicious. It would be fairly difficult to sneak an inbound craft all the way to Earth without someone noticing. If we think a false ID is likely, put some big honkin' laser up there to track all incoming traffic from Mars. If it twitches, blast it. Probably a waste of money, but if it makes people feel better I'll go for it. Further, we can screen terrorist-types out for the most part. I'm not suggesting we exile a bunch of Islamic fundies to Mars, but rather offer passage to some of our own fringe political factions on a volunteer basis, if they meet certain obligations in return. Those that disagree on some fundamental level about systems, not those who seek to destroy us because we're evil.

But assuming terrorists do take over the colony, launch a missile at us, and we don't notice it until impact; it's not really a nuclear proliferation issue. One nuke, bah. Might as well send a big rock. Assuming they can given all the more pressing concerns they'll face. A flotilla of nuclear projectiles would certainly be noticed.

But again, if we treat this as a likely threat then I'd like to sell you a defense system proven to stop 100% of invisible flying psycho monkey attacks. :;):

Many screening techniques are fairly effective on a group (statistical) basis. However, I don't think that we have any which will identify all the potentially suicidal ones, especially ones which may be suicidal for ideological reasons.

I'm speaking more in terms of identifying suicidal groups in the sense of those whose ideologies are prone to violent outbursts likely to end in their own destruction. For individuals, the community can deal with them better, they won't want to go to Mars with a suicidal nut any more than you or I would.

What, they are all going to use neutron bombs in order for the cities to remain intact? Doesn't seem typical of earth wars to me. So much depends on the reasons for the war. If it's just a thieving thing, like so many of the mideast wars from time immemorial, you may be right.

I'd expect that they'd use largely conventionial methods to cut off life-support, depressurize areas and things of that sort. Building and using a nuclear weapon under Martian conditions is for the most part gross overkill, it's not necessary to depopulate settlements and there will be no large formations of massed troops to hit, so the only reason you'd nuke a city would be if you were going out of your way to destroy it for its own sake. In general this seems unlikely, given the dependence on infrastructure for survival. Why would they destroy something useful if they could seize it reasonably intact?

Now if, like the Pilgrims, a religious or social group finances itself, that's another matter.

And therein lies the problem, the expense is so vast they can't finance it themselves. Still there remains the "wildcat settlers" concern that started the whole mess. But if the government were to subsidize such an undertaking in order to get there firstest with the mostest as it were, then colonization could really get underway at a staggering pace.

Trebuchet · 2004-09-30 13:52:45

AnarCorp, building new worlds

:laugh: AnarCorp, the disorganization organization.

I like this vision of Mars; Utah crossed with Australia. It's also probably going to be true no matter what; the people most likely to want to move to another planet are going to be either desperate to escape Earth, fringy wild eyed dreamers, and religious/political splinter groups. One hell of a party, in other words. The resulting society would be... interesting. Certainly more original and fresh than the tired Earth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-16 05:22:33

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#27 2004-09-16 08:06:44

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#28 2004-09-16 08:21:06

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#29 2004-09-16 17:14:38

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#30 2004-09-16 22:52:46

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#31 2004-09-17 08:56:32

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#32 2004-09-17 09:42:16

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#33 2004-09-17 10:18:16

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#34 2004-09-17 14:03:09

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#35 2004-09-17 15:32:13

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#36 2004-09-17 17:07:33

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#37 2004-09-30 13:52:45

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

Board footer