Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

AltToWar · 2002-09-29 01:28:05

Can space exploration replace War?

As america looks into producing a sequel to the Gulf War, one has to wonder why every decade or so we as a nation feel the need to spend so much blood and money.

The impending war with iraq is estimated to cost at least $50 Billion. (Thats more than america spends in education for all chindren from k to 12 grade!)

This cost range is most likely low, as the last romp in the desert cost $62 Billion to produce.

The mars direct mission has been roughly estimated to cost $25 Billion spread out over 5 years.

I will do my best to stray away from the politicly loaded question of why we are going to war in this particular instance, and ask a more general question of why it is we have a need for war in the first place, and can those needs be in part or in whole replaced by aggressive space exploration?

Can Exploration and Colonization of Mars replace war?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-09-29 03:12:27

Can Exploration and Colonization of Mars replace war?

No.

Adrian · 2002-09-29 05:03:43

Well, now that that question's been answered, maybe we should move on to more pressing issues, like 'What is the meaning of life?'

Seriously though, I would take issue with your statement that 'why every decade or so we as a nation feel the need to spend so much blood and money' in that many people think there is a good reason why America should go to war. In a more general sense, America cannot control all the factors that make it 'necessary' for them to go to war - if, e.g., North Korea decided to go and nuke America (highly unlikely) then what's America to do? Believe it or not, America cannot be faulted for all the wars that happen.

A. J. Armitage: Care to expand a bit more?

Byron · 2002-09-29 07:18:26

Can Exploration and Colonization of Mars replace war?

Heck yes!! But only if a majority of people in the world decide that reaching out beyond Earth is the ticket to humanity's salvation, instead of doing our darndest to bring about Armaggedon....

War is bad, stupid, and totally a waste of lives, resources and energies of the human race. Ditto that statement to the 10th power. Yes, self-defense is unfortunately necessary from time to time...but if the U.S. only fought wars based on pure self-defense...how many wars do you think we have fought over the past quarter millennium? Certainly not WWI or WWII (except for Japan). Not the Civil War, either. And especially not the Vietnam war...or the Gulf war...ad infintum...

I will be so happy when the Baby Boomers begin retiring en masse and consequently drain the U.S. Treasury...guess what will happen to the military then? War vs. Social Security pension checks...which do you think will win out in the end? Guess who will have the political power then?? Could this mean the beginning of a new era of peace? We can certainly hope for the best...

Any way you look at it, war is just plain dumb and dumber, and needs to be *avoided* whenever and however possible. Why the majority of the human race can't see that is beyond me... ??? Sometimes I wish mother nature would just make things a bit easier on us by slamming down an asteroid upon the Earth or start a new ice age...the end result is the same, isn't it?...death and destruction of the human race...

Yes, I'm in somewhat of a pissy mood this morning...LOL, so please excuse me...

B

Palomar · 2002-09-29 11:33:24

Can space exploration replace War?
As america looks into producing a sequel to the Gulf War, one has to wonder why every decade or so we as a nation feel the need to spend so much blood and money.
The impending war with iraq is estimated to cost at least $50 Billion. (Thats more than america spends in education for all chindren from k to 12 grade!)
This cost range is most likely low, as the last romp in the desert cost $62 Billion to produce.
The mars direct mission has been roughly estimated to cost $25 Billion spread out over 5 years.
I will do my best to stray away from the politicly loaded question of why we are going to war in this particular instance, and ask a more general question of why it is we have a need for war in the first place, and can those needs be in part or in whole replaced by aggressive space exploration?
Can Exploration and Colonization of Mars replace war?

*I agree with Byron that sometimes war is necessary, as in self-defensive situations...but beyond that, YES: Exploration and colonization of Mars can -- and should -- replace most war efforts.

I, too, am not interested (at this point, anyway) in getting into a complicated discussion/debate about the potential war with Iraq, except to say I don't trust Bush's motives AT ALL (I don't trust Saddam Hussein, either). Bush said the other day that "Saddam tried to kill my dad." Apparently he's so desperate to get the majority opinion behind him that he'll try a sympathy ploy. The Bush family has a tremendous amount of oil interest in the area, especially George W...and so does many of his cronies in the White House. I've heard that President Johnson and his cronies had JFK bumped off so the U.S. would go to war in Vietnam, because Johnson and his buddies had lots of stock in companies which produce weapons, etc. That wouldn't surprise me. I can't prove it, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Bush comes off as too much of a war monger. It was, IMO, absolutely TACKY of him to make that statement, "Saddam tried to kill my dad." Stick to the ISSUES **if** there are legitimate issues. The UN isn't backing us up on this one. I wouldn't mind seeing Saddam Hussein bite the dust either, but I'm not convinced that we should go in there and "take him out."

There are so many other productive things that U.S. taxpayers' dollars can be put to use to: Health insurance for all, assistance for the elderly on prescription medications, and of course getting to Mars!

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2002-09-29 13:48:18

A. J. Armitage: Care to expand a bit more?

The exploration and settlement of America didn't stop wars between European powers. Since human nature hasn't changed, I don't see any reason why things will be any different when we go to Mars.

Number04 · 2002-09-29 16:09:32

I don't think it could replace it, but it could act as a distraction. Like the moon race during the cold war. Sort of like an arm wrestle instead of a fight to the death.

I for one would like to see the American government stop being so stupid and open their eyes and see what they are doing.

One of my biggest worries is that big corporations will take over and start fighting each other for what ever they can find. And that includes planets, asteroids and so on. People need to stop being dick heads before we can start some serious exploration.

Palomar · 2002-09-29 17:27:31

One of my biggest worries is that big corporations will take over and start fighting each other for what ever they can find. And that includes planets, asteroids and so on.

*That's my fear as well. I've mentioned a few times that it'll be the "corporate raiders" calling the shots, making the rules, etc., and any genuine human interest element will be relegated to the back seat.

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-09-29 18:52:04

Seriously though, I would take issue with your statement that 'why every decade or so we as a nation feel the need to spend so much blood and money' in that many people think there is a good reason why America should go to war. In a more general sense, America cannot control all the factors that make it 'necessary' for them to go to war - if, e.g., North Korea decided to go and nuke America (highly unlikely) then what's America to do? Believe it or not, America cannot be faulted for all the wars that happen.

I'm fully aware that what i am about to type is going to be gross over-generalizatios of history, but what can you do, eh?

In order for a nation or empire to continue to prosper, it needs to be in a contant state of growth.

It was the constant expansion of it's borders that made Rome so wealthy, it was the expansion of the western frontiers that lead to the Industrial Revolution here in America.

Western Culture itself is an expansionist culture.

Now I certianly agree with you that if a nation is being attacked on it's own land by a foreign invader, it must defend itself.

But much more often large nations enter into war not to defend their own territories, but to expand their influence into new ones.

America for it's first century was a nation of expansion within North America. When our culture encountered others, we saw those cultures as backwards and not-right. We expanded into lands occupied by others.

For the next century, with our fronteers in North America all sowed up, we set about promoting our Democratic-Capitalistic culture through the world. We used force and threat of force, along with economic means, to change and influence the world. When our culture encountered others in the world different than our own, we saw them as backwards and not-right.

Now I certianly dont believe, nor should anyone else, that taking on a robust exploration/colonization of Mars program would totally remove war from the world.

I do believe, though, that a culture like ours expects and depends on constant expansion.

Perhaps if instead of looking to the middle east, eastern europe, or south asia that we instead we looked up to space; we might relieve some of the pressure that drives us to our empirialistic tendancies.

AltToWar · 2002-09-29 18:54:45

A. J. Armitage: Care to expand a bit more?
The exploration and settlement of America didn't stop wars between European powers. Since human nature hasn't changed, I don't see any reason why things will be any different when we go to Mars.

Just as the race to the moon served as a serrugate war between the USSR and the USA, so did (for a while there) much of the race to colonize the world served as a serrugate war between the colonist nations of Europe.

AltToWar · 2002-09-29 18:57:35

Well, now that that question's been answered, maybe we should move on to more pressing issues, like 'What is the meaning of life?'

42

A.J.Armitage · 2002-09-29 21:03:03

AltToWar;

Vietnam.

Franco-Prussian War.

AltToWar · 2002-09-30 01:10:28

AltToWar;
Vietnam.
Franco-Prussian War.

Viatnam, for the USSR/China and USA, was not a war to protect one's own County's Soveringty. It was a war to expand each side's Influence over a region.

The Franco-Prussian War came out of Germany trying to expand into spain.

As I said, I believe that the need for expansion is the drive for most was. Perhaps if we expanded to mars, instead of our terrestial neighbors, we could eleviate some of the emperialistic tendancies america has for it's neighbors.

clark · 2002-09-30 07:06:26

Why is it an either or in terms of colonization, or war? It seems that both could be carried out in unison.

Isn't the expansion that Alt is pointing out merely a result of an attempt to improve and maintain the quality of life within the nation? Our wars, our "aggressions" have all resulted, and stemed from our desire to preserve and maintain our prosperity. The pragmatism that has served to establish american dominance has the unfortunete result of sacrificing the application of our ideals and our beliefs for other people- while we benefit, others must, by neccessity, suffer. While it is unfortunate, that's life.

The point being that colonization of space will never prove to be the salvation or answer to war becuasse it is the answer to the wrong questions.

Will space colonization provide more resources to the people of this earth? War is a direct result of resource aquisition and distribution- it is a means to reapportion those resources. Even with improvements in space propuilsion, or a decrease in launch costs, it is doubtful that space could ever provide enough resources that are economically competitive with their terrestrial counterparts.

Part of the problem is also population size, which has a direct relationship to the whole resource issue- however, space colonization can never ship out enough people from planet earth fast enough to effect population growth- if all we can do is ship out a million people a year, but the population of earth grows by 1 million a day, space colonization will not help.

What have some of the recent confliucts been over...oil- how is that solved by space colonization? More precisely, space colonization dosen't help with those specfic resources our issues that embroil the people of this earth in conflict.

Spaxce colonization does not help with inequality, since space colonization would be an exercise in inequality. The strongest, richest, most advanced nations have the opportunity to colonize space- the members of their nations that will have that opportunity will only be the richest, most educated (usually the richest), the most trained, etc- by and large, most of humanity (the 6 billion of em) will never see space, or see much in the way of a benefit from space colonization.

Space colonization could lead to new technologies that lead to an improvement in the quality of life for some people on earth, but who will those be? More than likely, the members of the powerfuil and rich countries- which leads to furthwer inequalities here on earth, which leads to conflict.

We war for entirely different reasons than why we would colonize space, space will not solve this problem.

Bill White · 2002-09-30 08:24:00

We war for entirely different reasons than why we would colonize space, space will not solve this problem.

And, isn't that why humanity is spending trillions of US dollars on militaries while spending essentially nothing on space settlement initiatives?

Number04 · 2002-09-30 13:10:15

Or solving problems like starvation and all that fun stuff.

Imaging that you are on a mars mission, and the control center radios back that it must stop transmitting because they lost funding, NASA got bought out by Coke or the world is going to war.

I still think we need to fix the problems at home before we start setting off somewhere else. Anywhere else.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-09-30 17:31:41

AltToWar;

Viatnam, for the USSR/China and USA, was not a war to protect one's own County's Soveringty. It was a war to expand each side's Influence over a region.
The Franco-Prussian War came out of Germany trying to expand into spain.

Well, yeah. That was my point.

As I said, I believe that the need for expansion is the drive for most was. Perhaps if we expanded to mars, instead of our terrestial neighbors, we could eleviate some of the emperialistic tendancies america has for it's neighbors.

1) America has no interest in territorial expansion. The motive is vengence.

2) Territorial expansion into the New World didn't stop wars, it started them. Remember the French and Indian war.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-09-30 17:33:24

I still think we need to fix the problems at home before we start setting off somewhere else. Anywhere else.

Then you oppose space colonization, now or in any possible future.

clark · 2002-10-01 06:37:22

1) America has no interest in territorial expansion. The motive is vengence.

America is predicated on territorial expansion. However, that is no longer the sensible course of action given the prevalent paradigms. Now we focus on territoral subjugation to maintain preeminence instead of outright expansion. Our stated policy is to maintain a military so powerful that no one nation, or group of nations, would dare to challenge us on the battlefield, or try to reach parity with us.

A war for vengence? That's a great pitch for the sheep who comprise most of any society.

AltToWar · 2002-10-01 19:28:27

Why is it an either or in terms of colonization, or war? It seems that both could be carried out in unison.
Isn't the expansion that Alt is pointing out merely a result of an attempt to improve and maintain the quality of life within the nation? Our wars, our "aggressions" have all resulted, and stemed from our desire to preserve and maintain our prosperity. The pragmatism that has served to establish american dominance has the unfortunete result of sacrificing the application of our ideals and our beliefs for other people- while we benefit, others must, by neccessity, suffer. While it is unfortunate, that's life.
The point being that colonization of space will never prove to be the salvation or answer to war becuasse it is the answer to the wrong questions.
Will space colonization provide more resources to the people of this earth? War is a direct result of resource aquisition and distribution- it is a means to reapportion those resources. Even with improvements in space propuilsion, or a decrease in launch costs, it is doubtful that space could ever provide enough resources that are economically competitive with their terrestrial counterparts.
Part of the problem is also population size, which has a direct relationship to the whole resource issue- however, space colonization can never ship out enough people from planet earth fast enough to effect population growth- if all we can do is ship out a million people a year, but the population of earth grows by 1 million a day, space colonization will not help.
What have some of the recent confliucts been over...oil- how is that solved by space colonization? More precisely, space colonization dosen't help with those specfic resources our issues that embroil the people of this earth in conflict.
Spaxce colonization does not help with inequality, since space colonization would be an exercise in inequality. The strongest, richest, most advanced nations have the opportunity to colonize space- the members of their nations that will have that opportunity will only be the richest, most educated (usually the richest), the most trained, etc- by and large, most of humanity (the 6 billion of em) will never see space, or see much in the way of a benefit from space colonization.
Space colonization could lead to new technologies that lead to an improvement in the quality of life for some people on earth, but who will those be? More than likely, the members of the powerfuil and rich countries- which leads to furthwer inequalities here on earth, which leads to conflict.
We war for entirely different reasons than why we would colonize space, space will not solve this problem.

"Why is it an either or in terms of colonization, or war? It seems that both could be carried out in unison."

It certianly is not an either/or issue.
I am hoping to find a rationalization for shifting some of our Military budget into space exploration.

"Will space colonization provide more resources to the people of this earth? War is a direct result of resource aquisition and distribution- it is a means to reapportion those resources. Even with improvements in space propuilsion, or a decrease in launch costs, it is doubtful that space could ever provide enough resources that are economically competitive with their terrestrial counterparts."

Space exploaration and colonization will not provide any increase of raw materials in the short term for earth. As you point out, the cost for retrieving them out weighs the value of the materials.

Space exploration and colonization Can and Will teach us how to be more efficient with the raw materials we have on earth. Getting more out of the materials we have is just as good as recieving new materials.

"What have some of the recent confliucts been over...oil- how is that solved by space colonization? More precisely, space colonization dosen't help with those specfic resources our issues that embroil the people of this earth in conflict."

Investing more money into the sciences could produce more breakthroughs in energy production. We have not spent as much of our resources on alternatives to protrolum as a feul because it is reletively abundant. Martian explorers and colonists are not likely to find any oil reserves on mars So by nessesity they will have to find alternatives. Those alternatives would be mirrored on earth as oil becomes more scarce here.

But beyond all of this, I think where the most potential good Mars Exploration and Colonization could bring to us on earth is a new sense of direction and purpose as a nation.

I would like to see our nation with a different attitude, somthing more like:

Amarican A: Look at that small country over there. They are quite different than our own. Perhaps we should wage economic, cultural and perhaps military pressure onto them until they become more like us (or at the very least, export all their natual resources to us).

American B: Nah, we are too busy with space exploration to deal with that.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-01 21:43:44

Space exploration can certainly replace war. Any sufficient distraction would keep us from blowing ourselves to bits. But space exploration could equally cause a war, one with much higher stakes, since it would ultimately mean who controls extraterrestrial resources, be it physical or technological. And there will be a point in our future history (unless we blow ourselves up), where we have to question who gets to control those things. This inevitable question could be answered with war, a revloution, or any other plethora of possible triggers. Personally, I don't think we'll have a ?space war,? since out of the systems we could have, only the ones that promote peace work in space. We cannot have people bottling human necessities and selling them at a price; and I cannot imagine colonizers allowing that to happen.

I agree with the sentiment AltToWar has. Space exploration and colonization, would surely give us a sense of direction, of hope, and all the other good feely stuff that goes along with getting along with each other. In that sense it does suffice as a good distraction from war.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-01 23:31:01

Josh;

We cannot have people bottling human necessities and selling them at a price; and I cannot imagine colonizers allowing that to happen.

Not only can we have human necessities sold at a price, we must. Must both practically and morally.

The alternative to a complex economy based on division of labor is subsistence agriculture, which of course means no one gets to go off to Mars. And there's a word for it when you have people supplying you with human necessities without getting paid: slavery. If slavery is decentralized, as in the old American south, it's at least sustainable at a low level. But the sort of thing you're thinking of, centralized slavery, is as impractical in the long run as it is immoral.

I dare say, if the Martians have your attitude, lots of people will end up dead. Which is why they probably will.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-03 14:04:16

Since when did subsistence agriculture prevent one from going to Mars? Is not a self sustaining ecosystem basically ?subsistence agriculture?? What you seem to be suggesting is that the only workable system is one that is constantly expanding, since subsistence agriculture is an inherent equilibrium, and you believe that ?lots of people will end up dead? if they participate in it.

What I'm suggesting isn't exactly the same thing as subsistence agriculture, though. We're just talking about decenteralized, independent functions within a colony. When I say that necessities are going to be provided for, or not going to be ?sold at a price,? I mean that one section of a colony will allow another section to pipe water and air through, and so on. Each section could technically live indepdendently from another, but living together gives them more freedom, as resources are distributed better, and the overall social and economic benefits are greater.

We're hardly talking about slavery. Your comment about centralized slavery is not based on anything I have said, but rather something you pulled out of thin air, for little reason except to try to wave off the reality of my comments. The only ?slaves? will be technology. In the same way that a hammer is a slave to my hand when I use it to nail things.

What you said is hardly justified, and it was certainly daring for you to say it. If we really want to talk about what is slavery and what is not, we can. But I don't think you really want to go there.

AltToWar · 2002-10-03 17:04:45

Since when did subsistence agriculture prevent one from going to Mars? Is not a self sustaining ecosystem basically ?subsistence agriculture?? What you seem to be suggesting is that the only workable system is one that is constantly expanding, since subsistence agriculture is an inherent equilibrium, and you believe that ?lots of people will end up dead? if they participate in it.
What I'm suggesting isn't exactly the same thing as subsistence agriculture, though. We're just talking about decenteralized, independent functions within a colony. When I say that necessities are going to be provided for, or not going to be ?sold at a price,? I mean that one section of a colony will allow another section to pipe water and air through, and so on. Each section could technically live indepdendently from another, but living together gives them more freedom, as resources are distributed better, and the overall social and economic benefits are greater.
We're hardly talking about slavery. Your comment about centralized slavery is not based on anything I have said, but rather something you pulled out of thin air, for little reason except to try to wave off the reality of my comments. The only ?slaves? will be technology. In the same way that a hammer is a slave to my hand when I use it to nail things.
What you said is hardly justified, and it was certainly daring for you to say it. If we really want to talk about what is slavery and what is not, we can. But I don't think you really want to go there.

I would like to elaborate on this concept. I think it is a very good one and that if put into practice it might produce a new form of economic structure.

Bubble-Dome-A has 60 people living in it. It has a food hydroponic plant to produce all the food it needs, a phisical plant that produces it's air and feul, and some further processing Material plants that produce plastic, cloth, and metal items.

Bubble-Dome-A is self sufficient. As long as none of it's plants break down, it can go on indefinately without any outside interference.

In fact, as most of the plants do their job with a little maintanence here and there, the residents of Bubble-Dome-A have a remarkable amount of free time.

So Bubble-Dome-A decides its going to take up a speciallized production industy. Bubble-Dome-A deides it is going to take the suplus manpower and resources it has and make valves, hoses, and other such spare parts needed for repairing the engines that keep them alive.

Now in the next crater over is Bubble-Dome-B. Bubble-Dome-B is once again totally self sufficient. It can if it chooses do only maininence of it's life support engines and not have any dealings with any other culture on mars. It has no worries of being economically opressed, because all the basic nessesities are coverd on their own. Most are suprised to realize how little work is required to feed just a small community of humans.

Bubble-Dome-B decides as well to take up a cottage indusrty. It was lucky to be located near a deposit of semiconducter material, and has taken up the indusrty of stamping cercit boards and replacement chips for the material plants that keep them alive.

Bubble-Dome-B ships chips to Bubble-Dome-A. Bubble-Dome-A ships hoses and valves to Bubble-Dome-A.

Perhaps Bubble-Dome-C takes up programming as its specialized industy. Bubble-Dome-D produces pecialized catalist materials. Bubble-Dome-E produces power supplies.

Each of these domes are self contained. Nobody is ever in fear of not having a place to live, food to eat, or clothes on their back. There is never the fear of economic ruin. The bubble domes each provide a service to the other that without which the others could survive, but risk the chance of a breakdown they could not fix.

Perhaps Im not being clear, but I think this could be the makeup for a very promising economic system. Where essentials for life are provided within each individual group, but the more complex technologies are componentized and specialized among the different bubbles.

With the threat of death removed from the table, Economics becomes a much smaller issue.

clark · 2002-10-03 17:13:04

The alternative to a complex economy based on division of labor is subsistence agriculture, which of course means no one gets to go off to Mars.

And you accuse me of sophistry...

Becuase either we have a complex economy or we all work the fields.... LOL. Please don't stop AJ, you are too cute!

And there's a word for it when you have people supplying you with human necessities without getting paid: slavery.

LOL, this one is great too! I mean, my god, the audacity to make a claim such as this- do you realize that the fallacy in logic you are commiting?! No wait, I'll point it out- by accepting this silly little premise and conclusion, we must also categorize Parenthood, charity, altruism, and any other countless acts of kindness where one bestows "human necessities" upon others who cannot neccessirly help themselves.

Down with children! oppresors of parents everywhere!

This is too rich.....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-29 01:28:05

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#2 2002-09-29 03:12:27

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#3 2002-09-29 05:03:43

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#4 2002-09-29 07:18:26

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#5 2002-09-29 11:33:24

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#6 2002-09-29 13:48:18

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#7 2002-09-29 16:09:32

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#8 2002-09-29 17:27:31

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#9 2002-09-29 18:52:04

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#10 2002-09-29 18:54:45

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#11 2002-09-29 18:57:35

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#12 2002-09-29 21:03:03

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#13 2002-09-30 01:10:28

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#14 2002-09-30 07:06:26

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#15 2002-09-30 08:24:00

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#16 2002-09-30 13:10:15

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#17 2002-09-30 17:31:41

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#18 2002-09-30 17:33:24

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#19 2002-10-01 06:37:22

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#20 2002-10-01 19:28:27

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#21 2002-10-01 21:43:44

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#22 2002-10-01 23:31:01

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#23 2002-10-03 14:04:16

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#24 2002-10-03 17:04:45

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#25 2002-10-03 17:13:04

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

Board footer