Ukraine & Crimea

RobertDyck · 2014-06-11 10:21:04

AK47 is illegal in Canada. As are any automatic firearm. Semi-automatic is Ok, fully automatic is illegal. Just checking the website for the store that is the biggest hunting store in Winnipeg... Cabela's does sell one Russian riffle: SKS semi-auto with laminate stock. They have dozens of American guns. Winnipeg does have Russian vodka; more than one brand, and they're "premium". Just because you don't see Russian goods in your neighbourhood store, doesn't mean they don't have stuff for their own citizens.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-11 10:47:29

Japan was very successful at selling things for export after World War II, so was Germany. So why doesn't Russia follow that model, instead of exporting violence? the Cold war is over, why can't Russia act like Germany or Japan?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-11 11:09:43)

JoshNH4H · 2014-06-11 11:21:54

Russia is certainly not the only large country to, as you say, "export violence". We happen to live in a country that exports a whole bunch of violence, not only as an arms manufacturer but also more directly.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-11 11:41:52

The Russian federal transport minister came to Winnipeg a few years ago. He wanted to establish a regular trade route between Winnipeg and Murmansk. There was a sea route between the northern Manitoba port of Churchill and Murmansk during World War 2, he wanted to re-start it. Since WW2, Churchill has been used to export grain to Europe, but no ships have arrived, so Canada doesn't bother maintaining a customs port. As part of this deal, Russia sent one ship with fertilizer. Canada Customs has the policy that if a ship arrives at Churchill, cargo will be transfered to train for transport to Winnipeg, where they have a large in-land customs inspection station. But no futher ships arrived. Saskatchewan is the Canadian province beside us, they are a major exporter of fertilizer. We don't need Russian fertilizer. The Russian minister also wanted an air cargo route from Russia to Winnipeg, and asked Winnipeg to expand cargo handling capacity of our airport. Winnipeg did that, the cargo area has been greatly expanded. In 2011 one Antonov An-124 arrived in Winnipeg to pick up cargo for Japan; emergency relief after their earthquake. The airport brags that "More than 175,000 tonnes of cargo came through Winnipeg in 2013". But I don't know what cargo, or if any was from Russia. We're ready, they just have to send something that someone actually wants to buy.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-11 12:08:29

JoshNH4H wrote:

Russia is certainly not the only large country to, as you say, "export violence". We happen to live in a country that exports a whole bunch of violence, not only as an arms manufacturer but also more directly.

We basically defend the Status Quo in the World, countries like Russia, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Nazi Germany all have attempted to overturn the established order with their various revolutionary ideologies and empire building. All the United States wants is for the World to remain the way it is so we can trade and prosper. So who' ideas are better for people, do we let all the world's radicals have their revolutions or do we try to stop them? Iraq for instance is a Democracy under threat by a band of Al Qaeda terrorists that has taken over three cities. Does Al Qaeda promise an better more democratic future than the current established order, and would a state ruled by Al Qaeda terrorists make for a friendly peaceable neighbor for the other countries in the World, especially Israel? If you are for peace, which would you rather have running Iraq? Prime Minister Maliki or Al Qaeda, and if it ends up a Al Qaeda, what do we do about it? how do we eliminate the threat to peace and stability in the World, or do you think we should have constant revolutions overthrowing everything and destabilizing friendly countries in a World full of nuclear weapons? Does that make you sleep easily at night?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-11 12:14:32

RobertDyck wrote:

The Russian federal transport minister came to Winnipeg a few years ago. He wanted to establish a regular trade route between Winnipeg and Murmansk. There was a sea route between the northern Manitoba port of Churchill and Murmansk during World War 2, he wanted to re-start it. Since WW2, Churchill has been used to export grain to Europe, but no ships have arrived, so Canada doesn't bother maintaining a customs port. As part of this deal, Russia sent one ship with fertilizer. Canada Customs has the policy that if a ship arrives at Churchill, cargo will be transfered to train for transport to Winnipeg, where they have a large in-land customs inspection station. But no futher ships arrived. Saskatchewan is the Canadian province beside us, they are a major exporter of fertilizer. We don't need Russian fertilizer. The Russian minister also wanted an air cargo route from Russia to Winnipeg, and asked Winnipeg to expand cargo handling capacity of our airport. Winnipeg did that, the cargo area has been greatly expanded. In 2011 one Antonov An-124 arrived in Winnipeg to pick up cargo for Japan; emergency relief after their earthquake. The airport brags that "More than 175,000 tonnes of cargo came through Winnipeg in 2013". But I don't know what cargo, or if any was from Russia. We're ready, they just have to send something that someone actually wants to buy.

Exactly, so why aren't their any Russian Car dealers in Canada or the US, Japan and Germany, both former Axis powers, export cars to the US and Canada, for instance Volkswagen, Toyota, but where are the Russian Cars? I haven't seen a single Russian car on America's highways. Where are the Russian consumer electronics? The Russian Workforce is highly educated, why do they rely on gas exports like a third world country? Saudi Arabia is a very rich Third World country for example, it people don't produce much, their king has been kind about sharing the wealth from those oil exports and Saudis have a high standard of living, but they are still a third world country, because most of what they export comes from the ground rather than from what its people produce. Russia is following that line of nondevelopment and Russia has too many people and too little oil for that economic model to bring First World standards of living to most Russians.

clark · 2014-06-11 21:46:33

Oh the odious "quote", forgive me as the page span breaks up our conversation. Perhaps this is a corollary for time dilation related to inter-space communication across vast distances? If nothing else, it is a corollary for the vast distance between some of the expressed view points. But I digress.

Clark; I put this forward as my theory only, and do not assert it as a statement of fact that must be obeyed.
The vision you have put forward where authority owns everything is a pressure, but the Universe is a vacuum to our pressurized condition.
In my opinion people of great tallent, their character and abilities having be crafted by the struggle to master a generalist position in the web of life, were intellegent enough and generalized enough to build civilizations.
What followed was a spiral into specilization, where the gene and meme pools separated into rulers and servants. The rulers specilizing in manipulation of other people to take their assets from them, and the servants specilizing in not being killed for their assets. The middle was exterminated. This ends in specilists who cannot understand the whole nature of being human.
You can see the results in the Middle East as perhaps among the most extreem.
North America however is the latest place of refuge from such actions. Although we are under pressure from the predators, they have not yet taken us fully captive.
Space will be a future refuge for such types.
The Earth? Does the human race continue to follow the path of specilization and the loss of mental capacity? A verbal oriented ecosystem? Will the extreamists be followed by even sillier sets of specialists until the human race looses conciouness and becomes animals in their capability to comprehend?
Anyway I do not think that as a whole, authority will prevail in the average location habitated by humans. Just here and there.

I'm going to drill down onto the main thesis here, "Space" as refuge for some libertarian exodus of free-thinking anarchists- not necessarily your exact words, but a close approximation of your description. The fault in the logical assumption is not valuing the inherent risk in an environment where an individual has the capability to cause extreme harm to a disproportionate number of other individuals. Rational humans balance risks like this and put in constraints to limit and mitigate the harm any one individual can do, while also balance other ambiguous and poorly defined soft priorities (i.e. "rights").

One real world example to extrapolate from would be fire arm laws and regulations. Many countries have whole sale restrictions, others have some kind of "bargain" where some types are allowed or disallowed. United States, our perennial favorite to explain the entire world [read sarcasm], allows many gun sales based on the premise of a universal right, but limits the sale of certain heavy weapons, up to and including military grade weapons. Why? The underlying logic of self defense applies to a BB gun the same as an Abraham Tank or a nuclear weapon. Generally, most reasonable people will agree that as a group, most individuals shouldn't posses weapons with the magnitude to destroy that these weapons posses. With me so far?

Now imagine that you live day in and day out in an environment where a gun can puncture the skin of a metal box shared by many, thereby killing everyone in the box. One person. Imagine that the person, imbalanced, doesn't need a gun, but can open a door, push a button, cut a wire, hack a computer- all resulting in instantaneous death for everyone. Most prudent individuals, living in that kind of environment, would establish mitigation plans and strategies. Most if not all of those mitigation strategies involve persistent monitoring, tracking, and limitation or reinterpretation of fundamental rights (which as history does demonstrate, are mutable, and not universal). This has been the reaction of every society put under stress by the actions of the individuals that threaten the group; rules and processes that further limit and mitigate the opportunity for the individual to harm the group. It's a foundation of group formation.

Take the varied personalities on this small little board. It is a beautiful example of disparate people inhabiting the same space, and often turning feral (I myself am just one more rat looking for a meal). This board has rules. Monitoring. Enforcement. Limitation of rights. Authority. If you were trapped in a metal box with some of the people that post here, myself included, you too would be an advocate of rules that limited their ability to cause you or other harm.

You may disagree, but you shouldn't. If you do, go back and read some of the other posts in this very thread and reconsider the power you would give others over yourself.

Terraformer · 2014-06-12 05:32:49

What kind of space colony would consist of a thin walled metal box?

Also, how is an individual firing a gun in their own homestead several kilometres away going to damage your colony?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-12 05:36:23

clark wrote:

Oh the odious "quote", forgive me as the page span breaks up our conversation. Perhaps this is a corollary for time dilation related to inter-space communication across vast distances? If nothing else, it is a corollary for the vast distance between some of the expressed view points. But I digress.
Clark; I put this forward as my theory only, and do not assert it as a statement of fact that must be obeyed.
The vision you have put forward where authority owns everything is a pressure, but the Universe is a vacuum to our pressurized condition.
In my opinion people of great tallent, their character and abilities having be crafted by the struggle to master a generalist position in the web of life, were intellegent enough and generalized enough to build civilizations.
What followed was a spiral into specilization, where the gene and meme pools separated into rulers and servants. The rulers specilizing in manipulation of other people to take their assets from them, and the servants specilizing in not being killed for their assets. The middle was exterminated. This ends in specilists who cannot understand the whole nature of being human.
You can see the results in the Middle East as perhaps among the most extreem.
North America however is the latest place of refuge from such actions. Although we are under pressure from the predators, they have not yet taken us fully captive.
Space will be a future refuge for such types.
The Earth? Does the human race continue to follow the path of specilization and the loss of mental capacity? A verbal oriented ecosystem? Will the extreamists be followed by even sillier sets of specialists until the human race looses conciouness and becomes animals in their capability to comprehend?
Anyway I do not think that as a whole, authority will prevail in the average location habitated by humans. Just here and there.
I'm going to drill down onto the main thesis here, "Space" as refuge for some libertarian exodus of free-thinking anarchists- not necessarily your exact words, but a close approximation of your description. The fault in the logical assumption is not valuing the inherent risk in an environment where an individual has the capability to cause extreme harm to a disproportionate number of other individuals. Rational humans balance risks like this and put in constraints to limit and mitigate the harm any one individual can do, while also balance other ambiguous and poorly defined soft priorities (i.e. "rights").
One real world example to extrapolate from would be fire arm laws and regulations. Many countries have whole sale restrictions, others have some kind of "bargain" where some types are allowed or disallowed. United States, our perennial favorite to explain the entire world [read sarcasm], allows many gun sales based on the premise of a universal right, but limits the sale of certain heavy weapons, up to and including military grade weapons. Why? The underlying logic of self defense applies to a BB gun the same as an Abraham Tank or a nuclear weapon. Generally, most reasonable people will agree that as a group, most individuals shouldn't posses weapons with the magnitude to destroy that these weapons posses. With me so far?
Now imagine that you live day in and day out in an environment where a gun can puncture the skin of a metal box shared by many, thereby killing everyone in the box.

Not quite, the bigger the box, the longer the air will take to empty out, so the box actually has to be quite small to empty out through a bullet hole. Also the hull metal of a O'Neill Cylinder is quite thick, a bullet could not penetrate it easily. Bullets would bounce off of it, partially because the hull is designed to protect against micrometeors and radiation which travel much faster than yor standard bullets, which are actually quite small compared to those.

clark wrote:

One person. Imagine that the person, imbalanced, doesn't need a gun, but can open a door, push a button, cut a wire, hack a computer- all resulting in instantaneous death for everyone.

THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE FAILSAFES. I don't think an imbalanced person would be allowed to stay on the colony, I don't think he will have access to any computer that controls life support or the airlocks, and no those computers won't be connected to the internet, so you can't hack into them, you would have to actually go to the computer and load the program and security cameras will be watching. Also a large volume of air will take quite a while to empty out into space, the decompression won't be instantaneous in any community with thousands or inhabitants. Also Muslim fanatics won't be invited aboard.

clark wrote:

Most prudent individuals, living in that kind of environment, would establish mitigation plans and strategies. Most if not all of those mitigation strategies involve persistent monitoring, tracking, and limitation or reinterpretation of fundamental rights (which as history does demonstrate, are mutable, and not universal). This has been the reaction of every society put under stress by the actions of the individuals that threaten the group; rules and processes that further limit and mitigate the opportunity for the individual to harm the group. It's a foundation of group formation.
Take the varied personalities on this small little board. It is a beautiful example of disparate people inhabiting the same space, and often turning feral (I myself am just one more rat looking for a meal).

You think rats are "beautiful"? I'd hate to see your house then.

clark wrote:

This board has rules. Monitoring. Enforcement. Limitation of rights. Authority. If you were trapped in a metal box with some of the people that post here, myself included, you too would be an advocate of rules that limited their ability to cause you or other harm.
You may disagree, but you shouldn't. If you do, go back and read some of the other posts in this very thread and reconsider the power you would give others over yourself.

So your an advocate of big government that pretends to be an anarchist by using adjectives like Beautiful to describe a cheek to jowl existence. I don't think habitats will be cramped as you describe, spce is the one thing there is a lot of, when thousands of people live in space there will be extraterrestrial resources to exploit, the expensive part will be moving people off Earth. Today all the parts of our spaceships and space stations come from Earth, in an era when any crazy man or religious fanatic can get into space without background checks, the space colonies will be quite large, punching a small hole in them will not decompress them very quickly, they will be no need to stick a camera in everyone's room and have Big Brother watch us all!

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-12 05:45:35

Terraformer wrote:

What kind of space colony would consist of a thin walled metal box?
Also, how is an individual firing a gun in their own homestead several kilometres away going to damage your colony?

He's probably thinking of the International Space Station and calling it a colony, I don't think any astronaut carrying a gun will be allowed onboard, and the background of astronauts will be scrutinized very carefully, I don't think if they are crazy, they will pass muster, and when restrictions are loosened space colonies will be much larger and their walls thicker, I won't be build like the ISS, and all parts of it won't have to come from Earth, so it doesn't have to be light weight. Probably the chances of a crazy man with a gun increase as you increase the size of your colony and decrease the cost of getting into space, but larger space colonies have greater volumes of air inside, if you manage to punch a small hole in the wall, the effect will be like standing next to a vacuum cleaner Standard atmospheric pressure is 10 tons per square meter or about 1 kg weight per square centimeter.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-12 05:47:02

Terraformer wrote:

What kind of space colony would consist of a thin walled metal box?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-12 06:01:09

RobertDyck wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
What kind of space colony would consist of a thin walled metal box?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … gon_V2.jpg http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/65a.jpg

Neither of those is a space colony.

this is a space colony.

So is this
space+colony.jpeg
and this.

clark · 2014-06-12 07:57:06

I am but man, thirsting in a desert.

Tom, why do you persist in directly engaging with me? Would you like a dialogue, or do you want attention?

The argument that the size of a metal box will increase safety is false. If that were true, then we could make planes larger and be just as safe. Or ships larger so they would never sink. Or buses larger so that people are safer. But honestly, this is a distraction as it misses the point. It's not about guns.

The fundamental premise here is that the environment dictates constraints. This shouldn't be hard to grasp. You all accept the reality of radiation as an environmental constraint. You all accept the reality of a lack of oxygen in space as an environmental constraint. You all accept the laws of thermodynamics as a governing principal of environmental constraints.

Walls must be a certain thickness. Certain computers must not be connected to the internet. People need to be screened. Certain people are not allowed based on some arbitrary criteria. Cameras will be put in place to monitor locations. Failsafes and redundancies will be put in place. Who is doing all of this? Who is making sure it all gets done? Who is enforcing that this is done and in compliance with expectations? This is from Tom's post, not mine.

And on that note, I thoroughly enjoyed looking at the space colony pictures of an O'Neil colony, drawn sometime in the 1960's. 50+ years later gives us a lot of perspective.

Thanks, I'm off to eat my cheese.

Terraformer · 2014-06-12 08:21:47

I would think that whoever is responsible for maintaining the colony would be responsible for... well, maintaining the colony. That could be - will most likely be - the group that creates the colony. Whoever establishes a habitat is going to lay in some ground rules that have to be followed by anyone living there, much as companies do when renting out apartments. If a group decides to establish Galt's Gulch somewhere on Mars, perhaps in a lavatube, then they can have whatever rules inside it they wish. If they end up causing the colony to fail as a result... well, it was the residents choices to live there, and it's not going too affect the colonies around it.

Void · 2014-06-12 08:22:47

I am short on time so my reply will not be complete, and may not entirely converge.

Quotes:

" It is a corolary for the vast distance between some of the expressed viewpoints". "Space" as a refuge for some liberatarian exodus of free-thinking anarchists-

Vast Distance.
anarchists
Liberatarian

Well, other than the potential for material goods and energy, space offers space-time. More valuable than you might yet understand.

Liberatarian? That could mean a lot of things. Four seats of power Aquisitioner, Priest, Warlord, Intellectual.

Suppose separated by spacetime were four habitats, one emphasing the quest for wealth, one emphasizing spiritual persuits, one emphasisizing martial arts, one emphasizing the intellectual (Not dead language snobbery by the way). The quantity of spacetime separating them could be too little or too much, or just right. Just right would allow malcontents to move to the one they want, and yet prevent the four (or more) habitats from engaging in interference with each other which would lead to hostility. This is a safety valve function to defuse malcontents from destructive compulsions.

Anarchists? No Chaos. Chaos is mearly a higher order that monkeys and sharks cannot understand, but higher beings might be able to. Chaos, keeps the zombie cultures from devowering the living cultures.
But there can be too much chaos or too little.

Liberatarian? Actually if you come to understand that even a child has a body of interests that it is not moral to prey upon, then you have arrived. In that case others should also understand that you should have lattitude to live as you wish. This has to be limited to the impact of your life upon others, and the need to protect at risk persons from harming themselves. And that unfortunately allows selfish individuals to mask their imoral intents to take things from others by pretending to serve the good.

Out of time.

Last edited by Void (2014-06-12 10:18:27)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-12 11:58:10

clark wrote:

I am but man, thirsting in a desert.
Tom, why do you persist in directly engaging with me? Would you like a dialogue, or do you want attention?
The argument that the size of a metal box will increase safety is false. If that were true, then we could make planes larger and be just as safe. Or ships larger so they would never sink. Or buses larger so that people are safer. But honestly, this is a distraction as it misses the point. It's not about guns.
The fundamental premise here is that the environment dictates constraints. This shouldn't be hard to grasp. You all accept the reality of radiation as an environmental constraint. You all accept the reality of a lack of oxygen in space as an environmental constraint. You all accept the laws of thermodynamics as a governing principal of environmental constraints.
Walls must be a certain thickness. Certain computers must not be connected to the internet. People need to be screened. Certain people are not allowed based on some arbitrary criteria. Cameras will be put in place to monitor locations. Failsafes and redundancies will be put in place. Who is doing all of this? Who is making sure it all gets done? Who is enforcing that this is done and in compliance with expectations? This is from Tom's post, not mine.
And on that note, I thoroughly enjoyed looking at the space colony pictures of an O'Neil colony, drawn sometime in the 1960's. 50+ years later gives us a lot of perspective.
Thanks, I'm off to eat my cheese.

I liked this site, it is very descriptive:

The O’Neill “Island Three” habitat is a gargantuan cylinder with hemispherical end caps, 32 kilometers (20 miles) long and 6.4 kilometers (four miles) in diameter, with a habitable surface area of 325 square kilometers (125½ square miles) or 32,500 hectares (80,310 acres) supporting a population in the tens of millions.
(In the Gundam canon, the population is generally given as three to ten million.) The cylinder is rotated on its long axis at ½ RPM (one revolution every two minutes) to simulate Terrestrial gravity for the people living inside. (½ RPM is not very impressive visually, so the apparent rate of rotation is exaggerated to about two RPM in the animation.)Orbiting with one end facing the sun, it’s divided lengthwise into six alternating “ground” and “sky” panels, so only half of the inner surface is actually available for habitation.

Three mirrors project outward at a 45° angle from the end facing away from the Sun and reflect sunlight through the translucent “sky” panels to the landscaped “ground” panels opposite them.

Because the end caps of the cylinders are domed, each of the “ground” panels has what, from an inhabitant’s point of view, appears to be a 3.2-kilometer (two-mile) high “mountain” at either end.The simulated “gravity” resulting from the rotation varies from one “G” at the base of the mountain to zero-G at the apex. The drop-off is linear—at the 1.6-kilometer (one-mile) level, midway (45°) up the mountainside, the pseudo-gravity is 50% (½ G). You can calculate the acceleration that produces this pseudo-gravity using the formula F=rω²/g, where F is the resulting acceleration, r is the distance from the central axis, ω is the angular velocity (a constant equal to 2π times the number of rotations per second) and g is the acceleration due to gravity experienced on Earth (9.80665 m/s² or 32.174 ft/s²).

This is equivalent to the more familiar F=mV²/r formula, only substituting V=rω.

(On 7 November 2002, Ian Woollard wrote me to correct my math regarding the drop-off rate.)

The mountains and the “valleys” between them are landscaped to an idyllic green splendor, supporting six densely populated urban and suburban civic and residential centers. The underlying cylinder hull is a meter (3 feet, 3 inches) of titanium-reinforced “mooncrete” or lunar concrete, a mineral aggregate of anorthosite, ilmenite, and “KREEP,” an acronym for potassium (K), rare earth elements (REE) and phosphorus (P).The three “ground” panels are covered with an average 5-meter (16.4-foot) layering of landscaped topsoil.

The three “sky” panels are composed of quartz glass, vitreous silica prepared from pure quartz and noted for its transparency to ultraviolet radiation. Each “sky” panel is 3.2 kilometers (two miles) wide and 25.6 kilometers (16 miles) long, divided into eight square “windows” 3.2 kilometers on a side. Bridges connecting the “ground” panels span the “sky” panel at the junctions of these windows, seven bridges across each of the three “sky” panels, for a total of 21 “sky” bridges in all.

The basic element or building block of the “sky” panels is a cubical quartz glass prism 3.2 meters (10.4 feet) on a side, massing about 80 tonnes (90 tons). The prisms are mounted in a five-by-five titanium grid to form a square “frame” 16 meters (52 feet) on a side and three meters deep, with 25 prisms per frame.These frames are mounted, four ply, in a five-by-five array “pane” 80 meters (260 feet) on a side and 12.8 meters (41.6 feet) deep, with 100 frames (2,500 prisms) per pane.

The panes are mounted in a five-by-five “sash” 400 meters (1,312 feet) on a side, with 25 panes (2,500 frames or 62,500 prisms) per sash. Each of the eight windows is thus an eight-by-eight array of 64 sashes, containing 1,600 panes (160,000 frames or four million prisms), so each “sky” panel contains 512 sashes (12,800 panes or 1,280,000 frames or 32 million prisms).

Since there are three such panels, each colony has 24 windows (1,536 sashes or 38,400 panes or 3,840,000 frames or 96 million prisms) containing a combined mass of about 7,680 megatonnes (8,640 megatons) of quartz glass.

Docking ports called “bay blocks” at either end of the colony’s central axis rotate in the opposite direction, maintaining a “stationary” position around which the colony proper appears to rotate. Laser beacons line a five-kilometer approach path for incoming spacecraft. A solar power station (SPS) generating a gigawatt per hour is built into the port docking port.

Each docking port contains six docking bays, arranged around the axis like the chambers of a revolver. Each docking bay has six docks, arranged in a similar fashion around the centerline of the bay. Each dock can accommodate three 300-meter ships, for a total capacity of 108 ships. Zero-G industrial blocks are strung out along the axis between the docking ports and the end caps, standard-G industrial blocks are mounted on the exterior of the colony cylinder. All of the agriculture and industry is external to the colony proper, so all of the space within the colony cylinder is actual living space for the colonists, pure and unpolluted.(The O’Neill design specified solar power to supply the colony’s needs, but there’s another simple, effective and continuous sources of energy readily available, which is to run thermally conductive material from the interior to the exterior and from the north end cap to the south end cap and use the temperature differential—an extraterrestrial equivalent of “geothermal” power.)

Since the spacecraft bay blocks are necessarily at the center of the end caps, in line with the axis of rotation, the “mountainsides” on the interiors of these end caps are heavily urbanized. Six major cities are built at the bases of these mountains, three at either end, thinning out as they spread down the “foothills” and into the “valleys” toward the equator. (In a reversal of the mundane trend, it is the “hillside” which is the less desirable, “poor” side of town) The central zone at the equator is kept in a state of artificial “wilderness” dotted with a few small rural villages and highly prized resorts. Each colony thus contains six separate urban civic centers, six suburban residential zones and three rural recreational areas, each with its own distinct identity, as a safeguard against inbreeding and cultural stagnation.

Each of the three valleys within the colony is an elongated rectangle 32 kilometers (20 miles) long and 3.2 kilometers (two miles) wide, yielding a total area of 105 square kilometers (40 square miles). The six cities and their associated suburbs cover an area of 41.4 square kilometers (16 square miles) each. The three rural areas cover an area of 20.7 square kilometers (eight square miles) each, which must be shared evenly between the two urban/suburban centers at either end.

Travel from the docking bay and industrial blocks at the axis “down” to the residential areas in the valleys or “up” to the agricultural block ring is via elevator, usually depicted as a set of three vertical tubes spaced 120° apart. If so, riding them would be murder, due to the same Coriolis effect that produces the artificial “gravity” at the hull. As the elevator “rises” from the hull to the axis, the passengers are going to be pushed downspin at the same rate as they are inward, with the result that the “floor” is going to feel as if it’s been upended at a 45° angle.

The same applies going “down” from the axis to the hull, except that the push is going to be upspin. A body dropped from the axis to the hull would fall in a Nautilus-shell helical spiral, appearing to travel in an upspin arc around the axis until it finally impacted, not on the ground panel immediately below, but the ground panel upspin from there. The fall would take about five minutes 20 seconds and make one and one-third revolutions, with a terminal impact of 644 KPH (400 MPH).

Presuming that the elevator accelerates and decelerates at the same rate, minus the sudden sharp stop going from axis to hull, travel time would be the same as it is for a free fall, with the Coriolis effect converted into lateral forces on the vertically restricted passengers. That being the case, the best design for the elevator would be an upspin spiral for the cars going from axis to hull and a downspin spiral for the cars going from hull to axis. The cars would not run “vertically” (i.e., perpendicular to the “ground”), but drive “parallel” to the hull the entire trip.

Population of a colony is, as noted above, somewhat problematic. O’Neill was very detailed in his descriptions of the Island One and Island Two configurations, which he was trying to persuade the U.S. Congress to try and build, but much less so for Island Three, which he held out as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. In most instances, he merely referred to “populations in the millions” but on at least one occasion he stated: “Island Three … could support quite easily a population of ten million people.”Most of the Gundam references cite populations of three to ten million per colony, but the question is confused by the fact that there are two types of colonies: the “open type” colonies using the O’Neill design and the more efficient “closed type” colonies with twice the habitable area. It would not be unreasonable to assume that doubling the habitable area would also double the population capacity. (In reality, it’s not that easy, as doubling the population quadruples the strain on the environment.) In any case, a closed type colony should support at least half again as many people as an open type.

Population figures are few and far between throughout the Gundam Saga. Six and a half million people had to be evacuated from Mahal, a closed type colony in Side 3, so that the colony could be converted into the Solar Ray System in UC 0079. Three million colonists were killed in Bunch 30, an open type colony in Side 1, when it was nerve-gassed by the Titans in UC 0085. Eight million people were killed in Bunch 21, an open type colony in Side 2, when it was blown apart by the Colony Laser in UC 0087.

Five million people lived in Londinium, an open type colony in Side 1, when it served as the Londo Bell’s homeport in UC 0093. Ten million people lived in Frontier IV, a “60% to 70% completed” open type colony in Side 4, when it was invaded by the Crossbone Vanguard in UC 0123.

The only populations figure that is consistent throughout the Gundam Saga is that, at the start of the One Year War, there were a total of eleven billion people in the Earth Sphere, nine billion of whom lived in space. Of these, it is estimated that a billion lived in subterranean colonies on the Moon. Another billion were scattered among the various asteroid settlements and geosynchronous satellite stations.

The remaining seven billion lived in the six “Sides” orbiting the Lagrange points, one billion per Side except for Side 3, which alone used the newer closed type colonies to support a population of two billion.

If each Side contained a hundred open type colonies, a population density of ten million per colony yields the requisite billion per Side. A hundred closed type colonies with twenty million people each would yield the requisite two billion for Side 3. The highest number of colonies ever given for a Side is eighty-five (Side 2 in UC 0087), but that just tells us that the top end is at least eighty-five.

If eighty-five is actually in the mid-range, the top end could easily be up to 150 colonies per Side, with populations of 6.67 million apiece. Population estimates of three to ten million per open type colony and six to twenty million per closed type colony are therefore most probably correct.The issue is further confused by the fact that O’Neill envisioned his colonies being built not as single units but as ballistically coupled pairs, 80 kilometers (50 miles) apart. Was the “population of ten million people” that O’Neill cited the population of both cylinders, yielding five million people per unit, or the population of each cylinder, yielding twenty million per pair?

The former puts 1.67 million people in each valley, with as many as 835,000 in each of the six urban centers, at an urban-to-rural ratio of four to one (80% to 20%). The latter puts 3.34 million people in each valley, with up to 1.67 million in each of the six urban centers, with the same 4:1 urban/rural ratio.

This is not so dense a population as it sounds. By way of comparison, the Manhattan Borough of New York City is an elongated irregular strip twenty kilometers (12½ miles) long and four kilometers (2½ miles) wide. It has a total area of 32½ square kilometers (12½ square miles)—roughly equivalent to one of the three valleys. Central Park is an elongated rectangle four kilometers (2½ miles) long and 800 meters (½ mile) wide, giving it a total area of 3.2 square kilometers (1¼ square miles). As of 2000 AD, Manhattan supported a population of 1,537,195 at an urban-to-rural ratio of 10:1—just under half as dense as the ten-million-per-cylinder scenario described above, but with 2½ times as much urban sprawl.

(On 12 September 2002, Julian H. Fong wrote me to note that, while the Gundam animation and artwork ignore it, there’s an important reason why O’Neill colonies must be ballistically coupled pairs. A single cylinder, rotating independently, is gyroscopically stable but it’ll always point toward the same point in space and thus only faces the Sun once a year. In the O’Neill design, the paired cylinders rotate in opposite directions, so the net angular momentum of the system is zero and the linked cylinders can be made to precess with a one-year period, keeping them aligned with the Sun. Without this precession, and the zero angular momentum necessary to achieve it, the “sunflower” illumination scheme simply won’t work!)All of the available space within the colony is given over to habitation. Agriculture, as noted above, is external to the colony proper, outside the residential cylinder. Seventy-two “hatbox” cylinders, each 645 meters (2,110 feet) across and 645 meters (2,110 feet) deep, enclosed by a 1.3-kilometer (4,265-foot) parabolic solar energy concentrator, orbit the industrial block at the north end of the colony. Linked into a giant ring by an annular access tube and connected to the end cap by three 32-kilometer (20-mile) radial spokes, they’re called agricultural blocks or farming satellites (“farmsats”). Each contains 1.3 square kilometers (½ square mile) or 129.4 hectares (320 acres) of hydroponics greenhouses, warmed and illuminated by the concentrated sunlight.

Altogether, each colony has 93 square kilometers (36 square miles) or 9,325 hectares (23,040 acres)—the equivalent of an American rural county “township”—of dedicated, arable farmland.

(In the Gundam animation and artwork, the agricultural ring is often shown at the far end of the colony, but this is technically incorrect, as it would result in the farm modules being eclipsed by the mirrors. And, just as the rotation of the colony is either ignored or exaggerated in the animation, the apparent size of the farm satellites is also exaggerated to make them visible next to the colony proper, with the result that their number is reduced to fifty or sixty. More often, a complete ring isn’t even shown. The sketches of the O’Neill colonies often included only a few representative farm satellites instead of a complete set and the Gundam artists slavishly copied these incomplete drawings in their animations and production art.)

It should be noted that the ring does not rotate along with the colony proper. If it did, the farms would be subjected to pseudo-gravity close to five times that of the Earth. Instead, the ring remains fixed and each of the seventy-two agricultural blocks rotates at two RPM to produce Terrestrial gravity at its inner hull.

The colonies run on a 24-hour clock set to the Universal Time Coordinate (Greenwich Mean Time adjusted to the Terrestrial equator), with “sunrise” at 06:00 UTC and “sunset” at 18:00 UTC. Varying the angle and pitch of the external mirrors can simulate day and night cycles and even seasonal changes. Any Terrestrial climate can be simulated, but generally the air temperature is held between 5° to 25° C (40° to 80° F) and averages 15° C (60° F), with a relative humidity of 40% to 60%—the temperate climate that southern California promises but seldom delivers. The ground temperature ranges from 5° to 50° C (40° to 120° F), with ground water temperature falling midway in between at 10° to 40° C (50° to 105° F), averaging 25° C (80° F) for both. The air pressure is equivalent to that at a Terrestrial elevation of 1.6 kilometers (one mile) above sea level, about the same as Denver, Colorado.

Transportation within the colony is by the ubiquitous “elecar” or electric-powered car, which range in size and power from a two-seat “go-cart” to a containerized cargo “mono-wing” truck. Powered by a fuel cell that burns hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and water vapor, which can be broken down and recycled almost endlessly, they are clean, quiet and economical.

Airtight “linear cars” traverse the outer hull in a manner analogous to the metro subway, riding on superconducting magnetic-levitation (“maglev”) rails at the colony’s rotational speed of 644 kilometers per hour (400 miles per hour) and admitting a spectacular view. “Linear trams” resembling the cable cars of San Francisco run up and down the end cap mountainsides, connecting the urban centers to the zero-G industrial blocks and bay blocks. They also allow for easy transport between ballistic coupled pairs of colonies, 80 kilometers (50 miles) apart, with a transit time of seven minutes and twenty-seven seconds (00:07:27) each way.

This is found at http://mavericuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Island_Three_The_O'Neill_cylinder?file=Spacecolony1.jpg

clark · 2014-06-12 18:43:52

A Korean man taught me to "Gundam" style. Is that the same thing?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-12 18:47:29

I have no idea what a gundam is, I assume its a first person shooter game.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-12 19:18:46

Gangnam Style Official Music Video - 2012 PSY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIQToVqDMb8

clark · 2014-06-12 21:11:47

So I was trying to be tongue in cheek; I know the gundam cultural reference. It's like getting KSR references. It is a nice vacation from reality, but it is not the basis for making much of a point.

Even taking it seriously on the surface level; millions of people creates a the statistical significance where you have to deal with social issues like children, homelessness, disparity, personality aberration, cultural differences, unemployment, addiction, etc. You have to have solutions to deal with this in a closed environment. Most of those solutions are fairly draconian by current standards. My point though. Environment trumps culture. Environment dictates behavior.

The habitat can be 100 feet or it can be 100 miles, it will still be the same issue.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-13 05:16:05

RobertDyck wrote:

Honest? Try humility. Try respecting others.
Besides, pure capitalism doesn't work. Even the United States has social aspects: trade unions, social security, etc. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure communism doesn't work. A working economy requires a blend of many things.
All countries need to be proud of themselves. All. If you try to disgrace anyone, you create an enemy. Do not try to convert everyone to your way of thinking or your culture. Respect others, and celebrate diversity of culture. Everyone needs a good paying job, everyone needs a descent standard of living, everyone needs security in the sense that theives will not steal from your home. Russia has struggled with this. Many Americans struggle today. But when Germany was humiliated and destroyed, that created a need for a leader to get them out of it. Hitler failed the Bavarian uprising, and failed to win the German federal election. He bullied and manipulated. The only reason he got as much support as he did, was he was able to lift his country out of poverty, out of the humiliation they were in, to once again be proud. Russia went directly from Tsars, their version of kings, to communism. That was actually a major improvement. Yeltsin brought them into modern society with democracy and free market economy. Remember, a pure free market economy doesn't work, but a pure centrally controlled economy doesn't either. The US has anti-trust legislation and various regulations to prevent the free market economy from failing. The world as a whole is developing a hybrid that works. It isn't the east or the west, it's everyone learning from everyone. The people of Russia need to be proud of their country, and they need to stamp out crime, and they need descent jobs and descent income. Without that, you create the opportunity for another Hitler.
Superpower? The world doesn't want any superpowers. What I said is the Cold War was a problem. The world had two superpowers vying for control. Some countries allied themselves to one or the other, but much of the world played off one against the other to ensure neither had any authority. That's the point: to ensure neither has any authority. You can be a "power", but stop trying to be a "superpower".
Russia is worried that America is taking everything away from them. NATO has taken all Warsaw pact countries other than Soviet Union. And Baltic states as well. Recently NATO tried to take George and Ukraine. Russia has been nice, but as they see it, this is going too far. Ukraine is a very big part of the Russian economy. Without that, Russia would get much poorer. And that's not just military industry, that's also civilian goods. The Russian economy is recovering, but still struggling since collapse of the Soviet Union. They can't afford to lose more. Putin would lose political support if the Russian economy tanked. If you threaten Putin's authority as President of Russia, he'll send the military to do whatever it takes.

I wonder how you square superpower rivalry with World Peace? You seem to want to go from a one superpower world, a peaceful situation, to a two or more superpower world, a not so peaceful situation. We have Russia threatening California with nuclear bombers, how is that in the interest of peace? Superpower rivalry = peace? How did that work in the years leading up to World War I? You had multiple superpowers at that time, The British Empire, Germany, France, Russia.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-13 05:18:58)

Terraformer · 2014-06-13 06:17:36

In a world with one superpower, there is nothing stopping said superpower from imposing their might on everyone else. With two superpowers, there is.

Simples.

RobertDyck · 2014-06-13 07:14:44

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I wonder how you square superpower rivalry with World Peace? You seem to want to go from a one superpower world, a peaceful situation, to a two or more superpower world, a not so peaceful situation. We have Russia threatening California with nuclear bombers, how is that in the interest of peace? Superpower rivalry = peace? How did that work in the years leading up to World War I? You had multiple superpowers at that time, The British Empire, Germany, France, Russia.

Nope. You didn't get the point. The world will not let anyone be a superpower. We had a very unstable, and very dangerous situation during the cold war when two nations thought they were superpowers. The only way the world could survive was by playing off one against the other so that neither had any real authority. But both nations thought they were a "superpower". Very dangerous. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and many powerful individuals in the American government thought they "won". America believed it was the only superpower. On one level, that was even more dangerous.

We need a world with no superpowers. None.

And think of this in terms of ethics. War is mass murder. Those who engage in war are criminals who take another nation's wealth, using armed robbery. That's what war is. And America did it with the last Iraq war. It wasn't about protection or security; if that was what it was really all about then America would have invaded only Afghanistan. But it didn't, George W. Bush invaded Iraq. That was about oil. It drove oil prices up, including the cost of gasoline at the pump. Every Middle East war does. George W. Bush owned a small oil company in Texas, which did benefit. Ironic that it was only a small oil company. Dick Chaney was a major share holder in Haliburton, a major arms provider. Chaney got a lot more than George W. ever did. Yes, I am saying thousands of American soldiers died in the latest Iraq war just so some rich people could get a little richer.

America got greedy. Tried to convince Ukraine to join NATO. The reason was to take more resources from Russia, especially their navy port. Russia fought back. That's Russia's justification. They could have just gone back to the agreement where they rent land for their navy port from Ukraine, but no, they captured all of Crimea. To be fair, Russia doesn't trust NATO; but the agreement could have been to Finlandize Ukraine and rent land. Now Russia is continuing to support separatist insurgents in east Ukraine. That's to take land and industry from Ukraine. More armed robbery. More people die so some rich people get richer.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-06-13 12:10:23)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-06-14 00:35:23

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
I wonder how you square superpower rivalry with World Peace? You seem to want to go from a one superpower world, a peaceful situation, to a two or more superpower world, a not so peaceful situation. We have Russia threatening California with nuclear bombers, how is that in the interest of peace? Superpower rivalry = peace? How did that work in the years leading up to World War I? You had multiple superpowers at that time, The British Empire, Germany, France, Russia.
Nope. You didn't get the point. The world will not let anyone be a superpower. We had a very unstable, and very dangerous situation during the cold war when two nations thought they were superpowers. The only way the world could survive was by playing off one against the other so that neither had any real authority. But both nations thought they were a "superpower". Very dangerous. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and many powerful individuals in the American government thought they "won". America believed it was the only superpower. On one level, that was even more dangerous.

What was the Roman Empire then? The Roman Empire beat all its major rivals and enforced the peace for several centuries, the world did not end Lots of liberals like to compare the United States to the Roman Empire, and then they want to rush to the end, little understanding that Rome ruled for several centuries before they went into decline, they did not go into decline as soon as they became an Empire. Liberals are only concerned with how the Roman Empire ended, not how they ruled the civilized world for several centuries peacefully. If you wait long enough, everything will end, the Sun will expand into a red giant and so forth. All I'm saying is Rome had her day in the Sun, and we have ours, and you just can't wait for the decline and fall, your afraid America's Superpower status might just outlive you, and you won't get to write a book about the Decline and Fall just like Gibbon.

RobertDyck wrote:

We need a world with no superpowers. None.

You'd have to make the United States into a Third World country in order to do that! There are 316 million Americans with a per capita income of around $50,000 annually, so there are two ways to make us not a superpower, you can kill off most of our population or make us drastically poorer, neither of which will make you very popular in the United States, and pretty much you will have to end NASA as well, as a poor country could not afford to have a space agency like NASA.

RobertDyck wrote:

And think of this in terms of ethics. War is mass murder. Those who engage in war are criminals who take another nation's wealth, using armed robbery. That's what war is. And America did it with the last Iraq war. It wasn't about protection or security; if that was what it was really all about then America would have invaded only Afghanistan. But it didn't, George W. Bush invaded Iraq. That was about oil. It drove oil prices up, including the cost of gasoline at the pump. Every Middle East war does. George W. Bush owned a small oil company in Texas, which did benefit. Ironic that it was only a small oil company. Dick Chaney was a major share holder in Haliburton, a major arms provider. Chaney got a lot more than George W. ever did. Yes, I am saying thousands of American soldiers died in the latest Iraq war just so some rich people could get a little richer.
America got greedy. Tried to convince Ukraine to join NATO. The reason was to take more resources from Russia, especially their navy port. Russia fought back. That's Russia's justification. They could have just gone back to the agreement where they rent land for their navy port from Ukraine, but no, they captured all of Crimea. To be fair, Russia doesn't trust NATO; but the agreement could have been to Finlandize Ukraine and rent land. Now Russia is continuing to support separatist insurgents in east Ukraine. That's to take land and industry from Ukraine. More armed robbery. More people die so some rich people get richer.

What would the United States do with a naval port in the black sea. I believe they already have access to the Black Sea through Turkey, do they not? But did we not also take Poland away from Germany? Why do the Germans have so much better an attitude about that than the Russians? When was the last time two German Bombers threatened the California Coast?

RobertDyck · 2014-06-14 01:53:01

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

What was the Roman Empire then?

A bunch of thugs who murdered, and robbed. These are the guys who nailed people to a wooden pole, left them hanging by their arms with their arms out-stretched until they didn't have enough strength to breathe. That's called crucifixion. Death took days. For entertainment, they built an arena as big as any modern arena, but made of stone. But they didn't play games, they watched slaves murder each other. In the end, they fed Christians to lions. One time, a particularly cruel Caesar had Christians dipped in tar and set on fire as lights for the arena. These are the guys you want to emulate?

Lots of liberals like to compare the United States to the Roman Empire, and then they want to rush to the end

Empire builders are rushing to the end themselves. During it's golden age, Rome was ruled by an elected senate. Administration was run by two Consuls, it didn't have a Caesar. Unfortunately at one point, a military coup changed that to an empire ruled by a dictator with the title Caesar. America appears determined to rush to the end. Actually, much of the structure of the American government was modeled on ancient Rome. But America's golden age is already passed. Its fall into dictatorship has already begun. Since World War 2, America has slowly become ever more fascist. Under George W. Bush, that fall became rapid. Voters hoped Obama would undo the damage, but he hasn't. Ancient Rome was founded in 753 BC, according to Roman history. It didn't become a republic until 510 BC, then degenerated into an empire in 27 BC. America flirted with making George Washington a king, but became a republic in the time of the founding fathers. I hope you could give the timeline better than I; you're American, I'm Canadian. From the Declaration of Independence, through the various Congresses, how long before the current Constitution? Some people claim America ceased to be a Republic with the assassination of JFK. Conspiracy theorists claim powers behind the scenes control everything. But regardless whether you believe that, Ronald Regan did invade Grenada as the Senate specifically forbade him from doing so. The Constitution explicitly states Congress has authority to declare war, the President does not. That action was grounds for impeachment. But they chose not to. The entire war was over before Congress could do anything, so they thought doing anything would be moot. But this does demonstrate Presidents exerting authority of a Caesar, not a Consul.

Rome overextended itself with ever more ambitions land-grabs. They wanted a buffer between their territory and other nations. But as soon as they did capture territory, they considered that their territory, so wanted a buffer between that and the other nations. So they grabbed more land. Etc. It continued until they had overstretched themselves so far that they couldn't afford their own military. Their economy faltered because of the cost of their massive and spread-out military. Until finally one opponent had too much, the Romans had attacked them and taken their land, so they fought back. One opponent was able to punch through their thinly spread defences, and sack Rome. Once they did so, all Rome's other opponents came at them as well. This was inevitable because Rome attacked everyone. And because their military was spread so thin. And because their military drained so much of their economy.

Today America is waging war with the entire planet. Military bases spread across the globe. Interfering in every conflict. Demanding every resource be shipped to America. The latest: Syria has a conflict between the current military dictator and its citizens. Obama tried to draw a "red line", interfering in that conflict. And today, Iraq is having internal troubles. America is talking about sending military into Iraq yet again. Last announcement said 200 American troops were still in Iraq, ostensibly to "protect the embassy". So America hasn't pulled out from the last conflict, and they want to go in again? What did I just say about Rome expanding its territory too far and spreading its military too thin?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You'd have to make the United States into a Third World country in order to do that!

The US would have to be a Third World country for the world to be free. The US has to be Third World for Freedom and Liberty. That's an interesting statement, Tom. Think about that for a while.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

What would the United States do with a naval port in the black sea.

The point was to take away Russia's only naval port that doesn't freeze up in winter. So they wouldn't have an effective naval port. That's Russia's accusation, and I'm inclined to believe this one.

Russia tried to join NATO when the rest of the Warsaw Pact did. They were refused. So the Cold War didn't end, it didn't become one world with nothing but commerce. That's what everyone wants. But certain individuals wanted to continue to treat Russia has an opponent, so Russia was excluded. They had to build a sphere of influence. Just for their own self-defence.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-06-14 08:53:56)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#476 2014-06-11 10:21:04

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#477 2014-06-11 10:47:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#478 2014-06-11 11:21:54

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#479 2014-06-11 11:41:52

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#480 2014-06-11 12:08:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#481 2014-06-11 12:14:32

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#482 2014-06-11 21:46:33

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#483 2014-06-12 05:32:49

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#484 2014-06-12 05:36:23

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#485 2014-06-12 05:45:35

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#486 2014-06-12 05:47:02

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#487 2014-06-12 06:01:09

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#488 2014-06-12 07:57:06

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#489 2014-06-12 08:21:47

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#490 2014-06-12 08:22:47

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#491 2014-06-12 11:58:10

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#492 2014-06-12 18:43:52

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#493 2014-06-12 18:47:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#494 2014-06-12 19:18:46

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#495 2014-06-12 21:11:47

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#496 2014-06-13 05:16:05

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#497 2014-06-13 06:17:36

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#498 2014-06-13 07:14:44

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#499 2014-06-14 00:35:23

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#500 2014-06-14 01:53:01

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer