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

clark · 2003-02-12 15:38:19

Yes, imagine a dollar a pound to space.

now imagine someone putting kinetic weapons up for a few thousand dollars.

Minimimal guidance is neccessary. All you need is some fins, a few electronics, and a 22 foot long steel beam.

Imagine rocket launches with our current failure rate, except we do 100 times as many.

Imagine nuclear powered whatever exploding in the atmosphere.

imagine the chemicals from the rockets raining down into our water supplies.

Imagine ecological damage of unheard of magnitudes.

When a ship set forth for the new world, it didn't endanger a city or an entire continent.

soph · 2003-02-12 15:40:47

Designing things well can avert disaster, clark. It seems like you're trying to justify keeping ourselves on Earth indefinitely.

clark · 2003-02-12 15:44:17

Designing things well can avert disaster, clark.

Which takes *time*.

It seems like you're trying to justify keeping ourselves on Earth indefinitely.

There's an old saying, "Measure twice, cut once."

soph · 2003-02-12 15:47:03

And who determines how much time? Going back to the drawing board has been NASA's specialty-no, its time to do, and i think we have what it takes to develop a reliable, safe system.

besides, a nuclear SSTO wouldn't necessarily create a nuclear explosion if it failed.

clark · 2003-02-12 15:53:48

And who determines how much time?

Who determines how little time we should be allowed? You represent a group that is clamoring for us to be in space yesterday- but why is being in space yesterday such an issue?

Asteroids? Going to space won't protect us even if the extremly low chance occurs. Sun death? Let the humanity of 4 billion years in the future worry.

Resources? The technology isn't there, and isn't needed for centuries.

We need as much time as is neccessary to do this right.

besides, a nuclear SSTO wouldn't necessarily create a nuclear explosion if it failed.

Uh huh. Notice the warning advisory from NASA- parts of the shuttle may be "hot" as in rad hot.

soph · 2003-02-12 15:57:43

NTRs can be designed so that there is no nuclear explosion, and very little radiation. If we base everything on the shuttle, sure, let's base our computer comparisons on kommodore's. Oh, wait, you mean we've advanced technologically?

The Shuttle isn't the pinnacle of human capability-thirty years of technological advance and ideas have passed, and I would highly doubt that we can't build anything better, that is more safe.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 15:58:40

Um, with cheap launches like that, it wouldn't be hard to have a supervisory comission which says what is or isn't safe to go into space. The technology we've been discussing would fall in the safe category, undoubtedly.

But of course, there's the whole, people who get a hold of a cheap way to get into space, but avoid the commission alltogether bit, but whatever.

At least we seem to be getting back on topic, though, with all this war talk. Personally, I think the people who spend too much time focusing on war fall behind. Just look at Rome. Or... ironically... the US.

soph · 2003-02-12 16:10:47

Well, yes and no. I think that the U.S. is more of a technological leader than ever before, it's just economically that other nations are catching up. And look who is catching up-china, another capitalist nation! But it is somewhat ironic that people are pointing to China catching up as a sign of the U.S.'s stagnation-they have 2 billion people! We have 300 million! They should outproduce us!

But I don't think war affects the average person. The average MIT scholar is still developing a new fuel cell, the Princeton nanoengineer is still researching nanotubes, and so on.

War brings the world down, yes, but for the US, I don't think that it has as much of an impact as it is made out to, except in terms of our national debt, which is, don't get me wrong, nothing to laugh at. But the average person no longer cares about Afghanistan, and the Iraq issue will probably be a dinner table memory by 2005, barring another big terrorist hit.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 16:29:50

They weren't an industrial nation until recently. They point to China because China is taking foreign investment from the US...

But anyway, warmongers focus their energy in the wrong place. It's true that war or military development can lead to good things, like the internet and other technologies, but the fact of the matter is that if it weren't for people making non-war applications for those things, they would have never went anywhere.

soph · 2003-02-12 17:02:57

And that investment is because people see a stablized, secure investment in China as it becomes more and more of a free market. Capitlization might be the best thing China has done in many years.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 18:07:49

Certainly opening their doors to industrialization has been good for China. They should have done it 100 years ago. There are problems with regard to corruption, though. Lots of corruption (as to be expected with any capitalism). But it's slowing being weeded out.

Within a decade, if trends continue, China will be the worlds foreign investment place. Kind of like how the US was during the beginning of globalization.

soph · 2003-02-13 18:56:56

Investment will slow down, I think, as the market matures. It won't need so much foreign investment, and growth will naturally level off, which will lower the return on investments. So the investment may be less risky, but it is also probably less rewarding.

The problem I see, is that everybody uses economic of other countries to laugh at the US. Economic competition is a good thing! I hope the EU and China can compete with the US. I also hope that by the time China catches up to, and perhaps surpasses the US, it will not be regarded as a catastrophe, but as a maturation of the global economy.

Africa has a real problem, however. The Sahara Desert may soon ecompass most of Africa. It's a shame, what those Phoenicians did to the continent. On that note, a few nuclear reactors could provide water (or desalinization) to irrigate those deserts, to try to stem or reverse the spread of the desert.

Gennaro of Scandinavia · 2003-02-14 19:06:07

"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."

In fact it didn't stop wars between American powers either. Warfare on Mars?

Heaven forbid!

Gennaro of Scandinavia · 2003-02-14 19:12:10

AltToWar wrote:

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

To be precise, France declared war on Prussia even after King Wilhelm had publicly turned down the offer of inheriting the crown of Spain.
The aggression of France spelled doom to the Second Empire.

soph · 2003-02-24 16:31:12

It's quite interesting how a historical analysis of the post-Napoleonic European treaties restricting France did not punish France for its enormously aggressive wars, even allowing it to be involved in the treaty negotiations.

However, Germany, after World War I, and far less aggressive warfare, was not allowed to participate in the Treaty of Versaille negotiations, and was greatly punished.

Historians have attributed these differences to the relative successes of each treaty, which is apparent in European history.

Gennaro of Scandinavia · 2003-02-25 05:33:21

I agree. I think something very significant happened during the early 20th century. Before WWI, war, if not necessarily desired, was seen as something that sovereign states engaged in from time to time.
It was therefore normal and a matter of fair play, honour even, to let the vanquished take part in and have a say in the peace process.
By 1918 war had become barbarism (for obvious reasons) and the Central Powers and Germany in particular, defeated, was now put to blame for having started it (which was not entirely true) and thus not being equally civilized as the victors, which was actually quite outrageous.
One see's it already, for all its honest idealism, in Wilson's goal of "making the world safe for democracy". Where there earlier had been equal contestants, marked by their differing interests, now and for all future, the struggle had transformed into a battle of 'good' versus 'evil'.
Wartime propaganda in a sense spilled over into the peace time settlement and the humiliation suffered by the defeated consequently laid the spiritual foundations for the ensuing catastrophe.

Gennaro of Scandinavia · 2003-02-25 06:29:25

The problem I see, is that everybody uses economic of other countries to laugh at the US.

Which is unfair, since the US economy works way better than most rivals, including the EU, which is a mess of unclear objectives, lack of transparency, lethargy and petty minded interests. Therefore it's not sure the US will be surpassed even in the foreseeable Martian time perspective. And for an empire of world hegemonia, there are to my mind a lot of worse alternatives to the US, which at heart has an admirable tradition of civilry.

Economic competition is a good thing! I hope the EU and China can compete with the US. I also hope that by the time China catches up to, and perhaps surpasses the US, it will not be regarded as a catastrophe, but as a maturation of the global economy.

If China or anyone else do catch up however, I'm afraid the US chances of taking the turn of tides in a good humoured way, will not be all that great. So much in US society is built on being the best in everything.

Africa has a real problem, however. The Sahara Desert may soon ecompass most of Africa. It's a shame, what those Phoenicians did to the continent. On that note, a few nuclear reactors could provide water (or desalinization) to irrigate those deserts, to try to stem or reverse the spread of the desert.

Yes, the Carthaginians and everybody else. Because of lack of cooperation and limited vision. If only one had the power to... I think the central problem for the world is one of non existing political power. To do these kind of big restructuring things, both material and social which the world badly needs, some autonomous political force is of the utmost significance. There has to be someone or something, powerful enough to maintain political primacy over financial forces, which following their own monetaristic logic, is unable to deal with perspectives out of the immediate short term.
It doesn't have to be solely one all powerful world government, there could be several, the important thing is that a shift in thinking occured.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-15 12:46:27

Well, if you read the US National Security Strategy, it essentially outlines a plan of global empire ; the plan outlined there is one of "preventive war", where the US will deal with threats to its "security", whatever those are deemed to be, by force, before they arise, not heeding such annoyances as international law or the peaceful disapproval of other nations, even powerful ones, as we have seen in this first application of the strategy in Iraq. No actual threat ever need be proven. Only the threat of armed force is a deemed, then, a deterrant. That is why we have conquered Iraq and not North Korea. The outcome of this policy can only be, one way or the other, a huge disaster for the world. It is already a disaster in Iraq, where the US aims to rule the country by force through a military administration, leaving only when the government it has imposed is suitably stable.

soph · 2003-04-15 13:19:32

It is already a disaster in Iraq, where the US aims to rule the country by force through a military administration, leaving only when the government it has imposed is suitably stable.

Actually, it worked quite well in Iraq, and we intend to leave after a few months. Nice try, though.

not heeding such annoyances as international law or the peaceful disapproval of other nations, even powerful ones

Except for the fact that UN approval is not needed for war (as China and Russia have shown quite well), and we have had the legal basis for war since the early '90s. Again, nice try.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-15 17:07:18

We have no legal basis for invading Iraq--indeed, under the UN Charter there can be no such legal basis, because Iraq is not a threat to the United States and never has been. Even if this were not true, no resolution currently on the books would authorize such a thing.

UN approval is not needed for war if there is an imminent threat of attack--ie if Russia is sending its bombers to strike New York City, we have a right to blow up its airstrips to stop that. This is nothing like that, being a textbook case of aggression and imperialism. The Soviet Union certainly did not always obey international law, but as the supreme global power, I think we have a responsibility to do so, instead of publicly announcing we are not subject to it, as we do now. Or as Madeline Albright stated, "We will act multilaterally if we can and unilaterally if we must". That is, we will obey international law when it suits us, and when it suits us to go invade the country of our choice, we'll also do that.

There is no telling when we intend to leave. Of course, we could leave in a few months--mabye we will. But if we do, it will be because the order that we have established there is suitable to the US government, who of course knows best. And the precedent for US global hegemony over any nation which lacks weapons of mass destruction--probably nuclear-- to defend itself is now well established.

dicktice · 2003-04-15 21:06:11

One should recognize that we are living in transistional times, between national and international hegemony. International law is still maturing, and until it has become mature...
Look how many nations who want to be in, are still outside the E.U., which will require a lot more time to be absorbed and become mature.
So, where already well established, by all means resort to international law--but where it isn't ready, or capable (due to old veto rights, etc.), resort to NATO ... or else create a consortium ... but don't allow lack of ability to act allow a cancer like Hitler's or Saddam's to spread! If only you have the ability, even if you're only half mature yourself.
The U.S.A. has no more ambition towards world Roman-style empire than a big rich kid new to the block, who hasn't learned yet that everybody isn't out to kick his butt. (Remember, they fixed it so their President--however scary--can't run more than eight years.) And, thanks to that big rich kid, a rotten, really dangerously situated dictator has been deposed.... Now, what about Mars Direct?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-16 01:39:13

Gennaro writes:-

And for an empire of world hegemonia, there are to my mind a lot of worse alternatives to the US, which at heart has an admirable tradition of civilry.

Thanks Gennaro! It's good to hear another non-American express exactly the view I've occasionally tried to throw into these discussions myself.
[I suppose at this point we'll get a long list of actions and atrocities, attributed to America, which purport to show she has no "admirable traditions" at all! The acrimony directed towards the US never ceases to amaze me - the finger wagging bitterness of the criticism is really something.]

America is indisputably the most benign nation ever to wield such phenomenal power. People like Alexander are, of course, quite correct to point out the many flaws in US policy and behaviour and I defend their right to do so. But I feel they need to step back and see US actions in the context of the Machiavellian world we inhabit. Politics have always been dirty, nations will rise and fall, power will be abused and wars will be fought. The UN is probably a passing phase, like the League of Nations, because it's run by people and people never change. Power and money - that's all there is for a lot of people. The UN is only as just and moral as the humans who run it and we all know how quickly morality goes out the window when personal interests become involved!
Hoping that the UN will always do the right thing, and marching and praying for peace, are all well and good. But in an imperfect world where genuinely evil people decline to play by the rules, we sometimes have to get down and dirty ourselves in order to avoid a descent into an even worse mess.

Dicktice, I'm lost in admiration at your capacity for understatement:-

International law is still maturing, ...

You said it!!
But, all joking aside, I do agree with your comments.

Thank God for America!

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-16 07:39:09

The idea that we are between a "national" and an "international" order is largely not true ; there is no "international" order, and never has been. We are not moving toward an order which is much, if at all, more "international" than it has been for the past couple of centuries. The past few centuries have seen the world dominated by Europe. After WWII the US emerged supreme over all the European powers and took over their role. The past centuries have been ones dominated by a few developed countries, and, if not stopped by global movements, the future will be similiar. As to the US wielding its power in a more civilized way than other country which has had "such power", any country which has "such power" militarily as the US has will necessarily be using it for imperialism ; there is no justificiation in today's world for a military half the size of that of the US. US imperialism has been slightly eroded for the past quarter century or so because of public opposition to it, but now it is back in full force.

dicktice · 2003-04-16 07:44:44

Shaun: I was a little kid when the then-rogue nations who became The Axis, walked out of the League of Nations when they were criticized ... and the U.S.A., who proposed the League in the first place, didn't even belong. Now they belong to the United Nations, which they again had first proposed--but still suspicious, they won't accept being criticized for their self-centred insensitivity to situations existing within most of the other nations who also belong. And, it's not just the present Administration ... the majority of the population, I suggest, are like that. I imagined during the 1960's, when Flower Power was flourishing, and kids from the U.S. flocked to all parts of the World (Bill Clinton's generation) that when they grew up they'd do better. But, they seem to have retreated back into the bosom of America (meaning the U.S.) to become just as insular and isolationist as before. The Vietnam experience was probably to blame ... and the Kennedy brothers' assassinations ... just when they were coming out from under Segregation. They put themselves through a helluva lot. The Somalia experience probably did the rest. But as long as the U.N. is allowed to exist, I anticipate the U.S.A. will gradually become less selfish and more trusting. (Britain and Canada and the Scandinavian Countries seem to be on the right track.) Since the only remaining frontier for U.S. expansion is interplanetary space, and they have shown little capacity to pursue it uninteruptedly on their own--only if "threatened" by another nation's persisting where they have turned away--they need the cooperation of others....

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-16 10:12:30

It is my opinion that the "frontier theory" of expansion is bizarre and laughably contrived, having little relation to important realities of history. The "frontier" of American history was occupied by the native Americans, and it was conquered from them, and they were largely exterminated, in a very clear case of genocide, if a gradual, prolonged one. The imperialist posture of the settlers in America has never really abated, although it has shifted somewhat in response to various changes in the world order and social movements. Such concepts as the "frontier theory" relate, I think, to such concepts as "technocracy", which you can find out about if you do a bit of research.

When life colonizes space, it will bear little relation to such endevours. It is an entirely new situation and should be recognized as such. There is no "theory of history" which can possibly lay out what will occur in space exploration judging from the human past ; there is nothing in the human past to relate to such a thing properly. Such judgements can be made, in some cases, of course. But they stem from technological and scientific realities--for example, that the Moon has very little carbon or hydrogen--not human history or social organization.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2003-02-12 15:38:19

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

#127 2003-02-12 15:40:47

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

#128 2003-02-12 15:44:17

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

#129 2003-02-12 15:47:03

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

#130 2003-02-12 15:53:48

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

#131 2003-02-12 15:57:43

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

#132 2003-02-12 15:58:40

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

#133 2003-02-12 16:10:47

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

#134 2003-02-12 16:29:50

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

#135 2003-02-12 17:02:57

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

#136 2003-02-12 18:07:49

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

#137 2003-02-13 18:56:56

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

#138 2003-02-14 19:06:07

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

#139 2003-02-14 19:12:10

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

#140 2003-02-24 16:31:12

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

#141 2003-02-25 05:33:21

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

#142 2003-02-25 06:29:25

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

#143 2003-04-15 12:46:27

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

#144 2003-04-15 13:19:32

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

#145 2003-04-15 17:07:18

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

#146 2003-04-15 21:06:11

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

#147 2003-04-16 01:39:13

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

#148 2003-04-16 07:39:09

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

#149 2003-04-16 07:44:44

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

#150 2003-04-16 10:12:30

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

Board footer