A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-28 00:58:38

Scott Beach wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Your constitution will go exactly the same way as the Inter caetera that gave the New World to Spain and Portugal.
I am drafting a "Constitution of Mars" with the intention of asking the United Nations to ratify that Constitution. The ratification might be in the form of an amendment to the Outer Space Treaty.
The history of human civilizations contains dozens, hundreds, thousands of accounts of Hindus slaughtering Moslems, Moslems slaughtering Christians, Christians slaughtering Jews, Jews slaughtering Moslems, etc, etc, etc. Let’s stop this senseless slaughter. Let’s agree to teach our children how to create and maintain stable sociocultural systems that are based on science (a body of knowledge obtained and tested by use of the scientific method).
Perhaps the Constitution of Mars should contain an article which declares that the Government of Mars shall be a secular government.

A proper constitution limits what government can do, not what people can do! Governments are required to defend the country, but we need a constitution and a division of powers in government to defend us from government. There must also be a limit on the government's ability to appropriate property and redistribute it however it sees fit! Why should anyone save or invest if the government does this? And thus the economy stagnates and gets poorer, because people are not working if they are not allowed to keep that which they earned.

louis · 2017-02-28 02:31:32

Scott,

I think what you are really talking about is culture, not a constitution. It is only really a culture - a culture of secular democracy backed by enlightenment values - that can prevent totalitarian or violence-based ideologies getting a grip on society. Famously, Stalin brought in a wonderfully democratic constitution in the 1930s, which meant nothing as it was never meant to be implemented.

So, if we are talking about Mars, what does that mean? Well I think it means screening of migrants to Mars, to ensure they have the right set of tolerant attitudes to others. I know some people won't like that, but believe me once Mars migration becomes relatively inexpensive you will see a rush of religious and political nutjobs seeking to set up business on humanity's second home, because "not to be there" will feel to them like an insult.

I would hope a Mars Consortium would set the pattern for reasonable screening but sadly Musk's one big fault is he doesn't seem to think through the implications of his migration free-for-all.

Terraformer · 2017-02-28 05:35:01

louis,

So what if people want to live on Mars. You have no more right to keep them from doing so than they have to prevent you - and that's the way it should be.

You want the planet, go settle it before anyone else manages to. But planting a flag doesn't grant you the planet.

Void · 2017-02-28 12:09:43

This is only what I think, which does not mandate any obedience to what I say from anyone.

The fundamentals of things, I believe are learning and writing a story. Then telling a story to those who have not directly had the experience.

This is science, and this is religion. The value of religion is if it prevents the mass of the population from having to learn the hard way. If it can suggest ways to be compatible with generalized survival of a population and it's prosperity, then that is good.

Books which suggest that others may be damaged and taken for property, and disposed of as the "Chosen" may wish, in my thinking bear a strong look. Such predatory cultures may have value in keeping the herd sharp, by weeding out the "Weaklings", but I would be very shy about letting the predatory cultures have their way. Certainly at first.

Science requires a capable mind, after all you must write a book. That is against efficiency. Religion allows a dummed down mind. All you need to do is follow the priests will, and he will tell you what the book says. So, all you need to be is verbal and violent. So religion is more efficient but less capable of dealing with the unknown.

Sex and violence have their places. Whores beget merchants, murderers beget intellectuals. And yet each of these are above their origins, their parents.

Bet you love me now.

So, is your space effort going to emphasize "Humans vs Nature", or "Humans vs Humans". For this reason I am not entirely against Scotts thinking. I just want more communication on the topic.

We really should think twice about allowing the "People Eaters" from religious practice to enter unopposed into the space effort to eat the flocks. Perhaps we will have no choice, but if we do have choice, we should favor the industrialists over the people eaters.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-28 12:23:35)

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-28 12:26:29

louis wrote:

Scott,
I think what you are really talking about is culture, not a constitution. It is only really a culture - a culture of secular democracy backed by enlightenment values - that can prevent totalitarian or violence-based ideologies getting a grip on society. Famously, Stalin brought in a wonderfully democratic constitution in the 1930s, which meant nothing as it was never meant to be implemented.
So, if we are talking about Mars, what does that mean? Well I think it means screening of migrants to Mars, to ensure they have the right set of tolerant attitudes to others. I know some people won't like that, but believe me once Mars migration becomes relatively inexpensive you will see a rush of religious and political nutjobs seeking to set up business on humanity's second home, because "not to be there" will feel to them like an insult.
I would hope a Mars Consortium would set the pattern for reasonable screening but sadly Musk's one big fault is he doesn't seem to think through the implications of his migration free-for-all.

I don't know how you would screen immigrants to Mars, its "border" is as big as the surface of the planet! All you need to get to Mars is a spaceship, and we can't send enough people to Mars to properly man a border patrol to prevent "illegals" from landing somewhere on the planet's surface.

louis · 2017-02-28 15:09:06

You don't have a right to move permanently from one country to another. You shouldn't have a right to move to Mars unless you can make a positive contribution and accord with its value system.

Terraformer wrote:

louis,
So what if people want to live on Mars. You have no more right to keep them from doing so than they have to prevent you - and that's the way it should be.
You want the planet, go settle it before anyone else manages to. But planting a flag doesn't grant you the planet.

louis · 2017-02-28 15:15:25

Any unauthorised landings would easily be spotted. There would be a reception party for the new arrivals and they will be placed on the next transporter back to Earth. Well, that's the way to do it properly.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

louis wrote:
Scott,
I think what you are really talking about is culture, not a constitution. It is only really a culture - a culture of secular democracy backed by enlightenment values - that can prevent totalitarian or violence-based ideologies getting a grip on society. Famously, Stalin brought in a wonderfully democratic constitution in the 1930s, which meant nothing as it was never meant to be implemented.
So, if we are talking about Mars, what does that mean? Well I think it means screening of migrants to Mars, to ensure they have the right set of tolerant attitudes to others. I know some people won't like that, but believe me once Mars migration becomes relatively inexpensive you will see a rush of religious and political nutjobs seeking to set up business on humanity's second home, because "not to be there" will feel to them like an insult.
I would hope a Mars Consortium would set the pattern for reasonable screening but sadly Musk's one big fault is he doesn't seem to think through the implications of his migration free-for-all.
I don't know how you would screen immigrants to Mars, its "border" is as big as the surface of the planet! All you need to get to Mars is a spaceship, and we can't send enough people to Mars to properly man a border patrol to prevent "illegals" from landing somewhere on the planet's surface.

Terraformer · 2017-02-28 16:01:39

So basically you want to go to Mars, put up a yuge wall around the planet, and tell everyone that you own the place now?

Like Scott's colony, I will make sure to send you a large amount of iron, on express delivery.

If you want to control immigration into your town, go right ahead. Though if your values don't accord with Martian values, we might force you onto the next transport to Sol.

louis · 2017-03-01 07:34:30

I suppose in an ideal world I would like the UN to mandate a Mars Consortium to operate on the planet and control access to the planet.

I doubt you are arguing for anyone to be allowed to settle on Mars. Would the anyone include people with clear mal intent, including a plan to destroy existing Mars bases and set up a totalitarian dictatorship?

Terraformer wrote:

So basically you want to go to Mars, put up a yuge wall around the planet, and tell everyone that you own the place now?
Like Scott's colony, I will make sure to send you a large amount of iron, on express delivery.
If you want to control immigration into your town, go right ahead. Though if your values don't accord with Martian values, we might force you onto the next transport to Sol.

RobertDyck · 2017-03-01 11:07:21

louis wrote:

I suppose in an ideal world I would like the UN to mandate a Mars Consortium to operate on the planet and control access to the planet.

Very bad idea. You realize if you do that, the result will be Antarctica. Only scientists allowed, no one will be allowed to mine, no one will be allowed to settle. No terraforming allowed. The planetary protectionists will win. MCP spacesuits will be prohibited because dead skin could leak out through the fabric to contaminate Mars. They will preserve Mars for some unseen bacteria that may or may not be there. Even if there is life on Mars, there is no time for it to evolve to sentience before our Sun dies, expands to a red giant and destroys all planets in the inner solar system. But the planetary protectionists don't care. If you put the UN in control, say goodbye to Mars.

Terraformer · 2017-03-01 11:28:54

louis wrote:

Would the anyone include people with clear mal intent, including a plan to destroy existing Mars bases and set up a totalitarian dictatorship?

Well, considering that you're the one who suggested destroying the bases of anyone you don't like...

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-01 21:15:27

louis wrote:

Any unauthorised landings would easily be spotted. There would be a reception party for the new arrivals and they will be placed on the next transporter back to Earth. Well, that's the way to do it properly.

Energize!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
louis wrote:
Scott,
I think what you are really talking about is culture, not a constitution. It is only really a culture - a culture of secular democracy backed by enlightenment values - that can prevent totalitarian or violence-based ideologies getting a grip on society. Famously, Stalin brought in a wonderfully democratic constitution in the 1930s, which meant nothing as it was never meant to be implemented.
So, if we are talking about Mars, what does that mean? Well I think it means screening of migrants to Mars, to ensure they have the right set of tolerant attitudes to others. I know some people won't like that, but believe me once Mars migration becomes relatively inexpensive you will see a rush of religious and political nutjobs seeking to set up business on humanity's second home, because "not to be there" will feel to them like an insult.
I would hope a Mars Consortium would set the pattern for reasonable screening but sadly Musk's one big fault is he doesn't seem to think through the implications of his migration free-for-all.
I don't know how you would screen immigrants to Mars, its "border" is as big as the surface of the planet! All you need to get to Mars is a spaceship, and we can't send enough people to Mars to properly man a border patrol to prevent "illegals" from landing somewhere on the planet's surface.

Scott Beach · 2017-03-01 22:19:23

According to the U.S. Department of State, the Outer Space Treaty is a “nonarmament” treaty. The text of the treaty may be found at https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm

The United States of America is a party to the Outer Space Treaty. If we want the parties to that treaty to amend it so that permanent human settlements can be established on Mars then we must recognize that the Outer Space Treaty is fundamentally about arms control.

I have drafted a “Constitution of Mars” that addresses international arms-control concerns. I have also drafted a “cover letter” to President Trump.
__________

Dear President Trump:

The “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” became effective on October 10, 1967. That treaty is commonly referred to as the “Outer Space Treaty”.

Article XV of the Outer Space Treaty provides that “Any State Party to the Treaty may propose amendments to” the Treaty. The United States of America is a party to the Outer Space Treaty and may propose amendments to the Treaty.

We believe that the Outer Space Treaty should be amended in a way that provides a legal foundation for the establishment of permanent human settlements on Mars. We hereby request that the United States of America propose amendments to the Outer Space Treaty. We request that the United States of America and other parties to the Outer Space Treaty ratify the “Constitution of Mars” (that constitution is appended below) and designate the Constitution of Mars as “Amendment A” of the Treaty.

Sincerely,
__________

Constitution of Mars

Purpose. We, the undersigned, have executed this agreement for the purpose of establishing a government that will exercise dominion over the planet Mars.

Names. This agreement shall be known as the “Constitution of Mars” and may be hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”. The government established by the Constitution shall be known as the “Government of Mars” and that government may be hereinafter referred to as the “Government”.

Military Weapons. The “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” provides that “The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.”

The Government of Mars shall not establish military bases, installations or fortifications on Mars or on any other celestial body. The Government shall not make, acquire, or test military weapons. The Government shall not conduct military maneuvers on Mars or on any other celestial body.

Moons of Mars. Mars has two moons. The larger of those two moons shall be known as “Liberty” and the smaller moon shall be known as “Happiness”.

[Author’s note: Names that designate the moons of Mars as the personifications of “terror” and “horror” are not good names for a planet that does not and will not possess military weapons. The alternative names “Liberty” and “Happiness” are derived from the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. That phrase is in the United States Declaration of Independence.]

Secular Government. The Government of Mars shall not require persons to believe in supernatural beings or forces; nor shall the Government prohibit such beliefs. The Government may be described as a “secular government”.

The Government may enact laws that provide for the establish of a “Religious Displays Corporation” and that provide for the appointment or election of the members of the Corporation’s governing body. The Corporation may maintain places where associations of religious Citizens can temporarily display religious scenes and symbols. Such places may be adjacent to the lands and offices of the Government; however, such proximity shall not be construed as a Government endorsement of any religious practices or beliefs. The Corporation shall adopt bylaws which ensure that religious minorities have equitable opportunities to display religious scenes and symbols.

Commencement of Operations. The Government shall begin exercising dominion over Mars when two or more of the parties to this agreement are living on Mars and have declared that they are Citizens of Mars.

Motto. The motto of the Government of Mars is: “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves”.

[Author’s note: this motto is borrowed from https://www.monticello.org/site/jeffers … -quotation ]

Scientocracy. The laws and policies of the Government of Mars shall, to the greatest possible extent, be based on experimentally verifiable data. The Government may be described as a “scientocracy”.

Behaviorology. Behavioral science is based on the theory that the behavior of an organism is determined by its physiology, its history of reinforcement and punishment, and its current environment. A human can use techniques based on that theory to shape his or her own behaviors. The members of a human society can, by the politically coordinated application of behavior shaping techniques, establish and maintain a society that closely approximates a perfect society, a utopia.

The Citizens of Mars shall continuously endeavor to establish “a more perfect Union” and, in proportion with their success, the Government of Mars might become the best and the least expensive government in the Solar System.

[Author’s note: The phrase “a more perfect Union” is borrowed from the Preamble of the United States Constitution.]

Social Control System. The children of Mars shall be taught how to use behavior shaping techniques to shape their own and each others behaviors. The Government may enact laws that prescribe and regulate the teaching of behavior shaping techniques.

Economic Pluralism. The Government shall enact laws that accommodate people who, like the Hutterites, prefer to live communally and practice a “community of goods”. The Government shall also enact laws that accommodate people who prefer to live in socialistic societies, like Sweden. The Government shall also enact laws that accommodate people who prefer to live in capitalistic societies, like the United States of America.

[Author’s Note: The Hutterite “community of goods” is explained at http://www.hutterites.org/our-beliefs/community-goods/ ]

United Nations Ambassador. The Citizens of Mars may elect and remove an Ambassador of Mars, who shall represent the Government of Mars at the United Nations.

Amendments. The Constitution of Mars may be amended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Citizens of Mars; however, amendments shall not become effective until they are ratified by the United Nations Security Council.

The ProtoMartians. Prior to the “Commencement of Operations”, as provided above, we shall operate under the State of Nevada “Revised Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act of 2008” ( http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-081. … S081Sec700 ). We shall be collectively known as “The ProtoMartians”. We may adopt and amend bylaws that provide for the management of our association.

[Author’s note: Background information about the Revised Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act may be found at http://www.uniformlaws.org/Narrative.as … opt+RUUNAA ]

Signatures:

Void · 2017-03-02 09:23:14

A flaw:

The Government of Mars shall not establish military bases, installations or fortifications on Mars or on any other celestial body. The Government shall not make, acquire, or test military weapons. The Government shall not conduct military maneuvers on Mars or on any other celestial body.

In the absence of other weapons, box cutters which normally serve as a tool, become a military weapon, the "Nuclear" weapon, in the absence of other weapons. We know what can be done with box cutters, and we know who would like to do it. Don't leave t he sheep to be butchered by the hungry wolves, or was that your intention? To make Mars a easy take down? Most likely you are naïve.

You say you want to build a culture based on scientific evidence, but I have seen some evidence of questionable science coming from your posts.

.....

Now I will partly mess with you and partly support you.

Quote:

The genetic fitness of Neanderthals has been judged to be relatively low. That finding did not surprise researchers because the Neanderthals were cannibals. Their habit of eating each other sharply limited the number of Neanderthals that could exist in a regional ecosystem. That situation led to lots of inbreeding and low genetic fitness.

This article supports Neanderthal character:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160419 … heir-minds
This article tends to give some support to your statement:
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-inbred-ne … netic.html

Some conversation about these three things from me:
1) If Neanderthals eat each other, this does not damage their DNA. Of course if they diminish their diversity by killing each other then yes this could reduce their diversity.

2) Inbreeding reduces the amount of genetic errors in a gene pool. Yes, if a bad gene is inherited from both parents, then that child may be non-viable, and so will take the bad genes out of the gene pool.

3) There are other reasons for practicing inbreeding. Cousin mating will produce more offspring. While too much inbreeding will cause problems. Outbreeding does as well. Some of the offspring will have problems if the parents are too genetically different. So, should cousin marriage be over promoted? No indeed doing it over and over again is probably a bad idea. Further, I do not think it is generally a good idea to get rid of "Bad" genes, because often, if a child inherits just one from one parent, it can be helpful.

Now I will mention Violence and Contacuality. (I made it up it is specific to human contact with another human of a non-violent nature).
*The use of the word "Sex" in our language is really stupid, since it applies to reproduction, contaxuality, and gender assignment.
Here I am going to refer specifically to contaxuallity, since all animals engage in reproduction and have gender.

I will mention four "Species". Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Humans(Including humans, such as me), and Neanderthals.

How they organize their "societies":

Chimpanzees-By male violence. Typically a clan of brothers will form alliances, and conduct wars with each other. But this is how Chimps bond. The female chimps do not bond.

Bonobo-By female contactuality. The females have dominance in this society, even though the males are larger. All members engage in contactuality with each other, but the females have the greater power in this.

Humans-Both, but with constraints. Violence and Contactuality are more regulated.

Neanderthal-Not known. However, I don't think I see evidence that hybrids like me are more violent or more contractual, than non-hybrids.

For both the Chimp and the Bonobo, excessive inbreeding is avoided by the females wandering off to be adopted by other groups.

I think a argument can be made that it is in the nature of a human female to behave in this manner as well. For instance a sister will dislike the body odor of a brother more than of a stranger. That helps to promote outbreeding.

I have no proof, but I think the problem for Neanderthal inbreeding might be that it could be very dangerous for females to wander off from their birth group to be adopted into another. However Neanderthals were very robust. Maybe they could accomplish it.
I am presuming that like "Humans" it would be a compulsion.

....

Well then about your proposed society. I can see that it could be possible to manage the issue of female transfer.
It is apparent from what I have read, that certain diets delay puberty. For instance Japan's diet does so from what I understand.
An early puberty is a bad idea, especially for females, as they are likely not mentally or even physically or socially equipped for it.
Reproduction is a very bad idea too early, and it is also possible that a early puberty reduces the ultimate capability of the persons brain.

It is a curious matter that in my culture, the diet is set to produce early puberty, but the social structure attempts to restrain reproduction until later. For instance wanting children to continue school into their 20's.

It seems to me that some social regulation could be helpful for this conflict. I mention it because I think it is one example of what could work with what you propose.

I'm done for now.

Last edited by Void (2017-03-02 10:17:49)

Scott Beach · 2017-03-02 12:26:09

Void: In accordance with my revised “Constitution of Mars”, the Government of Mars would be operating under the supervision of the United Nations Security Council. The Council is unlikely to deem physicians’ scalpels and box cutters as military weapons.

The members of the Security Council will want to be assured that Mars is not going to become a threat to international and interplanetary peace. I believe that the Council would not be too concerned if police officers on Mars carry revolvers but if they carry semi-automatic pistols then that might cause some concern among members of the Council. This is the sort of issue that should be discussed by proto-Martians and eventually considered by parties to the Outer Space Treaty.

We should work together to draft amendments to the Outer Space Treaty that will be acceptable to the parties to that treaty and that will allow Martians to govern themselves.

elderflower · 2017-03-02 13:22:31

Any body with a ballistic weapon may make a hole in the hab. This might not have good results.

Scott Beach · 2017-03-02 14:46:23

elderflower wrote:

Any body with a ballistic weapon may make a hole in the hab. This might not have good results.

Discharging a “ballistic weapon” inside of a pressurized habitat can have disastrous results.

I had an uncle who worked for about 25 years as a city police officer. He never had to draw his pistol out of its holster while he was on duty. I hope that a similar situation will prevail on Mars.

In a situation where someone must be stopped, a tranquilizer dart from an air rifle might be a viable option. And there are rifle-like devices that can shoot a net onto a person. And while a taser can kill a person, it does not usually cause death or serious injury.

These alternatives will be considered by proto-Martians and, eventually, by the Citizens of Mars.

Void · 2017-03-02 16:40:54

Granted your solution for non-perforation of domes with weapons is a need, so you did pretty good with that.

But....

Now we have Martians who are "Self Governing", but Earth though an extended outer space treaty will make sure they cannot have weapons of significance.

And many of these Earthlings will not be allowed to live on Mars, because they have bad social behaviors.

For instance, perhaps I might believe that if I drill a hole in the habitat and kill myself and a bunch of "Others" (Others being defined as the infidels), then I shall go to Paradise (Not Heaven), and can live out my lust.

Having a bit of trouble processing....not computing....noticed also that you did not touch on social behavior control....

Last edited by Void (2017-03-02 16:45:56)

Scott Beach · 2017-03-02 17:49:19

Void wrote:

Now we have Martians who are "Self Governing", but Earth though an extended outer space treaty will make sure they cannot have weapons of significance.

The news of this day includes China’s angry response to a plan to put U.S. missiles into South Korea.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-south … SKBN16709W

Like it or not, we have to deal with the nonarmanent provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. I made a reasonable proposal to respond to those provisions.

Costa Rica eliminated its military many years ago. See “Costa Rica's peace dividend: How abolishing the military paid off”

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/15 … n-20131208

What worked for Costa Rica can work for Mars.

Void · 2017-03-03 09:15:10

I don't trust you. The answer is no.

Scott Beach · 2017-03-03 09:57:58

Void wrote:

I don't trust you. The answer is no.

Void: Is your "no" an answer to a particular question? It would help if you used question marks (?) at the end of your questions. It is very difficult for me to tell the difference between your exposition and your inquiries. I do not know what you want in the way of an answer.

I do not regard my response to the Outer Space Treaty as an "extension" of the treaty. I am proposing that the parties to the treaty adopt an exception to the treaty provision that precludes claims of sovereignty. I am analyzing the political situation at the United Nations and I am trying to make a request that the parties to the treaty will be likely to grant. I proposed religious and economic pluralism because I believe that the parties will want to see those features in a "Constitution of Mars".

In a novel titled The Songs of Distant Earth, Arthur C. Clarke wrote, "It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints". I believe that this is true. I believe that the people of a planet can learn to use science-based techniques to build prosperous and peaceful societies. They do not need the threat of an all-seeing policeman in the sky to maintain a social order. The Government of Mars can be a secular government.

JohnX · 2017-03-10 12:09:28

Scott Beach wrote:

e Treaty.
The history of human civilizations contains dozens, hundreds, thousands of accounts of Hindus slaughtering Moslems, Moslems slaughtering Christians, Christians slaughtering Jews, Jews slaughtering Moslems, etc, etc, etc. Let’s stop this senseless slaughter. Let’s agree to teach our children how to create and maintain stable sociocultural systems that are based on science (a body of knowledge obtained and tested by use of the scientific method).
Perhaps the Constitution of Mars should contain an article which declares that the Government of Mars shall be a secular government.

Hi Scott. I totally agree that people need to learn how to control themselves, and that teaching children is a great way to start.

However, when you're pointing the finger at 'religion' for so much mass-murder, and I agree all that happened and it's horrific, please do point the finger also at atheists, particularly the like of the Russian Soviet communists and the tens of millions of slaughtered people who were their victims just in the last century. It's not only a belief in 'God' that will make people act barbarically. On Mars - who knows - the feeling of living so far from the scrutiny of the rest of the human race may cause some to throw off whatever restraints they once had. I hope not.

kbd512 · 2017-03-10 18:39:37

Scott Beach wrote:

The news of this day includes China’s angry response to a plan to put U.S. missiles into South Korea.

The communist Chinese government is angry at any action that threatens their ability to dominate other people. The Chinese government's "intense dislike" for the Americans is the fact that they always seem to get between them and the people they want to dominate. If they could run roughshod over South Korea, Viet Nam, and especially Japan, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Their government wants revenge for transgressions, real or perceived, that vanishingly few alive today were alive to suffer from at the time that those transgressions occurred.

Scott Beach wrote:

Like it or not, we have to deal with the nonarmanent provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. I made a reasonable proposal to respond to those provisions.

You're trying to convince other people to buy into the way you want to deal with the Outer Space Treaty. Judging from the responses you've received thus far, you've not convinced anyone else that your ideas have much merit. The Outer Space Treaty is a quaint idea that space faring countries pay lip service to.

Scott Beach wrote:

Costa Rica eliminated its military many years ago. See “Costa Rica's peace dividend: How abolishing the military paid off”

Finding one example of a homogenous society that functions the way you think it should says absolutely nothing about the rest of the world.

Costa Rica is a tiny country protected by the world's most powerful military. The fact that someone else is sometimes willing to fight for you does not mean you'll never have occasion to fight for yourself. The people you put up on pedestals as having any inkling of how to run a peaceful society are the ones who've done the most to destroy the world we have today.

Scott Beach wrote:

What worked for Costa Rica can work for Mars.

If this is some sort of thought experiment, fine. If you actually think any of what you proposed would work in the real world, then you're in for a very rude surprise. Instead of devising schemes to try to control other people, learn to control yourself. Use that three pound universe between your ears to exert control over the only person you'll ever have any real control over.

Scott Beach · 2017-03-10 20:19:01

kbd512 wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty is a quaint idea that space faring countries pay lip service to.

You have asserted that “The Outer Space Treaty a quaint idea” as though that treaty is totally ignored. However, you should recognize that there are not thousands of nuclear warheads in Earth orbit just 100 miles above your head. Such warheads, if they existed, could strike any target under their orbital path within 2 minutes.

The Outer Space Treaty is being honored now. Look up toward the zenith and think about that.

The Outer Space Treaty has played an important role in preventing the incineration of terrestrial civilizations.

kbd512 · 2017-03-11 02:57:53

Scott Beach wrote:

You have asserted that “The Outer Space Treaty a quaint idea” as though that treaty is totally ignored. However, you should recognize that there are not thousands of nuclear warheads in Earth orbit just 100 miles above your head. Such warheads, if they existed, could strike any target under their orbital path within 2 minutes.

Total W78 MIRV Inventory: 1,083 warheads

Lockheed-Martin Space Systems Titan IV-B (Cold War era USAF Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle):
Armament (LEO, 28 degrees): 48 W78 MIRV's
Armament (LEO-Polar): 39 W78 MIRV's
Warhead Mass Estimate (each; incl. RCS / Propulsion): 450kg
Payload Mass (LEO, 28 degrees): 21,680kg LEO (requires multiple platforms for continuous coverage)
Payload Mass (LEO-Polar): 17,600kg (requires 1 or 2 platforms for continuous coverage)
Unit Cost (minimum): $250M
Unit Cost (maximum): $350M
Cost per MIRV: $5.2M (28 degrees) to $6.4M (polar)
Min Launches to Position Entire W78 Inventory: 23
Min Procurement Cost: $5.75B

Boeing LGM-30 Minuteman-III (Cold War era USAF ICBM):
Armament: 3 W78 MIRV's
Warhead Mass Estimate (each): 317kg to 363kg
Unit Cost: $7M
Cost per MIRV: $2.3M
Min Launches to Expend Entire W78 Inventory: 361
Min Procurement Cost: $2.53B

Ignoring the absurd development costs associated with space-based nuclear weapons, for double the cost of ICBM's I could park our land-based nuclear arsenal in space. I have to pay for $450M STS flights to service the warhead clusters because all nuclear weapons require regular maintenance. If the weapons are in a polar orbit, the Russians could wipe out 1/23 of the entire arsenal with a single ICBM. If I cluster more weapons together to reduce costs associated with regular STS maintenance flights, then even more of the arsenal could be destroyed by a single ICBM. If you think the multi-billion dollar nuclear weapons maintenance programs for land and sea based weapons are expensive, then calculate what 23 STS flights per year would cost. If I can't communicate with my opulently expensive nuclear weapons, then I wasted a lot of the tax payers' money for nothing and a preemptive strike against the US just might succeed.

Scott Beach wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty is being honored now. Look up toward the zenith and think about that.

The US government doesn't devote much in the way of resources to absurdly expensive and complicated methods to kill us all when there are comparatively inexpensive and simple ways to kill us all.

Scott Beach wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty has played an important role in preventing the incineration of terrestrial civilizations.

The Outer Space Treaty has played an important role in gratuitous tree killing, but that's as far as it goes.

There's no need to put nuclear weapons into orbit when nuclear tipped missiles fired from the ground or sea can kill just as swiftly and assuredly. We're still here because the men and women with the launch codes are too narcissistic to do anything that might jeopardize the great deal they have lording their power and wealth over us. No piece of inked paper changes that. You're free to believe otherwise.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2017-02-28 00:58:38

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#27 2017-02-28 02:31:32

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#28 2017-02-28 05:35:01

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#29 2017-02-28 12:09:43

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#30 2017-02-28 12:26:29

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#31 2017-02-28 15:09:06

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#32 2017-02-28 15:15:25

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#33 2017-02-28 16:01:39

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#34 2017-03-01 07:34:30

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#35 2017-03-01 11:07:21

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#36 2017-03-01 11:28:54

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#37 2017-03-01 21:15:27

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#38 2017-03-01 22:19:23

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#39 2017-03-02 09:23:14

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#40 2017-03-02 12:26:09

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#41 2017-03-02 13:22:31

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#42 2017-03-02 14:46:23

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#43 2017-03-02 16:40:54

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#44 2017-03-02 17:49:19

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#45 2017-03-03 09:15:10

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#46 2017-03-03 09:57:58

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#47 2017-03-10 12:09:28

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#48 2017-03-10 18:39:37

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#49 2017-03-10 20:19:01

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#50 2017-03-11 02:57:53

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

Board footer