Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Morris · 2004-07-20 14:54:22

You mentioned Paine's The Rights of Man. Do you have a sketch of the kind of colony that you would like to see?
*Hi Morris.
Yes, I do. http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … rticularly the 8th post (dated June 19) in this thread.
--Cindy

Ah. Yes, everything you have said seems very probable with the exception of domestic animals. Large domestic animals like horses and cows would likely cost more to feed and care for than they are worth, at least in the very early stages of colonization.

Morris · 2004-07-20 15:15:16

You wouldn't happen to know which UC did the research, would you?

It was U Cal - Berkeley. The project produced a number of books one of which was Barron's Creativity and Personal Freedom.

clark · 2004-07-20 15:22:00

I seem to have confused the book with another refrence.

Morris · 2004-07-20 15:38:22

Isn't the willingness to bow to social pressure also determined by the importance of the the conforming behavior towards the individual? A piece of string is one thing, but it fails to explain dissenting voices within a jury, no?

Yes, my example was illustrative of a principle, not an attempt at an exhaustive analysis of interpersonal relations. And I specifically indicated that other factors come into play as was indicated in my example of religion. Thus I also agree with your second paragraph completely.

However, I have doubts about your final paragraph. Certainly we do sort between conflicting values and the very definition of a predominant vs a subordinate value is the fact of preference for it. However, I don't think that this fact reduces the role of conscious deliberation or reduces it's legal or philosophical importance as a choice.

clark · 2004-07-20 15:49:56

Yet philosphical and legal value is derived by the social group and it's aggregate value of it. Consious deliberation is merely the individual navagating their way between competing worldviews imposed upon them by the social group, and their place within it. We define ourselves by those around us, and we understand the world by these groups which impose schemas upon our psyche- all in an effort to better understand what is going on, or in other words, to establish context of any given situation.

We look at the outside world and we understand what is going on by what the social group understands it to be. We reinforce this view by discussing, by taking cues from one another on how we should behave in the given environment. Individual "choice" is merely an illusion of competing social groups that play out in our valuation of the current and changing environment.

We end up catagorizing the various identities we associate ourselves with into an individual hierarchy of importance that are continually competing against one another to define who we are, what we think, and how we act. This process is the ego formation, and is generally why we end up with some various form of neurosis or psychosis when the system is under stress or is unable to effectively navigate within the environment.

Morris · 2004-07-21 15:54:33

Both of these examples are somewhat flawed, in that both are cases where the more advanced, better armed combatant lost due to self-imposed constraints (Vietnam more so) and indirect interference from another superpower (more the case with Afghanistan). Also, both wars quickly became proxy wars between the superpowers. In the cases of the Viet Cong and the Mujahedeen, they didn't start racking up significant gains against the invading superpower until the other superpower became a benefactor to them for their own purposes.

To me the concrete issue is the more advanced technology on the battlefield and whether or not that is sufficient to win. In my Afghanistan analogy, the Soviets had generally superior technology but lost to a single technologically superior weapon highly fitted to the geographical circumstances of that particular war. +1, not for superior technology in general, but for having the right superior technology in the right time and the right place. I would be interested to know what Soviet self-constraints influenced the war.

The issue of Vietnam is much more complex. Even the superpower(s) aiding the Viet Cong/NVA had technology notably inferior to the US and it's allies, so their interference had a significant but relatively minor role to play. About the only area where they had technological superiority was in antiaircraft weaponry suitable for jungle terrain. We didn't need it because we weren't being attacked from the air.

Many of our self-constraints in Vietnam have been discussed endlessly, but I am not sure we would have won even if they had not been there, with one exception, direct ground attack on North Vietnam. We had one chance, interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh trail in North Vietnam and further air/sea/ground attacks following the essential annihilation of the Viet Cong in the Tet offensive. Mopping up against the Viet Cong in the south would be accomplished by the South Vietnamese army and civil authorities. But by that time the credibility of the Westmoreland crowd was so poor that nothing could be done.

I don't know where you get your information that there were few successes against the invading army until support from superpower benefactors kicked in. We were invited into S. Vietnam in the first place because the local government was having serious problems with the VC. Then we sent Green Beret advisors and that war is characterized by the book and film of the same name. We might not have been losing but we sure weren't winning, though the long-term possibilities looked promising. And when major American forces entered the war we won the first battle just barely, thanks to excellent reinforcements and the field artillery, and got the stew knocked out of us the very next day when we moved troops in very unfavorable circumstances (high canopy interfering with both close air support and field artillery and high grass concealing substantial enemy forces). Besides the VC/NVA had been receiving superpower support for a long time. No, the original statement was that the ones with the highest tech on the battlefield, if they pursue the war vigorously will win. Well, Vietnam gives a loud and conclusive "No" to that conception. US troops were there for a long time, had technological superiority, and vigorously pursued the battle (until near the end) but stategic, political, and moral failures brought it all to naught.

Well, not exactly naught. At least one of our SEA allies thought we did achieve our objective of so heavily blunting the "domino effect" that the overall communist strategy was stopped. The Vietnamese did go on to occupy both Laos and Cambodia. However, the both the West and the Chinese objected to the occupation of Cambodia (though this was probably an improvement as they took over from Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge). The Chinese invaded Vietnam in a one-month "punitive" expedition which had the result of bringing most of the best Vietnamese forces from Cambodia to the Chinese border where they stayed. Shortly afterwards an internationally negotiated "neutral" government took over Cambodia. The Vietnamese had no essential will to resist this move and the great communist expansion in SE Asia was over. No high tech there, just political and moral factors.

Not to stray off topic too much, but I think you've brushed against the heart of the matter without really hitting it. There are many levels of conditioning, both cultural and of a more individual sort that affect behavior. Certainly it isn't "natural" for male children to play with toy guns any more than it's "natural" for female children to play with an EZ Bake oven. Guns and ovens don't exist in nature.
But the distinctions they reperesent and play off of do. The male primate is the hunter, while the female is more prone to raising the young. These differences are very real and documented, everything else is merely built on them. Much social 'conditioning' can be broken down as just that, but it rests on a foundation of very real, basic human behavioral norms. Reading too much into the details is misleading, but utterly dismissing them is unrealistic.

Hmmm. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one because I think my point is dead heart central. The reason is that our biological foundation was generated in, at latest, neolithic times. With the coming of new technologies and cultures, the old biological foundations may become, not advantages, but disadvantages. One often cited example is continuing to eat as if we were neolithic animals resulting in chronic overweight. As a result, we have to fight "uphill" against our nature to make correct decisions as culture makes more and more of our nature maladaptive. The consequences of this have, of course, been investigated by many. For example, Robert A. Heinlein, in Starship Troopers makes his troopship pilots all women. With all the mechanization, strength and physical stamina aren't needed but superior manual dexterity is. While Heinlein's assumptions can be argued with, the overall point cannot. And if we are going to be constantly changing our conditioning to meet new challenges, the understanding of what is structural and what is content as well as exactly how you have them interact to produce a specific outcome is the meat of the issue.

Yes, it's from the Book of Mormon. The wording is rather similar to another 19th Century work whose proponents have never been able to fully substantiate, eh? :;):

Thanks. However, I am not coming up with the book you have in mind. Clarification?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-21 16:56:21

To me the concrete issue is the more advanced technology on the battlefield and whether or not that is sufficient to win. In my Afghanistan analogy, the Soviets had generally superior technology but lost to a single technologically superior weapon highly fitted to the geographical circumstances of that particular war. +1, not for superior technology in general, but for having the right superior technology in the right time and the right place. I would be interested to know what Soviet self-constraints influenced the war.

Essentially we're in agreement, just coming at the issue from slightly different directions. The Afghan acquisition of US Stinger missiles was a significant if not the primary reason for their success, but due entirely to the Soviet reliance on gunship helicopters and SU-25's. The Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam shared one crucial strategic element: pacification. In both cases the technologically superior power sought not to conquer, destroy or depopulate the country in question, but to control it indirectly through friendly and compliant client regimes. In either case the war was lost due to the superpower holding itself within certain boundaries, namely limited conventional warfare in support of limited objectives.

I'm not suggesting either would have or should have gone nuclear, but that there are lesser degrees of escalation that could have altered the outcome totally and were at the sole discretion of the engaged superpower. For example, in both cases the core goal was to prevent a hostile regime from taking power. This was interpreted as "keep our guys in power" when totally destabalising or even depopulating the country in question would have achieved the same ends. In both cases the conflict was a proxy, so both superpowers adhered to restrictions in order to keep matters contained. Academic perhaps, but true nonetheless.

Hmmm. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one because I think my point is dead heart central...

Again, I don't think we disagree here either. While we as a species are adapted to conditions which are in large part no longer relevant to our lives, we are still adapted to them. Those adaptations still affect us in innumerable ways. In many cases we should work to overcome them, but that doesn't change that we still have them. We can ignore some conditioning, we can change some, but some is only so flexible. We are still stone-age creatures, we just happen to be living in technological, alien conditions of our own making, almost in a state of captivity in a sense.

Quote
Yes, it's from the Book of Mormon. The wording is rather similar to another 19th Century work whose proponents have never been able to fully substantiate, eh?

Thanks. However, I am not coming up with the book you have in mind. Clarification?

That passage from the Book of Mormon (1830) is remarkably similar to "From each according to his capacity, to each according to his need". Communist Manifesto, 1848.

The Prophets Smith and Marx

Morris · 2004-07-22 08:40:39

I would be interested to know what Soviet self-constraints influenced the war.

Thanks for the excellent analysis of the constraints. Yes, certainly the fights were within those contexts.

Again, I don't think we disagree here either. While we as a species are adapted to conditions which are in large part no longer relevant to our lives, we are still adapted to them. Those adaptations still affect us in innumerable ways. In many cases we should work to overcome them, but that doesn't change that we still have them. We can ignore some conditioning, we can change some, but some is only so flexible. We are still stone-age creatures, we just happen to be living in technological, alien conditions of our own making, almost in a state of captivity in a sense.

Yes, we certainly agree on the above.

That passage from the Book of Mormon (1830) is remarkably similar to "From each according to his capacity, to each according to his need". Communist Manifesto, 1848.
The Prophets Smith and Marx

Ah, <blush>, yes, thank you.

Morris · 2004-07-22 10:03:14

We look at the outside world and we understand what is going on by what the social group understands it to be. We reinforce this view by discussing, by taking cues from one another on how we should behave in the given environment. Individual "choice" is merely an illusion of competing social groups that play out in our valuation of the current and changing environment.

Clark, your analysis is very interesting. Certainly the social group profoundly influences our understanding of events. And, as you indicate, it is a long, slow process of ego development. And many parts of our cognitive functioning are unconscious or "preconscious". All that being said, however, it is a big jump from there to your statement that individual choice is an illusion. While I only have a cursory awareness of its contents, there is an extensive philosophical literature on this issue and deep controversy remains. I personally rely upon my experience of "hard choices" and modern experimental literature based on brain scanning which indicates that there is a specific area of the brain which becomes more active when we exert the mental effort involved in choice.

We end up catagorizing the various identities we associate ourselves with into an individual hierarchy of importance that are continually competing against one another to define who we are, what we think, and how we act. This process is the ego formation, and is generally why we end up with some various form of neurosis or psychosis when the system is under stress or is unable to effectively navigate within the environment.

I agree with the first sentence. And ego formation does occur along many of the lines you suggest. However, I believe your statesments about neurosis or psychosis appearing when the system is under stress have been outdated by current evidence. Other things being equal, system stress results in the temporary disturbances in behavior called "adjustment disorders". While some brief psychotic phenomena due to stress sometimes appear, generally psychosis requires additional specific biological weaknesses. Neurosis is no longer a term recognized diagnostically by the American Psychiatric Association. Even in its former usage, however, the disorders described (e.g. anxiety disorders, most forms of depression, etc.) also depend on additional biological foundations in order to appear in a persistent form.

In any event, thanks for the interesting ideas. There is a lot about ego development which will be critically important in a developing Martian civilization, not to mention dealing with problems here on earth. [

Omer Joel · 2005-01-12 05:38:43

I don't know about militarization; this is an issue of the political conflicts of the time. I do think that the entire Mars colony will be extremely commercialized from the beginning. So if the colonists will want to build their own society on Mars, nut just the megacorporate society enforced on them by economical elements back on Earth, they'll need to fight :bars2: - and then there will be militarization for sure.

dicktice · 2005-04-07 14:30:21

I recommend patterning after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) force, where an "Officer" per remote community keeps the peace, in conjunction with a "Headquarters" located (you name where) for conformity to the "Establishment."

Palomar · 2005-04-07 14:37:23

*Conformity? The Establishment?

???

Not for this gal, no-thank-you.

Time for some peaceful protest and passive resistance!

--Cindy

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-04-13 17:26:55

we have some examples of how astronauts could become somewhat lawless. i seem to recall skylab inhabitants becoming bitter w/ mission control @ some points. & on the ISS there have been "incidents". the level of "warfare" probably wouldn`t get very "high" @ least during our lifetimes. but there will be attempts @ fiefdom/serfdom. debates will flare over independence. taxes will be levied. ownership of property will eventually be necessary. i think a space military will eventually take the form of texas rangers or canadian mounties. colonists will grumble over this as it will be necessary to pay for it. & consider that several earth nations will be involved & not all of them would be friends. there will be bitternes toward newcomers/tenderfoots as well & these may not always be survivable i.e. college hazing, lest we 4get some don`t even survive college. the Masons, Hell`s Angels, La Cosa Nostra, to name a few, all have initiation rites. in order for us to acquire funding for this venture we may need help of otherwise unsavory/scrupulous organizations. there will be terrorists/m as well. acquiring hard capital isn`t always done thru peaceful means.

Don't see how they will be able to afford to fund the new Martian military while astronuts and new colonists will need food in their stomachs

Komiyama · 2017-10-12 19:28:31

Please no militarisation/no nukes/etc. on Mars. There's no need for it.

SpaceNut · 2017-10-12 21:33:29

Welcome to Newmars

What an old topic but time to mark it for fixing....

edit: finally finished with repairs

Last edited by SpaceNut (2017-10-14 20:35:13)

JohnnyNyro · 2017-10-20 20:37:18

How long do you reckon a cell pellet can survive before it must be resuspended? I figure it limits how large a batch of samples can be processed at the same time.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-25 04:48:22

Space Force has to prepare for operations beyond Earth’s orbit
https://spacenews.com/report-space-forc … ths-orbit/

The United States Space Force (USSF) is the space service branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, one of the eight U.S. uniformed services, and the world's first and currently only independent space force. The U.S. Space Force is a military service branch, and along with sister-branch, the U.S. Air Force, is part of the Department of the Air Force, one of the three civilian-led military departments within the Department of Defense. The Space Force, through the Department of the Air Force, is overseen by the Secretary of the Air Force, a civilian political appointee who reports to the secretary of defense, and is appointed by the president with Senate confirmation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force

On 20 December 2019, the United States Space Force Act, developed by Democratic Representative Jim Cooper and Republican Representative Mike Rogers, was signed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act by President Donald Trump, reorganizing Air Force Space Command into the United States Space Force, and creating the first new independent military service since the Army Air Forces were reorganized as the U.S. Air Force in 1947.

The Space Force operates two Boeing X-37B spaceplanes on behalf of the Department of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, which were previously managed by Air Force Space Command for five spaceflights. USA-299, launched in May 2020, was the first spaceplane mission operated under Space Force command

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-14 06:29:05

German have a space force?

Germany establishes new military space command
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2021/ … e-command/

The U.S Space Force Is Being Urged To Prepare For Lunar Warfare
https://wonderfulengineering.com/the-u- … r-warfare/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-24 14:02:50

The dictatorship disaster

Junta Economy?
Russia sticks to fighter jet deal with Myanmar despite country’s international isolation after coup
https://investvine.com/russia-sticks-to … fter-coup/
Drafting women into war?
https://reason.com/2021/07/22/senate-co … the-draft/

Yes a military can 'defend' but perhaps military rule is not always good

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-07-24 14:03:39)

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-02 11:35:57

For SpaceNut .... I'm guessing at where to put this post .... it is about concerns that space may be opened using old frontier thinking ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-fight … 57162.html

The article at the link above is going to make some members of NewMars forum unhappy.

However, I think it is worth careful reading, because it represents a frame of thought that is quite likely to propagate in the educated population who are not space enthusiasts.

“If we don’t think that space is a place ruled by law, then we know how that ends,” said van Eijk. “The richest win.”
Read more at The Daily Beast.
Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here
Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!
Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

We have at least one member of this forum who is thinking along the lines of becoming filthy rich by pursuing goals relating to space.

Heck, I might even be one of them, although I'd settle for just "comfortably" rich.

(th)

Terraformer · 2021-12-02 14:16:59

Decolonisation has no place in space, because decolonisation is centred around indigenous peoples and cultures. A far better comparison, if they wish to reach for one, is the initial settlement of the Americas, or the Maori spreading across the Pacific. When they demand those groups apologise for their actions, I may listen to them.

And sustainability is pretty much baked in. If you don't focus on long term maintenance of your environment, you die.

These days, Billings believes that human beings simply aren’t ready to settle in space yet.

So she's no one who should ever be listened to anyway. She doesn't want to go, why should anyone care what she thinks? We'll settle the solar system and promise to leave her kind alone.

Terraformer · 2021-12-02 14:18:53

In short, these people are evil. Daemonic, diabolical, whatever other terms you wish to use. The sort of people who would deny antibiotics to a feverish and dying child because they don't want to go against the Fates. Such sick and twisted individuals need to be sidelined and ignored and perhaps occasionally laughed at.

kbd512 · 2021-12-03 02:22:31

Cobra Commander wrote:

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Now that's comedy.

In all seriousness, far too many people have an unhealthy obsession with killing each other (as if there was ever a "healthy kind"). Over time, even most veterans discover that there are far better ways to spend their precious time. I like the technology development aspect of the military, but wonder if any other end goal besides killing each other could also foment similar paradigm shifts in technology.

WWI was about learning that bayonet charges don't work against machine guns and large caliber artillery.
WWII was about learning how mass manufacturing can still best more advanced technology and ideological fervor.
WWIII will be about learning how the widespread use of nuclear weapons resets all technology development back to the Stone Age.
WWIV will be about using Stone Age technology for war because even after WWIII, we still didn't learn anything- and how could we after all the books and teachers are vaporized?

After WWI and WWII, most people would tell you that it was so painful that they didn't need or want another war. I'm hoping humanity doesn't have to learn that lesson the hard way, but our track record associated with "true learning" is also "truly appalling".

Calliban · 2021-12-03 06:07:44

The problem is that life of all kinds is a competition for limited resources. There is never enough to fulfil every appetite. So different groups end up fighting for dominance. It is as much a part of life as breathing and eating. It is the primary reason why I believe in space colonisation. As various resources on Earth become progressively depleted, we could end up fighting over the rest like cats in bag. If we don't escape the Earth in reasonable time, it risks becoming a sort of gravitational prison, in which the inmates fight over the remaining stuff using guns and nukes and (more likely) germ warfare. Any kind of decent human future needs the resources and breathing room that space allows.

Low Earth orbit is a strategic choke point that all Earth based interests must cross in order to reach other places. We don't yet have good enough propulsion technology to reach other bodies by direct throw. Also, for Earth based conflicts, LEO is the ultimate high ground. The reconnaissance and guidance capabilities provided by satellites were bound to make space a theatre of warfare sooner or later.

I am a strong proponent of micro nuclear pulse propulsion. Future use of nuclear weapons will inevitably increase back ground radiation levels on Earth. We might as well accept that fact and deploy atmospheric nuclear detonations for a more productive purpose. We need propulsion systems that will allow large ships to take off and land on Earth reusable and fly between Earth and other planets with direct throw capability on a single tank of fuel. That means T/W ratio better than 1 and ISP better than 1000. There is no way of achieving that without nuclear pulse, because thrust x ISP = power. The power requirements become difficult if you introduce heat transfer across solid boundaries, so nuclear pulse it must be. I believe that it is possible to use very small amounts of fissile material to ignite compressed deuterium pellets. In this way, fission provides only the trigger for a fusion dominated pulse. This allows for high thrust and high ISP with minimal radioactivity.

There is no space drive technology that is even close to practicality that can achieve high ISP and high thrust simultaneously, without deploying a nuclear reaction as an energy source. Even pure fusion would release some radioactivity as neutrons interact with the air. So at some point conversions need to be had around acceptable levels of pollution of Earth's atmosphere in exchange for access to the new frontier and its resources. At some point, conventional rocketry will start to become a significant aggrevating factor in atmospheric warming, as it pumps water vapour into the upper atmosphere. Eventually, nuclear pulse propulsion will be used because it is in the final consideration, more environmentally friendly.

Incidentally, this puts in my mind a new terraforming method for Mars. Large ships powered by fission-fusion microexplosions could use water as propellant and would pump the Martian ionosphere with hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. A fraction of these would recombine to form water molecules which would create a powerful greenhouse effect. It is something that will end up happening whether we want it to or not. On Earth, we could use sulphur as a propellant in the upper atmosphere. The resulting sulphate aerosols will have an atmospheric cooling effect. On the moon, probably any solid material will be adequate as a propellant. At temperatures of 10,000K, almost all materials break down into dissociated ions. But you need a material that you can pump and ideally can be used for regenerative cooling of the expansion chamber. Maybe liquid magnesium, aluminium or sodium? Liquid oxygen is a possibility.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-03 06:42:09)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-03 18:43:05

Controlling the high ground will mean we need a new power and propulsion system to gain move-ability to get out of the way of any incoming targeting systems weapon.

It also mean re-enforcing the ships hull once on orbit to take heavy hits that might come its way.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-20 14:54:22

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#77 2004-07-20 15:15:16

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#78 2004-07-20 15:22:00

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#79 2004-07-20 15:38:22

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#80 2004-07-20 15:49:56

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#81 2004-07-21 15:54:33

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#82 2004-07-21 16:56:21

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#83 2004-07-22 08:40:39

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#84 2004-07-22 10:03:14

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#85 2005-01-12 05:38:43

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#86 2005-04-07 14:30:21

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#87 2005-04-07 14:37:23

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#88 2007-04-13 17:26:55

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#89 2017-10-12 19:28:31

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#90 2017-10-12 21:33:29

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#91 2017-10-20 20:37:18

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#92 2021-06-25 04:48:22

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#93 2021-07-14 06:29:05

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#94 2021-07-24 14:02:50

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#95 2021-12-02 11:35:57

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#96 2021-12-02 14:16:59

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#97 2021-12-02 14:18:53

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#98 2021-12-03 02:22:31

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#99 2021-12-03 06:07:44

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#100 2021-12-03 18:43:05

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Board footer