$74 Billion - What would you do?

Ad Astra · 2003-04-09 15:34:11

I'll say. This should have been moved to a different area of the forum long ago. But I can say with certainty (thanks, in part, to this thread,) that the war was the most polarizing issue of my generation. Let's end this now and talk space again!

Adrian · 2003-04-09 15:53:10

Moved to Free Chat. This topic will be locked if it doesn't get back onto some semblance of being related to Mars; it did start out okay.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-11 18:59:54

This is all too remenicient of "1984" by George Orwell. Read it.

I just can't let this go. I've been thinking this whole thing is remarkably like "1984" for entirely different reasons.

It amazes me how many people will accept whatever the telescreen spews out while having no memory of contradictory things it said the day before. Doublethink is alive and well, and the left is more prone to it than the Bush Administration.

soph · 2003-04-11 19:42:52

I love how leftists throw out 1984 whenever people support the government, regardless of the person's reasons for doing so. I've seen it on other forums, too.

I don't like Bush, yet I often get accused of being propogandized by the government (which again, I don't like), because I support the war, and I back my position.

All extremists, on both sides, bash any moderate sources, while throwing out completely ludicrous sources of their own, claiming to be "free-thinkers." It gets very amusing.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-11 23:37:12

Why is it that so many people, seemingly out of nowhere, without any sort of substance, start rambling about how evil ?the left? is? Is everyone indoctrinated to bash ?the left? or something? When I see people bashing ?the right? under similar circumstances (ie, almost random bashing with little substance), I feel the same way (if you're going to bash something, how about context, and how about something relevant, rather than silly strawmen?). Only, I don't see it nearly as much as the converse.

It seems a majority of posts from some posters here are about just that, and completely non-Mars related. This is why I've refrained from political discussions (this doesn't really count since I'm just questioning behavior on this forum), because it's quite pointless to the matters we attempt to discuss here.

And BTW, for those who need to be educated about Orwell (who is commonly used by some in quite a disingenuous, doublethink kind of way- in this very thread, even), he was a self admitted socialist. His books were explicitly meant to bash mindless fellowship, and power mongering, things which under his definition of socialism were wrong. Orwell would roll over in his grave, actually, no, he'd probably grin and laugh, knowing that 1984 was based on a true reality, with the spin people have put on the message his books were trying to send.

HombrePequeno · 2003-04-13 17:19:18

Hombre:
You need to take off six months (say) and live like a "bum" before you have any right to be judgemental, kiddo. You don't mind my calling you kiddo, do you? Because that's what you sound like--still wet behind the ears.
Space elevator? Fusion research? Drop in the bucket. But Mars Direct--now, $74 billion could make all the difference!
Freeing people, even for space exploration addicts like us, takes precedence because we're all there is, see?--situated in a universe that couldn't care less about our freedom to live and enjoy all-too-short lives, on an absolutely unique and beautiful planet that we've been so lucky to have evolved upon. We're all one family, and we who are free to do so need to nurture those of us who are victims, if only to prevent us from becoming victimized ourselves.
Meanwhile, it won't cost all that much to plan and test the initial Mars Direct options here on Earth--and while we're at it, let's see if some of the newly-freed Iraqis would like to become involved as well....

Take six months off to be a bum? You mean be lazy and stop working? Sure homeless people have a hell of a rough time but most of the time it's their own fault. There are some people that do need help though. The ones that actually can't help themselves like the ones with mental disabilities. But I can guarantee you that that doesn't make up the majority of the homeless population.

And actually I don't really need to take 6 months off to experience what it's like to know extreme poverty. My family was pretty poor the first few years of my life. Granted we weren't living on the streets but it was pretty close. My father would rather spend money on alcohol than food and clothes for my siblings. Luckily I went to live with my mother when I was 4.

Back to the topic:

Yes space elevators and fusion research. $74 billion is nowhere near a drop in the bucket for those two. I encourage you to read the Space Elevator Book by Brad Edwards. Sure it's probably a bit optimistic in the pricing but development and deployment aren't anywhere near $74 billion. Do you know how much we spend each year on fusion research? The US spends a whole $200 million a year on it. Even if you just put like $5 or 10 billion into it, it would be a hell of an increase. This would open up new means of propulsion to get to Mars. Add this in with a space elevator and the cost and complexity of a Mars mission is greatly reduced. An easy, cheap mission has greater chances of being funded by the government.

soph · 2003-04-13 19:10:25

Personally, I would put $20 billion each towards fuel cells, the space elevator, and nuclear propulsion. I would spend the rest on the OSP, mountain tracks, and Sea Launch tech.

foadi · 2003-04-13 20:01:06

THOR:

The basis of the THOR weapon system is the fundamental nature of any object orbiting the Earth. To balance the force of gravity, a satellite two hundred miles above the surface must travel at a speed of seventeen thousand five hundred miles per hour. At this speed, the satellite travels around the world once every ninety minutes. With a hundred satellites in orbit near this altitude and travelling in random orbital inclinations, one of the satellites will pass over any given location on Earth every thirty minutes. With a thousand satellites, the timing between satellites overhead is less than ten minutes. The basic physics of orbital motion gives us our global coverage; it also gives us the weapon. If a one pound object moving at orbital velocity ran into a stationary target, the energy released in the impact will be the equivalent of exploding almost ten pounds of TNT.

The THOR system is composed of a thousand or more cheap satellites, each made up of a bundle of projectiles, guidance and communication electronics, and a simple rocket engine. When a crisis arises, a THOR command center (on Earth or in space) sends a signal to the appropriate THOR satellite. The satellite then orients itself. At the proper time, the rocket engine fires to deorbit the satellite. When the rocket engine burns out, the individual THOR projectiles are dispersed from the satellite in a pre-arranged pattern. Instead of blunt noses, the projectiles have sharp points which slice down through the atmosphere losing little velocity. Just seconds before impact, a (relatively dumb) terminal guidance sensor looks for a mettalic or other pre-programmed guidance target and steers for it. The result is spectacular: a bundle of tens or hundreds of twenty pound projectiles streak down at four miles per second to strike targets with the explosive equivalent of two hundred pound bombs each. In five seconds, the action is over, and the enemy dosen't know what hit them. All that remains is dozens of luminous trails, each angling downard to a slowly dissapating explosion cloud.

And an island in the south pacific.

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-13 20:54:12

MarsGuy2012;

Here's a little tidbit of information for ya:
Both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were our allies in the past. We supported Osama as a freedom fighter in his struggle against the 'Evil' Russians (who are now our allies). We supported Sadaam in his war against Iran. It seems we can't decide who is our friend and who is our enemy.

And why, in WWII, did we side with England, which used to be our enemy, instead of the side including Vichy France, when the French helped us in the Revolution? WWII PROVES THAT AMERIKKKA'S JUST LIKE 1984!!!

:laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-13 21:28:02

And why, in WWII, did we side with England, which used to be our enemy, instead of the side including Vichy France, when the French helped us in the Revolution?

Um. Most likely because France lost more than a million people in WWI? I can't remember the number exactly, but it was really messed up.

Of course, the relevance of your comment evades me.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-13 23:14:34

A.J.Armitage,
You get my point I see. Orwell didn't just make this stuff up. Were you trying to counter my tidbit? Because, we are in total agreement.

Here is something I would do about foreign policy:
Stop selling weapons to and training soldiers in other countries. Who knows when we will declare them the enemy. And I don't like the idea of 'X third world country' launching a cruise missile at 'Y third world country.' Let them develope there own stinking killing machines.

clark · 2003-04-14 09:57:04

Stop selling weapons to and training soldiers in other countries.

So how do we help fledgling democracies or other areas oppresed by the rule of others?

Take Columbia for instance, they are in the midst of a bloody war with paramilitary insurgents, well funded by illicit narcotics trafficing. as a result, this armed group is destablizing a democracy, and underming stability in the region. South America is part of our sphere of influence, and actions there can have repercussions closer to home, as well as endanger some of our national interests.

Should we not intervene and help supply the government with the neccessary resources and skills to deal effectively with a threat to their nation? Even when it is in our own best interest to do so?

Our prosperity is guranteed by their security. We need foreign markets to be nice and secure for our products. We need foreign economies to be nice and strong, to be able to buy our products. We need to limit, and control illegal narcotic trafficing.

It's all so very complicated, and their is no simple solution. Being involved is slightly better than not being involved at all. At least if we are involved, we can try to change events to suit our interests.

Someone has to win, why not us?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-14 23:43:32

Here's an idea:

If illegal drug sales are funding the Columbian insurgents then just legalize the drugs. Once legalized the price will drop so much the paramilitary insurgents will lose their backing. This would be very analogous to prohibition. During prohibition gangs were killing people left and right. Once it ended the gangs lost control of the market. I haven't heard of anyone getting shot during a moonshine raid lately, have you? Once again, we have to look at the root cause of the problem and stop it there. Just supplying weapons and training to the Columbian govt. isn't going to do the job.

BTW, legalizing drugs probably isn't the actual root of the drug problem. We probably have to go deaper - like raising our kids with some self esteem and respect for their bodies so they don't want to do drugs in the first place. But, that is more of a long term project. Legalizing drugs could happen tomorrow.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-15 01:58:56

MarsGuy2012 writes:-

- like raising our kids with some self esteem and respect for their bodies so they don't want to do drugs in the first place.

Sounds simple enough.
My two sons have been raised in a stable marriage (we celebrated our 23rd anniversary last year), were sent to good schools, were hugged, loved, played with, read bedtime stories, provided with emotional and material security, and given strong messages against drug abuse. My wife and I don't smoke and neither of us has ever tried marijuana. We're moderate social drinkers
Both our sons have smoked marijuana, both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol, one has tried magic mushrooms and ecstasy (we're not sure what else) and still smokes weed.

"Go figure", as they say!!

[Incidentally, I lean towards legalisation of drugs too because it seems to me their prohibition is the root of far more evil than the drugs themselves.]

clark · 2003-04-15 05:14:25

legalizing drugs is one issue. legalizing drugs as a response and policy to deal with counter-insurgents in a foreign country threatening to destabilize an entire region is quite another.

Let me tell you a story:

I win the lottery. $74 billion dollars. Yeah, after taxes. So, here I am, all this loot, and way too many crazy ideas in my head. So I'm thinking, what should i do first? Should I drown myself in some narcissistic pleasure paradise, or leave that for retirement? Retirement, hah!
Then that conscience of mine chimes in. Damn! Do something right it says. Make the world a better place. Be like one of those Rockefellers.
So I decide to be a Rockefeller with attitude. I take that $74 billion dollars and I use it to lobby every city, state, and federal law house in the country. I wouldn't start grass roots campaigns. I would simply buy existing ones wholesale.
I'd pay every resident of D.C. a $100 just to show up on their lunch hour at the Washington Mall. It wouldn't be a million man march, it would be millions marching.

Then, when I had changed every law and every statue to allow any adult to enjoy drugs, I would start a business.

I would open, with the remaining funds from my previous lobbying, a chain of stores throughout the country. It would be like a coffee shop. I wouldn't advertise publicly, that still is against the law. But I would sponsor everything I could. I would hire the best PR company to promote the chain, after all, I have billions.
Eventually my chain becomes popular. It becomes part of our culture. There are song references, and movie references to it. It's in books and magazines. And the drugs themselves? You really don't notice to often except for the occasional stroll through the park, or as you drive by one of the stores. Not enough to mind too terribly.
Parents stop teaching kids to say no, and start teaching them to deal with it, kind of like drinking.

At the end of the day, our country will be littered with the ubiquitous sign of my chain, and similar chains. Some even offer the convenience of drive thru, or delivery.

A phone call away and some one is at your door. Just a few bucks at regular intervals. Not enough to hurt you, just enough to get you through your day.

Is that the world you really want?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-15 09:12:45

Well clark,

You didn't paint the picture as bad as I thought you would. It sounds like a peaceful world, at least. My parents taught me never to touch alcohol or tobacco which are legal. They didn't just tell me not to, by the way, they also showed me by example. Neither I nor any of my siblings have alcohol or tobacco problems.

Your world of legalized (and aggressively marketed) drugs sounds great. Instead of innocent little kids getting shot in the crossfire of a turf war, adults who consciously decide to try drugs have to deal with the consequences. They seldom die violent deaths because of drugs, don't have to rot in prison because of drugs, and they aren't expensive won't be ruined economically if they use drugs.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-15 09:17:44

Shaun,

It sounds like you gave them a strong foundation. I'm sure they will come to their senses some day. Whatever you do don't push them away. Let yourself be the one they can turn to when they want help. You're doing a great job.

Earlier I said my siblings haven't had problems with alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. My step-siblings have, though. But, even with only a good example from one of their parents, they are all pretty much back on track now.

They'll turn around. I'm sure of it.

clark · 2003-04-15 09:23:54

Your world of legalized (and aggressively marketed) drugs sounds great.

McDrugs sounds great?

My parents taught me never to touch alcohol or tobacco which are legal.

And a great number of parents never teach their children the same thing. A great number of children are taught this lesson, and still they do not learn.

You have no idea what American commericalism would do to this society if we legalized drugs.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-15 09:28:04

Clark,

I know one thing for sure:

Legalizing drugs would stop violence related to the drug trade.

Palomar · 2003-04-15 13:02:39

Clark,
I know one thing for sure:
Legalizing drugs would stop violence related to the drug trade.

*The biggest problem I have with legalizing drugs -- which I presume includes "hard" drugs such as heroin and cocaine (right?) -- is that these substances are completely and totally addictive. I worked in drug rehabilitation hospital which also doubled as a psychiatric facility for 3 years, in the late 1990s. I don't think I'm informing anyone here of anything new when I say that chances are most people will -not- become alcoholics for having an occasional social drink or perhaps even getting fallen-down drunk once or twice a month on a weekend (with little alcohol intake between times).

But cocaine and heroin? You do those drugs just once and you are addicted, period. I've typed too many reports of people enslaved to those 2 monsters; it is horrible. Withdrawal is absolute hell for them, and nearly 100% of them FAIL rehabilitation or managing to stay clean for any length of time. I can't imagine the power of those particular addictions; hardly anyone conquers/overcomes them. It's as though those drugs take over their minds, bodies and souls -- literally; as though those drugs are vampires which permanently fasten themselves onto their victims and will not let go. It's not a matter of willpower, and trust me -- I'm not the first person in line to start casting about for lame excuses.

Maybe some folks here are considering legalizing "softer" substances, such as marijuana, certain hallucinogenics, etc. Perhaps you are not suggesting cocaine and heroin (and crack, methamphetamines, etc.) be legalized as well. IMO, society cannot afford to legalize "hard" drugs...using them is essentially a death sentence; and before that it's a misery sentence -- a grueling, abhorrent misery sentence. Lives are destroyed, those on the periphery are torn apart, chances for recovery are essentially nonexistant. Heck, I saw an article in a paper the other day about specialized nursing home care for heroin addicts in the inner city!

If you aren't concerned with the ethical implications, consider the economic: What with AIDS, "gray dawn" (the aging baby boomer population) and scads of addicts needing special care...well, where is all this money going to come from? Like my dad used to say, "The gravy train's going to come to a screeching halt sooner or later."

I understand that the drug cartels and the violence of their wake would be essentially destroyed were drugs to be legalized; but I dare say the violence and ugliness which accompanies them is a lesser evil than the ugliness of personal and societal destruction legalizing hard drugs would bring with it.

Legalizing drugs wouldn't be like the lifting of The Prohibition. Most drinkers aren't drunks...most drug users are addicts. See my point?

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-15 13:20:37

I couldn't agree more.
Well put Cindy.

My view though is shaped by my expectation of american commericalism. No one can sell something like a Yank.

Ask some European friends about 'Bulldog' to get an idea of what legalization means.

Neon lights and the air of respectability is all one needs to bring the masses into use of drugs. The effects of such use will invariably undermine our society.

Decriminilization, or a reduction of penalties associated with drug related crime is one thing, legalization and open acceptance of drug use is quite another.

Palomar · 2003-04-15 13:35:05

*As an addendum: I also learned, during my employment with that hospital, that many people turn to drugs (especially the harder substances) as a way of "self medicating." In all fairness, "self medicating" can be done with alcohol as well. Many of these types of patients have serious underlying psychiatric issues -- schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder. These disorders are often accompanied by great levels of anxiety and phobias. Patients who "self medicate" seek drugs to calm their fears, anxieties, "slow things down" -- in other words, to help relieve their symptoms. Most, if not all, of these people seem not to understand what they are doing and, more importantly, WHY they are seeking out and using drugs. They instinctively yearn for a release from the hallucinations, wild mood fluctuations, etc., which torment them. Why don't they seek professional assistance and medication? Based on my experience (and no, I'm not a professional, but you don't transcribe hundreds of reports per week for 3 years and not learn anything), it's because they are afraid of getting a psychiatric diagnosis applied to them and the stigma that involves. I also think some of them are unaware of their situation and their behavior (drug seeking).

Professional psychiatric care and regulated use of FDA-approved medication (prescribed and administered by a licensed professional medical doctor) is obviously the better choice for the mentally ill and we can't afford (for more reasons than one) to risk the undermining of professional care.

If your child is/were seriously mentally ill, would you rather they sought treatment with an M.D. or run to the nearest candy store counter for another packet of legalized whatever? Hmmmm, I know what my choice would be.

There are lots of serious issues at stake, obviously.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-15 18:50:58

I agree with Clark. Cindy's arguments are well put and well taken.
I suppose, then, we're just stuck with this horrible drug mess - the gangs, the violence, the theft, the impure drugs, the overdoses and poisonings, the wrecked lives etc. etc.

Sometimes I just don't know which is worse, the horror story I've outlined above or the one Cindy tells us.

How about we simply execute every pusher we pick up (plus the cartel big boys) until either the rest of them get the message or until they're all dead!!
:angry:

George H · 2003-04-16 13:58:59

My view though is shaped by my expectation of american commericalism. No one can sell something like a Yank.

Blame the whore but not the john?

The buyer's just as much to blame as the seller, yanno.

clark · 2003-04-16 14:12:40

Not quite George.

I am suggesting that legalization of drugs in the American society would be a bad reason only becuase commercialzation would lead to greater drug use.

I tried demonstrating what WILL happen if drugs are legalized in the US. This isn't Amsterdam. Our society is different. Our expectations, our assumptions of responsibility are different.

I suggest any who think legalization is a good idea visit areas that have legalized, or decriminalized drugs. Go there, and live there for a while if you can. It is not all happy granola fruit cakes.

You may rethink your position when you watch 6 year olds walking home from school, peering into the drug shops, or walking through the billowing clouds of smoke right outside the establsihments.

You may rethink your view when you try to walk through a beautiful park, and litteraly trip over addicts or the remains of spent needles.

This has nothing to do with blaming anyone.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-04-09 15:34:11

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#27 2003-04-09 15:53:10

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#28 2003-04-11 18:59:54

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#29 2003-04-11 19:42:52

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#30 2003-04-11 23:37:12

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#31 2003-04-13 17:19:18

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#32 2003-04-13 19:10:25

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#33 2003-04-13 20:01:06

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#34 2003-04-13 20:54:12

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#35 2003-04-13 21:28:02

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#36 2003-04-13 23:14:34

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#37 2003-04-14 09:57:04

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#38 2003-04-14 23:43:32

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#39 2003-04-15 01:58:56

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#40 2003-04-15 05:14:25

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#41 2003-04-15 09:12:45

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#42 2003-04-15 09:17:44

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#43 2003-04-15 09:23:54

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#44 2003-04-15 09:28:04

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#45 2003-04-15 13:02:39

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#46 2003-04-15 13:20:37

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#47 2003-04-15 13:35:05

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#48 2003-04-15 18:50:58

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#49 2003-04-16 13:58:59

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

#50 2003-04-16 14:12:40

Re: $74 Billion - What would you do?

Board footer