The Orion Peace Initiative

Ad Astra · 2003-04-05 13:46:21

Project Orion gives the world an opportunity to disarm itself of nuclear weapons in a multilateral way. I've thought of an "Orion Peace Initiative" that works like so:

1. All nuclear nations, including North Korea and, within a few years, Iran, must declare their full nuclear stockpiles.

2. Based on the capacity of each naton's stockpile, a proportional number of astronauts from each country will be chosen for journeys to Jupiter and Saturn.

3. The nuclear nations will design the Orion Spacecraft (plural) that will be employed for testing and eventual flights to the outer solar system.

4. The nations will retain their stockpiles, but these stockpiles will be re-manufactured into Orion pulse units under IAEA supervision. A small number of warheads will be retained by the IAEA to deter against additional nations developing nuclear weapons (this idea is a direct descendant of Henry Stimson's idea to put nuclear weapons under international control.)

I see a few problems with this idea. For instance, what if some countries make like Iraq and don't declare their entire arsenals? And how do we get nations like North Korea and Iran to comply if they have no interest in the peaceful uses of nuclear weapons? The plan is incredibly idealistic, but I believe that it deserves a chance.

foadi · 2003-04-11 12:46:18

What are you, some kind of commie?

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

John_Frazer · 2003-04-21 18:58:20

>A small number of warheads will be retained by the IAEA to deter against additional nations developing nuclear weapons (this idea is a direct descendant of Henry Stimson's idea to put nuclear weapons under international control.)

Didn't Oppenheimer and basically all the Manhattan Project people urge this?
It's not a new idea: if deterrance and peacekeeping is the purpose of nuclear weapons, then this is surely a multinational mission, so nuclear forces could be put under multinational control.
This enrages nationalists (rednecks call you commie, leftists call you totalitarian fascist, all call you traitor)

From the CDI
Orion will rise! (part 1)
Orion Can Rise! (part 2

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 19:33:57

Is a starry-eyed idealist, who would suggest moving all nukes to the UN, really electable in any of the countries with nukes?

It is possible that if such a person were elected in the US, it could almost be feasible given the powerful conventional forces, however the Russians, pakistanis, indians, israelis, would never part with their nukes, given on-the-ground realities.

Therefore it's reasonable to assume nukes will continue to be held by an ever-increasing number of countries, rather than a decreasing number.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-22 09:00:04

Russia and the U.S. could do the Orion thing without too much trouble. They both have huge stockpiles of nukes. A little shaved off the top for Orion wouldn't hurt them a bit. Now the smaller countries with only a few nukes each probably wouldn't want to touch their stockpile.

I figure that more and more countries are going to develope more and more nuclear weapons. It gives them a little more respect and bargaining power in the international arena. All the treaties that have been made to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons haven't stopped it from happening. What is needed is stability in the countries that do have these weapons.

The U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't have a nuclear war because the countries were relatively stable and still are. I believe that one way to create stability in a small country that developes nukes is to increase trade with them. Sanctions to punish the "Evil Regimes" will only serve to punish the innocent civilians and to increase the distrust and hatred of the U.S. in that country. In fact I think that if we (the U.S.) lift all sanctions and trade barriers, forgive foreign debts, and increase humanitarian aide then no country will want to attack us or its neighbors. Also, if a country is already prosperous then it will have less of a desire to go against the popular demand of non-proliferation, by starting its own nuclear program.

This is the "Fat Dog" theory. If you keep a dog, tiger, bear, snake, or any animal well fed, then it won't bite/eat you. It will even become your friend.

If we keep the people of the world "well fed" they will not want to hurt us, they will come to like us, and maybe eventually even want to be like us.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-22 12:52:54

In fact I think that if we (the U.S.) lift all sanctions and trade barriers, forgive foreign debts, and increase humanitarian aide then no country will want to attack us or its neighbors.
If we keep the people of the world "well fed" they will not want to hurt us, they will come to like us, and maybe eventually even want to be like us.

This is the most naive thing I've read in quite a while.

In the real world, all politicians are scrambling for a bigger piece of the pie, more money, etc. Merely "feeding" them won't end their quest, in fact it may only increase their appetites, much as a 400-lb fat chick eats more than her 100-pd petit friend.

Ad Astra · 2003-04-22 13:33:41

What are you, some kind of commie?

Hell no. I eat commies for breakfast.

International control over nuclear weapons is just an idea, not ready for near-term implementation, but an ideal to live up to nonetheless. Recall that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty calls for the "eventual" eradication of nuclear weapons.

Under the current MAD setup, strategic weapons have no military value. There remain a few uses for nuclear weapons, but only ones with small yields. These include earth-penetrators and weapons designed to wipe out large troop formations (such a weapon must be beyond the capabilities of MOAB.) The existence of conventional weapons to do these jobs, and the high casualty threshold for using nuclear weapons, still make these weapons unlikely to be used. And as we've seen before, nukes are no deterrent against people who are too willing to "die for Allah."

The most useful thing we can do with our nuclear weapons is to use them for space propulsion and destroying asteroids. These issues affect the entire planet, and the entire planet's resources should be applied to confronting them.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-22 14:40:42

tim,

I see your point. Politicians are greedy little blood sucking warmongers. I'm talking about the people - the common people.

Here's a thought on how this would work:

We take $150 billion out of the military budget. Don't worry this still leaves us with the largest military in the world. Then we start aggresively helping people in underdeveloped nations. We give them food, education, technology, job training, everything to help them into a "developed" state. This would create a population that at least wouldn't have a hate for America. Now, I do understand that the current leaders might resent this aide because it would give power to their people. But, in the long term the people, being well educated and out of poverty, wouldn't put up with dictators leading them. They would eventually put their trust in more peaceful leaders.

I don't want to "feed" the politicians. I know they will get a piece of it, but the "food" will be thrown to all the 'chicks' not just the fat one. After the other chicks get a little stronger they will probably beat up the fat one for taking too much food. :;):

Ad Astra,

Don't forget that many people would be willing to 'die for Jesus'. They don't have to because with a $300 billion dollar military they can 'kill for Jesus'. I know someone that actually said, "George W. Bush is the most inspired leader we've had in a long time." Scary. They would definitely die for Bush...er um...I mean Jesus.

Enough about politics, let's put the American nukes to use in space and show the world what good that can do.

Gennaro · 2003-04-23 07:06:29

I like it but in my opinion the idea has a serious flaw. What about countries that are not members of the nuclear weapons club? Will they not be allowed to participate?

As their self proclaimed spokesman, I demand that the nuclear nations share their arsenal of pulse units, otherwise you can bet on us non-nuclear states to construct our own propulsion nukes in order not to fall behind in the space race and then we can talk proliferation!

You just wait and see!
:;):

soph · 2003-04-23 07:11:39

Or the countries like Pakistan and China that will hold back their nukes until everybody else has used theirs?

Ad Astra · 2003-04-23 08:58:23

I'd assume that non-nuclear nations who have expertise that is useful to Orion should be allowed to participate. Having a competing nuclear-pulse program would defeat the entire purpose of the agreement. And as for countries like Pakistan or China holding out, I think that would breach (and thus nullify) the agreement. Essentially, the plan would require everybody to participate to be successful in ending proliferation. This will require a fundamental shift in thinking in Tehran and Pyongyang, and that's why I've relegated the idea to the "far-term" heap.

Phobos · 2003-04-23 16:02:48

1. All nuclear nations, including North Korea and, within a few years, Iran, must declare their full nuclear stockpiles.

Doesn't seem likely. I can't see countries like Iran and N. Korea, which are completely ruled by totalitarian religious zealots and unstable egomaniacs, giving a damn about joining an effort to send people on a space voyage if it means giving up their best weapons and tools of international persuasion which nukes are good for.

Earthman · 2003-12-21 21:18:57

They seem very powerful, but nukes won't fuel one mission.

Mundaka · 2004-01-18 18:44:35

Mundaka · 2004-01-18 19:07:33

Dook · 2004-01-18 20:24:05

I'm not familiar with this Orion concept but I want to comment on some of the other remarks.
1) The United States government gives more foreign aid, over $10 billion in 2001, than any other nation. This figure does not include money given by citizens, corporations, and other American organizations: Red Cross/Crescent, United Way, religious organizations... All together the people of the United States are the most generous on the planet.
2) I trust the US infinitely more with nuclear weapons than the UN. The UN would never, under any circumstance use nuclear weapons so they would provide no deterrant. Do you think Libya, Iran, North Korea or any other future threat will take the chance of launching a nuclear weapon at the US or it's allies when there is the possibility that it's missiles will be shot down and then it will face an overwhelming nuclear response 30 minutes later?
3) Just a few other things the US has done: eliminated small pox from the world even though it primarily affected third world countries, invented and built the world it's air transport system, saved Europe from Nazi aggression at great cost in American lives, invented and gave the world computers and the internet, gave the world a better understanding of the universe... I could go on forever.

Basically what I am trying to say is that some people will never like the US regardless of what we do. Jealousy is too strong in those places.

Gennaro · 2004-01-31 10:34:55

All together the people of the United States are the most generous on the planet.

Dook, I'm afraid this isn't true. The United States, according to the CIA yearbook, comes in at place 20 in terms of foreign aid per capita (the only measurement interesting in this regard), as of 2002. Most countries in western Europe are considerably more generous than the United States, despite the latter's higher income per capita.

[http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T … id_don_cap]http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T … id_don_cap

The relations might have changed somewhat due to current political developments in the mid-east, although I'd say it doesn't count since the US is merely replacing infrastructure it has itself devastated.

Moreover, since about 1/3 of US foreign aid allegedly goes to Israel (a rich first world country), the actual amount given in foreign aid to help poor countries is even less.

[http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Israel]http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Israel

Lastly, as far as I know Eduard Jenner (the inventor of vaccine) was an Englishman and the lengthy effort to eradicate small pox was a multi-national undertaking.

DannyITR · 2004-02-08 22:14:40

I'm all for the argument that the US has given the world so much. For the sake of fairness, the argument cannot be made without comparing what they have done wrong in the world. North America was owned by the natives before we got here. We stole it. True this is ancient history but it's something to think about. There is also Iran contra, helping Sadaam fight Iran, helping Bin Laden fight the Russians etc. I'm not flaming in any way but I just feel boths sides of the argument need to be explored. In the end if you weight the two sides the good will probaly far outweigh the bad.

What the US needs to do is put 70 billion (Iraq war?) towards developing fuel cell cars and eliminating any need for fossil fuel all together. Recall all troops from the mideast and most other places and in turn people will stop hating the US for protecting their interests all over the world. Perhaps then, a bit of the military budget could be saved (still keeping the current force levels) and put toward either developing third world countries or space exploration. To me, this is not only realistic but probably what will happen as we develop alternate power sources. The qestion is, do you want it to happen now (when the remianing oil reserves can still be sold to porrer countries) or later (when the world actuaslly runs out of gas)?

Ad Astra · 2004-02-08 23:13:10

What the US needs to do is put 70 billion (Iraq war?) towards developing fuel cell cars and eliminating any need for fossil fuel all together. Recall all troops from the mideast and most other places and in turn people will stop hating the US for protecting their interests all over the world.

Would 70 billion be enough to jump start the hydrogen economy? And how long will we need to stay in Iraq until the country is stable and self-governing? I think that such a proposal is unrealistically optimistic (although I'm all for drawing down our forces everywhere except genuine trouble-spots like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea.)

And I'd also like to explore the downside of the hydrogen economy. Many people think that hydrogen will cure all of society's ills, but a realistic consideration shows that it also carries its share of complications. For starters, it will be difficult to make hydrogen safe enough for general use. Converting the oil infrastructure will be expensive, and the cost of hydrogen will outweigh the cost of petroleum as long as petroleum is plentiful. Finally, the economic damage to the middle east from losing their petroleum business may make us more susceptible to terrorism over the long term. I'm not saying that hydrogen is a bad idea; I just think that it's much more difficult than anyone is publicly predicting and it won't happen anytime soon.

Dook · 2004-02-08 23:29:14

What I said in my post above is true. I said the US gives more foreign aid than any other country. Also this number is for government donations and does not include personal donations, charities, and corporate donations. You can twist the facts any way you want to but the people of the US are the most giving by far when all things are considered.

It is true that the US gives more to Israel than any other country, somewhere around $5 billion, and we give $4 billion to Egypt. This money was intended as an offering (bribe) to help keep the peace between them. What other country in the world does that?

It's easy for spectators to point out mistakes while sitting comfortably in the stands afraid to even get on the field and participate.

As for the elimination of small pox and other assistance to needy third world countries provided by the World Health Organization see the link below. The US funds 25% of the WHO.

[http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreport … N=72951655]http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE....2951655

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-05 13:46:21

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#2 2003-04-11 12:46:18

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#3 2003-04-21 18:58:20

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#4 2003-04-21 19:33:57

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#5 2003-04-22 09:00:04

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#6 2003-04-22 12:52:54

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#7 2003-04-22 13:33:41

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#8 2003-04-22 14:40:42

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#9 2003-04-23 07:06:29

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#10 2003-04-23 07:11:39

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#11 2003-04-23 08:58:23

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#12 2003-04-23 16:02:48

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#13 2003-12-21 21:18:57

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#14 2004-01-18 18:44:35

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#15 2004-01-18 19:07:33

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#16 2004-01-18 20:24:05

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#17 2004-01-31 10:34:55

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#18 2004-02-08 22:14:40

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#19 2004-02-08 23:13:10

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

#20 2004-02-08 23:29:14

Re: The Orion Peace Initiative

Board footer