Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Palomar · 2004-04-12 19:20:21

*It'll impact Marsian culture, I must presume, so I'm creating this little poll in this folder.

Okay, forgive me for having a streak of the "starry-eyed utopian" in me, but I do cringe every time I see articles (at space.com and otherwise) about the militarization of space. :-\

Yes, I know that some (many?) advances in technology are the result of military-related research and development.

I guess it goes without saying that I hope we can -avoid- the militarization of space.

--Cindy

P.S.: My vote was #3. Probably naivete on my part, but oh well...

Palomar · 2004-04-13 07:36:39

[=http://www.space.com/news/putin_space_040412.html]Putin calls for demilitarization of space

*I wonder if this would be his position if Russia were the lone superpower in the world, as the U.S. currently is?

Perhaps. I would hope so.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-13 07:58:33

[http://www.space.com/news/putin_space_040412.html]Putin calls for demilitarization of space
*I wonder if this would be his position if Russia were the lone superpower in the world, as the U.S. currently is?
Perhaps. I would hope so.
--Cindy

People at the top of society usually emphasis the need for peace; people at the bottom of society usually emphasis the need for justice.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-13 16:17:10

Yes, I know that some (many?) advances in technology are the result of military-related research and development.

I believe "most" is the word you were looking for, depending on how direct we want to be about the lineage.

I guess it goes without saying that I hope we can -avoid- the militarization of space.

On this issue I'm going to have to bluntly say that while this may be a wonderful fantasy for many people, it is a fantasy. The only way we can avoid the militarization of space entirely is not to go into space at all.

Actually, space has been "militarized" since the dawn of manned spaceflight. The real issue seems to be about weaponizing it. Prospects for avoiding weaponization of space, see above.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-13 18:21:52

When I think "militarization" I think "big states with militaries (regardless of their benelovency- Star Trek is a military state imho)." And I think big states are too inefficient to survive in space for any extended period of time. Yes, we're probably going to try to do it that way (clark is definitely your man for the data backing this up), but in the end we're going to find that it's just to difficult to enforce anything. The larger the distances, the longer the communication timelag, the more disconnected one is from their "origin state" and the less reason they have to obey it. The laws of physics would have to be defied or at least changed drastically before we were able to get over the fact that the further out you go, the less control over someone there is.

The moon will be where it starts, but other non-centralized technologies will make it so that Mars and further will be where it ends.

In my humble opinion.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-13 19:09:38

The moon will be where it starts, but other non-centralized technologies will make it so that Mars and further will be where it ends.

It sounds vastly over-optimistic, IMOSHO. But time will tell.

Don't blow all that space-navy money on social programs just yet.

okami · 2004-04-14 03:07:53

As a newer member, and this my first post on the site, I must preface my remarks by stating I have no personal computer and have to access the net at work or the library. As such, it may be some time before I read any replies, good or bad. Be that as it may. . .

It's my belief that near-earth space will be militarized prior to colonization. It is an inherent part of our bilogical heritage: conflict even exists among plant life.

One phenomenon I've noticed over the years is that with every increase in social cohesion comes a requisite increase in violence. We're already into WW IV; WW III was the Cold War, where the US & the USSR used the rest of the world as chesspieces. However, the present war will span generations, instead of years, due to the social, psychological and cultural root causes.

(If any leader or politician--in any country--believes the "War on Terrorism" can be completed in a few years, I've got a piece of real estate he/she might be interested in.)

Along with our knowledge and ignorance, hopes and fears, our science and religion, we will be taking our capability for violence into space. Otherwise we are no longer human, since the aggressive spark is as important as is peace. Any evolution or development cannot be achieved without struggle.

Until Sept 2001, I had thought a real start in mulicultural and multiunational cooperation had began with the ISS. Since then, it seems less and less likely that those levels of cooperation will remain between governments.

To a great extent, scientists and religious mystics can rise above such petty things and rechannel their aggressions into cooperation. It remains to be seen whether the rest of the world can do so; so far, the track record hasn't been very good.

A.J.Armitage · 2004-04-15 01:02:34

Rather than risk a war on Mars spilling over to the Earth, Mars will be settled by two teams, each drawn from all Earth nations: the Blues and the Greens.

The children of both will, of course, be raised from birth to hate the other.

Palomar · 2004-04-15 08:40:19

Rather than risk a war on Mars spilling over to the Earth, Mars will be settled by two teams, each drawn from all Earth nations: the Blues and the Greens.
The children of both will, of course, be raised from birth to hate the other.

*Hmmmmm. A.J., you're not exactly trying out for "Mister Rogers of New Mars," now are you? :;):

Okami had interesting comments.

Josh said: "The laws of physics would have to be defied or at least changed drastically before we were able to get over the fact that the further out you go, the less control over someone there is."

*Well, as much as I -dislike- admitting it, that probably wouldn't do much good anyway. Someone's always eager to take up the whipping hand (whether near or far). :-\ Or so it seems.

Anyway, back to the main topic: Will the militarization of space -impede- going to Mars (via further delays during the interim of actual militarizing)? Or hasten the process along?

I have no idea.

No military at all IMO (!!), but yeah I know...(dream on).

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-15 16:05:45

Someone's always eager to take up the whipping hand (whether near or far). :-\ Or so it seems.

Yeah, I know, and I really can't argue with that (though I sometimes like to be optimistic and say people can be more good to one another than they are). But I think that the whole dynamics of military mean that those who do take up the whipping hand, are more rouge-like and not really representative of a state as a whole. Just because people at Sirius are calling themselves part of the Terran Imperial Federation doesn't mean that there is a command structure going on there; they would have to be largely independent of any structure back in the Sol system. Unless we are to believe orders would take 16 years to fully process (asking takes 8 years, and a response takes 8 years), and "reenforcements" would take at least 8 years (though 16 if you actually have to ask for it). I mean, it's really just hard for me to comprehend military-like organization actually working in space...

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-15 16:34:36

Just because people at Sirius are calling themselves part of the Terran Imperial Federation doesn't mean that there is a command structure going on there; they would have to be largely independent of any structure back in the Sol system. Unless we are to believe orders would take 16 years to fully process (asking takes 8 years, and a response takes 8 years), and "reenforcements" would take at least 8 years (though 16 if you actually have to ask for it). I mean, it's really just hard for me to comprehend military-like organization actually working in space...

Military-like organization doesn't necessarily mean imperial organization and it certainly doesn't mean it in the same sense that we think of today with instant communication world wide. The Romans and British, among many others, ran empires quite well with communication lags of months. One can be "militarized" and decentralized at the same time. it's a question of degrees, if I'm a garrison commander at the ass-end of space I'm in a militarized environment. That doesn't change if the orders come directly from Earth, from some system lord on Alpha Centauri or if I just take initiative based on local events and a few guidelines.

But to Cindy's question of whether militarization will hinder or help Mars development: It all depends on the strategic value of Mars. If Mars is deemed militarily worthless, the militarization of space could well be a problem as resources will be allocated to other areas. But if there is a military justification (real o perceived) for Mars operations then militarization will greatly accelerate matters. Bases, mining, weapons tests, doesn't matter.

We must convince Rumsfeld that Mars would make an excellent anti-terrorist Deathstar!

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-15 17:16:09

Well, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. I mean, I think there are differences between militaries, with command structure, and militias, which can (and often) have no command scructure. And there's also the available resources each approach has; a militia isn't going to have huge command carriers and be supported by tax payers, whereas a military would.

What stragetic value would Mars have? I can see the value of the moon, because it's right next door and you don't need much infrastructure to get there (and it's in orbit around the Earth, could be easily resupplied, etc, etc), but there exists no infrastructure to get to Mars, and we'd have to have a scenario where we had such infrastructure; I simply don't think that infrastructure would be controlled by militaries.
Edited By Josh Cryer on 1082071110

Hazer · 2004-04-15 22:07:50

Look, for one thing, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "Militarization" (Unless you happen to be of the school of thought that anything to with Armies = evilevilevilevil.)
I think the US Navy, with their excellent track record at maintaining and using small reactors in hostile environments would be excellent at running hypothetical spacecraft.

Although I am in favor of journeying into the unknown as heavily armed as possible (Just in case E.T. turns out to be disinclined to respect our right to exist), I really don't see there being any enemies for potential navies to fight.

We militarized the land
We militarized the sea
We militarized the air
Militarization of Space is not a question of if, it is a question of when. Besides, having spacecraft that could knock ICBMs out of the air effectively and mount a rapid counterassault would render the ICBM as we know it largely obsolete.

Militarization of space would likely help the path to Mars. Let's face it, NASA gets chump change compared to the funding that the US Armed forces receives.
So let's say some time in a few decades, the USPN (United States Planetary Navy) needs a base out on the Red Planet for research & development. In the spirit of the Iraq conflict, they begin to bring in civilian contractors--who are willing to maintain the base. Within a year, the first true Martian is born.

Euler · 2004-04-15 22:19:52

Why would the military want a base on Mars? I can't think of any good reasons, or at least not until there are colonys on Mars to protect.

Hazer · 2004-04-16 20:05:21

Research & Development. Also, it might come about as the result of pork-barrel spending. I'm thinking that Mars colonies and military bases are going to grow simultaneously.

Euler · 2004-04-18 00:48:16

Research and development of what? The only military research that I can think of that cant be done better on Earth is nuclear weapons testing.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-19 07:16:47

Udecided: I like space more than war, even a space-race could prevent war (as I think was partly the case during the cold war). But militarization could be necessary, then we can't wait until Mars is colonized.

IMO a space race could be a kind of Olympic Games. I'd like it.

BTW: Maybe I understand something wrong with the question, I'm from Europe, so I'm not as precise informed about american politics as you.

Hazer · 2004-04-21 23:17:16

Speaking of what-ifs, I understand that we as humans will carry our problems with us when we leave this lovely piece of land. So why not carry along all the proven means for solving those problems?

Interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere about the US military being interested in strategic bombers that could reach LEO, as well as transports for rapid troop insertion.

Now here's a question for the non-US posters: Is your nation's military interested in this sort of thing--military applications of space?

Palomar · 2004-04-22 14:28:18

Speaking of what-ifs, I understand that we as humans will carry our problems with us when we leave this lovely piece of land. So why not carry along all the proven means for solving those problems?
Interestingly enough, I read an article somewhere about the US military being interested in strategic bombers that could reach LEO, as well as transports for rapid troop insertion.

*Well gee...if one of the purported reasons for colonizing and possibly terraforming Mars in the first place is to get humanity on a 2nd world in case *this one* gets demolished by a meteor, why bother only to take another means (potential) of self-destruction to Mars?

And since when have nuclear weapons -solved- problems? Maybe you'll say they've prevented all-out nuclear war so far. Thing is, nuclear war wouldn't even be a consideration in the first place IF there were no nuclear weapons to begin with. But despite the fact that we are at this point now (have been for nearly 6 decades already), I must say it seems insane to -deliberately- seek to repeat mistakes on another planet.

Does "just because" rule? How much social conditioning are we willing to take to Mars with us? We -can't- alter our behavior in some ways? We can't try?

Some future: Potential mushroom clouds on -two- planets. :down:

--Cindy

P.S.: Not to confuse use of nuclear *energy* for beneficial and constructive means (transportation, utilities resource, etc.) with nuclear *weapons*.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-22 14:58:17

Let's look at the cost of big militaries, generally.

Rome vs everyone, metal armor and weaponry, horses for travel (though most men walked). Cost of development, only slightly above that of labor, most of the technology is simple, smolting/blacksmithing isn't that difficult. The consumption of resources is mostly food related, weapons tend to last, if you do not take care of your weapon, you die. Every man for himself, practically.

Jump ahead a bit.

USA vs the Queen (and then later, the civil wars), ships, cannons, horses, muskets. A bit more complex but we're still relying on manpower. Many men walk still, cannons are only used to shoot at big things, ships stay in the ocean, are made mostly of wood, and just have to float (funny, but I have a point). Resource consumption is a bit higher, but not exorbantly, the need for armor is moot due to these new dang fangled lightening sticks, and it would be prohibitive anyway because the infrastructure to smelt all sorts of armor. Ammo and powder needs to be replaced a lot, but in a lot of cases those resources are capturable (and captured) from the enemy. Everything is almost essentially like Roman times, every man for himself.

Jump ahead further, the world gets a bit meaner.

WWI and II, everyone vs everyone, practically. Ships, big steel ships of every shape and size that need lots of armor, submarines, airplanes, jeeps, tanks, and many plethora of technologies. All men have guns, they break, they get replaced at the next resupply (which happens often), although the weapons are far more reliable. Most men now use vehicles to get around between most big destinations. Walking is reserved for incursions, and only the grunts walk, others drive tanks, and still yet others fly planes. Fuels must use lots of infrastructure, from the pumping to refinement to shipment. Materials for all the machinery must be pushed around the world. Manufacturing must require many thousands of people. Resource consumption is enormous. I could not even begin to imagine the ammounts of resource consumption.

So I cannot further imagine the future, as the ammounts of resource consumption (for such an organization) must continue to increase. To get around the solar system in both directions fast and reliable, nuclear technology would have to be used (nuclear infrastructure which has historically costed more than all other approaches to energy usage combined). And even then there are limitations, if you expend energy making one trajectory, you may have no energy to change that trajectory for a given ammount of time. If your orders change, oh well. The cost of building and maintaining huge ship facilities in space would be far greater than that of anything ever before envisioned. But space offers nothing to defend, and once we start going in to it, we'll have technology that makes such a concept moot anyway. An asteroid can't be defended, every scenario you present, I can offer a counter scenario which allows me to gain the resources available (or at least make it so that you're screwed either way). The more advanced technology becomes, the less reason there is for big militaries.

And, noticing again the poll options, I can't help but ask the pollster what makes them think "mining and exploitation" make militarization necessary? Like I've said before, there's not much argument for mining resources with humans (machines are much far likely candidates), and when we get down to it, the human population would have so many resources available to them once the infrastructure is there, we simply wouldn't know what to do with it all. The only good reason, imho, for big states which militarize, is "state order." The "status quo." I'm a big general with my big ship, and my nuclear fuel facilities are being shut down because the civilians are opting to use smaller faster solar ships (which require very little labor, etc), I'm going to have a major problem with that. The military isn't very fond of their budgets being cut.

Down with the state.

Algol · 2004-04-22 16:37:20

People at the top of society usually emphasis the need for peace; people at the bottom of society usually emphasis the need for justice.

I like that, i like that alot.

Hazer · 2004-04-22 17:48:02

Well gee...if one of the purported reasons for colonizing and possibly terraforming Mars in the first place is to get humanity on a 2nd world in case *this one* gets demolished by a meteor, why bother only to take another means (potential) of self-destruction to Mars?
And since when have nuclear weapons -solved- problems? Maybe you'll say they've prevented all-out nuclear war so far. Thing is, nuclear war wouldn't even be a consideration in the first place IF there were no nuclear weapons to begin with. But despite the fact that we are at this point now (have been for nearly 6 decades already), I must say it seems insane to -deliberately- seek to repeat mistakes on another planet.
Does "just because" rule? How much social conditioning are we willing to take to Mars with us? We -can't- alter our behavior in some ways? We can't try?
Some future: Potential mushroom clouds on -two- planets.
--Cindy
P.S.: Not to confuse use of nuclear *energy* for beneficial and constructive means (transportation, utilities resource, etc.) with nuclear *weapons*.

Cindy, potential future: People killing people on -two- planets.

You can try to alter human behavior if you want, but disarming people isn't going to change the fact that sometimes they kill each other.

So maybe World War III would have fought across the fields of Europe, Alaska, Russia and Canada with Machine guns, rockets, and ballistic missiles (Non-nuclear warheads, maybe chemical or biological) instead of being a "Cold War." Who knows?

The fact remains that nuclear weapons are directly responsible for far less deaths than other more conventional conventional weapons such as the lowly firearm.

The only (potential) means of self-destruction that we need lies within the heart of man.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-22 19:04:16

Josh, you make some interesting points but you're overlooking an important factor.

The military technology of the World Wars was so resource intensive in large part because it was "primitive-modern" for lack of a better term. We had planes, we had bombs, but we didn't have guidance systems or any real idea what we were doing. What took dozens of bombers crewed by hundreds of men dropping thousands of bombs can now be accomplished in a strategic sense with one fighter, one man, one bomb. The ground crew requirements have remained fairly constant but on the delivery and manufacturing end the resource and labor requirements for a given outcome have declined.

Manufacturing of military goods has become more automated and efficient as those goods have become more effective. Today we can produce a hundred guns with less labor and less time than the Romans could produce a hundred swords. The World Wars were a transitional phase. We continually become more efficient in the making and use of military machinery.

So, If I can make a big honkin' space dreadnought that can serve without major refits for 50 years and can be crewed by three people, and you need all kinds of robots and infrastructure to mine an asteroid, it becomes advantageous to me to use that dreadnought to take your mining facility. So now you either give up with the asteroid mining, or build your own defense systems, in which case you have fallen into the militarization of space trap.

The only (potential) means of self-destruction that we need lies within the heart of man.

Well said, Hazer.

Euler · 2004-04-22 20:08:56

The military technology of the World Wars was so resource intensive in large part because it was "primitive-modern" for lack of a better term. We had planes, we had bombs, but we didn't have guidance systems or any real idea what we were doing. What took dozens of bombers crewed by hundreds of men dropping thousands of bombs can now be accomplished in a strategic sense with one fighter, one man, one bomb. The ground crew requirements have remained fairly constant but on the delivery and manufacturing end the resource and labor requirements for a given outcome have declined.
Manufacturing of military goods has become more automated and efficient as those goods have become more effective. Today we can produce a hundred guns with less labor and less time than the Romans could produce a hundred swords. The World Wars were a transitional phase. We continually become more efficient in the making and use of military machinery.

I think that the trend towards increasing costs of weapons is continuing. The US built 84,027 tanks, 129,255 combat aircraft, and over 100 aircraft carriers during 1942-1945. I do not think that we could build that many modern weapons today. However, I do not see how that would prevent the militarization of space. Most of the increased expense is only necesary in order to overcome the enemies increasingly expensive defenses. Also, if half of one country's income comes from mining asteroids, then another country could spend 49% of its resources to destroy the mining operations and still come out ahead.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-22 21:58:35

I think that the trend towards increasing costs of weapons is continuing. The US built 84,027 tanks, 129,255 combat aircraft, and over 100 aircraft carriers during 1942-1945. I do not think that we could build that many modern weapons today.

That's just it, we don't have to produce as many. I'll take one Abrams tank over five panzer IV's any day. If you want to bomb a factory one B-2 can do it much more efficiently than 40 B-17's.

However, I do not see how that would prevent the militarization of space. Most of the increased expense is only necesary in order to overcome the enemies increasingly expensive defenses. Also, if half of one country's income comes from mining asteroids, then another country could spend 49% of its resources to destroy the mining operations and still come out ahead.

Well, there would still have to be some gain but essentially you're right. Why would a nation spend X amount of resources to establish a mining operation when an unliked neighbor has already done it and the fruits can be seized at much less expense? One can only wave a treaty for so long before the other party no longer cares.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-12 19:20:21

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#2 2004-04-13 07:36:39

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#3 2004-04-13 07:58:33

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#4 2004-04-13 16:17:10

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#5 2004-04-13 18:21:52

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#6 2004-04-13 19:09:38

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#7 2004-04-14 03:07:53

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#8 2004-04-15 01:02:34

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#9 2004-04-15 08:40:19

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#10 2004-04-15 16:05:45

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#11 2004-04-15 16:34:36

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#12 2004-04-15 17:16:09

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#13 2004-04-15 22:07:50

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#14 2004-04-15 22:19:52

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#15 2004-04-16 20:05:21

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#16 2004-04-18 00:48:16

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#17 2004-04-19 07:16:47

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#18 2004-04-21 23:17:16

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#19 2004-04-22 14:28:18

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#20 2004-04-22 14:58:17

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#21 2004-04-22 16:37:20

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#22 2004-04-22 17:48:02

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#23 2004-04-22 19:04:16

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#24 2004-04-22 20:08:56

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#25 2004-04-22 21:58:35

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Board footer