Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Euler · 2004-04-22 22:14:23

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.

Weaponry is more effective now, but the other side will have more effective weaponry also. In a war between two countries with similar levels of technology, the country with more weapons will probably win. Therefore each country will divert as much resources towards building weapons as they possibly can, because otherwise the other country would outbuild them and win the war.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-22 22:56:41

Weaponry is more effective now, but the other side will have more effective weaponry also. In a war between two countries with similar levels of technology, the country with more weapons will probably win. Therefore each country will divert as much resources towards building weapons as they possibly can, because otherwise the other country would outbuild them and win the war.

There are really two types of warfare that are reasonably likely to occur in modern times. We have limited warfare, such as what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This doesn't require the entire industrial might of the nation.

The other possibility is "total war," a conflict requiring the full mobilization of the nation to win. The last time we had this was WWII. The problem is that with such a war now, it's highly unlikely that any increase in production would occur. The war wouldn't last long enough. In a total war situation if one side even thinks it's going to lose the nukes come out. We already have those stockpiled. If anyone survives, they go about their business without having to produce significantly greater numbers of weapons.

The only way we could have the scenario you envision in this day and age is if we all decide to have WWIII, but have a gentlemanly agreement not to use nukes, chemical or biological weapons. War by nature isn't a game, it escalates. If one side can one-up the other, they do. That is a major factor in why the real fighting in the Cold War was done by proxy. Both sides understood it could be contained.

We're in the same boat now, leaving us with a relatively stable "same effect, fewer weapons" situation.

So back to topic, a militarized spacefaring state need not have an economy devoted to making space battleships. Guns and butter.

With some bread and circuses thrown in no doubt.

Palomar · 2004-04-23 06:38:02

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

*Agreed.

So why -encourage- violent behavior? (Question not directed at you personally, just a general question).

Let's back up a bit (-not- directed at Hazer; just comments/questions to everyone):

Why are militaries established? To protect property, essentially, right? Or to gain property. Hasn't the UN passed resolutions a long time ago that no one nation can claim property in the Solar System?

Maybe military for mining. But then there's the property issue again (no mining unless you own it), and the fact that advancement into space has been so frickin' slow...who's gonna try and stop -- *out there* -- the one and only space-capable mining/claiming nation actually out there, claiming and mining? Probably will provoke war here on Earth, but not in outer space. If the U.S., for instance, makes such an audacious move, how can China currently stop us -- out there, on that "turf"? They don't have the capability.

I think it's shadow boxing at this point, and likely for a long time to come. Stupid to spend lots of money and effort into trying to defend what isn't yours, can't be yours, and no one else out there to "spar" with you. :-\

Hopefully Mars will be relatively peacefully settled long before militarization can commence. But maybe I'm dreaming...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 08:34:41

Quote (Hazer @ April 22 2004, 19:48)
The only (potential) means of self-destruction that we need lies within the heart of man.
*Agreed.
So why -encourage- violent behavior? (Question not directed at you personally, just a general question).

But does the mere presence of a weapon encourage violent behavior, as though our species needs much encouragement to start with. I've sat in a room full of guns on several occasions and I've never head them mumuring to me "come on, use us. You know you want to..."

Why are militaries established? To protect property, essentially, right? Or to gain property. Hasn't the UN passed resolutions a long time ago that no one nation can claim property in the Solar System?

The problem is this, If I set up hardware to start mining Ceres as a private entity, eventualy someone else is going to see the succesful operation and say "hey, I can do that too." So now I'm out there and MaoCorp. comes along. Yeah, it's a private company but I just can't shake that nagging feeling that's it's a front for the Communist Chinese government.

They start "claiming" asterois they can't get around to mining for years, just to deny me the opportunity to exploit them. I petition the UN, they debate it for five, ten, twelve years then sternly warn the Chinese that they're violating the Outer Space Treaty. They nod deferentially and continue claiming asteroids. (My asteroids!)

So I need some means of protecting property rights. Maybe I can convince the US government that it's prudent to back me up a little. Either that or take some of the money from that three ton platinum nugget I just blasted out and build a few gunships. With shark mouths painted on them.

Then the Outer Space Treaty falls apart because it's unworkable if there are actually people in space doing anything of great consequence.

Either way, militarization is almost inevitable.

Unless of course we go to Mars and perform the phiramid ritual at sunrise thus transforming our inner nature and ushering in a new utopian age of brotherhood and stagnant stability.

Palomar · 2004-04-23 08:49:13

But does the mere presence of a weapon encourage violent behavior, as though our species needs much encouragement to start with. I've sat in a room full of guns on several occasions and I've never head them mumuring to me "come on, use us. You know you want to..."

*If you'd transcribed some psych reports I've transcribed, you'd know that some folks DO hear such "murmuring." But what do I know? I was socially conditioned on Cutsie Pie Sparkly Dolls and Woofie The Nice Doggy and EZ-Bake-Oven while boys my age were handed plastic guns, knives, and grenades to "play" with.

So I need some means of protecting property rights. Maybe I can convince the US government that it's prudent to back me up a little. Either that or take some of the money from that three ton platinum nugget I just blasted out and build a few gunships. With shark mouths painted on them.

*Shark mouths painted on them...lol I see this point (means of protecting property rights...but again, so far no one can "own" anything out there, and currently nobody has the wherewithal to try, and probably not for a long time to come).

Then the Outer Space Treaty falls apart because it's unworkable if there are actually people in space doing anything of great consequence.
Either way, militarization is almost inevitable.

*Likely. But I'm concerned about gung-ho/hothead mentalities. I'd like to see a bit of dignity out there, a bit of mature behavior.

Unless of course we go to Mars and perform the phiramid ritual at sunrise thus transforming our inner nature and ushering in a new utopian age of brotherhood and stagnant stability.

*Aw c'mon, not fair...you know that isn't me (I hope you know that, anyway). Check the sig; it's Cindy, not Scott.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 09:03:23

Quote
But does the mere presence of a weapon encourage violent behavior, as though our species needs much encouragement to start with. I've sat in a room full of guns on several occasions and I've never head them mumuring to me "come on, use us. You know you want to..."

*If you'd transcribed some psych reports I've transcribed, you'd know that some folks DO hear such "murmuring." But what do I know? I was socially conditioned on Cutsie Pie Sparkly Dolls and Woofie The Nice Doggy and EZ-Bake-Oven while boys my age were handed plastic guns, knives, and grenades to "play" with.

No denying there's crazy people out there. But again, the problem is in them, not an inanimate object is all I'm saying. The difference between a gun, a rock and a EZ-bake-oven is in how it's used. No object is inherently good or bad.

Shark mouths painted on them...lol I see this point (means of protecting property rights...but again, so far no one can "own" anything out there, and currently nobody has the wherewithal to try, and probably not for a long time to come).

Probably not for a while, but the day ownership issues become a factor will be the day after some permanent infrastructure that actually produces something is put in place. Maybe the day before.

*Likely. But I'm concerned about gung-ho/hothead mentalities. I'd like to see a bit of dignity out there, a bit of mature behavior.

Always an issue, but I've found that two people can act in a very dignified and reasonable manner when both have guns under their jackets.

Whether it's a causal relationship is up for debate.

Quote
Unless of course we go to Mars and perform the phiramid ritual at sunrise thus transforming our inner nature and ushering in a new utopian age of brotherhood and stagnant stability.

*Aw c'mon, not fair...you know that isn't me (I hope you know that, anyway). Check the sig; it's Cindy, not Scott.
--Cindy

Just thought I'd take a jab at your position and Scott's ideas at the same time. You know, right-wing unilateralist war-monger that I am.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-23 18:31:31

Cobra,

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.

True defense systems over resources would be pointless. I would just give you a few robots, and you could go get your own asteroid. If you couldn't live with that and attacked us anyway (like stupid barbarians), then of course I would defend myself from you. If you started killing people, then you have the justification for space militaries, but I wouldn't call it the militariazing of space. They'd be decentralized militias, they'd be people essentially with their own guns in their houses. I had a shotgun for years (pawned it finally, though, it was proving pointless), I did not consider myself part of any military, but I wouldn't argue with being considered part of a militia, as if a crisis occured (ie, a barbarian decided to kill people who offered him free robots), I would gladly take up arms in order to take out this guy.

Now, the real question is who paid for and built your ship, and why. If asteroid mining is as I consider it (robot controlled for the most part, etc), you begin to see very little reason for it. The reasons for space militaries are inherent of low or medium level technology. But space colonization is inherently reliant on high level technology.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 19:01:57

Well, why didn't you say you'd just give me some robots? No problem then.

Of course as soon as colonies start to get reasonably close to each other conflicts will arise and defenses will be needed. Perhaps, as you say, it will be by local militias. Yet we aren't talking about colonial Virginia, but an environment requiring advanced manufactured technology for survival. Colonies will need to be well along on their development before they can equip themselves properly, so some centralization of supply seems inevitable. With a supply chain comes a chain of command.

Now, the real question is who paid for and built your ship, and why. If asteroid mining is as I consider it (robot controlled for the most part, etc), you begin to see very little reason for it. The reasons for space militaries are inherent of low or medium level technology. But space colonization is inherently reliant on high level technology.

You're attributing too much logic and goodwill to human behavior. By these standards WWI wouldn't have happened, but it did. Humans fight for reasons other than those that are purely logical and out of direct self-interest. Fear, perceptions and opportunism are just as potent. When we have a true colony on Mars, we will shortly thereafter have soldiers on Mars and regular communication with them. Space will be militarized, one way or another.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-23 19:47:29

Why wouldn't I give you robots? I certainly wouldn't want to go into space without the capacity to make my own robots, as depending on others is inefficient, and if I could make my own robots, it wouldn't be too difficult to make you one, too.

Colonies will need to be well along on their development before they can equip themselves properly, so some centralization of supply seems inevitable.

This is precisely my disagreement with many posters here. First it was Clark, then A.J., then those Liberty Forum guys or whereever they were from, now you. Colonies can't even exist until they already have the infrastructure to develop, or as I've said, they'd be nothing more than outposts (the ISS has centralization of supply, and no one here would call it a colony). You're right, we aren't talking about colonial Virginia, so until we can call it a colony, we have to essentially be technologically equal to those in colonial Virginia. The ability to make your own habitats, and survive off the resources available. Thus high level technology.

In my mind decentralization seems inevitable, centralized supply lines will be seen as inefficient (and rightly so, more efficient to grow your own food than have it shipped in). I figure most resources will be worked with locally.

Even if we have lots of evil irrational people who blow others up for religious or other stupid reasons, they needn't be dealt with with large military structures. And in fact, as can be seen by the terrorists currently, large military structures are wholly incapable of going after groups with those tactics.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 20:08:04

Josh, I'm not arguing that colonies will be perpetually dependent but that government will expand with them, and with it the military. Send some people to Mars, build a colony, they become self sufficient and mind their own business. But now there's stuff happening on Mars, more people have reason to go there. Travel becomes more frequent, the population grows. Government expands across the void, increasingly usurping control. Militarization follows.

As a species, we just can't let the other guy be indefinately. We expand into new territory and we defend what we have, eventually these two interests collide. Independent colonies spread across the solar system, all peacefully trading indefinately is highly improbable. We build weapons, we fight. It's part of what we are.

quasar777 · 2004-05-04 11:59:30

in the past i would`ve been the last person to stress the need for militarization of space. but, starting about 15 yrs ago, having actually been a flower child, i noticed other flower children evolved into several categories. survivalists, addicts, yuppies, for starters. now, taking these three; which do y`all think would survive on Mars, L1, The Moon, Cruithne, Phobos, Mars Cycler? any notion of Mars or other being a utopia should be squashed right here & now. it`s human nature for the strong to subjugate the weak. the strong must be constantly kept in check through morals, laws, etc..

clark · 2004-05-04 12:05:32

Flower child has bloomed.

I think Yuppies would be rather ideal.

Palomar · 2004-05-04 12:29:47

in the past i would`ve been the last person to stress the need for militarization of space. but, starting about 15 yrs ago, having actually been a flower child, i noticed other flower children evolved into several categories. survivalists, addicts, yuppies, for starters. now, taking these three; which do y`all think would survive on Mars, L1, The Moon, Cruithne, Phobos, Mars Cycler? any notion of Mars or other being a utopia should be squashed right here & now. it`s human nature for the strong to subjugate the weak. the strong must be constantly kept in check through morals, laws, etc..

*Let's all become Klingons!

Well, I don't want to derail the topic, but as for the flowerchild thing: You point out some basics of human nature (strong/weak/necessity of laws). Another is -fads-. Probably 80%+ of all the "flowerchildren" in the 1960s were following a fad, no? How many really believed in the ideologies they espoused? I won't call them hypocrites (too harsh); young folks caught up in the atmosphere of things. And human nature outed itself in the ones who weren't "natural" (pardon the pun) pacifists, etc.

Anyway, has Antarctica needed militarization prior to science bases (international/multinational) being built there, and people inhabiting them? I'm not sure, so am reluctant of course to try and use that as an analogy.

Again: Planets and moons belong to no one. Thus, there can't be mining rights either. And most nations on Earth aren't space capable. So what's to fight over, and with whom? If the UN doesn't change its charter on the property issue, this is shadow boxing at best, no?

And if the charter is repealed or ignored, etc., how much will militarization cost? And how much will that cost take away from the cost of going to Mars and establishing a domestic/civilian settlement/base? And how many years will militarization push back the domestic settlement of Mars?

I suppose in the future, at some point, a level of militarization will be unavoidable. But sorry to say (I don't mean to sound rude), some folks here sound like this is a video game we're playing. :-\

It won't be all peace and love and strawberries for breakfast, but this warmongering attitude isn't realistic either, IMO.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: My vote, when I started the thread, was "Maybe; depends on as-yet unknown factors." In case anyone's wondering...

quasar777 · 2004-05-05 11:52:11

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.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 12:07:23

Again: Planets and moons belong to no one. Thus, there can't be mining rights either. And most nations on Earth aren't space capable. So what's to fight over, and with whom? If the UN doesn't change its charter on the property issue, this is shadow boxing at best, no?

Well, let's say the US says to hell with the UN and its treaties. Maybe some big, mean ol' Republican unilateralist just gets fed up
Then we go to Mars to set up a little research base. They discover something worth all the trouble of mining, so we set up a big operation.

Now the Chinese, Russians, EU, maybe some others want in. Eventually they make it over, so we have a need for... defensive posturing. If the colonists are much like NASA astronauts many will have a military background to start with.

As population grows, militarization continues. it's nothing to be afraid of. It doesn't mean we have to be warmongers or anything, just prudently prepared for situations that will almost certainly arise in time.

In short, if we both agree not to have any weapons, are you gonna trust me to keep to it? What about when clark shows up, rigging kill-switches all over the colonies? I'm building weapons, whatever the treaty says.

clark · 2004-05-05 12:23:32

Why must you always concoct the most elaborate justifications for your fascists warmongering fantasies?

China, EU, Russia, and anyone else have plenty of assets on planet Earth that can be threatened, sans the Space Marines. In fact, it would be easier to deny orbital access for the highly valued goods to come back to Earth than it would to go and try and defend those goods from the likes of Pirates (ar, me matey) or saber rattling nations.

Indeed, one of the reasons that the nations wanted to call Antarctica off limits was precisely because they feared a land grab situation there would lead to nuclear war. If nukes hadn't been developed, it might have turned out quite differently. The same premise guided the signing of the current space treaties.

How about this Cobra, you and anyone else who wants a gun can have one, the deal is though that I get a kill switch on your rooms.

Palomar · 2004-05-05 12:25:11

Again: Planets and moons belong to no one. Thus, there can't be mining rights either. And most nations on Earth aren't space capable. So what's to fight over, and with whom? If the UN doesn't change its charter on the property issue, this is shadow boxing at best, no?
Well, let's say the US says to hell with the UN and its treaties. Maybe some big, mean ol' Republican unilateralist just gets fed up
Then we go to Mars to set up a little research base. They discover something worth all the trouble of mining, so we set up a big operation.
Now the Chinese, Russians, EU, maybe some others want in. Eventually they make it over, so we have a need for... defensive posturing. If the colonists are much like NASA astronauts many will have a military background to start with.
As population grows, militarization continues. it's nothing to be afraid of. It doesn't mean we have to be warmongers or anything, just prudently prepared for situations that will almost certainly arise in time.
In short, if we both agree not to have any weapons, are you gonna trust me to keep to it?

*I see some of your points, Cobra.

Here's another thing I'm wondering: What are the chances colonization (I mean -domestic- colonization such as farming, building, having babies), etc., will be derailed by rushing in to grab Mars' goodies? By that I mean minerals, ores, etc.?

See, I'm concerned about intense militarization leading to total, unrestrained exploitation ... and then what will be left for future human inhabitants of Mars?

Doesn't intense militarization = exploitation = dismal chance for domestic colonization?

I understand the need to protect one's self and one's property (habs, spacecraft, etc.). But intense militarization may not prevent abuses -- it likely will encourage abuses.

Where is the "fine line"??

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 12:53:20

Why must you always concoct the most elaborate justifications for your fascists warmongering fantasies?

Because you can't have a good victory parade with farm implements.

China, EU, Russia, and anyone else have plenty of assets on planet Earth that can be threatened, sans the Space Marines. In fact, it would be easier to deny orbital access for the highly valued goods to come back to Earth than it would to go and try and defend those goods from the likes of Pirates (ar, me matey) or saber rattling nations.

It's still militarizing space, the inevitable result of competition in space.

Here's another thing I'm wondering: What are the chances colonization (I mean -domestic- colonization such as farming, building, having babies), etc., will be derailed by rushing in to grab Mars' goodies? By that I mean minerals, ores, etc.?

A valid concern, though unless some new super-efficient mining techniques are developed to feed a souped-up manufacturing industry (space dreadnoughts, anyone?) it's unlikely. We'd be hard pressed to strip an entire planet bare before anyone decided to settle it. Besides, what better way to secure territory than fill it with your own people.

I understand the need to protect one's self and one's property (habs, spacecraft, etc.). But intense militarization may not prevent abuses -- it likely will encourage abuses.

I suppose this all depends on what one considers abuses. I maintain the building of infrastructure on mars would be a good thing, whether it be for colonists habs or a military base. Either way, it makes permanent habitation more likely.

clark · 2004-05-05 12:54:58

We'll put the national grave yard where we bury our dead near the Columbia Hills.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 13:37:45

We'll put the national grave yard where we bury our dead near the Columbia Hills.

So now I'm behind death too!

clark · 2004-05-05 13:42:07

Hey, I'm behind pestilence. Ya choose your horse...

I find it nearly incomprehensible that some worry about the rape of Mars. It has as much land surface as the Earth, and mankind has been busily exploiting her wealth for millenia.

It's going to take a lot of effort to make any kind of dent in Mars, and I doubt it would be worth it considering asteroids would have more value to Earth (since there is no gravity).

Won't someone please think of the children.

Palomar · 2004-05-05 13:51:03

*How much of human violence and aggression is simply inherent in human nature, and how much of it is due to social conditioning and reinforcement, do you suppose?

I think of P.D. Ouspensky's anecdote regarding soldiers going off to war (WW I). He worked in a packaging plant (or something along those lines), boxing up prosthetic limbs for soldiers who'd lose limbs in the war. It occurred to him or someone pointed it out to him that the soldiers simply accepted they would go to war and they might lose limbs and so they would need the prosthetics. And it occurred to Ouspensky that people are socialized almost to the point of being automatons. "This must be"; "this will be"; "this
just is."

I don't doubt that there is violence and aggression naturally in humans...but the degree of it ("generally speaking") is, IMO, definitely up to debate.

Think, again, of toys geared for children of different genders. A walk through the toy aisle of any store says a lot.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: It's so easy to see the results of another society's socialization. I think of people in other parts of the world who have zero ethical qualms about pushing loaded submachine guns in the hands of 9-year-old boys and sending them out to fight with adult males. It's not so easy to see our own automaton-like socialization ways, right?

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 13:57:42

I don't doubt that there is violence and aggression naturally in humans...but the degree of it ("generally speaking") is, IMO, definitely up to debate.
Think, again, of toys geared for children of different genders. A walk through the toy aisle of any store says a lot.

I would argue that the "socialization" aspects are a reflection of what is naturally there, rather than the cause.

Palomar · 2004-05-05 14:17:13

I don't doubt that there is violence and aggression naturally in humans...but the degree of it ("generally speaking") is, IMO, definitely up to debate.
Think, again, of toys geared for children of different genders. A walk through the toy aisle of any store says a lot.
I would argue that the "socialization" aspects are a reflection of what is naturally there, rather than the cause.

*Oh? And that's why a boy who might play with a doll (NOT of a military-style G.I. Joe or Rambo type) is ridiculed left and right for being "a sissy"?

Adults buy the toys in the first 5 years of a child's life. Most kids don't have allowances until later (or at least in my childhood).

I think a lot of it IS direct, deliberate socialization. With plenty of reinforcement.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-05 14:20:25

*Oh? And that's why a boy who might play with a doll (NOT of a military-style G.I. Joe or Rambo type) is ridiculed left and right for being "a sissy"?

There are exceptions both ways, but for the most part boys will choose the more "masculine" toys at a very early age and vice-versa. Social conditioning may be reinforcing what's already there, but I doubt it's the root cause. These norms had to come from somewhere.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-04-22 22:14:23

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#27 2004-04-22 22:56:41

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#28 2004-04-23 06:38:02

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#29 2004-04-23 08:34:41

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#30 2004-04-23 08:49:13

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#31 2004-04-23 09:03:23

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#32 2004-04-23 18:31:31

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#33 2004-04-23 19:01:57

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#34 2004-04-23 19:47:29

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#35 2004-04-23 20:08:04

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#36 2004-05-04 11:59:30

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#37 2004-05-04 12:05:32

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#38 2004-05-04 12:29:47

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#39 2004-05-05 11:52:11

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#40 2004-05-05 12:07:23

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#41 2004-05-05 12:23:32

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#42 2004-05-05 12:25:11

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#43 2004-05-05 12:53:20

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#44 2004-05-05 12:54:58

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#45 2004-05-05 13:37:45

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#46 2004-05-05 13:42:07

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#47 2004-05-05 13:51:03

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#48 2004-05-05 13:57:42

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#49 2004-05-05 14:17:13

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

#50 2004-05-05 14:20:25

Re: Militarization -Before- Colonization?

Board footer