Wars on Earth

Palomar · 2004-08-03 09:40:31

*What are the chances -national- expansion into space will spark wars between nations here on Earth?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 09:52:25

I had to go with "likely but not unavoidable." Competition between nations can be a good proxy for open war, but somehow it never quite replaces the real thing. Sometimes expansion will directly spark a conflict, as happened frequently during the "age of exploration" and colonization of the New World. Other times it will merely be an excuse for people itchin' to fight. If colonization is driven by a small group of wealthy nations, which is probable, it could easily become the Israel/Palestine of its day, for example.

Expanding into space will be bloody at times, but it'll be worth it.

clark · 2004-08-03 10:09:24

Hmmmm... how to "spark" a war from space?

Secret National (choose your nation) Military Moon/Mars Base. Scientific Expedition by another Nation (choose another Nation) sets down near the Secret base (either on purpose, or by accident).

The Scientific Expedition runs into problems, and the people will die unless they are given safe haven within the Secret base.

OR

The Scientific Expedition is sabatoged by the Secret military base.

Either one could be considered an act of war (current outer space treaties require any nation to help any astronuat if they can).

Dunno. I don't think it's likely, but then again, we routinely use the exscuse of an imaginary being to kill one another. So why not space? [shrug]

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 10:30:09

Hmmmm... how to "spark" a war from space?
Secret National (choose your nation) Military Moon/Mars Base. Scientific Expedition by another Nation (choose another Nation) sets down near the Secret base (either on purpose, or by accident).

There are more... down to Earth possibilities. The problems will arise when more than one nation is out colonizing. Unless we beat everyone to the punch. Even then...

So, Cobra's goons are busily working on Mars, building cities and such when ships from the Republic of Clark arrive, bearing colonists. They set up over a big underground chunk of ice that we were planning on diggin' up. Population growing, need that water. Of course so do the Clarkists. Much blustering and brandishing of arms ensues.

Needless to say, back on Earth relations between the Republic of Clark and the... Dominion of Cobra get a little dicey, our respective citizens are being threatened by the other. Maybe an agreement is reached... or maybe missiles start flying. All because of a dispute over a block of ice on Mars. ???

Yep, it really is that dumb sometimes.

clark · 2004-08-03 10:35:59

The Community of Clark, thank you very much.

If it comes to war, my people will simply throw themselves out the airlock in one final act of protest!

Long live the Revolution! :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-08-03 10:42:37

*Maybe some wishful thinking on my part but I can't help thinking, at least initially and for perhaps a good while, there'll be definite incentives to avoid wars on Earth basically because many people oppose space exploration or are apathetic to it. Not minding p's and q's (trying to get along) will create lots of protest and etc. Which might squash any further efforts. I can't help thinking it'd easily become a "cutting one's own throat" proposition.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 10:52:39

Not minding p's and q's (trying to get along) will create lots of protest and etc. Which might squash any further efforts. I can't help thinking it'd easily become a "cutting one's own throat" proposition.

Only in the very early stages of colonization. Once there is a "critical mass" of people live off-world we're locked in. If the choice is between war and abandoning thousands of people on Mars... war on. Colonization is an entirely different proposition than the sort of space efforts we've had to date.

Moving ahead quickly and on a large scale forces us to stay with it, whatever the hardships that arise.

Can't let the Community of Clark inherit the universe while our people freeze and suffocate, now can we.

Palomar · 2004-08-03 11:01:04

Not minding p's and q's (trying to get along) will create lots of protest and etc. Which might squash any further efforts. I can't help thinking it'd easily become a "cutting one's own throat" proposition.
Only in the very early stages of colonization. Once there is a "critical mass" of people live off-world we're locked in. If the choice is between war and abandoning thousands of people on Mars... war on. Colonization is an entirely different proposition than the sort of space efforts we've had to date.
Moving ahead quickly and on a large scale forces us to stay with it, whatever the hardships that arise.

*Erm...yeah, that's a really good point.

:-\

--Cindy

clark · 2004-08-03 11:01:34

If the choice is between war and abandoning thousands of people on Mars... war on.

I will have to humbily disagree. Entirely for my own reasons, but I sincerly believe that independance from Terran authority will not be sought by off-worlders. It will be forced upon them. :;):

Palomar · 2004-08-03 11:18:41

*And the logical targets in such a war would be launch pads, mission control, etc. Right?

Remember the movie "Contact"? The device was blown up by a religious loon and subsequently a well-hidden duplicate was revealed to Ellie.

Which brings to mind another question: Of course settlers will want to be as self-sufficient as possible. But to what percentage should they be self-sufficient in the event of a catastrophic attack on space-related national facilities (and especially in the event other space-capable nations won't help them and other nations aren't able to)?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-03 11:41:38

I will have to humbily disagree. Entirely for my own reasons, but I sincerly believe that independance from Terran authority will not be sought by off-worlders. It will be forced upon them.

Perhaps. This doesn't really decrease the odds of war between Earth nations though.

*And the logical targets in such a war would be launch pads, mission control, etc. Right?

Then the colonists had better be highly motivated and well equipped at the outset.

Further, such a possible scenario would also motivate spacefaring nations to expand and decentralize their launch facilities. One spaceport isn't going to cut it at any rate for serious colonization efforts. Multiple facilities could allow a nation to absorb a first-strike with conventional weapons. If it goes nuclear, then supplying a Mars colony drops considerably on the list of problems.

Which brings to mind another question: Of course settlers will want to be as self-sufficient as possible. But to what percentage should they be self-sufficient in the event of a catastrophic attack on space-related national facilities (and especially in the event other space-capable nations won't help them and other nations aren't able to)?

Ideally, I would say they should be capable of sustaining themselves indefinately without no resupply. This is probably unrealistic until a massive settlement is in place, but could still be the measure by which progress is judged.

If all the colonies depend on Earth for survival then all the eggs are still in one basket.

The other side is that if a nation loses the war but has a large self-sufficient colony on Mars it isn't really over. Smiting the enemy with Deimos, for example becomes a possible response.

clark · 2004-08-03 11:45:43

Smiting the enemy with Deimos

:laugh: Nice pun.

BWhite · 2004-08-03 13:03:22

Conflict? Most likely.

Between nations? Depends on whether http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/mi … .html]this book is correct.

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be--the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

By the way, China is both a nation and a civilization.

More:

Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.
Why will this be the case?
First, differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily, mean violence. Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.

= = =

Why is bin Laden mad at the West? The perception of loose Western sexual mores is part of the equation.

Ask a traditional Muslim which is worse - - being ruled by Saddam or being forced to allow your daughter to wear a mini-skirt as she walks down the street?

Thanks to Bill Maher who raised this question on NPR earlier today.

= = =

This was written 10 years ago:

Historically, the other great antagonistic interaction of Arab Islamic civilization has been with the pagan, animist, and now increasingly Christian black peoples to the south. In the past, this antagonism was epitomized in the image of Arab slave dealers and black slaves. It has been reflected in the on-going civil war in the Sudan between Arabs and blacks, the fighting in Chad between Libyan-supported insurgents and the government, the tensions between Orthodox Christians and Muslims in the Horn of Africa, and the political conflicts, recurring riots and communal violence between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. The modernization of Africa and the spread of Christianity are likely to enhance the probability of violence along this fault line. Symptomatic of the intensification of this conflict was the Pope John Paul II's speech in Khartoum in February I993 attacking the actions of the Sudan's Islamist government against the Christian minority there.

Sudan is another front in the clash of civilizations and with an Islamic government could easily become another refuge for terrorists, like Afghanistan had been.

Palomar · 2004-08-03 14:12:43

By the way, China is both a nation and a civilization.
--
Why is bin Laden mad at the West? The perception of loose Western sexual mores is part of the equation.
Ask a traditional Muslim which is worse - - being ruled by Saddam or being forced to allow your daughter to wear a mini-skirt as she walks down the street?

*Interesting comment about China.

As for bin Laden and mini-skirts. Oh yes, I suppose we'll have to have continued wars because of sexually immature morons who can't control their urges or take a cold shower or avert their eyes.

God (pardon the pun) forbid males of a certain particular ethnicity take responsibility for -their- sexual urges.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-08-03 14:17:46

Its also about the sale of alcohol. After Saddam fell, Christian liquor store owners have been shot.

Palomar · 2004-08-03 14:30:16

Its also about the sale of alcohol. After Saddam fell, Christian liquor store owners have been shot.

*Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that liquor stores were allowed during Saddam's reign (he was secular, after all).

Too bad about that. But then some people believe any sort of fun, enjoyment, and expressing LIFE is a crime. And it's not just been Muslims (I think of the Quakers of old...and the Puritans...<frown>). Of course, the latter two groups aren't much of a threat today.

I really don't understand life-hating/death-glorifying mentalities.

--Cindy

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-03 15:49:02

I really don't understand life-hating/death-glorifying mentalities.

What about those americans that watch a lot of TV? Techincally, they spent most of their free time in their life on the couch doing nothing truly productive and instead watch dumb idiots do idiotical things all night.

Grypd · 2004-08-03 15:56:22

The cold war.
Stupid name it was a war but it got very hot sometimes.

With both factions able to incinerate each other it became MAD to face each other square on. So they fought using small countries as proxies and in showing how successful they where.

This i forsee happening in space as we fight to show how successful we are and the most territority we have. We also will ignore the restrictions on space weapons and using troops on the Moon and Mars so killing the outer space treaty. And the US has already stated its intention to use space weapons so negating one of the main tenets in another treaty.

Palomar · 2004-08-03 18:04:24

I really don't understand life-hating/death-glorifying mentalities.
What about those americans that watch a lot of TV? Techincally, they spent most of their free time in their life on the couch doing nothing truly productive and instead watch dumb idiots do idiotical things all night.

*Good point.

But I'm not one of those Americans, so I can't answer for them.

--Cindy

bolbuyk · 2004-08-04 06:19:56

The cold war.
Stupid name it was a war but it got very hot sometimes.
With both factions able to incinerate each other it became MAD to face each other square on. So they fought using small countries as proxies and in showing how successful they where.
This i forsee happening in space as we fight to show how successful we are and the most territority we have. We also will ignore the restrictions on space weapons and using troops on the Moon and Mars so killing the outer space treaty. And the US has already stated its intention to use space weapons so negating one of the main tenets in another treaty.

I think ignoring restrictions is typical of starting a war. Read the history of WW II, it´s full of this. Theree is always a tricky manner to pretend some illegal action was legal. (For example, when the Rotterdam didn´t surrender after the German invasion the German´s simply declared the city a fortress, so bombing it was ´legally´.) Diplomacy is really limited by this.

BTW It has appeared that Salyut 3 already carried guns outside on there ship to eventually shoot nasty spying satelites.

And the Cold War started already when the hot one hadn´t gone (Greece, eg).

~Eternal~ · 2004-08-06 10:33:51

Perhaps the space race will change the acquisition of wealth to the acquisition of land.

Grypd · 2004-08-06 11:31:43

Some of the worst wars in history where over the acquisition of land by one side or another. But then land meant power.

Still if some highly rare and essential product is discovered that requires a certain mineral found off planet that could cause tensions. This has happened already on Earth with oil.

And yes I agree that the ignoring of restrictions does start wars. Hitler ignored the Versailles armistice restrictions and the British and French and US ignored this instead they tried appeasement with really bad results. It is now the turn of the US to ignore treaty restrictions mainly as it has no equal and can do what it wishes. But if the big boys ignore the rules dont expect anyone else to and little boys grow.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-03 09:40:31

Re: Wars on Earth

#2 2004-08-03 09:52:25

Re: Wars on Earth

#3 2004-08-03 10:09:24

Re: Wars on Earth

#4 2004-08-03 10:30:09

Re: Wars on Earth

#5 2004-08-03 10:35:59

Re: Wars on Earth

#6 2004-08-03 10:42:37

Re: Wars on Earth

#7 2004-08-03 10:52:39

Re: Wars on Earth

#8 2004-08-03 11:01:04

Re: Wars on Earth

#9 2004-08-03 11:01:34

Re: Wars on Earth

#10 2004-08-03 11:18:41

Re: Wars on Earth

#11 2004-08-03 11:41:38

Re: Wars on Earth

#12 2004-08-03 11:45:43

Re: Wars on Earth

#13 2004-08-03 13:03:22

Re: Wars on Earth

#14 2004-08-03 14:12:43

Re: Wars on Earth

#15 2004-08-03 14:17:46

Re: Wars on Earth

#16 2004-08-03 14:30:16

Re: Wars on Earth

#17 2004-08-03 15:49:02

Re: Wars on Earth

#18 2004-08-03 15:56:22

Re: Wars on Earth

#19 2004-08-03 18:04:24

Re: Wars on Earth

#20 2004-08-04 06:19:56

Re: Wars on Earth

#21 2004-08-06 10:33:51

Re: Wars on Earth

#22 2004-08-06 11:31:43

Re: Wars on Earth

Board footer