Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

Morris · 2004-09-11 10:55:27

From Rob S. on another thread.

A lot of GREAT ideas were exchanged. Zubrin had two very cool presentations, one about a carbon dioxide thermal rocket engine for a small "hopper" probe (I've described it elsewhere) and the other a tethered balloon that would be blown around the surface of Mars, its wheel being forcably rolled across the surface by the wind, thereby generating electricity to run the cameras on the balloon and the wheel, and power other instruments. Zubrin had video of the thing being tested on Mount Evans (above the tree line in a boulder field, not far from Denver). Chris McKay gave a fascinating presentation. So did the head of NASA's nuclear engine program; he said that solid-core nuclear thermal engines were possible for the Mars initiative.

Yes, nuclear power, would seem to be a wonderful source of energy for Martian settlements. Here in Arkansas we have two excellent nuclear power plants which have been running for decades with a minimum of problems. It seems that a particlar species of mussel liked the water in the system and grew so fast that there was a danger of them clogging the pipes, but that was about it.

However, one big factor in Martian politics will be it's statehood status. If it is it's own country, how will it be seen by nuclear nations in terms of the risks of allowing it to develop nuclear power? If it can use nuclear power, can't it develop nuclear weapons (e.g. North Korea and others)? Since Mars great economic potential may well be in a super high level of technological development, this could well be a major barrier.

Palomar · 2004-09-11 11:47:21

Yes, nuclear power, would seem to be a wonderful source of energy for Martian settlements. Here in Arkansas we have two excellent nuclear power plants which have been running for decades with a minimum of problems. It seems that a particlar species of mussel liked the water in the system and grew so fast that there was a danger of them clogging the pipes, but that was about it.

*How will nuclear waste/hazardous materials on Mars be taken care of?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-11 11:55:41

*How will nuclear waste/hazardous materials on Mars be taken care of?

Left in big drums near any piece of land you may want at some point in the future but can't properly secure from other colonizing powers.

Sludge squatters rights.

BWhite · 2004-09-11 12:16:26

From Rob S. on another thread.
A lot of GREAT ideas were exchanged. Zubrin had two very cool presentations, one about a carbon dioxide thermal rocket engine for a small "hopper" probe (I've described it elsewhere) and the other a tethered balloon that would be blown around the surface of Mars, its wheel being forcably rolled across the surface by the wind, thereby generating electricity to run the cameras on the balloon and the wheel, and power other instruments. Zubrin had video of the thing being tested on Mount Evans (above the tree line in a boulder field, not far from Denver). Chris McKay gave a fascinating presentation. So did the head of NASA's nuclear engine program; he said that solid-core nuclear thermal engines were possible for the Mars initiative.
Yes, nuclear power, would seem to be a wonderful source of energy for Martian settlements. Here in Arkansas we have two excellent nuclear power plants which have been running for decades with a minimum of problems. It seems that a particlar species of mussel liked the water in the system and grew so fast that there was a danger of them clogging the pipes, but that was about it.
However, one big factor in Martian politics will be it's statehood status. If it is it's own country, how will it be seen by nuclear nations in terms of the risks of allowing it to develop nuclear power? If it can use nuclear power, can't it develop nuclear weapons (e.g. North Korea and others)? Since Mars great economic potential may well be in a super high level of technological development, this could well be a major barrier.

This is another reason I believe no one is going to Mars without the active cooperation of at least one major world government and at least the implied consent of the United States government.

No rogue, wildcat settlers will be permitted access to significant quantities of high grade reactor material.

Palomar · 2004-09-11 12:24:30

No rogue, wildcat settlers will be permitted access to significant quantities of high grade reactor material.

*Nor should they be allowed to. All the potential damage, likely irreversible. There's more I could say...

Left in big drums near any piece of land you may want at some point in the future but can't properly secure from other colonizing powers.
Sludge squatters rights.

*No thanks.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-11 12:44:39

Quote
Left in big drums near any piece of land you may want at some point in the future but can't properly secure from other colonizing powers.
Sludge squatters rights.

*No thanks.

Not saying I'd do it, but somebody might. Some nasty toxic sludge, a whole planet to yourself... and just to make sure no one grabs that real estate you've been eyeing...

Someone will do it. It may not be above board, but it's probably coming eventually.

Palomar · 2004-09-11 13:02:08

Not saying I'd do it,

*I know you wouldn't, Cobra. You're too sweet.

Some nasty toxic sludge, a whole planet to yourself... and just to make sure no one grabs that real estate you've been eyeing...
Someone will do it. It may not be above board, but it's probably coming eventually.

*Oh god. Well...I'm probably not in the best frame of mind to discuss this sort of scenario anyway. :bars: I could inject the "T" word in here... :hm: Maybe not.

--Cindy

RobS · 2004-09-11 22:05:05

I think you'd do the same thing on Mars you do on Earth: establish temporary nuclear waste storage facilities and eventually permanent waste storage facilities. At least you can keep your radioactive waste frozen solid in steel barrels that will never rust, because the environment is too cold and has no oxygen. You may want to keep the barrels on the surface inside a fenced enclosure where anyone can see and count them. Martian weather is not a threat to them over a 100,000 year time span, after all.

As for nuclear research and production facilities, I see that as a major future for Mars. The planet should have uranium resources as abundant as Earth, but launching enriched uranium for reactors and solid-core nuclear engines is much less environmentally risky than from the Earth. Emotion is the main problem where launches from the Earth is concerned; near as I can determine, launches can be made quite safe. For Mars, launches shouldn't be an issue at all, because the planet's highly educated and technically trained population won't have the emotional issues of Earth's population, and a launch accident would bring the chunks of uranium down onto unpopulated desert where it could be recovered with minimal damage to the "environment."

Furthermore, Mars is an ideal place to test nuclear engines. They could be tested on the surface in the open, just as NERVA engines were tested in Nevada 40 years ago, but can't be tested now. If you want to test them in space, use Mars orbit or the surface of Phobos or Deimos. Deimos will have polar areas where almost no one can see, so they will be secure from most surveillance, and the moons should be able to provide hydrogen for tests.

As for nuclear proliferation, the International Atomic Energy Commission could send a team to inspect and oversee Martian facilities, just as they do in North Korea and Iran (when permitted!). My guess is that nuclear research and testing facilities on Mars will be developed by national governments and their agencies, which will lease a few tens of thousands of square kilometers of reservation for their exclusive use. Imagine the controversy if the United States military manufactured uranium and plutonium on Mars for export to their Star Wars facilities in Earth orbit. I can already see the Martian protesters (I might be inclined to join them, too).

But none of that will happen until Mars has many hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

-- RobS

Morris · 2004-09-12 11:02:25

As for nuclear research and production facilities, I see that as a major future for Mars.

Yes, me too. And all your technical arguments seem to be sound. But under what circumstances can such research be allowed to proceed?

As for nuclear proliferation, the International Atomic Energy Commission could send a team to inspect and oversee Martian facilities, just as they do in North Korea and Iran (when permitted!).

That's exactly the problem. Who is going to even risk the possibility that a Mars government, or even a national government which has leased research territory on Mars will do as North Korea did and arbitrarily expel inspection teams!? For sure the U. S. government will not permit any other government to even have the possibility of doing so, and other governments won't like it a bit if the U.S. sets up nuclear research programs for military or unknown purposes. Such an attempt would inevitably lead to the most potentially deadly arms race that humanity has ever known.

It would seem that such research would be socially practical only: (1) if the research focusses on largely peaceful uses and (2) if the inspection teams have the built-in, guaranteed capacity to shut down the production facilities if they deem it necessary. In this case, the political issues, however difficult, are much more critical than the technical ones.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-09-14 22:50:32

The reality of the matter is due to the nature of colinizing Mars you are going to have a planet full of educated technincally adept people who are very comfortable working on the bleeding edge of technology. Nuclear power will be a day to day necescity, and fission/fusion explosive devices are not the most sophisticated devices in the present day arsenals of us and our enemies.

In our department theres a saying, you can't hide physics, at least not forever. That's on Earth with the unwashed masses and in most circumstances great control over non-mobile nuclear material (the exceptions being America, British, French, and Russian naval vessels) On Mars reactors have to be everywhere, in everything from air craft to mobile power carts for portable bases. If some group really wants to start throwing around 750 kilotons the hardest part is going to be coming up with the nitrogen for the high explosives in the primary.

I mean, hell, I could have put together a nearly working model of a basic Teller-Ulam inline fusion device my junior year of high school!

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-09-14 22:54:03

As for nuclear proliferation, the International Atomic Energy Commission could send a team to inspect and oversee Martian facilities, just as they do in North Korea and Iran (when permitted!). My guess is that nuclear research and testing facilities on Mars will be developed by national governments and their agencies, which will lease a few tens of thousands of square kilometers of reservation for their exclusive use. Imagine the controversy if the United States military manufactured uranium and plutonium on Mars for export to their Star Wars facilities in Earth orbit. I can already see the Martian protesters (I might be inclined to join them, too).

Funny, I wrote a report that actually suggested that one of the best reasons for settling Mars would be to supply our war fighting assets in orbit. Mars would be the perfect Skunk Works! The last thing we would want is the UN or IAEA to be there. Ideally no one would know we were there at all.

Of course given the temprament of the board I wasn't going to float the idea but if you put it out there, lol

Keep the blue helmets off Mars!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-15 08:15:09

If some group really wants to start throwing around 750 kilotons the hardest part is going to be coming up with the nitrogen for the high explosives in the primary.

Which can be used to illustrate the point that all the agonizing over weapons on Mars, nuclear or otherwise, is a futile exercise. Three factors come into play here, first among them being that humans make weapons, we always have and always will and we're very good at it. Second, in the case of Mars we'll be dealing with humans who are particularly skilled at building things. Building an atomic bomb just isn't that hard if you have the fissile material, which they almost certainly will.

Now enter point three. For the most part even if you want to wipe a small city you don't need a nuke. Mars is a weapon of mass destuction. Under Martian conditions a large fragmentation shell, a wrench, or a computer terminal with a skilled operator can all become the poor man's neutron bomb. Why level a habitable dome with something as crude as a nuke when you can merely depopulate it and patch it up later?

Worrying about nuclear power on Mars because of the potential it creates for building nuclear weapons is rather pointless, there are better weapons for use on Mars and on the off-chance of a strike against Earth, we'd see it coming well in advance. Even in that case, a big rock works just as well.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-15 09:12:41

I would tackle this nuclear waist problem from two directions.

There are several different types of nuclear fission process that you can put fusible material through to obtain power to run city or surrounding communities. Some of these processes produce weapon grade material for bombs and some of them do produce weapon grade material for bombs. Some of these process are more efficient and some are less efficient, but all process knock out some portion of the radio active material and it could be use to deal with some of waist nuclear material. We also might put together a recycling of the old spent rods into new rods to be used. Admiralty it not very cost effective, but you can deal with some of the waist like that. You also use some of that material in hospital x-rays, pharmaceutical drugs and other uses down here, but it would be low dosages and would not use much of it either. We could also try and de-energize the nuclear waist too or use some type of glassifing it like the French do to deal with the nuclear waist. But, the vast majority of the nuclear material is not good for any thing when it mined out because it not of high enough grade or quality. This stuff is not going to be energized up or used. This stuff that is put in a pile, is basically the same stuff they dug out of the hill and they have not change it other than dig it out of the hill. The best way to deal with that nuclear material is to stick it back in the hill and concrete the end off. It been sitting there for millions of years before we disturbed it and we can put it back in and leave for million of more after we leave it. But, the stuff that we concentrated and energized if until it hot, we can use that method of sticking back in the hill and have to find some other way to deal it. Since many of my suggestion are inefficient and even counter productive to the bottom line of corporation profits margins, they won't do it. The only way to implement these rule or rule like those would be by a Martian Government laying government regulation and having government inspectors and we might even have to have direct Martian Government involvement in dealing with the waist problem and developing solutions to it. And anybody that don't like the rules, are not going to be doing business on Mars because there assets will be seized and they will be tried as a criminal. That is if we are forces to nuclear fission material, that would be the only way that we could get around the problem of the waist it produces for generating power our civilization on Mars and the toxic waist problem.

The other way to deal with the toxic waist problem and assuming that we fusion power before we get to Mars. Since the fusion process does not produce that toxic waist, it would be a self-eliminating problem if we just use fusion instead of fission. Fusion is a very clean process for generating electricity and not having any waist either or maybe just a small amount of it. In that case we my decide to just out law fission process altogether because we don't want to deal with the mess.

If we want to avert such a disaster as described in this forum, we would have to make rules by which they use stuff like nuclear fission or they can’t do business on Mars. We will have to have some one that can enforce those rules too, because with potentially millions that could be made by violating these rules, somebody will do it. They always do. That why there are government regulations to punish offenders of the law. But, the laws and regulations are designed to limit the damage done to either the ecology of Mars or the Martian colonist. I can see no other way to deal with the problem.

Larry,

RobS · 2004-09-15 09:30:32

All of this suggests to me that if people are going to settle Mars, let's hope a more mature political system can develop. This is not impossible. The American frontier allowed ideas about democracy in Europe to achieve a new form and maturity, producing a Constitution that became a model for many other Constitutions. If Mars is settled by an international population, that population will have cultural diversity and a wider set of ideas than any single national population, and set in the crucible of a new environment, it may produce social institutions that are new and innovative.

As for blue helmets, they may be inevitable. If Mars is settled by an international population, I suspect a very large number of people will have strong ideas about the United States military producing uranium and plutonium on Mars. There will also be a lot of people there who will have the general feeling "Earth has blown it; we have to do better. This has to be a demilitarized world." Maybe they can demilitarize the place. Maybe not.

On the other hand, if one country dominates Mars, or even one commercial outfit, the situation is quite different. There still could be a lot of innovation; put a few species on an isolated island and they evolve to fill all sorts of niches and produce a lot of species. That may be true of social evolution on Mars as well.

-- RobS

P.S.: My favorite example of ways English social structures evolved in the new world is Puritan Massachusetts. Massachusetts was settled by the "Massachusetts Bay Company" and Virginia by the "Virginia Company" both with royal charters and similar bylaws, but two minor details made the companies radically different: (1) the charter of Virginia specified that the annual meeting be held in London, but Massachusetts' charter was silent on this detail; (2) Virginia company stockholders were wealthy merchants who planned to invest their money and stay in London, but Massachusetts' was middle class Puritan artisans and merchants WHO WERE WILLING TO MOVE TO MASSACHUSETTS. So they moved and held their annual meeting in Boston, which meant the stockholders/male citizens elected their own governor. Later they followed English law and restricted the franchise to men with a minimum amount of property, an amount impossible for most men in England to amass, but relatively easy in New England where every man could move to the frontier and clear a farm. They also restricted the franchise to men who were church members, and to be a church member you had to have a born again experience! But that was true of almost everyone in the first generation, because the Puritans were fleeing persecution.

The Virginia Company stockholders elected a governor too, and then sent him to run Virginia for them. In Virginia, there was no printing press from 1607 until about 1690 and the death rate was as much as 20% per year. In Massachusetts, there was a printing press BEFORE THE PURITANS ARRIVED; the pilgrims, not part of the Mass Bay company, had brought one with them. And the colony established a college by 1636. Virginia got its first college in 1696 (if I rmember right). After a year or two of high death rates in Plymouth, the pilgrims learned how to live, so when the Mass Bay Puritans showed up their death rates were fairly low. They them embarked on a demographic expansion so rapid (10-15 children per couple, most surviving to adulthood) that Malthus wrote his essay about population with New England in mind.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-15 10:28:40

All of this suggests to me that if people are going to settle Mars, let's hope a more mature political system can develop. This is not impossible.

I may be impossible. If we:
A) cease to develop new and innovative ways to deliver death over ever greater distances and,
B) Cease vigourous competion of the scale that occurs between major industrialized nation states,
We may lose an essential element of what makes us want to strive for greater things and expand into new frontiers while at the same time cutting away the very elements that give us the means to achieve such progress.

Peaceful, "mature" civilizations may very well be the sort that exists in the twilight of a sentient species' run on the cosmic stage. Stagnation, civilizations in their retirement years, living off the wealth they've amassed and waiting to die. Perhaps, just maybe we need our warlike tendencies to keep us moving, to keep us strong, to keep us fit enough to survive in a harsh universe.

If this is truly the case, we would as a species be far better served by a series of national colonization programs in fierce competition than by a single multi-national settlement project designed with the express purpose of eliminating the very factors that allow for rapid and great progress.

Palomar · 2004-09-15 13:38:44

Funny, I wrote a report that actually suggested that one of the best reasons for settling Mars would be to supply our war fighting assets in orbit. Mars would be the perfect Skunk Works!

*You said it...I didn't (apt, though...very apt!).

The last thing we would want is the UN or IAEA to be there. Ideally no one would know we were there at all.

*I doubt that'd be possible (no one would know we're there), particularly given Earth-based technology/instrumentation available.

Keep the blue helmets off Mars!

*Not sure what you mean by that. ??? If by it you mean anti-nuclear folks...well, I *am* for nuclear power and do support Project Prometheus, JIMO, etc. I simply want responsible handling of nuclear material. If the plan is to colonize Mars it's only logical to make sure it doesn't turn into a globe of man-made radiation poisoning within 100 years.

Cobra: Perhaps, just maybe we need our warlike tendencies to keep us moving, to keep us strong, to keep us fit enough to survive in a harsh universe.

*Reminds me of Capt. Kirk's "maybe I need my pain" comments to Spock's charismatic half-brother in that one ST flick (The Final Frontier?). That's a compliment, by the way! Oh, I agree...to a point. But I don't believe in harshness and war for the sake of harshness and war. Based on previous posts of yours, you apparently don't either.

--Cindy

P.S.: "They who live by the sword shall die by the sword." That old proverb starts ringing in my mind whenever discussions like these arise.

RobS · 2004-09-15 17:17:51

Cobra Commander, we are using "mature" in different ways. By "mature" I mean a society that has learned how to channel aggression and thus avoid violence and war; a society that has instituted means for establishing justice.

Humanity has already abolished cannibalism, human sacrifice, and slavery. All of these social institutions were strong in their day and I am sure there were many people who said "it's in human nature; we'll always have human sacrifice." But we don't have it any more. In the Middle Ages, kings and leaders of all sorts faced a very serious danger--poisoning-that no longer exists. Institutions do change and get "better."

Another example is nonviolent civil disobedience. It would not have worked more than five hundred years ago because it is dependent on two things: (1) belief in the rule of law, and (2) public opinion and a way to influence it (the media). Eliminate either of those two factors, and anyone who tries to use nonviolence civil disobedience is executed or rots in prison and no one cares. The existence of nonviolence civil disobedience is an example of the maturation of human society. It is now possible to institute major changes in social policy without resort to violence.

If on Mars the rule of law and public opinion are even stronger, social change without revolution should be even more possible. Indeed, in a very mature society, change may be possible via "nonviolence civil obedience"; in other words, demonstrating a better way rather than breaking the law. We aren't there on Earth yet.

-- RobS

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-15 18:08:37

Cobra Commander, we are using "mature" in different ways. By "mature" I mean a society that has learned how to channel aggression and thus avoid violence and war; a society that has instituted means for establishing justice.

I'm aware of your intended meaning, I was merely suggesting that a "mature" society may be one near the end of its life, as opposed to one which is enlightened, non-violent and generally respectable.

It is my suspicion that when a civilization becomes mature as you use the term, it it also near the end as it has become stagnant in many respects.

Humanity has already abolished cannibalism, human sacrifice, and slavery. All of these social institutions were strong in their day and I am sure there were many people who said "it's in human nature; we'll always have human sacrifice."

All of these were forms of violence and dominance, specific manifestations of the same underlying nature. The real root is still very much with us, it is a fundamental part of who and what we are.

Indeed, in a very mature society, change may be possible via "nonviolence civil obedience"; in other words, demonstrating a better way rather than breaking the law. We aren't there on Earth yet.

In my experience demonstrating a better way frequently involves breaking the law to some degree.

Morris · 2004-09-15 20:30:08

The Nuclear power will be a day to day necescity, and fission/fusion explosive devices are not the most sophisticated devices in the present day arsenals of us and our enemies.

Spoken like a true technocrat. And just what does the fact that they are not the most sophisticated devices have to do with the overall danger they pose? How many tanks have succumbed to "Molotov cocktails" and how many helicopters to RPGs?

I mean, hell, I could have put together a nearly working model of a basic Teller-Ulam inline fusion device my junior year of high school!

And how many years and billions of dollars later do we have a nearly working model? One of the classic cases of welfare for scientists if you ask me.

What will the proof be? I'll bet that once the first sustained, net-energy producing fusion reaction is demonstrated in public, it won't be 18 months before they are all over the world regardless of whether or not the technical details of how they did it are made public.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-09-15 20:40:51

The Nuclear power will be a day to day necescity, and fission/fusion explosive devices are not the most sophisticated devices in the present day arsenals of us and our enemies.
Spoken like a true technocrat. And just what does the fact that they are not the most sophisticated devices have to do with the overall danger they pose? How many tanks have succumbed to "Molotov cocktails" and how many helicopters to RPGs?
I mean, hell, I could have put together a nearly working model of a basic Teller-Ulam inline fusion device my junior year of high school!
And how many years and billions of dollars later do we have a nearly working model? One of the classic cases of welfare for scientists if you ask me.
What will the proof be? I'll bet that once the first sustained, net-energy producing fusion reaction is demonstrated in public, it won't be 18 months before they are all over the world regardless of whether or not the technical details of how they did it are made public.

My point as far as their sophistication was given the caliber of people and the equipment you would need to settle mars, producing nuclear demolition devices is not going to be the most challenging thing to do. (And actually might be a great tool for terraforming to flash melt permafrost and the icecaps)

Um, you misunderstood me, I was talking about a hydrogen bomb not a fusion reactor. H-bombs gain most of their yeild via fusion, ie they are Fusion Devices vs Fissiond devices.

As far as controled fusion research, it's long term importance is unquestionable, even if the goal is still 20 years off it has such profound implications that I would never think to call it 'welfare for scientist' even now when I am feeling very cyical about it.

Oh and Cindy, by Blue Helmets I meant the UN. The "Peace Keepers" where those silly helmets so I make fun of them

Morris · 2004-09-15 20:49:48

Funny, I wrote a report that actually suggested that one of the best reasons for settling Mars would be to supply our war fighting assets in orbit. Mars would be the perfect Skunk Works! The last thing we would want is the UN or IAEA to be there. Ideally no one would know we were there at all.
Of course given the temprament of the board I wasn't going to float the idea but if you put it out there, lol
Keep the blue helmets off Mars!

You are right, it would be great as a "skunk works" which is why it is in everyone's interest to see that it NOT become one.

I don't care if it is the UN or some other organization, some things influence the interests of more than one nation and so some mechanism for setting rules that multiple nations (treaty signatories at a minimum) will go by is necessary. As far as the UN is concerned, it has done many good things (ask all those who have benefitted from the World Health Organization, for example) and serves as an invaluable forum for the international discussion of these ideas. And, despite the highly inflated concerns of some provincialists, in its current structure poses NO risks to the autonomies of individual peaceful nations, especially the permanent members of the Security Council. I personally think that the UN might be an excellent mediator in issues relating to Mars but the future might dictate that other organizations would be better.

Simply put, the settlement of Mars is either a potential benefit for all mankind or it is not. If it is, the sooner a truly international conversation is begun at a governmental level, the better.

Nations give up "sovereignty" by signing and abiding by treaties. It is often in their best interest to do so for all sorts of very practical reasons, e.g international boundaries, "law of the sea", use of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-09-15 20:54:06

Morris, lol

Too many things to argue to little time, I'll respond to that when I'm not swaped, although truth be told you and I differ on a very basic level on the question of globalism and the role of the nation state so I'm not going to sway you and your not going to sway me.

In the mean time cheers!

Morris · 2004-09-15 21:31:16

If we:
A) cease to develop new and innovative ways to deliver death over ever greater distances and,
B) Cease vigourous competion of the scale that occurs between major industrialized nation states,
We may lose an essential element of what makes us want to strive for greater things and expand into new frontiers while at the same time cutting away the very elements that give us the means to achieve such progress.

You are talking as if (A) and (B) are positively correlated. In general, recent history suggests the opposite. Vigorous economic cooperation (B) occurs when the lower tax rate occasioned by lower defense spending allows for more investment of funds in business enterprises. It is interesting that the actual development of the industrial revolution largely occurred during the long period of peace between the end of the Napoleonic wars and World War I. And the rapid development of the German and Japanese economies after WWII occurred in large part because they had minimal expenditures for defense. The demise of the Soviet Union was in large part because of a poor basic economic model drained by large defense expenditures.

Vigorous competition seems to be needed, yes, but economic competition seems to be not only as effective, but much more effective, than military competition. The best military expenditures are the minimum necessary to keep others from attacking. I agree with you that competition is a powerful stimulus, but with Rob and Scott that the competition can become increasingly less physically destructive and still be just as, or even more, effective in maintaining the dynamism of the nation/culture/species.

Peaceful, "mature" civilizations may very well be the sort that If this is truly the case, we would as a species be far better served by a series of national colonization programs in fierce competition than by a single multi-national settlement project designed with the express purpose of eliminating the very factors that allow for rapid and great progress

Who has proposed a single multi-national settlement project? There is a huge difference in multi-national participation in setting up "the rules of the road" and in having a single multi-national settlement or set of settlements. And I know that Scott has built alternate types of settlements into his model.

Morris · 2004-09-15 22:01:10

My point as far as their sophistication was given the caliber of people and the equipment you would need to settle mars, producing nuclear demolition devices is not going to be the most challenging thing to do. (And actually might be a great tool for terraforming to flash melt permafrost and the icecaps)

I quite agree. But the thread issue has to do with with the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the fact that it won't be hard to do merely accentuates the importance of the basic issue.

Um, you misunderstood me, I was talking about a hydrogen bomb not a fusion reactor. H-bombs gain most of their yeild via fusion, ie they are Fusion Devices vs Fissiond devices.

Yes, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I stand by my point.

As far as controled fusion research, it's long term importance is unquestionable, even if the goal is still 20 years off it has such profound implications that I would never think to call it 'welfare for scientist' even now when I am feeling very cyical about it.

I also agree about its long-range importance. The very lack of productivity in this research, despite the billions poured into it, is what makes you cynical about it and me to call it "welfare for scientists". It is a big government research establishment with all the primary interests in preserving itself and secondary interests in getting the job done that such establishments typically (but not always) have. If the scientists in it were not on a gravy train and had real pressure to get the job done we would have a good demonstration of concept in a few years, not decades. I propose giving them 3 years more and then shutting the project down if there is no major success.

Let it be financed by private energy companies or governments with an immediate interest in getting the job done. Personally I think this would be an ideal project for a major Israeli-Arab coalition. After the oil goes, a lot of the Arab nations will be in a world of hurt.

Morris · 2004-09-15 22:18:58

although truth be told you and I differ on a very basic level on the question of globalism and the role of the nation state so I'm not going to sway you and your not going to sway me.

Yes, I'm guessing that we do differ a lot. I am an American conservative. I believe that we invented a better way of doing things here (e.g. our religious tolerance, at least until the last few years), our basic regard for justice, our emphasis on rewarding according to individual merit rather than family or class, our traditonal tolerance of differing political opinions, and our traditional regard for the opinions of our neighbors when engaging in any important undertaking. The words "a decent regard for the opinions of mankind" are among the most ringing in the Declaration of Independence.

I get very upset when I see these principles undermined, especially by people who falsely represent themselves as being conservatives but are really "authoritarian personalities", e.g. neo-nazis. I also point out that being a neo-nazi is a state of mind and does not depend on having any particular economic beliefs. Just because Hitler purported to be a socialist does not mean that all nazis are or were socialists. In fact, many of the big industrialists in Germany supported Hitler because they saw him as an alternative to the socialist and communist movements of the day.

Of course, this is nothing new. In a book called "Escape From Freedom" the psychoanalyst Eric Fromm pointed out that about 35% of American citizens were authoritarian personalities as of the 1940s. I just hate to see them gaining political influence as if their perspective is needed to meet a fundamentally different world, when in fact nothing of significance is different and the old way was the best the world has ever seen.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-11 10:55:27

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#2 2004-09-11 11:47:21

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#3 2004-09-11 11:55:41

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#4 2004-09-11 12:16:26

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#5 2004-09-11 12:24:30

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#6 2004-09-11 12:44:39

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#7 2004-09-11 13:02:08

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#8 2004-09-11 22:05:05

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#9 2004-09-12 11:02:25

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#10 2004-09-14 22:50:32

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#11 2004-09-14 22:54:03

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#12 2004-09-15 08:15:09

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#13 2004-09-15 09:12:41

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#14 2004-09-15 09:30:32

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#15 2004-09-15 10:28:40

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#16 2004-09-15 13:38:44

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#17 2004-09-15 17:17:51

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#18 2004-09-15 18:08:37

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#19 2004-09-15 20:30:08

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#20 2004-09-15 20:40:51

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#21 2004-09-15 20:49:48

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#22 2004-09-15 20:54:06

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#23 2004-09-15 21:31:16

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#24 2004-09-15 22:01:10

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

#25 2004-09-15 22:18:58

Re: Martian Nuclear Proliferation - How will it affect development, etc?

Board footer