New Mars Forums

I suppose you couldn't use crawlers for construction anyway.  The cargo size involved would be too big to efficiently operate under that leg size.

I can't think of a worse waste of household income... the tobacco may provide some nice effects for a while, but then you begin to associate the tobacco use with certain events, not the actual pleasure of it.

If people could sit down every once in a while and have a cigar, or a cigarette, I'm sure the whole situation wouldn't be as bad as it is today.  But it becomes bad when you get into a ritual of using the tobacco, like after breakfast or dinner, or during your coffee breaks.  It's just a bad thing...

However, I don't think we need to outlaw tobacco use.  If people truly don't like smoking, and don't want to face the risks, they'll quit.  If we outlawed it, they'd just get contraband.  And I would hate to see that huge industry go out business, and all of those tobacco farmers in the south lose their jobs when I doubt they're the ones doing the bulk of the smoking.

Oh, and on Soph's point about war with the world, we have the technology to destroy everyone.  I don't know if this figure still stands, but the US has enough nuclear devices to destroy the world 4(?) times over.  We could launch missiles to the world powers like Russia and China, and drop thermonuclear devices from bombers 50,000 feet above the target.

Would I fight the world on a big battlefield?  No.  We couldn't do that.  There are simply too many people.  But could we hit them from behind with a broken bottle?  Yes.

You forget all of the money required to maintain our facilities, machines, weapons, and that 2000 nuclear warhead arsenal of ours.  Then you have to pay the troops, buy supplies, yadda-da-dadda-da-dadda... the list goes on.

As for no new technology, all I have to say is...

Daisy-cutter, tactical nuclear weapons, SDI, urban combat apparatus, infrared snipers, B-2 Bomber, Stealth helicopter, 1' resolution spy photos (at least enough to see if you're bald, and possibly enough to read the newspaper you're holding)... the list goes on and on.

We NEED all of that money not only to create many new innovations in the military, but to maintain the substantial force we already have.  Reform in the defense department is in order, but that money does go towards some very important causes.

Once again, you're assuming intentions and you don't really know all the pieces of the puzzle.  No one except for high ranking members of government have the big picture.

If Saudi Arabia cut off our oil, we could reclaim it in just as quick of a snap.  Would we do it?  NO!  Because the US (and President Bush) don't go willy-nilly declaring war.  We do have the power to force every nation to our will.  You can't name one that we can't.  Russia and China, as you've admitted, are dependent on our money, and the other nations need our backing in certain areas.  The US is THE superpower, and if we wanted to, we could do EVERYTHING unilaterally.  But do we?  No...

Soph, I was being absurd to make a point.  I'm saying that to defend our nation to the extent we need to, we have to spend a generous amount on our military spending.

Without that budget, we would have to have militias ready at a moments notice.  And I was trying to demonstrate how nice it is to be able to sleep at night knowing our nation is so well defended.

I guess that kind of slipped by that 187 iq, eh?

But the question I asked was, HAS BUSH GONE WILLY-NILLY FIGHTING WARS IN THE REGION?  NO!  You don't know his intentions, and you certainly don't know when he's bluffing to get something completely different accomplished.

Until President Bush attacks an innocent nation that has complied with UN regulations, you have NOTHING on him but circumstantial evidence, and possible motives.  Let's judge a man by his actions, not his words.

Oh, and Bush COULD have gone to war if he wanted to.  The US doesn't have to pay attention to the international community, because we ARE the international community.  We are the only superpower.  We can do whatever we want, but we choose not to.

Congress even gave Bush BROADER powers to declare and wage war.  Has he even used those powers yet?  NO!  Could he have waged a bloody, merciless war in the Middle East?  YES!  But has he done it yet?  NO!  Who elected those congressional members?  THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS!  The democrats only voted pro on the issue because they knew they would never make the 2002 elections if they didn't (even that didn't save the Senate majority.)  Don't drag the 2000 presidential race into this... the fact is, Bush was elected in the way our Constitution lays it out, and the electoral college, whether you like it or not, keeps the votes from smaller areas from being neglected over population centers.

Would you like to be shaken awake in the middle of the night with your neighbor saying:

"Josh!  Grab your shotgun!  The Russians just invaded Alaska!"

Yes, but the scale of maping would be so small.  I suppose if you needed VERY accurate maps of the surface, it would be okay.  If you were in charge of surverying the surface of mars, would you use robots or engineers and surveyors?  I suppose the two could be used in unison.

There isn't honor in war itself, but there is in defending your country when it calls for your service.  Giving up your leg in defense of your country is one of the greatest sacrifices anyone can make, aside from dying, and I am sure that every American appreciates the sacrifice he and millions of others made to defend the world.

And don't speak for me in saying that we have no perspective.  Don't get me wrong; war is a terrible thing.  But there are some cases when it is the only thing that can be done to stop something.  Diplomacy may not work out, and war will be our last resort.

Soph, you may be able to pussyfoot around military service, and I hope you lead a short, miserable life.  There are a great deal of Americans, myself for one, who would very quickly pick up a gun to defend our great nation.  And don't think I'm some kind of hick, either.  I'm a 4.0 student who wants to major in Astronomy at CalTech.  Do you think it wouldn't hurt to rest of my life to leave home at 18 and fight overseas?  It would be the final nail in my career's coffin.  But that's the sacrifce you have to make to continue living in this wonderful, free country.

It's not really a true "star wars" plan, with the space-based interceptors.  Satellites track the missile, and US based Patriot type interceptors launch from the ground.  I suppose its easier that way... you don't have to track all of those kill-vehicle satellites, and the Patriots can be placed in a handful of places to cover the whole country.

a.)  I do have quite a bit of perspective on war.  I realize that as a young American man, if my nation needs me to serve in the armed forces, I will be expected to drop what I'm involved in and fight.  There probably won't be draft, but I would enlist just the same, because it is the honorable thing to do.  At the same time, I know that I will be part of the most feared, disciplined, and trained fighting force in the history of the world, and I will not be fighting a war in vain.  As a young man, I think I have more to fear about a war than you do, a man with two children.

Don't you dare generalize me with images of war being like a Playstation game, or a flashy movie.  We will fight this war with people just like me, not you, and we will be successful at it.  I have to live with the thought of war day to day, and I realize the sacrifices and risks involved in fighting ANY war.  Don't presume that you can sum up my feelings in a quick stereotype.

b.)  Living in New York at the time, how could you watch those buildings come down, and not feel some kind of hatred and contempt for the people who did this to us?  How can you not wish to erradicate the people who helped them do this to us?  WE WILL NOT change our ways to appease the radical actions of these terrorists, and we will not see our way of life destroyed so that the Arabs can have their way.

As for nuclear weapons in Iraq, I am not worried about Saddam using them, because they are a deterrent.  I am worried about him selling the technology to terrorists, or giving a weapon to them.  I don't think Saddam is crazy enough to use a nuke, because he has something to lose.