You are not logged in.
You think the country which has a history of breaking treaties they find inconvenient would be any better?
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Russia didn't succeed the first time they tried to land something on Venus. But they kept at it, and eventually succeeded. They also made several attempts at Mars, but failed to land. Their first idea was to send humans to Mars after they lost the race to the Moon. They started with unmanned probes, but they failed. Then they shifted to space stations. Salyut 1 succeeded. They didn't stick with Mars enough to get their probes to work.
Offline
Like button can go here
You think the country which has a history of breaking treaties they find inconvenient would be any better?
We've had the same Constitution since 1789 - 2014 (225 years) The United States was conceived as a republic, a Federal Republic to be precise, it was founded by settlers from Europe seeking freedom, some of them came from Russia. You could say our culture goes back earlier than that May 24, 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia, where we formed our first self-governing colonies, which the English and British governments interfered with little until 1775 where we protested the Tea Tax and fought the Revolution to protect our established freedoms which we had for 168 years since the establishment of that first Jamestown colony.
The history of Russia began
with that of the Eastern slavs the Finno-Ugric peoples. The state of Garoariki ("The realm of towns")which was centered in Novogrod and included areas inhabited by Limen slavs, Vepps, and Vptes, was by the Varangian chieftain Rurik in 862 (The traditional beginning of Russian History) The State adopted christianity from the Byzantine Empire in 988, beginning the synthesis of Byzantine and slavic cultures Kievan Rus ultimately disintergrated because of the Mongol invasion of Rus in 1237-1240 and the Death of about half the population of Rus.
After the 13th century, Moscow became a cultural center. By the 18th century, the Tsardom of Russia became the Empire of Russia, and has been that in various forms and labels ever since. There was a brief flirtation with democracy from 1991 to 2000 when it ended under Vladimir Putin when the Russian people decided to blame the system of democracy for their bad economic results rather than the poor leadership of Boris Yeltsin.
So I ask you, what sort of Civilization do you think the Russian Empire under Vladimir Putin is likely to found on Mars. Actually Mars would be a very appropriate name given the Roman God its named after if the Russians settle it.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, one of the lessons of history is peace is achieved through respect. That is you must respect different cultures, and respect different people who are different. If you try to demand everyone be a clone of yourself, you get nothing but war.
The US economic collapse of 2008 was caused by "creative" banking to fund the US federal debt. Bill Clinton was far from perfect, but he did balance the budget in year 2000. He claimed he had surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000; that wasn't true, the government was still in deficit in 1998 & 1999, and the surplus in year 2000 was not nearly as large as Clinton claimed. In fact the surplus was so puny it was practically nonexistent, but at least the budget was balanced. Military spending that year was $288 billion. Canadian military spending that year was $18 billion, and NASA's budget that year was $14.7 billion, so the US military budget was a lot. But military contractors whined for the fat budgets under Regan's Star Wars program. Regan knew the US could not sustain that, but he felt the Soviet Union's economy would collapse first. It worked, and did so better than anyone could have expected. But George W. fell into the trap that Regan set for the Soviet Union. Military budget for 2007 was $700 billion, for 2008 it was $799 billion! Year 2009 was the first budget approved by Obama, but it didn't shrink, it was $901 billion! The obvious response is: "Are they insane?!?!" The ironic thing is many Americans don't understand this is a problem. This is why America is bankrupt.
So stop trying to start another war. The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1993. But some Americans try to gloat, to rub it in the face of Russia. To treat them as defeated. And you wonder why a strong leader like Putin got in. This happened in Germany after World War 1. Treat a former world super-power as defeated, rub it in their face and grind down their economy; the result is the people there will support anyone who claims they can restore their country to its former glory. Germany got Hitler. Actually, most Germans didn't not support him. He tried a revolutionary war in Bavaria, lost. Then continued to create trouble, but tried to run legitimately in the election. He lost that too. But continued to create trouble, and although he lost, those who did support him were very vocal and active. The Chancellor tried to appease Hitler by giving him a responsible, secondary position in the German government. Then the Chancellor died in mysterious circumstances, and Hitler declared himself the new chancellor. The German constitution at the time explicitly stated the individual in his position could not also be Chancellor, but he just did it anyway. Effectively, the first country the Nazi's conquered by military force was their own. The reason he was able to do all that was his promise to the German people that he would restore them to their former glory. Germany was a world superpower before World War 1. Now some Americans try to rub Russia's fall in their face. The result was Putin got into power. Why can't you learn? Yes, the Soviet Union fell. Boris Yeltsin converted Russia to democracy, and tried very hard to make friends with the West. But you tried to rub Russia's face in the dirt, and as a result you got Putin.
Please stop. Peace is achieved through respect. Treat Russia with respect, and tensions will evaporate. And don't try to interfere in internal domestic politics of another country. Whenever you do, you lose. It's far too easy for any politician to demonize the foreigner. You meddle in any county's domestic politics, you will be made into the demon. International affairs are nation-to-nation. That is we work with Russia, not Putin. The current leader is ephemeral; he can be replaced in the next election. You have to work with whoever is there.
Let me put it another way. I was a young child in the 1960s, junior high and high school in the 1970s. My city has several clearly marked "routes". These routes were intended as evacuation routers. The would become one way out of the city. Grade 10 had career day, one of the tables was a military recruiter. I talked to her, one question was about those routes. My question is how much time would we have to evacuate? Winnipeg is directly along the path for ballistic missiles or long range bombers headed to America's ICBM silos in North Dakota. She said by the time the DEW line or the latest radar confirmed the missiles were incoming, 15 minutes until they hit. I asked how much damage a 20 megaton nuclear bomb would do, what was the blast radius. She said probably Russia wouldn't target Winnipeg with one big one, rather three smaller bombs. One megaton each at the airport with its attached Canadian Air Force base, one at Symington Yard (a major rail yard), and one downtown. Symington Yard is a major rail yard, the CN main line connecting western Canada with eastern goes through there. The CP main line is runs close enough that a 1 megaton (or 900 kiloton) nuke would take it out as well. Rail connections between central Canada and the US also connect there. The next closes Canada/US rail connections are Pacific or Atlantic. It's also close to the perimeter highway (what you would call a beltway), and close to where the perimeter connects to the Trans-Canada highway. So this one bomb would sever highway connections as well. Great! So the most likely targets are known, and try evacuating the city in 15 minutes. Rush hour traffic gets congested at the best of times, try when everyone is panicking. If a bomb that large high downtown, my current house could be within the blast radius. I'm not in the core, but close enough that there's no way I could get out of the city in 15 minutes. Furthermore, in the 1970s the US built anti-ballistic missiles. With 1970s technology, they weren't all that accurate. To ensure they could hit an incoming ICBM, each had a small nuclear warhead. They would air-burst ahead of the Soviet ICBMs. News announced they would detonate just 30 miles south of Winnipeg. But they would detonate about 60 miles above ground, so that's 63.4° above the horizon. That's practically overhead. So my city would be in line-of-sight of radiation from the American bomb. If I'm not vaporized by a Soviet bomb, then I would be irradiated by an American one. Either way I'm dead. So I literally live in the crossfire. I'm highly motivated to ensure the Cold War does not come back.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-01-31 23:27:47)
Offline
Like button can go here
Russia gets respect to the degree that it is a Representative republic like the United States or France or Germany or Canada is. Russia is old Europe, much like Kaiser's Germany was old Europe, much like Napoleon's France was old Europe, Putin's Russia is a political fossil much like Mussilini's Italy, Franco's France, or Germany's Hitler, he is one of Europe's last Great Dictators, one of its last great Empires, and we should not forget that, not forget that Empires are either always expanding and contracting.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, it's a good thing you're not the Secretary of State. You can't get along as long as you only accept those like you. There are many different people in this world, most are not the same as you. There are many different political systems. All have strengths and weaknesses. You have to respect them all. If you don't, the result is conflict.
I'm sure you don't like people pointing out problems with the US. Do you know the Canadian system has been exported to many countries, while every time the US has attempted to export its system, it's failed? It has. Canada left the British empire peacefully. Immediately, most other nations of the Empire copied what Canada did. It's true. I'm sure you don't like that. So why take jabs at other countries?
Offline
Like button can go here
Well in order to get a Canada like system in Russia, the first step would probably be to find the nearest living relative of Tsar Nicklaus Romanov II and put him on the Imperial Throne in Saint Petersburg, that would be respecting Russian Culture, and then make a Constitutional Monarch out of him in the mold of Queen Elizabeth II. The Russians threw out their culture when they overthrew and assassinated their Tsar, then they persecuted their own church, the one they inherited from the Ancient Byzantine Empire, then the new government under the foreigner Joseph Stalin from Georgia proceeded to murder 20 million peasants, and the same Stalin started World War II as a co-belligerent with Adolf Hitler by invading Poland and partitioning it between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, The previous partition by the way was between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and with that they tried to wipe that country from existence, and from 1945 to 1988 Poland had to endure a puppet government run by the Russians. When Germany turned on Russia, the Russians asked for our help and we gave them plenty of assistance and when Hitler was defeated they hung onto Eastern Europe and established puppet governments in those countries and it helped itself to some land and annexed it to Russia at the expense of the Ukraine, Poland, and Germany. After our assistance Russia spread its Revolution to Korea and Vietnam and was responsible for many US soldiers deaths in that war through the aggression of their puppet governments in that country. In the Vietnam War Memorial, there is a black wall with the names of over 50,000 US service men and women who lost their lives because of that war the Russians started, that was the thanks we got for helping the Russians out against the Nazis and letting them keep Eastern Europe.
One thing the United States didn't do was start World War II and then fight on both sides of that conflict which is what Russia did and then keep spils of war out of all the countries they had "liberated" from the Nazis. I am looking for changes in Russia's behavior and I'm not seeing it. Russia still hasn't given back the territory they took from the Ukraine, Poland, and Germany by the way.
Russia doesn't respect its neighbors and still doesn't latest aggression was against Georgia, and they are still trying to control Ukrainian politics. Many UKrainins don't see themselves as Russians, they would like democracy and many of them are protesting as we speak. The weakness of Putin's government is simple, it is a dictatorship, and therefore not stable, he will be just as dead as Tsar Nicolaus II one day, and then what. Democracies have a means of changing their government, for a dictatorship its a power vacuum followed by a power struggle. I respect their Russians, just not their autocratic governments, the standard I set for them is that of other European countries, most of which are Representative Democracies, so why are you saying the Russians don't deserve to choose their own government? Are we doing them any favors by being friends with their dictator. Look what happened to Ferdinand Marcos? Russians are not inferior to other Europeans, they deserve a Representative government too, don't you think?
Offline
Like button can go here
First, I don't want to re-make Russia in Canada's image. The point is to respect them, and work with them as-is.
But the other thing is the monarch is not key to the Canadian system. Our Prime Minister is head of government. The Governor General is the queen's representative in Canada. Although the queen has authority to appoint the GG, a recommendation who to appoint is given by a Royal Commission. The Prime Minister gets a voice on the Royal Commission. As long as everything runs smoothly, the GG doesn't have anything to do. The GG only gets involved for abuse of authority.
For example, in 2008 the Prime Minister demanded passage of a bill to reduce funding from all political parties, with a skew for greater harm to parties other than his own. He declared that bill to be a "confidence motion", meaning if parliament voted against it then that causes an election. But he forgot that part of Canada's system is that if a non-confidence motion is passed soon after an election, then the GG is required to ask the leader of the party that has the second most seats in the House if he/she can form a coalition that would hold confidence of Parliament. If so, then that person becomes Prime Minister. Without an election. The definition of "soon" is up to the judgement of the GG, but Prime Minister Steven Harper did this the first day that Parliament sat after the election. You can't get sooner than that. The intention is to prevent a Prime Minister from declaring every bill a confidence motion; replacing him is expected to be a threat. In fact, it's only happened once in Canadian history. But Steven Harper tried to abuse his authority. In this case Steven Harper begged the GG to prorogue parliament, which means a "break". All bills before parliament that haven't fully passed get reset, they have to be re-introduced starting the process from the beginning. Rather than replace the PM, the GG decided to do that. But the PM hasn't tried to make any bills a confidence motion again. But that's an example of the GG intervening.
Another example at the provincial level. The Manitoba legislature normally takes a couple months off in summer for vacation. But when the legislature was supposed to resume in September of 1998, the Premier just chose not to call the legislature into session. Week after week passed. Then Christmas arrived. The legislature is supposed to resume in January, but he still didn't. The winter went by. In spring the local newspaper started a daily count of how many days since the legislature sat in session. One of my friends complained, so I looked into the details of the provincial constitution. It took all night, so called him from work during morning coffee break. The provincial constitution said the legislature must sit every year, no more than 12 months between sessions. That's more than anyone expected or thought reasonable, but that's what it says. I then read provincial Hansard, the legislature rose for summer vacation at 6:00pm June 26, 1998. This was spring of 1999. If the legislature is not called into session by 6:00pm June 26, 1999, then the Premier would be in violation of the constitution. The provincial Lieutenant Governor would then have authority to dissolve the legislature, call an election. My friend asked if the Lieutenant Governor knows he has that authority. I pointed out he's a politician, and in name the head of state of the province, although in practice has very little authority. This is one of the authorities he does have. My friend pointed out the the Premier could just seek re-election. My response was if this happens, that effectively means firing the Premier. What are the chances that voters would re-elect him? Not likely. Furthermore, I said if the legislature isn't called into session by June 1st, then I would go to the Leader of the Opposition and lay all this out. I would ask him to go to the Lieutenant Governor at 6:00pm on June 26 to ask him to dissolve the legislature and call an election. I'm sure the Lieutenant Governor would listen to the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition would listen to a voter lay out how he could become Premier. So don't get excited, just sit back, relax, and give the Premier enough proverbial rope to hang himself. But I was a contractor working for the City at that time. I forgot that may be different. Employees of the City are not allowed to get involved in politics, but I wasn't an employee, I was a contractor. Nobody spoke to me, but when I went home the very same day, the Premier appeared on the 6 O'clock news to announce the legislature would resume first thing the following morning. The government never does anything for first thing the following morning, so something happened. Did someone overhear me? The individual in the office beside mine was a 19-year-old youth, a member of the Premier's party, and active in politics. Did he? Did someone else? Did I effectively threaten the Premier? If so, just the threat of invoking the Lieutenant Governor was enough to get the Premier to obey the constitution.
No matter. The legislature did resume, which was the important thing. And later that same year, September 1999, there was a provincial election. The incumbent lost; the Leader of the Opposition did become Premier. So the problem was fixed without the embarrassment of the Lieutenant Governor intervening. But I keep wondering: did someone pass on what I said?
Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-02-02 03:28:50)
Offline
Like button can go here
First some bad news:
Could Russian Nuke Tests Start a New Cold War?
By David Francis
4 hours agoIn 1987, a treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev prohibited the testing of medium range nuclear missiles. Now, there are growing concerns that Russia is violating the agreement that helped to end the Cold War.
The State Department has yet to formally accuse Russia of violating the terms of the deal. But the United States has told NATO allies that Russia has tested the missile.
Related: US Nukes: Now It's Our Turn to Catch Up to the Russians
“The United States never hesitates to raise treaty compliance concerns with Russia, and this issue is no exception,” Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, told The New York Times. “There’s an ongoing review process, and we wouldn’t want to speculate or prejudge the outcome.
The State Department has had suspicions that Russia was testing missiles designed to strike targets in Europe since 2008. When diplomats raise the issue with Russian officials, Moscow consistently denies it and says it considers the matter settled.
The disagreements over nuclear weapons are the latest in a series of rifts between Russia and the United States. The most visible is Russia’s grant of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Moscow and Washington have been on the opposite sides of nearly every big international issue, from Syria to Iran to the recent turmoil in Ukraine.
The spat over the nuclear treaty is especially troubling. Nuclear agreements like the one Russia is suspected of violating have been the bedrock of the post-Cold War relationship between Russia and the United States, along with NATO allies.
Related: How Iran and Russia Could Cause an Oil Shock
It also comes as negotiations over the START treaty, which allows for the continued reduction of nuclear weapons, have stalled. Last year, President Obama called for an accelerated disarmament process, but Russia has shown little willingness to do so.
The reason for this is simple: the Russian military is decades behind the United States, and the Kremlin believes nuclear weapons even the table. That’s why Russia has quietly been updating its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War, while the United States has largely left its arsenal untouched.
Republicans were already concerned that the disarmament process was breaking down. Now, they’re warning that the missile tests could set back U.S.-Russia relations more than 20 years.
“News reports indicating Russia is in violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty are deeply troubling. The signing of that treaty in 1987 by President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev, marked an historic turning point in the Cold War, and stood as the pillar of our post-Cold War relations with Russia,” House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers (R-MI) said in a statement. “If in violation, Russia must immediately bring itself back into full compliance.”
“The INF currently limits the United States from developing certain options to deal with terrorists and rogue states; we should not be unilaterally bound by any treaty,” Rogers added.
The point is on the other argument, I don't want the issue of "Russian" culture to be used to keep a dictator in power over Russia, just because if we look back in history, Russia has been ruled by tyrants with the possible exception of Boris Yeltsin going all the way back to its inception. Now are we going to use "Russian Culture" to justify the continued oppression of Russian citizens? I just want you to remember the Russian People and who's running the Russian government aren't same, so if we're talking about a partnership with the Russian People, that is going to have to wait until they get a representative government which allows them to pick who represents them. Putin is a dictator, he doesn't represent anybody except himself. Russia has the trappings of a representative republic without its substance. I only wish Russia was as democratic as Canada, that would suit me just fine, but Russia never had a stable Representative government, only an endless succession of dictators and tyrants, one of whom, Joseph Stalin, wasn't even Russian (he was Georgian), I doubt he represented the Russian People in any way, he just used terror to stay in power.
Offline
Like button can go here
[hat=Mod]*
This thread has gone far off topic from discussing a Martian calender, veering into politics. As far as I'm aware, the no-politics rule is still in effect.
[/hat]
*Not board official, but soon to be, apparently.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Well Terraformer, you helped bring it off target by attacking my country and so forth, so you share a measure of the blame for it. I meant to talk about a calendar and you said,
You think the country which has a history of breaking treaties they find inconvenient would be any better?
Offline
Like button can go here
Terraformer: yes it has. I was getting worried as well. This started about a calendar, and quickly got into a discussion of culture and how that affects calendars. Then we stumbled on the Russian issue again. My point is I want to go to Mars. Russia has a very nice big rocket; infrastructure will require some repairs, but can be done. I don't care about Tom's concerns.
Offline
Like button can go here
My point is, who you partner with may have serious consequences towards what sort of colony you end up having. Have you heard the expression, its time to pay the piper? You can examine all sorts of colonies including the North American colonies of the British, and those of the Spaniards. To give you one possible peril, what would you do is your Russian Partners start setting up gulags on the surface of Mars with political prisoners doing forced labor there, would you want a colony that includes that? This is approximate to the indentured servants used in the American colonies, yet if the Russians supply rockets and they in return insist on disposing of their political prisoners by sending them to Mars, what are you going to do?
The conditions are Mars are after all colder than Siberia.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-02-02 12:41:01)
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, the stuff you're accusing Russia of doing is stuff that the Soviet Union did, or its stuff that the United States also does (prisoners, as a labour force? I thought that was only an American idea...).
I'd rather not have any Terran states, or any states at all actually, getting their dirty, grubby fingers over Mars, or any other planet. Choosing between the US and Russia for ownership of Mars would be choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Throw in any other country if you wish to add a bottle of Ur-wine to the list of options. Fortunately, they won't be able to - Rick's 1st Law (an object impacting at 3 km/sec delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT) means that space colonists are going to have WMDs. Even if you could load several dozen marines onto a spacecraft and launch it on a fast trajectory to Mars, they have 3 months to launch an interceptor, which when it hits will completely destroy the ship and its marines. To even launch that, by the way, would require cooperation from the people in cislunar space, because good luck launching all that mass needed from Terra. If a planet decides to secede, there's not much you can do about it.
Talking of that, Robert, do you have any information about the role of Canada in the American Secession? I would suppose that it would be significant in giving the loyalists somewhere to get supplies from - if they'd had to haul everything across the Atlantic, they'd have quickly folded.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Robert, do you have any information about the role of Canada in the American Secession?
Don't know much, but you can find a lot with Google and Wikipedia. Here's an article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_in_ … _Civil_War
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, the stuff you're accusing Russia of doing is stuff that the Soviet Union did, or its stuff that the United States also does (prisoners, as a labour force? I thought that was only an American idea...).
If a country changes it's, name, but keeps its borders and people the same, is it the same country, or a different country? To give a parallel example is Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, the Third Reich, the Federal Republic of Germany, and West Germany all the same country?
I'd rather not have any Terran states, or any states at all actually, getting their dirty, grubby fingers over Mars, or any other planet. Choosing between the US and Russia for ownership of Mars would be choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Throw in any other country if you wish to add a bottle of Ur-wine to the list of options. Fortunately, they won't be able to - Rick's 1st Law (an object impacting at 3 km/sec delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT) means that space colonists are going to have WMDs. Even if you could load several dozen marines onto a spacecraft and launch it on a fast trajectory to Mars, they have 3 months to launch an interceptor, which when it hits will completely destroy the ship and its marines. To even launch that, by the way, would require cooperation from the people in cislunar space, because good luck launching all that mass needed from Terra. If a planet decides to secede, there's not much you can do about it.
Talking of that, Robert, do you have any information about the role of Canada in the American Secession? I would suppose that it would be significant in giving the loyalists somewhere to get supplies from - if they'd had to haul everything across the Atlantic, they'd have quickly folded.
Are you talking about the American Civil War?
Well let's see, before the Civil War many escaped slaves took refuge in Canada due to fugitive slave return laws.
Some Confederates had dealings with Canada to arrange for supplies, and of course since Canada was neutral, many Confederate operatives took refuge in Canada, when doing raids in US territory, and then ducking into Canada to escape Federal pursuit.
Why are you interested in the American Civil War all of the sudden?
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-02-03 10:58:03)
Offline
Like button can go here
If a country changes it's, name, but keeps its borders and people the same, is it the same country, or a different country?
Ah, that's the problem. The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. There were 14 republics in the former Soviet Union: Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia, etc. They're all separate countries now. The Russian Federation has half the population of the former Soviet Union, the other half is the other 13 countries. Not the same borders, not the same country.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, when I worked in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, a couple people gave me lectures of the Civil War. The view in the south is not at all the same as you hear in mainstream media. The south considers it "The War Between States" or "Secession", they don't call it "Civil War". They gave me long lectures how the war was not over slavery, it was other issues. I did some research, it was complicated. When Terraformer talks about "American Secession", yea, that's the Civil War. But I had to look up "loyalists". According to Wikipedia there were Southern Loyalists, Union Loyalists, and Lincoln Loyalists. I believe Terraformer is talking about Southern Loyalists.
But we're back in politics again. This is the forum of the Mars Society. My dream when I was a pre-schooler was to be the engineer who designs the spacecraft for the first ever human mission to Mars. After Apollo 11, NASA promised the first human mission to Mars would lauch in 1981. I was afraid it would be all over before I could graduate university. We got a Space Shuttle instead.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom Kalbfus wrote:If a country changes it's, name, but keeps its borders and people the same, is it the same country, or a different country?
Ah, that's the problem. The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. There were 14 republics in the former Soviet Union: Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia, etc. They're all separate countries now. The Russian Federation has half the population of the former Soviet Union, the other half is the other 13 countries. Not the same borders, not the same country.
But those "republics" were part of the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire essentially changed its name when it deposed its tsar and decided to call themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics They weren't really Republics as they didn't have true representation, the name was fictitious. If you call a frog a "dog" it is still a frog, so the USSR was essentially they same thing it was before the name change except under new management with a new "Emperor". What happened in 1991 is that the Russian Empire, which was then called the USSR, got smaller with the loss of some republics and east block puppet states. At its height the Russian Empire, which is what it really was extended to cover the East Block nations all the way to what was called East Germany under the ficticious name the "German Democratic Republic" since it wasn't democratic or a Republic the name was fictitious. Much in the same way as if you buy a Volkswagen Beetle and the car dealer who sold it to you told you it was a "truck" that is a fictitious name. The Russian Federation has a short life as an actual Federation under Yeltsin, when Putin started appointing the states' governors it ceased being a Federation and reverted back to the Russian Empire with Putin as its unofficial Emperor under the title of President and for a time as Prime Minister to stay within the Term Limits specified by the constitution of this fictitious Federal Republic. The Truth does matter, and I am not guiled by propagandists calling things that which they are not. The Russian Empire still exists as far as I'm concerned and its Emperor is Vladimir Putin until he abdicates or is overthrown.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, when I worked in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, a couple people gave me lectures of the Civil War. The view in the south is not at all the same as you hear in mainstream media. The south considers it "The War Between States" or "Secession", they don't call it "Civil War". They gave me long lectures how the war was not over slavery, it was other issues. I did some research, it was complicated. When Terraformer talks about "American Secession", yea, that's the Civil War. But I had to look up "loyalists". According to Wikipedia there were Southern Loyalists, Union Loyalists, and Lincoln Loyalists. I believe Terraformer is talking about Southern Loyalists.
But we're back in politics again. This is the forum of the Mars Society. My dream when I was a pre-schooler was to be the engineer who designs the spacecraft for the first ever human mission to Mars. After Apollo 11, NASA promised the first human mission to Mars would lauch in 1981. I was afraid it would be all over before I could graduate university. We got a Space Shuttle instead.
Richmond is in Northern Virginian, which has basically been inundated with people working in Washington DC for the Federal Government, these people tend to be liberal in their outlook, and are all for the taxes which pay their salaries. If you go beyond the Washington suburbs you end up in the true SouthThere is a bit of regional pride in talk about the Civil War, but most Southerners do not support slavery That is history. i think anyone with common sense realizes that the Civil War was foughr over slavery, which is just another form of farmers wanting their cheap labor underclass, today it takes the form of illegal immigration and the push towards Amnesty or immigration reform as its called.
As for rockets The United States is just as capable of building large rockets as the Russians are, they have their Energand we had our Saturns, neither one of them is current. The Russia building new Energias is the equivalent of the United STate building its SLS. My computer is giving me problems, I'm getting the slows and the freezesso correcting typos is a bit difficult.
Offline
Like button can go here
Actually, I was talking about the American Secession - when the United States of America seceded. Not the Confederate Secession.
My point being, would the war have gone anywhere near as long if, not only had the British needed to haul supplied across the Atlantic, but the American forces been able to spot any British ship whilst router and destroy it? If not, why would any of the states of Terra be able to hold a colony on another planet, when the colonists don't need them and don't gain much benefit from being connected to them? Of course, a trade blockade could possibly work, but then the newly independent colonies of New America could just turn to Russia, or China, or India, or any of many other countries to supply essential goods, at this point being limited to computer components and a few other high tech goods...
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
When I was in Virginia, I lived in the town of Chester, in county Chesterfield. I worked in Colonial Heights. That's far enough south of Richmond. And Tom, before you use the word "liberal" as a bad thing, remember I'm a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. And I'm the one who wants to completely abolish federal personal income tax, and a realistic plan to do so.
Terraformer: If you talk about a war of independance before a single person has set foot on Red Soil, then why would any nation spend billions of dollars to go there? I'm all for libertarian freedom, I've posted my ideas elsewhere on this forum, but what benefit would any government gain? Why would they do it? You have to give them a reason.
Maybe American members should emphasize this at the next Congessional blitz. NASA is necessary for the space industry. Without innovation, other countries would dominate the industry. And I read a few years ago that tax revenue from the space industry is three times what they spend for NASA. So space is profitable right now. You could also talk about revenue from asteroid mining, but that has the danger that Congess would want to focus on asteroids instead of Mars. Better to focus on a affordable plan to put humans on Mars. Mars Direct is one.
Offline
Like button can go here
You make a good point RobertDyck, what nation would spend a lot on establishing a colony just to make Terraformer's dreams of a new independent nation come true? Not Putin, not the American government, certainly not the Chinese. If they are going to spend billions of dollars, they will want something in return, even if its something as vaporous as national prestige. We spend billions of dollars to sent 12 astronauts to the Moon and we got to plant 6 American flags in Lunar soil, we got some moon rocks as well, who would begrudge us that? The US is not going to set up a colony for Terraformer, make him governor of it and then grant his colony independence.
Offline
Like button can go here
I'm not asking them to. I'm just saying that colonies don't have much reason to stick with the countries that founded them, other than "patriotism" - and see how well that worked out in Canada, America, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand...
But, if the US Gov want to go ahead and try setting up a colony, they're free to do so, as are Elon Musk, Russia, China, Robert Bigelow, myself, Robert Zubrin...
Last edited by Terraformer (2014-02-04 03:29:14)
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Like button can go here
Actually the first move for American Independence was when they British started treating us like colonials to be exploited. When they started looking down their noses at us, that was when the American Independence movement began. It would have been very easy for the British to keep their colonies if they didn't differentiate. I am curious as to why they simply just didn't expand the borders into North America. I guess the British needed an "Us" and "Them". Lots of British subjects sought to improve their prospects by moving to North America, what they were not told was that they were leaving their status as British behind. The folks who stayed in Britian wanted some colonials to exploit, if the colonials maintained the same rights they had in Britain, there would be no one to exploit. The secret to keeping colonies on Mars is patriotism, if they mother country startes treating them like someone to exploit, that is when they lost them.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-02-04 08:03:44)
Offline
Like button can go here