Alan Watts on modern warfare
17 Oct 2010, 7:58 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Oct 2010, 1:12 pm
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
17 Oct 2010, 7:28 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
Humans are very specifically adapted to exist within a very limited area of Earth environment. The experience with astronauts has been that even a few months of existence in the current habitable space satellite renders them incapable of even walking without a lengthy stay in the hospital. The prospect of moving even a minor portion of human population into space for a lengthy trip to another solar system which is even remotely like that of Earth is more than daunting, it is more or less impossible under our present economic and technological systems. It is the dream of an immature mind seduced by the comic book childish idiocies of Star Trek and Star Wars which, if nothing else, are highly inferior attempts at science fiction, whatever their dramatic accomplishments. We are, at the present moment, not even capable of sending a human expedition to Mars with security and Mars is a supremely dangerous environment for humans under current technology.
The obvious delight in the horrifying power of nuclear weapons seems to have corrupted a good many advocates of military force and the reluctance for getting rid of them is as close to a pact with the devil as humanity has developed. They are monstrously evil and their use is overwhelmingly stupid.
18 Oct 2010, 4:39 am
Dox47 wrote:
You're doing it again Sand; critiquing without offering any alternative suggestions.
And you're persisting in your demand that I solve the problems of the world that are, insofar as I can see, unsolvable. I am highly complimented that you admire my abilities to the extent that I can offer sensible answers. I would love to accommodate you but I cannot. All I can do is indicate to my best intention that the solutions offered are inadequate. I consider that a viable contribution. I am like Edison who tried thousands of materials for his electric lamp that failed and was asked if he felt discouraged. He answered that it was valuable to know what wouldn't work.
18 Oct 2010, 7:31 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
Humans are very specifically adapted to exist within a very limited area of Earth environment. The experience with astronauts has been that even a few months of existence in the current habitable space satellite renders them incapable of even walking without a lengthy stay in the hospital. The prospect of moving even a minor portion of human population into space for a lengthy trip to another solar system which is even remotely like that of Earth is more than daunting, it is more or less impossible under our present economic and technological systems. It is the dream of an immature mind seduced by the comic book childish idiocies of Star Trek and Star Wars which, if nothing else, are highly inferior attempts at science fiction, whatever their dramatic accomplishments. We are, at the present moment, not even capable of sending a human expedition to Mars with security and Mars is a supremely dangerous environment for humans under current technology.
The obvious delight in the horrifying power of nuclear weapons seems to have corrupted a good many advocates of military force and the reluctance for getting rid of them is as close to a pact with the devil as humanity has developed. They are monstrously evil and their use is overwhelmingly stupid.
Flee into space to escape man-made technology? So the military (surely a HUGE player in the "paying for spaceships" game) aren't going to just bring some nukes along? Yeah, k. Fail.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Oct 2010, 8:36 am
Macbeth wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
Humans are very specifically adapted to exist within a very limited area of Earth environment. The experience with astronauts has been that even a few months of existence in the current habitable space satellite renders them incapable of even walking without a lengthy stay in the hospital. The prospect of moving even a minor portion of human population into space for a lengthy trip to another solar system which is even remotely like that of Earth is more than daunting, it is more or less impossible under our present economic and technological systems. It is the dream of an immature mind seduced by the comic book childish idiocies of Star Trek and Star Wars which, if nothing else, are highly inferior attempts at science fiction, whatever their dramatic accomplishments. We are, at the present moment, not even capable of sending a human expedition to Mars with security and Mars is a supremely dangerous environment for humans under current technology.
The obvious delight in the horrifying power of nuclear weapons seems to have corrupted a good many advocates of military force and the reluctance for getting rid of them is as close to a pact with the devil as humanity has developed. They are monstrously evil and their use is overwhelmingly stupid.
Flee into space to escape man-made technology? So the military (surely a HUGE player in the "paying for spaceships" game) aren't going to just bring some nukes along? Yeah, k. Fail.
The more planets inhabited the less likelihood that nuclear warfare on one of them would wipe out all known life. Nukes™ certainly would be brought, but they would not necessarily be used at the same time as strategic nuclear warfare upon the Earth would though.
18 Oct 2010, 9:04 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
Humans are very specifically adapted to exist within a very limited area of Earth environment. The experience with astronauts has been that even a few months of existence in the current habitable space satellite renders them incapable of even walking without a lengthy stay in the hospital. The prospect of moving even a minor portion of human population into space for a lengthy trip to another solar system which is even remotely like that of Earth is more than daunting, it is more or less impossible under our present economic and technological systems. It is the dream of an immature mind seduced by the comic book childish idiocies of Star Trek and Star Wars which, if nothing else, are highly inferior attempts at science fiction, whatever their dramatic accomplishments. We are, at the present moment, not even capable of sending a human expedition to Mars with security and Mars is a supremely dangerous environment for humans under current technology.
The obvious delight in the horrifying power of nuclear weapons seems to have corrupted a good many advocates of military force and the reluctance for getting rid of them is as close to a pact with the devil as humanity has developed. They are monstrously evil and their use is overwhelmingly stupid.
Flee into space to escape man-made technology? So the military (surely a HUGE player in the "paying for spaceships" game) aren't going to just bring some nukes along? Yeah, k. Fail.
The more planets inhabited the less likelihood that nuclear warfare on one of them would wipe out all known life. Nukes™ certainly would be brought, but they would not necessarily be used at the same time as strategic nuclear warfare upon the Earth would though.
Where are all these theoretical planets humanity can rush off to in these theoretical interstellar space ships? We haven't even been able to send a minimum crew to Mars and here you are babbling about interstellar flight of human populations. Being brainwashed by Star Trek sounds like a serious psychological malady.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Oct 2010, 9:32 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
Humans are very specifically adapted to exist within a very limited area of Earth environment. The experience with astronauts has been that even a few months of existence in the current habitable space satellite renders them incapable of even walking without a lengthy stay in the hospital. The prospect of moving even a minor portion of human population into space for a lengthy trip to another solar system which is even remotely like that of Earth is more than daunting, it is more or less impossible under our present economic and technological systems. It is the dream of an immature mind seduced by the comic book childish idiocies of Star Trek and Star Wars which, if nothing else, are highly inferior attempts at science fiction, whatever their dramatic accomplishments. We are, at the present moment, not even capable of sending a human expedition to Mars with security and Mars is a supremely dangerous environment for humans under current technology.
The obvious delight in the horrifying power of nuclear weapons seems to have corrupted a good many advocates of military force and the reluctance for getting rid of them is as close to a pact with the devil as humanity has developed. They are monstrously evil and their use is overwhelmingly stupid.
Flee into space to escape man-made technology? So the military (surely a HUGE player in the "paying for spaceships" game) aren't going to just bring some nukes along? Yeah, k. Fail.
The more planets inhabited the less likelihood that nuclear warfare on one of them would wipe out all known life. Nukes™ certainly would be brought, but they would not necessarily be used at the same time as strategic nuclear warfare upon the Earth would though.
Where are all these theoretical planets humanity can rush off to in these theoretical interstellar space ships? We haven't even been able to send a minimum crew to Mars and here you are babbling about interstellar flight of human populations. Being brainwashed by Star Trek sounds like a serious psychological malady.
Mars is the first planet that we have a remote chance of terraforming and inhabiting. We could also colonize the moon and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. After we find a planet which has a high enough probability of terraformation outside the solar system, then we ought to go there.
18 Oct 2010, 9:52 am
What's the most powerful area effect weapon that humanity has for engaging ships big enough to be worth shipping a population in? What's the most potent anti-ship weapon in an area that is effectively infinite, with ranges measured in thousands of miles? What's the easiest way to remove a "colony" that's probably already IN a crater? What's the most efficient power source for intergalactic or even interplanetary travel? What's the best power source to run an independently powered base on another world? What's the most likely course for any military enagement that goes to M.A.D? It isn't mutually assured destruction if you just ignore the fact that your enemy also has a large moon colony, or a Martian enclave. What are they going to use to ensure MAD?
Being in space is no security against species death.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
18 Oct 2010, 10:11 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The point is there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike, whatever the retaliation might be. When nuclear devices can be brought in in relatively small packages and minor officials bribed to permit it there is no safety. None whatsoever.
I know there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a first strike or the escalation of nuclear warfare once such a strike has occurred. However, disarmament is still not the solution even if the possibility exists of exceptions, which of course there are always exceptions.
It's reassuring to know somebody is confident in this area. I certainly am not.
Who said I'm confident? I just recognize a bad idea when I see one.
I'd feel better if you could offer something workable. With the the world with its pockets full of super explosives I hardly feel secure.
Develop manned interplanetary and interstellar craft and get the hell out of dodge?
Since you're religious prayer seems more practical. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me.
Practical or not, if you want to feel as close to 100% secure as possible, then leaving the planet due to the prospect of unwanted fireworks is the solution. If you just wish to keep nay-saying and contradicting everything in order to feel important, that's your business too.
I am not nay saying. I am totally open minded for real possible solutions and you have merely offered me science fiction fairy tales.
Not necessarily science fiction. It would be possible to make spacecraft which, in part, are like blimps using helium for lighter-than-air flight up to the point where they've reached the maximum altitude possible via buoyancy, then fire thrusters from that point of higher altitude. Such craft would possibly be able to assist in the assembly of a star-ladder and other space stations and shipyards.
Humans are very specifically adapted to exist within a very limited area of Earth environment. The experience with astronauts has been that even a few months of existence in the current habitable space satellite renders them incapable of even walking without a lengthy stay in the hospital. The prospect of moving even a minor portion of human population into space for a lengthy trip to another solar system which is even remotely like that of Earth is more than daunting, it is more or less impossible under our present economic and technological systems. It is the dream of an immature mind seduced by the comic book childish idiocies of Star Trek and Star Wars which, if nothing else, are highly inferior attempts at science fiction, whatever their dramatic accomplishments. We are, at the present moment, not even capable of sending a human expedition to Mars with security and Mars is a supremely dangerous environment for humans under current technology.
The obvious delight in the horrifying power of nuclear weapons seems to have corrupted a good many advocates of military force and the reluctance for getting rid of them is as close to a pact with the devil as humanity has developed. They are monstrously evil and their use is overwhelmingly stupid.
Flee into space to escape man-made technology? So the military (surely a HUGE player in the "paying for spaceships" game) aren't going to just bring some nukes along? Yeah, k. Fail.
The more planets inhabited the less likelihood that nuclear warfare on one of them would wipe out all known life. Nukes™ certainly would be brought, but they would not necessarily be used at the same time as strategic nuclear warfare upon the Earth would though.
Where are all these theoretical planets humanity can rush off to in these theoretical interstellar space ships? We haven't even been able to send a minimum crew to Mars and here you are babbling about interstellar flight of human populations. Being brainwashed by Star Trek sounds like a serious psychological malady.
Mars is the first planet that we have a remote chance of terraforming and inhabiting. We could also colonize the moon and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. After we find a planet which has a high enough probability of terraformation outside the solar system, then we ought to go there.
Humanity has neither the resources nor the technology for terraforming the Sahara desert or Antarctica to support a population and there is already a breathable atmosphere and plenty of water in the oceans. And there is no transportation problem. Are you totally unaware of the idiotic nonsense you are spouting?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Oct 2010, 5:23 pm
Sand wrote:
Humanity has neither the resources nor the technology for terraforming the Sahara desert or Antarctica to support a population and there is already a breathable atmosphere and plenty of water in the oceans. And there is no transportation problem. Are you totally unaware of the idiotic nonsense you are spouting?
The Sahara could be terraformed using the same techniques the Israelis were using in the Negev. The problem that you'd have in doing so would not be technological but rather political, namely in trying to convince the Egyptian government to either do it or let foreigners do it. Terraforming Antarctica, however, is impossible due to its latitude, so congratulations you're actually right about the impossibility of one activity. Building cities under water would be possible, although they'd be prime targets for eco-freaks and more easily destroyable due to being under pressure.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
18 Oct 2010, 5:25 pm
Macbeth wrote:
What's the most powerful area effect weapon that humanity has for engaging ships big enough to be worth shipping a population in? What's the most potent anti-ship weapon in an area that is effectively infinite, with ranges measured in thousands of miles? What's the easiest way to remove a "colony" that's probably already IN a crater? What's the most efficient power source for intergalactic or even interplanetary travel? What's the best power source to run an independently powered base on another world? What's the most likely course for any military enagement that goes to M.A.D? It isn't mutually assured destruction if you just ignore the fact that your enemy also has a large moon colony, or a Martian enclave. What are they going to use to ensure MAD?
Being in space is no security against species death.
Being in space is no security against species death.
Okay Mr. MacRant, yes nuclear power would be necessary and nuclear devices could certainly be used for warfare anywhere. However, you are wrong about being in space providing no security against species death, as it would at least lower the odds of simultaneous annihilation by either nuclear warfare or meteorites.
18 Oct 2010, 6:38 pm
Sand wrote:
I am like Edison who tried thousands of materials for his electric lamp that failed and was asked if he felt discouraged. He answered that it was valuable to know what wouldn't work.
In this thread, 'Keet is Edison throwing out ideas, you're just some guy looking over his shoulder saying "that won't ever work!".
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
18 Oct 2010, 6:55 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am like Edison who tried thousands of materials for his electric lamp that failed and was asked if he felt discouraged. He answered that it was valuable to know what wouldn't work.
In this thread, 'Keet is Edison throwing out ideas, you're just some guy looking over his shoulder saying "that won't ever work!".
Exactly. As I pointed out, that is valuable. Good that you are aware.
It is very important to understand what won't work so that a search continues for what will perhaps work. Keet keeps throwing in concepts straight out of StarTrek, interstellar spaceships and terraforming that are vague and unscientific fantasies so far beyond current technologies and practical finance that they have no value at all. It's important to understand this and move on to something more meaningful. I agree it would be wonderful to propose a useful program that could be initiated as soon as possible. That I cannot offer this is unfortunate but perhaps someone else can. I have yet to see this happen.
18 Oct 2010, 6:58 pm
Sand wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
I am like Edison who tried thousands of materials for his electric lamp that failed and was asked if he felt discouraged. He answered that it was valuable to know what wouldn't work.
In this thread, 'Keet is Edison throwing out ideas, you're just some guy looking over his shoulder saying "that won't ever work!".
Exactly. As I pointed out, that is valuable. Good that you are aware.
It is very important to understand what won't work so that a search continues for what will perhaps work. Keet keeps throwing in concepts straight out of StarTrek, interstellar spaceships and terraforming that are vague and unscientific fantasies so far beyond current technologies and practical finance that they have no value at all. It's important to understand this and move on to something more meaningful. I agree it would be wonderful to propose a useful program that could be initiated as soon as possible. That I cannot offer this is unfortunate but perhaps someone else can. I have yet to see this happen.
He might be interested in the venus project
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
