Slashdot Mirror
Conquering the LaGrange Points?
3laws_safe writes "For decades, people have dreamed about building colonies at the five LaGrange points, intersections in space where gravitational and centrifugal forces balance out to provide orbital stability. But now, the official magazine of the U.S. Space Command advocates seizing control of the LaGrange points before other nations do it. From the article: 'We face the need to control the chokepoints of the solar system.' Arthur C. Clarke, who depicted a LaGrange colony in his classic 1961 novel A Fall of Moondust, is not very happy about this. He argues we should not 'export national rivalries beyond the atmosphere.' Is he right? Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?"
Seems it'd be best for the US if WalMart owned one of the lagrange points, just like WalMart owns much of manufacturing in China and Exxon owns much of the oil in the mideast. If it's siezed as a military base it'll just sit there with lots of cost and little benefit to anyone; but if it's purchased as a commercial facility, it'll be a tax on everyone going into space. To rephrase the distinction in more concrete terms; China is WalMart's biggest ally, but China is also the US military's largest competitor for space domination.
I agree that the US corporations should race to control commercially the Lagrange points (as we do buying up oil in the mideast); but I think it'd be stupid if we decided to occupy them at great cost to ourselves (as we do to certain countries in the mideast).
But forgetting about natural resources - the big difference is that Antartica isn't a security threat - space is - its the ultimate high ground. An engine attached to a boulder makes it into a space to surface bombardment system. You don't need nukes or lasers to threaten from above - just being up there is threat enough...
But who knows? Maybe we'll suprise ourselves, and the ISS and McMurdo stations will be the models of our future (well - maybe not the ISS).
"Yes, well, if you thought the American Revolution was a bloody war, just wait until our space Colonies get tired of the lack of representation and flaming death falls from the sky?"
Learn your history. The British Parliament offered seats to the Colonies. The radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today) put pressure on the colonial assemblies to reject the offer because the Sons of Liberty from the outset wanted independence. They especially did not want to pay the monies owed to Britain for finally dispatching the one true threat in North America to all of the colonies, that being the French, during the Seven Years War/French & Indian War.
Some other misnomers taught to us through our *great* K-12 educational system about the American Revolution.
*Quartering of soldiers. Did not happen. The Loyalist families volunteered to house some of the soldiers. The majority of the soldiers were housed in Inns. The British made the colonial legislatures pay the innkeepers for the soldiers staying. The Legislatures and some of the members did not appreciate this. But people were not forced to take soldiers into their homes as we are inaccurately taught in schools.
*Standing army a tyranny. The British soldiers stayed in the North American colonies to not only keep the peace between the colonials and the Native Americans, but also to keep the French from trying to regain Canada or assault the North American colonies. Some colonial morons, some of which became our "Founding Fathers" declared that such a move was to stomp on their liberty and curtail democracy, which was not the case at all. The British troops were also there because the colonial militias proved to be completely ineffective in the 7 Years War. The brunt of the fighting was left to the British Army.
*Tea tax. The stupidest thing of all the American Revolutionary history. The British East India Company was going bankrupt and essentially controlled India. The British needed a means to pay for it, as well as repaying the huge debt run up beating the French and protecting the North American Colonies during the 7 Years War. So they gave a monopoly to the East India Company to sell tea in the Colonies. This pissed off the smugglers, who violated British trade laws (as well as Naval laws) by importing inferior Dutch tea. The tea was then handled by wholesalers, distributors, and stores. The East India Monopoly threatened to destroy this black market trade, whose headquarters was in, ta da, Boston. Only select merchants would sell the East India tea. So what happened? Smugglers, merchants, and wholesalers protested, *disguised* themselves as "Indians," and dumped the British tea into Boston Harbor. This led to the closing of Boston Harbor by the British. Even Ben Franklin at the time thought it was fair for Boston to pay up for the damage before the harbor was re-opened.
*Trial-by-peers. The problems of Boston continued escalating. Even a British Naval vessel was burnt by colonial radicals. Since trial-by-jury - a standard Right of Englishmen - meant a "trial by peers," the British were unsuccessful in getting a conviction against smugglers, because the jury was made up of smugglers. So the British decided to send the smugglers to London for conviction. Of course, the radicals were pissed off by this trampling of their liberty.
*George Washington. We think of him as a great general, but he proved otherwise in the earlier 7 Years War, which started when his hat was shot off his head while riding horseback. The general could not speak French, which is required of a leading officer in the British Army at the time because you had to sometimes negotiate with the blood enemy (the French). The British told Washington to also listen to his Native American allies, and Washington hated the Native Americans. So Washington did not listen to his allies, did not abandon a fort during the winter, and got trapped inside of it because of the mud. The French c
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
And while I could take time to respond to most, if not all, of your assertions, I think it is only necessary to respond to one:
Ben Franklin. Great guy. He was the North American Colonies agent in London. Dealt with the King. Was liked by the Court. He even had his son made the Royal Governor of New Jersey. The Court thought he was an honest representative, but the man changed sides. When his son refused to change sides, Franklin had his own son locked up in prison. After the war, Franklin's son moved to England. They never spoke again. Franklin left his son out of his will.
When a "great guy" who is "liked by the court" and considered to be an "honest representative" decides to "change sides" and believes so strongly in that decision that he refuses to ever talk to his son again, perhaps you should ask yourself why? If the English were such great people given the total shaft by a bunch of smuggling, radical colinists, why would such an honest and respected man "change sides?"
I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, but "your" extreme is certainly no closer to the truth than the one taught in K-12.