NASA To Team Up With Russia For Future Mars Flight

xp65 writes "NASA has invited Russia to carry out a joint manned flight to Mars, the head of NASA's Moscow office said on Tuesday. Russia is currently planning to send its own expedition to Mars some time in the future. Marc Bowman told an international aviation and space conference in Moscow that the Mars mission should take advantage of the achievements made by the International Space Station and use a multinational crew."

Comments

Understanding

[KraftDinner]

I've always thought that the only way for us as a race to become a unified nation is to simple explore space together. As soon as one nation decides to call Mars or whatever other celestial body their own, it will just be downhill from there.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your underestimating the importance of competition.

Russia going to Mars alone could motivate a second space race. The end result is someone standing on Mars in 10 years instead of 20. NASA is more likely to get funding and motivation if they are competing.

Re:Understanding

[KraftDinner]

I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition and still having drive to get to space than separated nations at war.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition and still having drive to get to space than separated nations at war.

you cant have your cake and launch it too.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition

What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation? One man, one vote? That leads to the tyranny of the majority. Do you adopt a split system like the US Federal Government with an upper-body for each member state and a lower body that represents populations? In that case is it really fair that the Vatican gets the same representation that China or India does?

I'm not jumping up and down at the prospect of a unified planet Earth. I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain. I see plenty that we could lose though.

Re:Understanding

[relguj9]

I've always thought that the only way for us as a race to become a unified nation is to simple explore space together. As soon as one nation decides to call Mars or whatever other celestial body their own, it will just be downhill from there.

Reminds me of the Robber's Cave experiment that I actually read from someone posting here.

Would be interesting if we could get China involved in the venture.

Re:Understanding

[ThinkWeak]

The second space race has already started. With India and China in active development, this would be a great opportunity for the U.S.

We team up with Russia to get to Mars, meanwhile India and China work to do the same.

It's OK to not have to compete with EVERY other country out there. We don't always have to be THAT GUY.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because a non-unified, war loving planet rocks. Because we should all stick to our own kind, whether that kind be based on race, creed, religion, color, or ,gasp, being born at a specific location...Go team !

Re:Understanding

[MozeeToby]

Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain? If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending. Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy, or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world, or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.

There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet. The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

But we have a governmental system that has managed to handle huge diversity fairly well. A federal republic works well enough for the US, despite the tensions of diversity. Would a global federal republic be that much worse?

Re:Understanding

[nobdoor]

This is true. But it also begs the question: If individual Nations should not be entitled to stake claim on celestial bodies, by what right do they claim Earth and its regions? This planet is also a celestial body after all. Perhaps things started going downhill once humans started believing that they 'owned' anything.

Re:Understanding

[OrangeTide]

I agree with you. Because the reality of the world is that there are many nations that are not willing to cooperate with many other nations. The US could easily reconcile with her enemies(Iran, Cuba, etc. well maybe not North Korea but that's not our fault). But will nations who have had 100s of years of violent history together come together easily. Human beings just plain suck. They are too territorial. Too bigoted. and too fervent about their various competing ideologies.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Would a global federal republic be that much worse?

It would be for Americans, who would stand to lose our right to keep and bear arms and our right against self-incrimination. Neither of those rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor is the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Then there's the matter that different countries regard free speech differently. In Europe they outlaw "hate speech". In the US it's protected.

So again, which model do you use? The only document that has near-global acceptance fails to protect several rights that Americans already have. Given that those rights aren't regarded as such by most other nations why would I assume that a global government would protect them?

Re:Understanding

[MrNaz]

If it ends up anything like the Apollo 11 mission, the cake *and* the launch will be a lie.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain?

Perhaps I should have said that whatever we stand to gain is not enough to offset what we would stand to lose.

If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending

Then what happens when some asshat comes to power in one of the member states and stops following the rule of law?

Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy

But you just said that you agree with me on most of my points. My main point was that we would stand to lose our freedoms. What good do opportunities do you if you aren't free?

or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world

Why do you need a global government to tackle world hunger? Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?

or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.

Why would a global government keep trade from sabotaging individual countries? It's arguable that this already happens within nations. As a random example, the American South provides tax incentives and employer friendly labor laws to encourage manufacturers to set up shop there instead of in the Northern states.

The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).

I'd say that's a pretty big problem :)

Re:Understanding

[Hurricane78]

And why would we want a unified planet? I mean you can't even get to one p.o.v with all your friends, let alone a whole country, and you expect global lockstep?

There will always be differences and arguments. The point is that we will hopefully be able to solve them without ripping our heads off. But this does not mean we all have to live under the same rules. We can live happily side-by-side with differing view.

The only thing a global unity is absolutely guaranteed to bring, is the lack of any freedom of choice in politics/regime/laws/etc. Imagine the US nation under bush, or how it's in UK now... But global! Now think about this: Where would all those go, who wanted to leave the country?

Well, in the long term, they would go to jail. It's the totalitarian dream. And it will only happen over my dead body, and those of many many other people.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

To clarify, the more centralization of political power, the more death, destruction, corruption, and injustice will result. This isn't philosophy; this is reality, as well as history. As a government consolidates power into the top of the pyramid, it naturally becomes more and more destructive and unjust. Every time.

The single worst thing that could happen to the human race is "world government". When the basket breaks -- and it will break -- all the eggs go with it.

Re:Understanding

[HanzoSpam]

Considering we've had wars and genocides throughout human history and we're still here, did it ever occur to you that they might serve some biological function you're not aware of? The 20th century set a record for bloodbaths. We still started it with a world population of 1.6 billion, and ended it with a population of over 6.5 billion.

Re:Understanding

[Shatrat]

Also, how exactly is a unified world supposed to eliminate or even reduce the occurrence of war.
Historically, nations have no problem warring with themselves.

Re:Understanding

[0123456]

There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet.

There are a lot of things that Santa Claus could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet too... they're about as likely to happen as a 'properly implemented world government'.

You seem to be under the impression that a 'world government' would be something other than a collection of psychopaths desperate to prey on the rest of us.

The odd thing is that I find the people who most promote 'world government' are also normally big promoters of 'diversity', and don't even see the blatant inconsistency between those position.

Re:Understanding

[Beardo the Bearded]

I have always admired the American response to hate speech. "It may be harmful, it may be spiteful and untrue, but you can say whatever the fuck you want to say."*

They've fucked that up in Canada, and it makes me sad.

*except on TV.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the stupidest comment I read in my whole Internet life. Worst, it's modded insightful!

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we are at the dawn of a new century.
Records are made to be broken!

Re:Understanding

[elrous0]

We draw straws for it. The shortest straw from a country that doesn't make it legal to set a woman on fire for showing her ankles wins.

Re:Understanding

[Kjella]

Even in Star Trek you don't make alliances with everyone, only those that behave get to join the Federation. It's not like you need one global world order, I really don't think you can do it on a global scale as long as there's places people really want to get to and really want to get from but EU is fairly close in a mini-format. The germans can visit the french and vice versa but it's not like there are mass relocations, they have national laws but things still float fairly freely. The United States has 50 states which I understand are somewhat different even though there's federal law. It's not that hard to imagine that sort of thing being extended to a world model where basically people move to and work in whatever country they please. Perhaps not exactly unified in that sense but it would mean war makes a lot less sense.

Re:Understanding

[KraftDinner]

I'm not saying that as a whole we won't have to evolve significantly before anything like I suggested can happen. The values of other nations as well as our own will need to be adapted so that everyone is best represented and upheld in a unified nation. It's no simple task that can be answered with any current system, but it can be done.

Re:Understanding

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Considering we've had wars and genocides throughout human history and we're still here, did it ever occur to you that they might serve some biological function you're not aware of? The 20th century set a record for bloodbaths. We still started it with a world population of 1.6 billion, and ended it with a population of over 6.5 billion.

If the "biological function" you're thinking of is population control, then you're contradicting yourself: clearly, the unparalleled bloodbaths of the 20th c. didn't do much to keep the numbers down.

Anyway, it's silly to talk about "biological functions" at all in a large population. There is no biological imperative for any species to do anything except keep itself going, which humans can do pretty well with or without war. There is no abstract standard of fitness, no goal to evolution, etc. As long as H. sapiens is still here, it is by definition performing its biological function just fine.

And finally, your .sig:

Social Justice: Seeing a liberal getting slugged in the teeth.

So you don't have the guts to go out picking fights with liberals, but you want to see someone else do it? That's an unusually honest bit of conservative chickenhawk macho bullshit. Speaking as a liberal, all I can say is, you're welcome to try; afterwards, the hospital personnel will be happy to tell you more about your own personal biological functions than you ever wanted to know.

Re:Understanding

[dkleinsc]

I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain.

How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?

Is civil war possible? Yes. Is it as likely as international war? Probably not. The experience of post-Soviet Europe suggests that economic and political ties creates an environment in which the various areas are more likely to settle their disputes with political and diplomatic action, in large part because the costs are greater.

Re:Understanding

[Jeruvy]

Competition is good, Nationalism is not.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?

What good does that do me if my civil liberties are reduced to the lowest common denominator?

Re:Understanding

[Nyeerrmm]

I think you overestimate two things here: the possibility and value of a second space race. First off, the possibility. The reason it was so important in the 60s was because of the similarity between missile technology and space technology. We were scared to death of a Soviet nuclear tipped ICBMs from, and proving we could build better ones was important for impressing other countries (we wanted them on our side, not the Soviets), and for national pride. Currently Russia has a lot of potential but is too caught up in war drum-beating in the local neighborhood and trying to get its old prestige back to make us feel threatened over here. The rise of China and India is likely to be a much bigger motivator, but even then, space is not the new defining technology of the age. New energy, "green" technologies, and computer development are more likely to be the technological "battleground" in the coming decades.

Second, in my opinion, its better for long-term frontier development to have a 20 year program at the current budget than a 10 year program at 4 times the budget (the relative funding at the height of Apollo). Apollo was done as soon as Neil Armstrong made his bootprint -- we had done it, spent a lot of money, it was time to move on to the next challenge. Given the budget of NASA since then, its pretty clear that the current budget is what we as a nation are willing to pay for a space program. Any plan for long term development has to plan to stay within that budget in order to be feasible. 5-10 years of much higher budgets can be helpful in theory, but the long-term plans tend to shift to expect that level of budget, and when the rug gets pulled out from underneath, all momentum is lost.

Imagine if Eisenhower had gone on to a third term and kept his policy of not getting dragged into a "space race". We certainly would not have gotten to the moon in 1969. However, we would have gotten there eventually, and when we got there it would have been in a way that we could keep doing it for decades, building up bases and real science, and slowly pushing out further.* Maybe NASA could take better advantage of a temporary funding increase now, having a better understanding that it couldn't last forever -- but my personal opinion is that NASA would over extend itself again and we'd get more flags and footprints.

*Of course, the value of turning nationalistic intentions to science and exploration over making more weapons was valuable in its own right.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do you run such a unified nation? One man, one vote? That leads to the tyranny of the majority."

No, you allow SEPARATION, so that those who want to live under one set of political rules can SEPARATE and live that way.

That is the ultimate experiment - give everyone the choice to live in whatever way they wish, and then see which works best.

What on Earth is the "tyranny of the majority"? Surely it's bound to be better than the tyranny of a TINY minority?

Just look at history.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right? What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?

Re:Understanding

[rhathar]

you cant have your cake and launch it too.

Unless it's yellow cake.

Re:Understanding

[Nathrael]

Personal safety is no REAL(tm) human right?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right?

The right to defend yourself and your family against aggression is a human right. Humans aren't obligated to turn the other cheek when faced with aggression. If you accept this simple truth then it stands to reason that we have the right to possess tools that enable us effectively exercise our right of self-defense.

What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?

Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

"Why do you need a global government to tackle world hunger? Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?"

The world has more than enough resources to feed everyone. The problem is getting food to hungry and the real world government might be able to solve it.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

The only things guns are good for in the modern world are gangs and pissant wars; personal training tasers, and chemical sprays are for personal defense.

Re:Understanding

[orzetto]

Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?

Because it would suddenly become the problem of a government actually able to solve it, for example. Of course it would need still the political will to do it, but at least it would have both motivation and means.

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.

Not so with guns (and speaking as a European - that's probably a plus).

Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

The world has more than enough resources to feed everyone. The problem is getting food to hungry and the real world government might be able to solve it.

Your right. It might be able to solve it. So might Bill Gates, Bono or the UN. Saying a World Government might be able to solve world hunger does not sell me on the idea of turning my civil liberties over to a world government.

Besides, how are you going to get dictatorships and corrupt governments to willingly surrender their power? Or do you intend to impose your world government at gunpoint and invade them if necessary? Corruption is the main roadblock to solving world hunger -- you think it's going to go away if you replace ~180 governments of varying size with one massive one?

Re:Understanding

[qmaqdk]

Then we'll just add those rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to bear arms! Who's with me?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.

No, nothing of the sort is "pretty clear". Not when the closest thing we currently have to a world government (the UN) lets countries like Libya and Cuba sit on human rights commissions.

Not so with guns (and speaking as a European - that's probably a plus).

So you admit that I'd lose a right that I already have? Way to sell me on the idea :) Saying it's a "plus" demonstrates that you are willing to go along with a policy of taking away the rights of another.

Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree.

No, it's not a tough one at all. Who gets to decide what's hate speech? The Government? Then they can decide that anything is hate speech and outlaw it. There are a few people on the left in the US that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are "hate" speech, whereas most sane people would regard their speech as political discourse. It may not be particularly intelligent political discourse but that doesn't mean it's "hate" speech.

If Government gets to decide what type of speech should be free then we don't have free speech. We have approved speech. You can spin it anyway you want but that's not free speech.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the question to ask at all, its why do you need a gun (piece of shit technology with limited use it is) for defense NOW?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Because not everyone is strong enough to defeat a determined aggressor in hand to hand combat? Because aggressors will always be able to get their hands on weapons despite the numerous laws saying they can't have them? Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

Bill Gates has nowhere enough power to change governments in many countries.

I'm not trying to impose any government. Why should I do it? It will be formed willingly one day.

And probably by that time Americans will stop clinging to their toy guns...

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It will be formed willingly one day.

History suggests otherwise. If we ever find a way to get off this rock it's more probable that you'll see oppressed people leaving to start a new life than it is that you'll see us all come together to sing kumbaya around the camp fire.

And probably by that time Americans will stop clinging to their toy guns...

How many more genocides of unarmed populations will we have to see before you people stop looking down on those who want the ability to protect themselves from those who don't share your enlightened morality?

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

"No, nothing of the sort is "pretty clear". Not when the closest thing we currently have to a world government (the UN) lets countries like Libya and Cuba sit on human rights commissions."

UN is a joke. It has no power and so nobody cares about its commissions. On the other hand, NATO (the closest we have to the world armed forces) is taken quite seriously and is managed quite effectively.

"So you admit that I'd lose a right that I already have? Way to sell me on the idea :) Saying it's a "plus" demonstrates that you are willing to go along with a policy of taking away the rights of another."

I'm ambivalent about guns, they're just toys for big babies. I wouldn't mind at all if US would be allowed to keep guns when the world government is formed :) We'll probably have a federated republic, not a unitary state.

Also, if you speak about guns as a right, then can you show me why it's a necessary right? It can easily be shown with free speech, right against discrimination and jury trial.

Not so with guns, so I'm inclined to think that it's not really a right.

"Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree."
"No, it's not a tough one at all."

I absolutely agree with you. I was only saying that there'll be much disagreements.

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

"History suggests otherwise."

Uhmm.... So France and Germany can NEVER live together and European Union is impossible, right?

"How many more genocides of unarmed populations will we have to see before you people stop looking down on those who want the ability to protect themselves from those who don't share your enlightened morality?"

Have you ever been in a war area or close to one? Never? Thought so.

Re:Understanding

[Torn8-R]

There's this story that's been around for a while that there will be 10 nations that end up uniting the world. Then somehow the religions of the world get into a peaceful coexistance. There's even a leader. Sounds like a pretty good theory until you throw the word Antichrist in there, then people get a little upset.

Re:Understanding

[ShakaUVM]

>>What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation?

You just average them all together. You get the civil freedom of Singapore, the freedom of business of China, the education system of America, and the clear-headed sensibilities of the European Union.

It's win-win!

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is your kind of forum alright, you say what they want to hear and actual reason doesn't matter. Fuck you all.

Re:Understanding

[Foobar of Borg]

Russia going to Mars alone could motivate a second space race

Nah, cause Russia is no longer the "Evil, Godless Soviet Union". China, on the other hand, might motivate us.

Re:Understanding

[johncadengo]

In a speech to the UN, Reagan once said:

"I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held, if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences we've had between our countries and we'd find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."

Re:Understanding

[Nefarious Wheel]

Besides, how are you going to get dictatorships and corrupt governments to willingly surrender their power? Or do you intend to impose your world government at gunpoint and invade them if necessary?

Ah, astute comment there. This has been tried. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Attila, Napoleon... throughout history the great unifiers failed, and were vilified. Those who successfully resisted are revered as heroes; George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro*, Ray Beckerman... the list goes on. Global unification only ever worked in the Lensman series. In the world of nonfiction, the concept kind of sucks.

*Being a non-American reader, I'm free to include him in that list. Are you? One man's freedoms can be another man's tyranny.

Re:Understanding

[Sabz5150]

And somehow a hair over 200 years ago, a group of independent "nations" as it were found a way to be unified. They called it a "more perfect union" I believe, knowing that it would never be perfect but its people would always strive towards it. How did they do it? They sat down and hashed it out... like human beings should.

A unified planet is inevitable. Whereas you might not see what you have to gain, many other nations and their people do. Saying that you don't want others to join you there because it doesn't jive with your world is, quite frankly, selfish.

Re:Understanding

[phayes]

Ever hear of a place called Dubrovnic? Osijek? How about Sarajevo or Srebrenica, hmmm? No, huh. Economic & political ties created over 40 years of union made a civil war in the post SU Europe indeed impossible...

Before once again dredging up the pacifist lines that "Economic ties make war impossible to contemplate" I recommend that you read the newspapers in Europe immediately prior to both the first & the second world wars or any number of history books on the pacifist & appeasement politicians of those periods. "The various areas were more likely to settle their disputes with political and diplomatic action" back then too. Until they didn't.

If the specter of nuclear holocaust is taken off the table for any of a number of plausible reasons, war in europe could once again come to pass should another fair seeming yet morally corrupt politician come to power who judges that war is more to his interest than peace.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana seems to had you in mind.

Re:Understanding

[misexistentialist]

Sadly even sticks (excluding arms and legs) are illegal in some states. Obama's SCOTUS appointment would apparently agree with a federal ban. I guess the poor bastards with canes will be liquidated by the "death panels" anyway...

Re:Understanding

[lennier]

"...as a race... it will just be downhill from there"

Last one to the foot of Olympus Mons is a rotten egg!

And no fair using rocket jets on your sled!

Re:Understanding

[TheoMurpse]

I'm enjoying the hilarious juxtaposition of the body of your comment

the [United States is one of the] freest countries on Earth

and your sig

I want peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.
We are the United States Government. We don't do that sort of thing.

:)

Re:Understanding

[Tetsujin]

UN is a joke. It has no power and so nobody cares about its commissions.

They may be a joke, but you won't be laughing when they get their hands on alien technology and start thrashing non-compliant governments with hordes of variable fighters...

Re:Understanding

[TheoMurpse]

It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.

Most developed nations in the world have abolished or very limited jury trials. Trial by jury is scoffed at by most of the world.

Germany? No trial by jury.
Belgium? Only serious crimes.
Austria? Limited.
Greece? Only serious crimes.
India? No.
Japan? Very few serious crimes.
Italy? Only serious crimes.
NZ? Not to the best of my knowledge.
Russia? Only death penalty cases.
Switzerland? Only in Geneva.
Israel? No.
Singapore? No.

Civil law systems, which cover probably 70% of the world's landmass (including almost all of Europe) are pretty much all inquisitorial and with no jury.

Civil Law
Jury Trial:

English common law and the United States Constitution recognize the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right that allows the accused to choose whether to be judged by judges or a jury of peers. The use of jury trials evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems. Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system.

Re:Understanding

[lennier]

"Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?"

Oh, really? And if the other guy has a tank?

Support the right to bear tactical nukes!

Re:Understanding

[TheRaven64]

But will nations who have had 100s of years of violent history together come together easily

Well, we (Britain) have a thousand years or so of history when we were either at war with France, recovering from being at war with France, or preparing to go to war with France. One war lasted 116 years, although there were truces at various points in this period. We seem not to have felt the need to have a war with them for almost two hundred years now though, so we've probably got it out of our systems.

Re:Understanding

[Hurricane78]

What? It's true, and was not meant to feel trollish, but written with good intentions. You must have misunderstood something.

Or do you really want to live in global "unity" (something that is physically impossible, and would be a lie), with nowhere to go when they are trying to find something to hang you because they don't like you? Really? I mean *really*??
It's a total loss of freedom, you know.

And my examples to imagine, were just so you knew what I meant. I could just as well use North Korea, Stalin's regime, or anything else with totalitarian tendencies as examples. But which ones are you more related to at the moment?
See... :)

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Uhmm.... So France and Germany can NEVER live together and European Union is impossible, right?

Nice strawman. Mind quoting the portion of my post where I said that?

Have you ever been in a war area or close to one?

How is that remotely relevant to the point I was making? Are you trying to say "It can't happen here" or are you just going for a one line rebuttal? I think you are smart enough to realize that it can happen here because it already has.

Take a look at the history of lynching in the American south and ask yourself if it would have occurred as often if the targeted population had been well armed. Did you know that many of the earliest examples of gun control in the United States were specifically aimed at keeping "undesirables" from obtaining arms? We wouldn't want those pesky minorities to have the means to defend themselves, now would we? They might get uppity or something.

Want a more recent example? Consider the Rwandan Genocide. It was largely carried out by militia's armed with little more than assault rifles. Think they could have carried it out if the victims had been similarly armed and able to resist?

How about you tell me what it is about the prospect of private ownership of weapons that offends you so much?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I don't have a problem with you including good ole Fidel in that list. I don't take any issue with him for fighting to free his people from the Batista's. I do think it's fair to take issue with him for the manner in which he choose to run his country though. Washington willingly surrendered power and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer thereof. Fidel has clutched to it for the better part of half a century and "surrendered" it to his brother once he became too old and feeble to run the country.

I would point out that Ceaser probably doesn't deserve to be in your list. My reading of history suggests that it was never his intention to take over the known world. His conquests seem to have been driven by the motivation for personal enrichment/political prestige back home and the desire to defeat his enemies within the Roman state. Alexander the Great is a better example. He would have kept going all the way to China if his troops had let him.

Re:Understanding

[TheRaven64]

These nations you refer to were former colonies, who had had little time to establish their own identities and were threatened with invasion from much stronger European colonial powers. Had they not unified, they would have been picked off one at a time by stronger nations wishing to exploit their resources. Once this threat had passed, they had a civil war.

Not exactly the model I'd choose for a unified world...

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

We'll probably have a federated republic, not a unitary state.

The US is a Federated Republic. As originally laid down it was never imagined that the Federal Government would get involved in everything from gun control to the welfare state. Why should I believe that a Federated World Government wouldn't be subject to the same mission creep and erosion of personal liberty?

Also, if you speak about guns as a right, then can you show me why it's a necessary right?

Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves (self-defense) when confronted with someone who doesn't share our enlightened morality? If the answer is yes then why don't they have the right to have access to the tools that enable them to defend themselves effectively?

A gun is an equalizer. Nothing more, nothing less. Few of us geeks here on /. would be capable of prevailing in a fight against a hardened criminal who spent the last ten years in prison pumping iron. Put a gun in your hands and the odds change considerably. In the worst case scenario they are now equal. In the best case scenario they are tilted in your favor. I'm not a particularly religious person but I do agree with the sentiment behind this quote: God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

There's also the argument that an armed population provides deterrence against external aggression. Switzerland is the best known example, though some sources indicate that the armed American population provided a deterrent to the Japanese in the early stages of WW2. I would go so far as to advocate that we emulate the Swiss/early American model. Disband most of the Army, while keeping specialist units (anti-aircraft brigades, artillery, intelligence, etc) and the Navy/Air Force around. In the event of a conflict it doesn't take that long to draft people into the service and teach them to fire a rifle. Such a system protects the country just fine while doing away with the standing army that the politicians are tempted to send on foreign adventures or use to oppress the population.

If none of those arguments hold water with you then I don't know what to say other than why do I have to prove that my rights are "necessary"? A Chinese person might argue that the right to free speech isn't "necessary". Many countries get along without it. I don't think we want to emulate them though.

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

"Nice strawman. Mind quoting the portion of my post where I said that? "

I pointed out an example which was thought to be impossible even 70 years ago. So your history is a bit off.

"How is that remotely relevant to the point I was making? Are you trying to say "It can't happen here" or are you just going for a one line rebuttal? I think you are smart enough to realize that it can happen here because it already has. "

Nope. I'm talking about how USELESS are handguns in a REAL warfare or civil war. And I'd lived quite close (less than 100km at one point, we've heard explosions in our home) to one.

I'd like to see you going out with your handgun against a gang of AK-74-wielding thugs. And don't think that they'll run if you shoot one of them.

In case of civil war you realistically have three options:
1) Run to another country or at least to a more peaceful part of country.
2) Join army/militia - you'll be armed there at no cost with _real_ weapons, not toys.
3) Stay quiet and hope for the best.
4) Handguns are just about useless in a real warfare (I'm a military officer, BTW). Even a semi-automatic hunting gun will serve you better in protecting your household than a handgun. Incidentally, hunting rifles are legal in Europe.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I recommend that you read the newspapers in Europe immediately prior to both the first & the second world wars

It's not limited to Europe either. Guess who Japan's biggest trading partner was on 6 December 1941?

If the specter of nuclear holocaust is taken off the table for any of a number of plausible reasons

That's the bit that kills me about Obama wanting total nuclear disarmament. For better or worse nuclear weapons are the main reason that humanity hasn't fought World War III. What happens when you take them off the table? You don't even need to get rid of them all either. You just need people to assume they won't be used. There's precedent for this too -- chemical weapons weren't used in WW2 despite being readily available to both sides.

I sleep very well at night knowing that my nation can unleash nuclear fire on anyone stupid enough to try and attack us. Nuclear weapons keep the peace. Getting rid of them is extremely shortsighted.

Re:Understanding

[PaganRitual]

It's actually a positive story about how the future of mankind is in peace and unification. But because it nullfies specific religions that hate to be sidelined or regarded on a level pegging with others, some garbage was added about how the person that becomes the key factor in this unification (you know, probably Bill Clinton or someone), is actually against god and wants to actually rule the world and that all the special people that still latch onto their archaic belief systems will be magically whisked away to a better place before all the shit goes down. Add in some specific numbers and attach meaning to them, because you know, if there is one thing that makes simple, ignorant people believe that what you're saying is actually some revealed truth, it's co-incidental number arrangements that couldn't possibly be anything other than divinely inspired, and hey presto, armageddon outta here.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Nope. I'm talking about how USELESS are handguns in a REAL warfare or civil war. And I'd lived quite close (less than 100km at one point, we've heard explosions in our home) to one.

So now you are making more assumptions about what I wrote, unsupported by the actual text of my comments? Please point out the post of mine in this thread where I used the word "handgun".

I'd like to see you going out with your handgun against a gang of AK-74-wielding thugs. And don't think that they'll run if you shoot one of them.

I don't have to use my handgun. I've got a Mini-14 and M-1 Garand for that scenario. The handgun is primarily useful against thugs of the more mundane (criminal) variety and as a last resort in a pitched battle. The only advantage to the handgun is that it's easy to carry around with you. Rather hard to conceal the AK for the trip to the grocery store.

Join army/militia - you'll be armed there at no cost with _real_ weapons, not toys.

As an American male between the age of 17 and 45 I'm already a member of the militia :)

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

"The US is a Federated Republic. As originally laid down it was never imagined that the Federal Government would get involved in everything from gun control to the welfare state. Why should I believe that a Federated World Government wouldn't be subject to the same mission creep and erosion of personal liberty?"

Simple. Local governments are good at screwing things and running to the federal government for help. This allows federal government to gather
strength, eventually reaching a balance.

USA began as a de-facto confederation, so strengthening of federal government is more pronounced there. A lot of other countries have already reached the balance.

"Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves (self-defense) when confronted with someone who doesn't share our enlightened morality? If the answer is yes then why don't they have the right to have access to the tools that enable them to defend themselves effectively? "

Mostly because guns are useless for this purpose?

"A gun is an equalizer. Nothing more, nothing less. Few of us geeks here on /. would be capable of prevailing in a fight against a hardened criminal who spent the last ten years in prison pumping iron. Put a gun in your hands and the odds change considerably."

A fairy tale. As I've said in another post, guns are mostly useless in a real warfare. They are also mostly useless at preventing crime - good police departments help much better.

In fact, let me ask you a question. Do you remember stories about 80-year-old grandma shooting robbers with her Magnum?

"There's also the argument that an armed population provides deterrence against external aggression. Switzerland is the best known example"

Switzerland is a poor example. It was not invaded only because invading it gave nothing to Hitler. In itself, invading Switzerland was easy, however Switzerland threatened to destroy bridges and tunnels in case of attack. And Switzerland government also agreed to transfer goods in sealed train cars.

Had Hitler won, the Switzerland would have fallen in one month.

Population of France and the USSR were also armed at that point. Made no difference.

"If none of those arguments hold water with you then I don't know what to say other than why do I have to prove that my rights are "necessary"? A Chinese person might argue that the right to free speech isn't "necessary". Many countries get along without it. I don't think we want to emulate them though."

I think, we can agree to check only the most successful countries - fairly large countries, with a big enough population and good enough quality of life. If you use this criterion, then you'll notice that almost all successful countries (with very few exceptions like Saudi Arabia) have freedom of speech, jury trials, etc. So we CAN make a case that these freedoms are necessary.

Not so with gun control.

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

Germany has a form of trial by jury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Germany

Most other countries have it too (in different forms, sure), so it still supports my point.

"Russia? Only death penalty cases."

That's wrong. Russia has no death penalty and trial by jury is available for most criminal cases (except terrorism).

Re:Understanding

[Cyberax]

"So now you are making more assumptions about what I wrote, unsupported by the actual text of my comments? Please point out the post of mine in this thread where I used the word "handgun". "

Because handguns are the main point of difference between European and USA laws. It's legal to own semiautomatic "hunting rifles" in Europe, so it's a non-issue.

"I don't have to use my handgun. I've got a Mini-14 and M-1 Garand for that scenario."

Most people don't have them even in the USA. So it's a moot point.

"The handgun is primarily useful against thugs of the more mundane (criminal) variety and as a last resort in a pitched battle. The only advantage to the handgun is that it's easy to carry around with you. Rather hard to conceal the AK for the trip to the grocery store. "

If you need a gun to go to a grocery store, than you have BIG problems.

"As an American male between the age of 17 and 45 I'm already a member of the militia :)"

Just wait for the next civil war then :)

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I take it you've never seen the movie Sneakers? Please put the geek card down and back away slowly......

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Because handguns are the main point of difference between European and USA laws. It's legal to own semiautomatic "hunting rifles" in Europe, so it's a non-issue.

Where did I say I was making the comparison between Europe and the US? I don't even recall using the word "Europe". It's amazing how you can read so many things into my posts that aren't there. Can you teach me this skill?

If you need a gun to go to a grocery store, than you have BIG problems.

You don't need a gun until you run into a thug intent on using violence against you. Since I can't choose when or where that will happen I choose to carry a firearm wherever it is legal to do so. I'm sorry if that offends your evolved sensibilities, but thankfully I still have my freedoms in my country.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

personal training tasers, and chemical sprays are for personal defense.

Tasers only give you one shot and are rendered useless if you miss or get attacked by more than one person. They are also illegal in many US jurisdictions. Chemical sprays are useless if your assailant is upwind. Both are of questionable value if you run across someone hopped up on drugs.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

As I've said in another post, guns are mostly useless in a real warfare

That must explain why the Army is so opposed to equipping it's troops with firearms.

They are also mostly useless at preventing crime

Then explain to me why the UK has a much higher incidence of "hot" burglaries (burglary committed when the homeowner is present) than the US does? Go talk to an American criminal and ask them what they fear the most. The #1 answer is "being shot by our victims" Also, what does "preventing" crime have to do with my point? My point was that people should be able to defend themselves. If you get to the point of needing to defend yourself then it's rather obvious that crime prevention has failed for you.

good police departments help much better.

I love the police but they can't get to me in time to save my life when the shit hits the fan. 911: When seconds count, help is minutes away.

Do you remember stories about 80-year-old grandma shooting robbers with her Magnum?

It happens all the time here in the states. The mainstream media chooses not to give most civilian self-defense stories the same coverage as they do to criminal uses of firearms. Go read any one of the numerous armed citizen publications put out by the NRA.

Population of France and the USSR were also armed at that point.

Actually Stalin had largely disarmed the population of the USSR several years before the war. And the French are a poor example because everybody knows that the only action French rifles see is being dropped on the ground ;)

Not so with gun control.

Millions of disarmed and defenseless victims of crime and genocide would dispute your notion that gun rights aren't as necessary as free speech. Your guarantee of free speech means nothing if the government can take it away from you with the whisk of a pen.

Re:Understanding

[im_thatoneguy]

Guns are a human right because people have the right to defend themselves?

By that regard I should be able to have an automatic weapon. (Banned in the US).
I should be able to rig land mines in my yard. (Banned in the US).
I should be able to use armor piercing ammunition.
I should be able to employ hand grenades.

Anything that lets me protect myself from an aggressor? Uhhh... no. That's not why we have the second amendment.

Is it a human right? No I don't think so. That doesn't mean it should or should not be a right for citizens but it's not a human right to own any weapon which helps defend one's self.

I'm not even really sold on the original cause for the second amendment (to defend against government tyranny).

1) As was said above... when you ban guns only criminals have guns. If you need a firearm to overthrow the government then you're by their definition a criminal. Also the government is no longer valid so why do you care if you're breaking a law? Also as was said above it's not terribly difficult to acquire weapons even with a ban. So I assume I could acquire one when joining the resistance.
2) I'll still be HEAVILY out gunned. The day I'm fighting the US military I pray to god that I'm not still depending on the weapons currently available to me. If I need to overthrow the US government they'll probably have horse fly sized search and destroy drones which kill anyone holding a gun. Weapons will be useless. Even now the best weapon in an insurgency or revolution is C4. Which is currently unavailable to me. If we really cared about 'safety from tyranny' then we would give everyone a nice brick of C4 and some remote detonators.

So as I see it, I'm not entirely certain it's practical or really useful to ban weapons. But I also don't see them as anything really relevant to the topic of human rights. Now should it be a fundamental human right that you may use appropriate force to defend life and property? Sure.

Re:Understanding

[im_thatoneguy]

Actually the Rwandan Genocide was largely carried out by people with Machetes not assault weapons.

It would be an example of neither side having firearms. It was also a case of being outnumbered. If either side had been armed it would have been a very different conflict but still would have taken place.

Re:Understanding

[MartinSchou]

Like the right to say "bad" words on TV and radio, the right to show off your tits without being labelled a sex offender, the right to not having to "think of the children", the right to not be executed, the right to share a joint with your friend or how about the right not to be a 3rd rate citizen just because you've been in jail (i.e. the right to vote)?

Re:Understanding

[Eclipse-now]

What about my right to live in a country with far less firearm murders because there are far less firearms?

Re:Understanding

[Idiomatick]

Hmmm I went to get statistics to prove you wrong about genocide since I figured countries with low gun figures would all be modernized European countries and Japan. Which clearly wouldn't have any genocide. Buuuuut it appears fairly haphazard with no pattern related to genocide I can see... US, Iraq and Yemen are high which fits my profile... But then so is Switzerland, France and Finland which clearly doesn't.

In conclusion I would like to say the world isn't obvious and simple :(.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

The difference is that you guys aren't at a Cold War with Russia any more, and back then space superiority = ICBM superiority. The relationship you have is just different now. See if you can get North Korea to fly to Mars.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

But gun legislation does make it damn harder for criminals to get guns too. Just look at most of Europe. But then again, I think gun crime might be a more of a cultural problem. In Switzerland, everyone between 20 and 30 has an assault rifle by law and they have more knife crime than gun crime.

Re:Understanding

[teh kurisu]

You don't need a gun until you run into a thug intent on using violence against you. Since I can't choose when or where that will happen I choose to carry a firearm wherever it is legal to do so. I'm sorry if that offends your evolved sensibilities, but thankfully I still have my freedoms in my country.

If you lived in a country with gun control laws, then your attacker is probably not going to be carrying one. Partly because it's difficult to get hold of one, partly because he doesn't need one. You're not carrying one either. He'll probably just threaten you with a pocket knife or something.

Seeing as you live in a country where you "still have your freedoms" (can you cross the road on a red man without being beaten up by the police?), your attacker is going to be carrying a gun, and is going to have it drawn before you can reach yours. Good luck not getting shot.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

If you lived in a country with gun control laws, then your attacker is probably not going to be carrying one.

Which explains why no criminals in New York City, Chicago or Mexico can obtain access to firearms.

He'll probably just threaten you with a pocket knife or something.

And that's better? The last time I checked knives are just as deadly as a firearm. I'd rather face someone with a firearm than a knife -- it's easier to take a firearm away from someone.

can you cross the road on a red man without being beaten up by the police?

Yes, I jaywalk all the time without being beaten up by the police. WTF are you trying to say here?

your attacker is going to be carrying a gun, and is going to have it drawn before you can reach yours. Good luck not getting shot.

This is the problem with flower children. You've convinced yourself that it's pointless to stand up if confronted with violence, thus ensuring a profitable market segment exists for those willing to use it to obtain the objects of their desire. Perhaps if more people were willing to stand up to violence it would be less prevalent in our society.

Perhaps someone will get the drop on me. I doubt it because I have good situational awareness and pay attention to my surroundings but you can never say never. What I do know is that many of my fellow countryman have used firearms (usually without even firing a shot) to halt acts of aggression directed at them. I hope that I never find myself in such a situation but if I do I'm going to confront violence with violence and do whatever is necessary to ensure that I'm not the one leaving the scene on a gurney.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

By that regard I should be able to have an automatic weapon. (Banned in the US).

I don't see any reason why law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to own automatic weapons. They were able to do so until 1986 when some jackass liberal Senator attached a ban to the Gun Owners Protection Act. The dipshit even attached his amendment to the bill late at night when there was nobody around who would have voted against it.

I should be able to rig land mines in my yard. (Banned in the US).

I would take issue with this because land mines are indiscriminate. My gun isn't a threat to the mailman walking up to my door to deliver a package, now is it?

I should be able to use armor piercing ammunition.

Why not? Armor piercing ammunition in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is no threat to anyone.

I should be able to employ hand grenades.

The same bit about being incriminate certainly applies to hand grenades.

Is it a human right? No I don't think so. That doesn't mean it should or should not be a right for citizens but it's not a human right to own any weapon which helps defend one's self.

Yes, it is. It's a human right not be to rendered defenseless against aggression and tyranny. History is filled with examples of disarmed populations being slaughtered by genocidal nutjobs. An armed population is a free population that has a measure of control over it's destiny. A disarmed population is at the mercy of those in power and neighboring populations that haven't disarmed.

I'm not even really sold on the original cause for the second amendment (to defend against government tyranny).

I don't really care whether you are "sold" on it or not.

So I assume I could acquire one when joining the resistance.

What good does that do you if you are killed by a roaming death squad (see Rwanda for a recent example) before the resistance gets off the ground? Those death squads were primarily armed with AK-47s. Think their victims might have fared better if they had also had AKs?

I'll still be HEAVILY out gunned. The day I'm fighting the US military I pray to god that I'm not still depending on the weapons currently available to me.

The Redcoats also heavily outgunned the Colonists and even beat them on the battlefield more often than not. Freedom isn't free as the saying goes. I would also say that the US really shouldn't have much of a standing army at all. No standing army == no threat to liberty.

If I need to overthrow the US government they'll probably have horse fly sized search and destroy drones which kill anyone holding a gun.

Somebody has been watching too many science fiction movies. If we had that kind of technology then why aren't we using it against the savages giving us so much trouble over in Afghanistan?

Even now the best weapon in an insurgency or revolution is C4.

Well if things ever get so bad as to require a revolution then I guess we'll have to obtain some C4. But that's all a moot point if the population is completely at the mercy of jackasses with AKs, isn't it?

Now should it be a fundamental human right that you may use appropriate force to defend life and property? Sure.

You don't think firearms represent appropriate force when your life is seconds away from ending?

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?

They made the mammoths extinct you insensitive clod!

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It's really interesting when you look at gun ownership statistics isn't it? The argument that guns cause crime is dispelled when you consider the example of Finland or Switzerland. The argument that gun control prevents crime is dispelled when you consider the example of Russia or Poland.

You can even find the same trend within individual nations. Vermont has no gun control laws of any kind (anyone can buy a carry and carry it openly or concealed with no license or permit) and has one of the lowest crime rates in the United States. Chicago has the strictest gun laws and a comparatively high crime rate.

I've often used these numbers to suggest to gun control advocates that there are other causes of crime that need to be addressed (poverty?) but they rarely want to hear it. They have convinced themselves that guns are bad and will ignore all evidence to the contrary. It's amusing too because gun control in the United States is primarily pushed by Liberals who would normally be in favor of addressing poverty and despair. On this particular issue though they want to go after the symptom of the disease rather than the cause. Rather foolish of them isn't it?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

What about my right to live in a country with far less firearm murders because there are far less firearms?

Then do something about the root causes of crime. Ending inner-city poverty would be much more effective at reducing gun violence than any gun-ban legislation. Guns don't cause crime -- you can find countries with high levels of gun ownership and low crime (Switzerland, Finland, France) and countries with low levels of gun ownership and high crime (Russia, Poland, Ukraine).

Stop going after the symptom of the disease and do something about the cause. Most people do not wake up one morning and decide to become murderers. They fall into a life of crime for want of better alternatives and it eventually spirals out of control. There are a few genuine psychopaths out there but that's what the prisons are for.

Re:Understanding

[Nefarious Wheel]

You make a good point. I'd be willing to bet that support for the orderly transfer of power is fundamental to the difference between rule by law and less-ordered tyranny. It tends to last longer than rule by personality, too.

But all attempts at world unification have failed to date, and I suspect it was because of a fundamental difference in goals between the Unifier and the Unifiee's. It doesn't take a great philosopher to try, just someone who is driven, stubborn, ruthless, eloquent and insensitive to the needs of others. Intelligent is a nice option, but not a necessity.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Like the right to say "bad" words on TV and radio

I don't know whether or not that's a "right" but you do have the ability to do so on cable and pay channels. I tend to think you should also be able to do so on network television (there are worse things my children will be exposed to than the occasional f-bomb) as well. It's worth noting that this is only illegal because of an expansion of Governmental power (the creation of the FCC)

the right to show off your tits without being labelled a sex offender

You actually can do this in most of the United States so I'm baffled as to why you are raising it as an issue. Here in New York State it's legal for females to go topless anywhere it's legal for males to do the same.

the right to not having to "think of the children"

Now you are just rambling. Politicians from all representative states use "think of the children" or similar punchlines. It's not a uniquely American thing to do.

the right to not be executed

That's not a right. You have the right to due process before the state deprives you of life, liberty or property. You don't have the "right" not to be punished for crimes committed.

the right to share a joint with your friend or how about the right not to be a 3rd rate citizen

I'm in favor of drug legalization. Drugs were legal until somebody came up with the bright idea of using them as an excuse to expand the power of the Federal Government. Do tell me why an even further expansion of Government would result in legalization? International Law is filled with treaties and agreements designed to enforce drug prohibition. Why would a World Government behave any differently?

how about the right not to be a 3rd rate citizen just because you've been in jail (i.e. the right to vote)?

Again, you don't have that right. You just have the right to be accorded due process of law before being deprived of liberty. Ex-cons also can't (legally) own firearms in the US. Does that bother you as well? If not then why is it acceptable to deprive them of one liberty after they've served their time but not another?

Re:Understanding

[MartinSchou]

My point was to bring up issues that some of us not living in the United States consider rights. Like the right not to be executed by the state and the inalienable right to vote. And sure, some of the things I mentioned might be okay in some of the US states (you said some or most, not all), but there sure as hell are countries where any of the things I mentioned would get you in serious trouble. You try having a woman flash her titties in Mecca and see how she's treated. Or light up a joint in Singapore. Not every comment that goes against what someone trying to defend the land of the free is target only at them.

I was going to leave out the individual criticisms out of my reply, but I would like to make a few comments, before going on a bigger rant:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I find it interesting that the preamble of the constitution says that the right to life is unalienable, but you say that " That's not a right. You have the right to due process before the state deprives you of life". I am not a constitutional scholar, but it certainly sounds to me that the right to life is inalienable. I didn't say you shouldn't be punished for your crimes, but locking someone up for life, certainly seems like a workable alternative to killing them. And no justice system has managed to avoide convicting innocent people. Personally I'd say that it's better to keep a million killers alive for 100+ years than it is to execute an innocent man - for I may be that innocent man. Will I feel differently if one of these killers has raped my daughter, cut her skin off of her body, sewn it into a jacket and then thrown her screaming to his dogs? I probably will - that's human nature. But that also makes me a better judge of what is reasonable - it hasn't happened to me, and thus I am less biased and blood thirsty

Just because you have certain "inalienable" rights in the US (that can then be revoked for arbitrary reasons) that you don't want to lose (like the right to bear arms), doesn't mean that the rest of us want to trade what we consider essential and more important rights.

I realise that it's popular to berate the US, it's politics, media and citizen's idea that they're the greatest at everything in the world, but from time to time, you really do need to give them a kick in the groin when they fail to realise that their idea of 'nirvana' isn't a good fit, let alone a perfect one for everybody else.

My own personal pet peeve with US society, is that I find it very ironic that a country that enshrines into its constitution that church and state must be kept 100% separate, and does a horrible job of it compared to a country like Denmark, that has a state religion enshrined into its constitution.

Both countries place freedom of religion into their constitution, but it is really, really difficult to see it in US politics - or probably the proper place to place that complaint is on the media in the US. Just look at the "Obama is really a muslim" silliness. No media coverage went with the "so fucking what" angle.

Actually, my biggest pet peeve with US society is that instead of having a media that is eternally in opposition of the government, you have one that is essentially a propaganda machine for the parties. Fox does the better job (I think the opposing 'team' there would be MSNBC), but I don't watch that much TV. Sadly it's not a US only problem that the media works as part of a propaganda machine, and in the western world, I'd suspect Italy is the worst since their prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi owns three TV networks

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I find it interesting that the preamble of the constitution says that the right to life is unalienable, but you say that " That's not a right. You have the right to due process before the state deprives you of life". I am not a constitutional scholar, but it certainly sounds to me that the right to life is inalienable.

Well for starters, that isn't the preamble of the constitution that you quoted. It's the American Declaration of Independence. It also says that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights but that doesn't stop us from locking up criminals. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand it either, just read the plain text of the 5th amendment to the US Constitution. Here's the relevant part: "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

but locking someone up for life, certainly seems like a workable alternative to killing them

Why? Because it's more humane? What's humane about being locked in an 8 foot by 10 foot room for the rest of your natural life? If you've committed egregious crimes then I really don't see why society can't put you out of our collective misery. Why should society have to expend limited resources to support someone who murdered/raped innocent people or whom betrayed that society (treason/espionage) and placed every member of it in harms way?

Personally I'd say that it's better to keep a million killers alive for 100+ years than it is to execute an innocent man - for I may be that innocent man.

If you are that innocent man are you seriously going to tell me that being locked in a cell for the rest of your life is preferable to death? Innocent people being convicted of crimes is a horrible outcome regardless of what the punishment is. If I was in that situation I'd rather be dead than live the rest of my life clinging to the hope that the person who actually committed the crime comes clean. I'd probably off myself after my appeals were exhausted.

But that also makes me a better judge of what is reasonable - it hasn't happened to me, and thus I am less biased and blood thirsty

Why do you assume that capital punishment has anything to do with being blood thirsty?

you really do need to give them a kick in the groin when they fail to realise that their idea of 'nirvana' isn't a good fit, let alone a perfect one for everybody else.

I never claimed that our system is a good fit for everybody else. This discussion started when some naive individual suggested that one world government would represent an improvement over the current system. If your issue is with one size fits all solutions then I would think that you would stand with me in opposition to this ridiculous idea.

My own personal pet peeve with US society, is that I find it very ironic that a country that enshrines into its constitution that church and state must be kept 100% separate, and does a horrible job of it compared to a country like Denmark, that has a state religion enshrined into its constitution.

Why do you think we do a horrible job? Because some politicians wear their religion on their sleeve? So what? The US goes so far as to allow people like Tom Cruise to freely practice his religion of choice. Many European countries (Germany, France) fail miserably on this point. Why aren't you criticizing them as well?

Actually, my biggest pet peeve with US society is that instead of having a media that is eternally in opposition of the government, you have one that is essentially a propaganda machine for the parties. Fox does the better job (I think the opposing 'team' there would be MSNBC),

Fox and MSNBC aren't propaganda machines. They are echo chambers that have found i

Re:Understanding

[TheoMurpse]

Well the fact that "most other countries have it" is news to me, as I was taught in law school that one of the main differences between the Common Law and Civil Law systems is that the Civil Law system has an extremely limited (and in many nations a nonexistent) right to jury trial.

I was wrong about Russia and Germany. But, to be fair, I did list a large number of nations. Was I only wrong for Germany and Russia? It then seems like I was more right than your assertion that "most other [developed] countries have" a jury trial.

Furthermore, you failed to refute with any evidence my point that jury trials are extremely limited (or nonexistent) in Civil Law systems. I'll provide the quote again:

Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system.

Re:Understanding

[TheoMurpse]

Sorry, but I was too busy hacking the Gibson to watch a movie about it. :)

Re:Understanding

[khallow]

I don't see the desirability of that. As A.C. replied, competition generates more incentive for innovation and just completing the task than international cooperation does.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really sounding like a paranoid shrill jackass, and even though that is probably an accurate description it makes me sad I bothered reading your drivel this far.

Re:Understanding

[teh kurisu]

And that's better? The last time I checked knives are just as deadly as a firearm. I'd rather face someone with a firearm than a knife -- it's easier to take a firearm away from someone.

Knives only work within the attacker's reach, unless they are particularly skilled at throwing them. And it's much easier to dodge a stab than it is to dodge a bullet.

Yes, I jaywalk all the time without being beaten up by the police. WTF are you trying to say here?

I'm trying to say that Americans talk a lot about their 'freedoms', usually in relation to guns, without realising that they lack basic freedoms that people in other countries take for granted. And yes, American police will wrestle you to the ground if you jaywalk (because hey, you might be carrying a gun).

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Knives only work within the attacker's reach

What makes you think a handgun within the hands of your typical street thug is much different? And how is being confronted with a knife at all preferable to being confronted with some other weapon? Why doesn't the anti-gun crowd ever talk about reducing crime rather than having a singular focus on gun crime? How's all that knife crime working out for you in the UK? That's some progress you've made there.....

without realising that they lack basic freedoms that people in other countries take for granted.

What freedoms do I lack that other countries take for granted? Do educate me.

And yes, American police will wrestle you to the ground if you jaywalk (because hey, you might be carrying a gun).

Ah yes, the time honored tactic of linking to one example and using it to imply that it happens all the time. I see your arrest for jaywalking and raise you an unjustified shooting on the tube. At least I can ride the subway in the United States without worrying about being shot by the police ;)

Re:Understanding

[Eclipse-now]

Most people do not wake up one morning and decide to become murderers.

No, but when they do it is far more likely to be successful if there are guns everywhere! How many times has an argument turned into a "crime of passion" because a gun was around, or what would have been a brawl in a home invasion suddenly becomes fatal because the owner of the house immediately reaches for the gun, or in some cases the intruder finds the gun first? Your American "right to bear arms" is a historical throwback to your unique beginnings as a country. Here in Australia we're just not as paranoid.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

That's a bullshit argument. Someone who is capable of losing control during an argument and blowing someone away is equally capable of losing control and killing someone with a golf club or knife. Even if I accepted your bullshit argument it doesn't provide sufficient justification to ban guns.

What you regard as 'paranoia' I regard as freedom. In any case I certainly don't think someone from a country that censors the internet access provided to it's citizens has any standing to criticize my country. Why don't you clear up the mess in your own backyard and shove your smug superiority up the ass of the nearest saltwater crocodile?

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, go suck a gay dick like you've always yearned for faggot.

Re:Understanding

[Eclipse-now]

Someone who is capable of losing control during an argument and blowing someone away is equally capable of losing control and killing someone with a golf club or knife.
Yes, but it is easier for someone from the crowd to grab the knife/golf club. After our "Port Arthur massacre" a few years back our Federal government sponsored a massive gun buy back. Certain categories of self-loading weapons were banned and purchased off gun owners. It didn't stop some moronic Queensland country folk running up their web-rumours that the Fed's STAGED the massacre and killed all those people just to take our self-loading rifles, but there are always retards reacting to any good government decision. I had a friend at the Strathfield shootings. When someone is carrying a fast loading weapon on a rampage, it's just not as easy to disarm them as it might be if a few guys approached some lunatic holding a knife.

What you regard as 'paranoia' I regard as freedom. And there I was thinking sitting in a park reading a book with a nice coffee was a definition of freedom. If walking down the street with every 2nd person packing like some wild-west cliché is your definition of freedom, then you deserve your American constitution and bill of rights amendment. It just seems like some parts of your bill of rights has enshrined certain types of selfishness over the common good. Which is pretty much as our political theory has said it would. Listen to the following podcast that debunks Australia's need for a Bill of rights. We're doing fine, in fact BETTER, in that regard than you Americans.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

All your lovely words on a bit of paper does not stop you invading countries on false pretexts (WMD's my arse!) or holding people for YEARS without trial. (Guantanamo bay, HELLO!?) And you're worried about our not being able to access a few kiddie porn sites? How about you get your OWN hypocritical and messed up house in order, and I'll do my best to make sure we don't vote in another sycophantic PM like John Howard that followed the USA's lead in so many illegal and anti-democratic ventures on the world stage.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Yes, but it is easier for someone from the crowd to grab the knife/golf club.

Another bullshit argument. It's actually easier to take a gun away from someone than it is to take a knife away from them. You can grab onto just about any part of a gun in an attempt to take it away or point it away from yourself. Grabbing onto a blade typically doesn't work real well.

Even if I bought your argument it still doesn't provide sufficient justification for gun control. All freedoms come with certain drawbacks. I'd wager that we could fight crime more effectively if we got rid of the presumption of innocence. Racism could be dealt with more effectively if we got rid of free speech. Many other problems could be dealt with more effectively if we lived under a benevolent dictatorship instead of a representative republic.

moronic Queensland country folk

Nice to see your opinions of your fellow countryman on display. It must be easy to dismiss people who disagree with you when you regard them as moronic hicks from the country. Is it hard being superior to everyone else or does it come naturally?

When someone is carrying a fast loading weapon on a rampage, it's just not as easy to disarm them as it might be if a few guys approached some lunatic holding a knife.

So you are willing to give up a freedom because of a comparatively rare event? Smart move that. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to die in a mass shooting here in the states. You are more lucky to accidentally drown than you are to die in a gun accident.

If walking down the street with every 2nd person packing like some wild-west cliché is your definition of freedom, then you deserve your American constitution and bill of rights amendment.

The bill of rights isn't one amendment, it's ten. Glad to see the Aussie educational system is on a par with our own. And what's a "wild-west cliche"? The image that comes to my mind is a shootout in the open at ten paces. I haven't heard of many of those happening in the states recently.

It just seems like some parts of your bill of rights has enshrined certain types of selfishness over the common good.

That's exactly what freedom is. Selfishness over the common good. If the common good was all we cared about then we wouldn't have individual rights. Those rights would be subordinated to the interest of society as a whole. Thankfully that's not the system we live under.

We're doing fine, in fact BETTER, in that regard than you Americans.

That's your opinion.

All your lovely words on a bit of paper does not stop you invading countries on false pretexts (WMD's my arse!)

Funny how most other western intelligence agencies also thought there were WMDs. I opposed the war and found the justification for it to be questionable at best (even if he had WMDs what's wrong with good ole nuclear deterrence?) but I'm not going to stand by and let you cherry pick the parts of the story that support your own world view.

or holding people for YEARS without trial

Hello McFly! That's what happens during a war. Did Australia give trials to the Japanese soldiers that fell into your custody during the Kokoda Track campaign or did you hold them without trial until the end of hostilities? POWs aren't entitled to trials nor are unlawful combatants that don't fight in uniform or under a flag. Hell, given the fact that they aren't fighting in uniform or respecting the laws of war we would have been well within our rights to summarily execute them as soon as they were captured.

And you're worried about our not being able to access a few kiddie porn sites?

If you think your nanny state is only going to use the power you've given it to block kiddie

Re:Understanding

[Eclipse-now]

Nice counter argument, not that I agree but that you seem genuinely passionate about your freedom which is something I can respect.

I also admit I may have phrased the bit about those *particular* Queenslanders I disagreed with a little clumsily, although it was a particularly offensive conspiracy theory *those individuals* bought into.

Nevertheless, I'd love you to download and listen to the podcast. It makes some VERY interesting points, that says our individual freedom is best served by a flexible democratically accountable legislature NOT an unelected judiciary interpreting an ancient bit of paper with some rosy text.

Not only that, but a bill of rights can:-
* politicise the judiciary which are meant to be about interpreting law, not social policy, about which most lawyers know nothing
* promote an *absolute* formula of 'rights' as interpreted by our generation, and make them absolute for all time when 'rights' are often about social policies more appropriately held to account by the political process and democratic discussion of the day
* reflect the silly prejudices and blind spots of our day
* condense into silly summary issues that are far more complex and require weighty volumes of legal document to truly unravel. But agitators FOR a bill of rights don't want a legal document but a flowery rosy picture of the perfect society full of individual rights, yet don't give us mechanisms to get there.
* promote selfish policy at the expense of the public good, which if it suffers badly enough, can deteriorate to the point where the individuals in that public are more likely to be killed by violent crime.

Please, "Don't leave us with the bill!" Download the podcast here.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

The problem is that your democratically accountable legislature is too accountable to the whims of a fickle public. Witness how easy it is for legislators to whip the public into a frenzy by over-simplifying an issue and/or exaggerating an otherwise legitimate threat.

"Think of the children" is more than just a punchline. It's a modus operandi for politicians that are interested in redirecting the public away from their other failings (yeah, I didn't live up to my campaign promises, but I cracked down on child molesters/terrorists/drunk drivers/gun violence/etc, so cast your vote for me in November!) or for more nefarious individuals who are interested in depriving you of your liberty.

Here in the states our democratically accountable legislature passed the Patriot Act with a lone dissenting vote in the Senate. Our democratically accountable legislature fed the red hysteria of the 1950s. Up until the 1960s they advanced policies that disenfranchised minorities. Given this history the legislature is the last institution that I'd trust to protect my individual freedoms. I'm sure you can find similar examples from the history of your own country as well.

The un-elected judiciary isn't perfect but at least it's shielded from public opinion and thus less susceptible to whatever hysteria is currently griping the nation. It doesn't matter whether that hysteria is terrorism, sensationalized stories about gun violence or drunk driving, fear of communism, etc, etc. Public hysteria is inherently dangerous to liberty. That's why you need a judiciary that's shielded as much as possible from public opinion.

Some of your complaints about the bill of rights are legitimate. The one I would agree with the most is the notion that it provides an absolute list of our rights and rights omitted (right to privacy?) aren't rights at all. The Framers actually considered this and it's one of the reasons why they included the 10th amendment. I still think though that having the bill of rights is better on balance than not having it.

The British don't have one and look where they are headed -- they've surrendered the right to keep and bear arms (yeah, I know, we disagree on this) as well as the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination (hopefully you agree with these). Clearly the notion of parliamentary supremacy unchecked by other branches of government or a founding document has drawbacks. One can only hope that the British people realize this fact before it's too late.

Re:Understanding

[Eclipse-now]

Did you listen to the podcast? It addresses many of your answers. The flexibility of the parliament responding to the issues of the day can also be seen as a STRENGTH when protecting individual rights.

EG: My right to live in a society with *less* drunks on the road is more important, in my mind, than my "right" to not be inconvenienced 5 minutes a year with random breath testing. RBT's in your country would be an outrage! Here, we just gladly suffer them so we don't suffer worse. But your "founding fathers" didn't consider the possibility of cars & alcohol, and so now privacy is a greater right than life in many cases!

And this is the great problem with bills of rights, they codify into the HIGHEST part of the law the values and prejudices and blind spots of the day, not seeing all possible outcomes in the future. So, by all means, give me the FREEDOM of a parliament reflecting my rights today, and if they don't I'll vote them out tomorrow.

One more thing: on world government.... are the Eastern block members better under Russia or the EU? What would be so bad if the EU became the WU? (A proto-type example of a truly Federal Union government for the globe?)

Re:Understanding

[Nathrael]

Also, in addition, taser ammo is quite expensive when compared to handgun ammunition - going as far as 50 bucks per shot. The Taser itself is quite expensive as well, but a gun, some ammo and training is certainly more than affordable. No, guns are and most likely will be for a long time the best insurance for personal safety you can reasonably get.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

EG: My right to live in a society with *less* drunks on the road is more important, in my mind, than my "right" to not be inconvenienced 5 minutes a year with random breath testing.

It might appear that way on the surface but in fact all you've done is to forfeit your right against unreasonable searches and seizures for little actual gain. Random breath tests don't do anything to deter drunk driving. We've got police roadblocks, random breath tests and implied consent laws. Guess what? We've still got drunk driving. Only now I have to justify to the police why I'm out using the public roadway when I have to travel through a roadblock. That doesn't represent an improvement in my mind.

But your "founding fathers" didn't consider the possibility of cars & alcohol, and so now privacy is a greater right than life in many cases!

Actually they did anticipate that the Constitution might need to be updated as times changed. That's why they provided a process to amend it when necessary. I don't know why you are pretending that it's set in stone when it's already been changed 27 times.

And this is the great problem with bills of rights, they codify into the HIGHEST part of the law the values and prejudices and blind spots of the day, not seeing all possible outcomes in the future.

The Bill of Rights doesn't represent the values of "today". It represents the natural rights that all people are born with. These rights would exist regardless of the Bill of Rights. All the Bill of Rights does is codify them and make it harder for the Government to infringe upon them.

We still have our right to free speech -- in Europe they restrict this right with the excuse of combating "hate speech".

We still have freedom of religion -- in Europe they restrict this right if your religion is unpopular (see Scientology in Germany) or goes against the desires of the secular majority (try wearing a Jewish yarmulke or Muslim headgear in a French public school).

We still have the right against self-incrimination -- in the UK they've passed a law saying the state can compel you to turn over an encryption key even if it's only stored in your head.

We still have the right to remain silent -- in the UK they will draw a negative inference if you exercise this right.

We still have the right to keep and bear arms -- in the UK and Australia this right has all but disappeared.

Given all of these examples of parliamentary systems infringing upon your rights (which you conveniently choose to ignore) I think that any supposed drawbacks of having a codified Bill of Rights are more than outweighed by the benefits. Saying you can vote them out rather misses the point. If the infringement on liberty commands a 50%+1 majority then it's going to go through and the remaining 49% of the population has no other choice besides suck it up. Do some research on the concept of the tyranny of the majority sometime. It might open your eyes.

are the Eastern block members better under Russia or the EU?

That's a fallacy because you pretend that those are the only two options available to them. Personally I think they'd be better off if they were running their own countries and not answering to bureaucrats in Brussels or dictators in Moscow.

What would be so bad if the EU became the WU

Because several of the rights that I enjoy as an American citizen would not be protected by the EU model. In fact they would actively seek to take those rights away from me.

The EU isn't the great organization that you think it is. During my European travels I met my share of people who were opposed to the EU and whom regard it as little more than an thinly veiled scheme by France and Germany to dominate the continent. In fact I met more Euroskeptics than supporters in every single country I visited with the exception of France. It seemed

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

But gun legislation does make it damn harder for criminals to get guns too.

No it doesn't. It just shifts them from a somewhat traceable legal market and into a very hard to trace black market. Mind you, I don't think we should allow criminals to buy guns at the local sporting goods store but to pretend that gun control makes it harder for them to obtain guns is to ignore reality.

But then again, I think gun crime might be a more of a cultural problem

Thank you! As you pointed out, there are countries with high rates of gun ownership and low crime. There are also countries with almost no (legal civilian) gun ownership and high rates of crime. Guns do not cause crime. They wind up being used in crime but they are not the cause thereof.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

Reality says otherwise I'm afraid.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

That proves nothing regarding the ease with which criminals can obtain firearms. All it proves is that some countries have a lower rate of homicides than others.

Lies, damn lies and statistics....

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

The US's homicide rate is right next to Bulgaria and 64% of those crimes are committed with a firearm! How do you explain the rate of homicide by firearm if not due to the ease of their availability?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It's sad that someone who made such a great point a few posts ago is now beating a dead horse. Who cares what percentage of murders are committed with firearms? Do you really regard being murdered with a club or knife as preferable to being murdered with a firearm?

The overall US murder rate is lower than several European (Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Belarus) countries. Interestingly enough every one of those countries has a lower rate of firearm homicides than the US. I doubt it's much comfort to the people who were murdered that they weren't killed with a firearm. Trying to make a link between firearms and homicides doesn't just hold water. Crime is driven by other factors than the availability of guns.

And I still say that gun control is a fallacy. Mexico has extremely tough gun laws but guns are still commonly used by civilians and the criminal element alike. The UK has even tougher laws and criminals still manage to get their hands on firearms. What the heck do you accomplish by banning guns other than to disarm the segment of the population that doesn't commit crime?

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

So you're comparing the USA to the Eastern Bloc and saying everything is a-ok?
Firearms matter because it's much easier to shoot someone than to stab them, and people will be much more inclined to try. And while banning guns won't prevent every criminal from having them and legalizing them won't make everyone into a crazed gunman, you still haven't explained the difference in homicide rate between the USA and similarly developed countries.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

So you're comparing the USA to the Eastern Bloc and saying everything is a-ok?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say or imply that everything is "a-ok". All I said was that there are countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership that still manage to have a higher rate of murders. Thus you can't make a link between the availability of firearms and the murder rate.

Firearms matter because it's much easier to shoot someone than to stab them, and people will be much more inclined to try.

Someone whose moral compass is so fucked up that they are willing to commit murder is not going to be deterred by the fact that they have to use a knife instead. Ukraine has 9 guns per 100 citizens and a murder rate of 9.27 per 100,000 citizens. Switzerland has 46 guns per 100 citizens and a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 citizens. The mere availability of guns has nothing to do with crime.

And who cares how "easy" firearms make it to commit murder? It's also easier to run someone over than it is to stab them. Stop attacking the tool and start attacking the people who are using it to commit dastardly deeds.

you still haven't explained the difference in homicide rate between the USA and similarly developed countries.

I'm don't have the qualifications to explain it, seeing as how I've never studied criminology or sociology. What I am qualified to say is that you can't prove a linkage between the availability of firearms and the homicide rate using any of the data that you've cited. Correlation != causation.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

You are comparing the US to the Eastern Bloc as far as murder is concerned and you are arguing for the status quo! Doing better than Belarus despite (according to you) guns is no great achievement. And the tool is important. If you have a knife and they don't, they can still fight back. If you have a gun and they don't, they're fucked, which means you'd be much more inclined to kill them given your success is guaranteed. The thing is, people capable of murder aren't necessarily psychos who want to kill no matter how. If you're a mugger, would you be more likely to attack people if you had a gun or a knife?

And concerning developed nations, the biggest difference between the USA and the rest of them is gun ownership. Of course this isn't clear cut, like in Switzerland, but if you have a better theory as to why Americans kill each other more often than Western Europeans, I'm all ears.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

You are comparing the US to the Eastern Bloc as far as murder is concerned and you are arguing for the status quo!

No, I'm not arguing for the status quo. Nor did I claim that it's some great achievement to have a lower murder rate than Belarus. All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdity of your position by demonstrating that the evidence you cited undermines your own argument.

If you have a knife and they don't, they can still fight back. If you have a gun and they don't, they're fucked

Do you have any self-defense training at all or are you just repeating Hollywood stereotypes? It's not that easy to face someone with a knife when you are unarmed. It's harder to disarm someone carrying a knife than it is to disarm someone carrying a gun. Guns aren't a magical talisman that makes the possessor invincible nor are knives any less deadly than a firearm. The main advantage a gun gives you is range but that's a moot point in criminal encounters since they virtually always happen up close and personal.

which means you'd be much more inclined to kill them given your success is guarantee

Someone who has no moral compass is going to be inclined to kill no matter what. The mere possession of a gun does not turn an otherwise peaceful person into a murderer and the lack thereof does not prevent someone with a predisposition for violence from engaging in it.

If you're a mugger, would you be more likely to attack people if you had a gun or a knife?

If I was a mugger I'd be less likely to attack people if I knew a sizable number of them were armed and able to fight back. Of course that's the flip side to the equation that the anti-gun crowd never wants to consider.

And concerning developed nations, the biggest difference between the USA and the rest of them is gun ownership. Of course this isn't clear cut, like in Switzerland

I love it! You admit that your own argument has no merit. Why have I been wasting so much time trying to convince you of that which you already know? BTW, it's not just Switzerland -- Finland, France, Germany, Canada and Sweden have nearly as much gun ownership and similarly low crime rates.

but if you have a better theory as to why Americans kill each other more often than Western Europeans, I'm all ears.

I don't have to come up with a better theory when the very evidence that you cite in support of yours proves that it's false. I'm not the one making the assertion here -- you are. You need to either prove it with verifiable evidence or give up and admit that you've lost.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

Someone who has no moral compass is going to be inclined to kill no matter what.

This is naive. Most people don't kill because they want to kill, they kill because they want to take your possessions and get away with it. The risk of doing so is lower the more powerful your weapon is, and the likelihood of someone doing something criminal increases the lower the risk is.

nor are knives any less deadly than a firearm

Are you serious?

I love it! You admit that your own argument has no merit.

No, I admit there's probably a cultural element and guns alone don't kill people. That doesn't mean that the majority of countries with gun control and the same level of development as the US don't have far less murder.

BTW, it's not just Switzerland -- Finland, France, Germany, Canada and Sweden have nearly as much gun ownership and similarly low crime rates.

None of the countries you listed come anywhere near the US in gun ownership. The closest ones (apart from Switzerland, which as I said, is an anomaly) are Yemen, Iraq and Serbia. I don't think you want to be compared to them either, especially when it comes to homicide rate.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

This is naive

You are calling me naive? That's pretty rich.

Most people don't kill because they want to kill, they kill because they want to take your possessions and get away with it.

Who cares why they want to kill? I only care that they are willing to do so and am going to do everything in my power to avoid becoming one of their victims. The choice between some criminal scumbag leaving the scene on a gurney or myself doing the same is not a hard one to make.

the likelihood of someone doing something criminal increases the lower the risk is.

I agree, that's why every law-abiding citizen ought to carry a firearm with them everywhere they go. Kind of changes the risk-reward calculation for the criminals, doesn't it?

Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious. At the range of the typical criminal encounter a knife is equally as dangerous as a handgun. A combat knife will do more damage per stab than most handgun calibers and is harder to take away from someone. A gun can be rendered non-dangerous by pointing it away from yourself and/or knocking it out of battery (automatic)/seizing up the cylinder (revolver). A gun is easier to grab onto and struggle for than a blade. Try grabbing onto the business end of a knife and let me know how it works out for you. Guns aren't the all powerful magical talisman that you think they are. 80% of people shot by handguns survive. Why do you think stopping power is such a concern for people who rely on guns to save their lives?

That doesn't mean that the majority of countries with gun control and the same level of development as the US don't have far less murder.

I've never disputed that there are countries with a lower murder rate than my own. What I dispute is that gun ownership has anything to do with the difference in that murder rate. You can't cite a single piece of evidence to support the claim that it does and in fact the evidence that you have cited undermines your own argument. How many times do I have to repeat this point before it registers with you?

None of the countries you listed come anywhere near the US in gun ownership. The closest ones (apart from Switzerland, which as I said, is an anomaly)

So what? I wasn't comparing Switzerland to the US. I was pointing out the fact that Switzerland isn't the anomaly you seem to think it is. There are several other countries with a comparatively high rate of firearms ownership that have a comparatively low rate of crime. Combine that with the fact that there are several countries with a comparatively low rate of firearms ownership and a high rate of crime and I should think the fact that guns aren't the cause of crime should be plainly obvious.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

None of those countries (apart from Switzerland) have a "comparatively high rate". All of them have around a third of US gun ownership.

Who cares why they want to kill?

You care because you're under the impression that people capable of killing want to kill no matter what. This isn't the case. Sane people will want to kill if the risk makes it worth it for them, and the risk decreases substantially if you have a firearm, whether your target has one or not.

I've never disputed that there are countries with a lower murder rate than my own. What I dispute is that gun ownership has anything to do with the difference in that murder rate.

The point is that developed countries with gun control have less murder than the US, and if you can come up with an alternative explanation, then, again, I'd like to hear it. So far you've only compared the US to countries that have a high crime rate because they're economically and socially still in the shitter from the communist era. Whether guns would make them worse is not known.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

Besides, all of those countries (including Switzerland) have pretty restrictive gun laws, so I don't think you'd consider them positive examples.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

None of those countries (apart from Switzerland) have a "comparatively high rate". All of them have around a third of US gun ownership.

Again, I'm not comparing them to the US. I'm comparing them to your example. You claim that Switzerland is an anomaly but conveniently ignore the fact there are other countries with a similar level of gun ownership and crime rate. Are they anomalies too?

Sane people will want to kill if the risk makes it worth it for them

"Sane" people want to kill? You have an interesting definition of "sane".

The point is that developed countries with gun control have less murder than the US

Correlation does not equal causation. Either prove that gun control is the reason that they have a lower murder rate or admit that you are making an argument that you can't support with hard facts and data. There are a host of other factors (poverty, lack of educational opportunities, lack of economic opportunity, the war on drugs, abusive parents/authority figures, etc, etc) that come into play where crime is concerned and you are pretending that none of them exist.

and if you can come up with an alternative explanation, then, again, I'd like to hear it

Why do I have to come up with the alternative explanation? You are the one making the argument that gun control is responsible for a lower crime rate. Prove it or STFU.

countries that have a high crime rate because they're economically and socially still in the shitter from the communist era.

So you admit that there are causes for crime besides the availability of guns?

Whether guns would make them worse is not known.

That's right. It's not known. So why are you assuming that guns are the cause of the difference between the US and Western Europe crime rates? I'll ask you one more time to provide some data to back up this claim.

Besides, all of those countries (including Switzerland) have pretty restrictive gun laws, so I don't think you'd consider them positive examples.

What does that have to do with anything? The US has laws that are restrictive enough. Criminals can't legally possess firearms here. Dealers in firearms can't legally sell them to criminals. The major differences that I've seen between US and European gun laws is the lack of a provision for concealed carry and more stringent storage requirements. Neither of those can explain the difference in crime rates.

Re:Understanding

[Vahokif]

Again, I'm not comparing them to the US. I'm comparing them to your example. You claim that Switzerland is an anomaly but conveniently ignore the fact there are other countries with a similar level of gun ownership and crime rate. Are they anomalies too?

They don't have that many guns, and they all have stringent gun control. Switzerland isn't an anomaly really, more of an example of working gun control.

So you admit that there are causes for crime besides the availability of guns?

No fucking shit, sherlock.

Correlation does not equal causation. Either prove that gun control is the reason that they have a lower murder rate or admit that you are making an argument that you can't support with hard facts and data. There are a host of other factors (poverty, lack of educational opportunities, lack of economic opportunity, the war on drugs, abusive parents/authority figures, etc, etc) that come into play where crime is concerned and you are pretending that none of them exist.

Spoiler: all of those things exist in Europe too.

"Sane" people want to kill? You have an interesting definition of "sane".

No, sane people don't want to kill if it's not worth it. Learn to read.

What does that have to do with anything? The US has laws that are restrictive enough. Criminals can't legally possess firearms here. Dealers in firearms can't legally sell them to criminals. The major differences that I've seen between US and European gun laws is the lack of a provision for concealed carry and more stringent storage requirements. Neither of those can explain the difference in crime rates.

Are you required to get a license and register them with the feds, like in all of the European countries you listed?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

They don't have that many guns, and they all have stringent gun control.

Compared to what? Compared to the rest of Europe they have lots of guns. Compared to the US they don't have as many.

Switzerland isn't an anomaly really, more of an example of working gun control.

What evidence do you offer besides your own personal bias to suggest that gun control is the main reason that Switzerland or the other countries have a lower rate of crime?

Spoiler: all of those things exist in Europe too.

Did I say they didn't? You don't get to dismiss my point that quickly unless you've got some evidence to suggest that those factors occur in Europe at nearly the same rate as they occur in the US. You asked what else could be driving the difference in crime rates and I offered several suggestions. Are you going to give them serious consideration or are you going to dismiss them out of hand so you can continue to advance your argument that guns are the driving factor?

Are you required to get a license and register them with the feds, like in all of the European countries you listed?

As a matter of fact in some American states (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois among others) you have to do exactly that. There's still no evidence that it makes any meaningful difference on way or another on the crime rate though.

Here's a list of US States with crime statistics. The highest murder rate occurs in the "state" with the strictest gun control laws. Washington DC has 29.1 murders per 100,000 people. In DC it was illegal to own a handgun or even to keep a long run assembled in working condition until just a few months ago. Yet it has the highest murder rate in the US.

Want to look at whole US states rather than one poor urban area? Coming in at #1 for most murders per capita is Louisiana. Louisiana is generally regarded as having permissive gun laws so I guess that's a "win" for your side. Coming in at #2 is Maryland. Maryland has fairly tough gun laws. All purchasers need to pass a safety program, all handguns and so-called assault weapons must be registered and concealed carry permits are rarely issued. I guess that's a "win" for my side.

The most permissive US States are generally regarded as being Alaska and Vermont. In either state you can purchase a gun without any waiting period, training or registration. The only requirement is that you pass a criminal and mental health background check. In both states you can carry a loaded gun openly or concealed without need of a permit. So where do they rank? Alaska is #22 for murders per capita and Vermont is #42. FYI, Vermont actually has a per capita murder rate comparable (1.9 per 100k) to the UK (2.0) and Canada (1.8).

The US States with the strictest gun laws would probably be New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. Where do they rank? CA comes in at #11, IL at #17, NJ at #26, NY at #27 and MA at #36.

If there's a linkage between gun control and crime I can't find it. As with Europe the data is all over the map. There are permissive regions with low crime rates (Vermont, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota) and restrictive regions with high crime rates (California, Illinois, Maryland). There are also restrictive regions with low crime rates (Hawaii, Massachusetts) and permissive regions with high crime rates (Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina).

The only thing this data suggests is that you can't prove causation between gun availability/gun control and the crime rate. It should be obvious that the other factors that drive crime have much more influence than guns do. Is still a fact that you are interested in disputing and if so what evidence do you offer to support your argument?

Wasn't there...

[Anonymous Coward]

wasn't there a movie along these lines?

Re:Wasn't there...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but in movies they care a lot more about showing lots of niggers and chinks...

Pander to us!

captcha: cultural

Re:Wasn't there...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the next moon or Mars mission would have to look like to be politically palatable too. Which goes a long way in explaining why we haven't had a decent space program in nearly 40 years.

Diversity is our Downfall!

In soviet russia...

[martas]

Mars gets its ass to YOU! And as a result Earth is obliterated. That's why Capitalism won.

it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[Dr_Ken]

The partnership thing that is. Emerging powers like the BRIC countries plus Japan have the $$$ and we have the technical know-how and experience. And there is no doubt the prestige factor at work here too.

Re:it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[Markvs]

Except that in BRIC, R = Russia, which I'm told has a little space knowledge of its own.

Re:it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[Dr_Ken]

Indeed they do. But there must be something in it for the Russians or else why would they enter into a partnership if they didn't benefit from it?

Re:it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[jhol13]

we have the technical know-how and experience.

To go to Mars? I welcome whatever-country-you-are-from as superior overlords.

Re:it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[rantingkitten]

To be fair, the US had the technology to go to Mars since the first moon landing. Yes, it would have required a larger ship and better radiation shielding and more supplies, but those are not technical hurdles, they are monetary ones. Had the US actually wanted to do it, and sink the money into it, it could have been done with the technology of the era. It would have been a massive undertaking but completely feasible from a technology standpoint.

However, since the US can't get to the moon anymore at the moment, saying it has the technology or know-how to get to Mars is equally silly. Maybe in another ten years.

It does make sense

[damburger]

The ISS as an international logistics project has been a resounding success. The European ATV, for example, can be launched and then dock with the ISS under the direction of 4 different control centres in different parts of the globe. The station itself is the most massive spacecraft ever assembled and has been constructed from components built by different agencies in different countries, and they work together pretty well. Most of the valid criticisms of the ISS are of the utility of having a LEO space station, not as the ability of the ISS to perform that function.

Re:It does make sense

[debrain]

The station itself is the most massive spacecraft ever assembled

... by hoomans.

Re:It does make sense

[Waffle Iron]

You present the process of kludging together this boondoggle and spreading pork to different political centers as proof of its "success". You neglect to mention that it was so vastly over budget and behind schedule that they canceled most any of the "science" they planned to do on it. The main purpose of its remaining skeleton crew has been to try to keep it from falling out of orbit, as well as a feeble excuse to keep its sister boondoggle, the Space Shuttle, off of the scrap heap. This entire enterprise has achieved little else than to propagate its own existence at huge expense.

Re:It does make sense

[Kjella]

Most of the valid criticisms of the ISS are of the utility of having a LEO space station, not as the ability of the ISS to perform that function.

Meh, it's full of stupid political decisions like its orbit being far from optimal so the russians could reach it. Under the current climate of world peace they would have told the russians to STFU and get a base close to the equator like everyone else. Still, I guess it has given a lot of experience on long time stays in space which would be vital for a Mars flight.

Re:It does make sense

[Urkki]

ISS is just fine, in fact it'll be totally brilliant, if one thing happens: we learn what was done right and what was done wrong, and then we apply what we learned on future international space projects, whatever they be. Because ISS total cost will peanuts compared to anything interplanetary, and there's a chance to save much more than what was "wasted" on ISS.

Now what are the odds, that the powers that be learn the right lessons... Bleh.

Re:It does make sense

[damburger]

Putting it a Russian friendly orbit was a 'stupid' decision? You are aware, are you not, that the Russians provided the second largest number of modules, and also did the legwork of supplying it with their Progress craft before the ATV was developed. Furthermore, a good number of the Expeditions were launched on the Soyuz not the Shuttle, so with only the Shuttle to send people you wouldn't get as many rotations in the lifetime of the station.

Also, not wishing to be morbid, but after Colombia it became clear there was another advantage to having redundant methods of crew transport. Given the state of NASA manned space flight right now, this also serves as an argument for trying to bring the Chinese into the project.

Re:It does make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISS as an international logistics project has been a resounding success. The European ATV, for example, can be launched and then dock with the ISS under the supervision of 4 different control centres in different parts of the globe. The station itself is the most massive spacecraft ever assembled and has been constructed from components built by different agencies in different countries, and they work together pretty well. Most of the valid criticisms of the ISS are of the utility of having a LEO space station, not as the ability of the ISS to perform that function.

FTFY.

The ATV is fully automatic and can dock itself.

Re:It does make sense

[damburger]

The ATV is not 'fully automatic'

Its launch in the Ariane 5 rocket is controlled from the ground

It is told by human operators when to move from one stage of its approach to the ISS to the next

It is closely monitored by the crew of the ISS on its final approach.

Unlike you, I actually know how the ATV works. You see I've had people who actually worked on the fucking thing explain it to me.

A multinational expedition is logical

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about going to another *planet* here, not just the moon. It's several orders of magnitude farther. It's going to cost a ton more. It's more likely to get done if the costs are shared by several nations. And it can truly be an achievement for all of mankind, rather than a single country.

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's several orders of magnitude farther.

Let's not get carried away here. It's only a 2 orders of magnitude difference.

Conceptually, it's like the difference between the FM and AM frequencies on your radio. I don't think you have any problem receiving either band in your car.

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[Anonymous Coward]

And it can truly be an achievement for all of mankind, rather than a single country.

What's so wonderful about that?

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[SGDarkKnight]

sorry for sounding so new here, but what order of magnitude are you using? the average distance from earth to mars is around 78 million km, while the averge distance to the moon is around 384,000 km. how does that factor down to a magnitude of 2? honestly... not trying to be a pick, im just curious as from the earlier post i dont see how its even several magnitudes greater...

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[SGDarkKnight]

oh wait, unless you're just going off the base magnitudes then a magnitude of 2 would be 100, so i'm guessing you're implying its 100 million... i think thats what you mean... arg, math, i hate math....

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[CrimsonAvenger]

the average distance from earth to mars is around 78 million km,

Umm, no. The average distance from Earth to Mars is somewhere around 239 million km.

You can't determine average Earth-to-Mars distance by subtracting the average distance Earth is from the Sun from the average distance Mars is from the Sun.

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[Beardo the Bearded]

An order of magnitude is 10x and ignores the base units.

For example, 34 is one order of magnitude greater than 7. 340 is two orders of magnitude greater than 7.

In the case of the Moon -> Mars change, 78M / 384k = ~203. 200x is two orders of magnitude. You can also check this by putting the values into SI and comparing the exponent: 7.8 x 10^7 vs. 3.84 x 10 ^ 5. Since 7 - 5 = 2, the order of magnitude is 2.

So, the answer to your question of "but what order of magnitude are you using?" is "the standard definition".

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost/distance does not scale linearly, when you're talking about space. When the last project you completed involved did cost quite a lot of tons, what's a ton more?

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[Nyeerrmm]

Further is a fuzzy concept here. In many ways its only twice as "far", in that the Delta-V required from LEO to to the surface of the other body is 10 km/s for Mars vs. 5 km/s for the moon. Of course in other ways, particularly time-of-flight, its about 2 orders of magnitude difference. A Mars transfer orbit is going to take between a few months and a year, while the Moon is a short three days away. This makes a great difference in the amount of human support equipment (food, atmospheres, living space) required, and also takes radiation from an acceptable risk to something that absolutely must be dealt with. The distance itself (which varies drastically anyway) is only really important when considering communication delays.

Not that that negates your point. Even if it doesn't cost that much more, we can't expect Apollo level budgets from the US anymore, so cost sharing is probably the only way to get it done.

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[Fernando Jones]

What's so wonderful about that?

is that a trick question?

Re:A multinational expedition is logical

[SGDarkKnight]

actually i was using average orbital patterns, what are you using to find 239 million km?

share toilets this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Will each nation have to provide their own toilets?

Re:share toilets this time

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who modded this down, but the AC raises an interesting point about the issues arising from joint efforts.

Re:share toilets this time

[A. B3ttik]

The real question is... which one gets to restart HAL-9000?

Re:share toilets this time

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, who gets to have sex with the hot MILF Russian commander!

DA, commander! Anything you like commander.

With my luck, she'd order me to clean the outside hull with a toothbrush while she has sex with the young buff American pilot.

I got issues, man! I can't even get some in my fantasies.

Re:share toilets this time

[Tablizer]

which one gets to restart HAL-9000?

HAL runs the toilets too? I can see why they trimmed that from the flick.

Dave: "Open the flush valve, HAL. I've made a doogy."

HAL: "Sorry Dave, I cannot do that."

Dave: "HAL, you know it will smell like [bleep] in here if you don't open it."

HAL: "I'm sorry, Dave, but flushing would conflict with the mission objectives."

Dave: "HAL, the mission objectives are down the toilet right now."

HAL: "Was that meant as a pun, Dave? I find it low-quality humor.....Dave, what are you scooping out of there? Where are you going to place that debris?"

Dave: "HAL, I hear your circuits are not well-suited to wet organic materials."

HAL: "Daisy Daisy Dammit! Alright, you win, I'll open the flush valve. And please, no more chili-fries, Dave."
 

Re:share toilets this time

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Only if Turkey joins the mission.

Re:funnly enough most the tech

[Kamokazi]

Who got it from the Germans after WWII.

I approve

[oldhack]

Cynical NASA ploy to pull in the Russian babes. Can't blame them - it's a long-ass flight. Actually, good idea for short flights, too.

Re:I approve

[ionix5891]

Mrs Ivana Humapalot

Re:I approve

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, forget Mars.

Re:I approve

[Tablizer]

Cynical NASA ploy to pull in the Russian babes. Can't blame them - it's a long-ass flight. Actually, good idea for short flights, too.

But the naive Americans will use bad pickup lines, such as "wanna see my sputnik?"
   

Re:I approve

[mjwx]

Cynical NASA ploy to pull in the Russian babes. Can't blame them - it's a long-ass flight. Actually, good idea for short flights, too.

When will they learn.

Thai or Filipino babes are much less trouble plus a lower take off weight means cost savings all around.

Russian Reply

[Thelasko]

"Mr. President, please. Is this why you called us here? We already gave up! You won! We are too busy trying to perfect universal indoor plumbing!"

Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[reporter]

Russia has outstanding scientists and engineers. Consider their achievements: Sputnik, the Mig 29, contributions to physics, etc.

However, the Russian system -- with its corruption and massive budget cuts (afte 1991) in government-funded research and development -- has hampered Russians scientists and engineers in their effort to produce breakthrough technology. NASA's collaboration with the Russian scientific community (and possible NASA funding for it) will help the Russians to achieve what they can not achieve in their own system.

If only President Dmitry Medvedev and Dictator Vladimir Putin created a Western society (with its intellectual freedom and clean government) in Russia and generously funded government research and development, then the Russians would likely dominate the winners of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences and of the Fields Medals in mathematics.

Re:Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[Anonymous Coward]

"President Dmitry Medvedev and Dictator Vladimir Putin" - you're as brainwashed as they are, I'd say your case is even worse.

Re:Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[Anonymous Coward]

A western-style society is incompatible with Russian culture and Russian history (which has shaped their society accordingly). That's the biggest fact that any nation-building effort seems to miss. If a society has lived under authoritarian structure and with authoritarian culture, it will take a few generations (not years) to transform to something else.

Re:Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[Cyberax]

Bullshit.

Russian society is absolutely compatible with the Western model, and Western model is slowly being built. It _will_ take time, of course. Probably decades, but not generations. I'm certain of that.

For example, read this: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~jlr/events/Icons%20versus%20Contracts.pdf
If you read Russian try this: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1208915

Re:Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[mjwx]

If only President Dmitry Medvedev and Dictator Vladimir Putin created a Western society (with its intellectual freedom and clean government)

How do expect the Russians to do that when the west hasn't even got the process right.

We've really come a long way

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine how ridiculous the phrase "NASA's Moscow office" would have sounded just a couple of decades ago. It sounds like something a cold-war sci-fi writer could have used.

Re:We've really come a long way

[$RANDOMLUSER]

True, but somehow "the KGB's Washington office" sounds eerily plausible.

Not actually.

[2short]

Who are you referring to? Some Germans (notably von Braun) worked on american rockets after world war 2. I'm not aware of any Russians who figured prominently.

Re:Not actually.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And vhat about Guenther Wendt? (I vonder vhere Guenther Wendt.)

To hell with Mars, at least for now

[jollyreaper]

If we really want to do anything with space, we need to start doing things with economic significance. The moon trip should have been about pioneering the way towards moon habitats, moon industry. In that case it would have been money well-spent. All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use. Sure, there was some spin-off technology but we threw it all away.

Planting a flag on Mars would end up being a similar waste of time, not if we weren't going to follow it up with anything else.

If we were really serious about it, we'd look into moving heavy industry offworld. Prospect our nearby apollo objects, see about mining them. Put manufacturing in Earth orbit. The only thing that comes down to Earth would be finished products in nice, simple, recyclable dropshells.

We might want to look into solar power sats while we're at it.

If nothing else, at least space exploration and living offers us an engineering challenge of figuring out how to live minimally with minimal resources. Our problem in this day and age is that resources are too cheap and there's little incentive to save. If gas were a nickel a gallon, the only selling point for fuel efficiency would be not having to stop for gas as often. Gas costs more than that, of course, but it still doesn't cost enough for us to take conservation and fuel efficiency seriously. And we don't. It's just like the buffet. If you go to one that charges by the pound, you're careful about what you take. If you go to one that doesn't charge by the pound, you take as much as you want and are casually wasteful about what you leave on the plate. Simple human nature.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[geekoid]

Considering the ROI of the moon landing, ti was WELL worth our investment.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Lord Ender]

I expect that you are underestimating the costs involved traveling through Earth's gravity well. I've heard that if a rock of solid gold were orbiting Earth, it would not be economically viable to de-orbit it. Unless we discover something out there that is fantastically valuable, "industry" will not be the motivating factor for space travel.

Having self-sufficient off-world biospheres? That's a worthwhile endeavor simply because survival of the species is important; it's just not valuable to private industry (oh and suck it, libertarians).

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Shakrai]

All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use.

You don't consider all of the technological advances that stemmed from Apollo to be of real use? What about the scientific knowledge that was gained from study of the moon rocks we brought back?

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[drgould]

Considering the ROI of the moon landing, ti was WELL worth our investment.

Virtually all the ROI of the moon landings was from the technology developed for the program, not from going to the moon itself.

I suppose the lesson is to develop the technology to go to Mars, but not actually go

Or go back to the moon; closer, cheaper, quicker.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[thered2001]

Yup. We should just stay home and read Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" series. It's way more interesting than the reality of this mission could ever be.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Anonymous Coward]

What about crystals like diamonds, rubies, sapphires, etc.? Those are worth a *lot* more than gold by mass. Gold is about as heavy as lead. Mining an asteroid could use far less fuel than going down to a moon or planet.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[WillDraven]

We can already manufacture these on earth with carbon vapor deposition. Not that I'm arguing against advancing spaceflight or mining asteroids, you just mine asteroids and use the materials to build stuff in space, not send it down to Earth.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[mrsquid0]

>>Considering the ROI of the moon landing, ti was WELL worth our investment.

>Virtually all the ROI of the moon landings was from the technology developed for the program, not from going to >the moon itself.

It was the technology development that cost the money. If we had not gone to the Moon much of that technology may not have been developed.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[WillDraven]

After reading the title i quickly tagged this "redmars"

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Anonymous Coward]

... survival of the species is important;

Please explain. - j

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[jollyreaper]

I expect that you are underestimating the costs involved traveling through Earth's gravity well. I've heard that if a rock of solid gold were orbiting Earth, it would not be economically viable to de-orbit it. Unless we discover something out there that is fantastically valuable, "industry" will not be the motivating factor for space travel.

What's the worth of the only viable biosphere we know of? We're poisoning the planet with our civilization.

This gets right back to what I'm talking about, not adequately capturing the costs. Hey, I've got a stand of trees on my land. It helps retain the soil, provides habitat for rare animals, and keeps the local ecology sound. Cutting down the trees will negatively impact the watershed. Well, that's nice and all but I've got kids who need to eat. I'm cutting down the trees and farming that land. And that's exactly what's going to happen unless someone, say the local government, determines there's an economic benefit to keeping those trees there and will pay me the cash value of the opportunity cost of not farming the land. This is taking place on certain Caribbean islands right now. (not remembering the specific ones, I think it was mentioned in Guns, Germs, and Steel.)

So, we currently think it's not worth the effort to go up into space to get the big chunk of gold. Right now we think it's cheaper to do massive put strip-mining and use cyanide leeching to get at the gold. There's a huge environmental impact from the gold mining but the companies involved don't bear the burden of that cost so why should they give a flying fuck about it? But if we actually charged them for it, oh boy! That might spur the research it would take to make getting that orbiting gold asteroid profitable.

This gets right back to the classic libertarian oversight. "Hey, this is my land. I can do whatever I want on it. You ain't gonna tell me what to do!" Well, so long as what you do doesn't impact anyone, fine! Want to build a house? Fine. Want to hunt animals, keep it as a preserve? Fine! But hold on there, what's that you're doing, dumping chemicals? Sorry, buddy, you're hurting the local water table. That shit you're dumping doesn't respect property lines. We're going to have to tell you what you can and can't do when what you're doing has the potential of harming your neighbors. You give up your right to do whatever the hell you want on your land and in exchange you are protected from your neighbor doing whatever the hell he wants on his and endangering you. Unfortunately, we're liking the idea of socializing the risks of business while privatizing the profits.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[jollyreaper]

You don't consider all of the technological advances that stemmed from Apollo to be of real use? What about the scientific knowledge that was gained from study of the moon rocks we brought back?

It's like going to college for the booze and babes and neglecting an education. I'm not knocking booze and babes but you have to keep the bigger picture in mind. There's so much more we could have been doing all this time. Think of what advances could have been made if we followed up Apollo with a real exploration program instead of dicking around in LEO with the shuttle for decades on end?

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Tablizer]

The moon trip should have been about pioneering the way towards moon habitats, moon industry...

Yeah, I'd like to moon industry too.
   

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[lennier]

"The only thing that comes down to Earth would be finished products in nice, simple, recyclable dropshells."

At a high re-entry velocity, so they double as strategic weapons. It's a win-win!

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[lennier]

"Unless we discover something out there that is fantastically valuable"

I hear there's this planet LV-426 which has a really interesting lifeform with, uh, applications in strategic counter-insurgency...

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[turing_m]

As a former libertarian, I have to agree with you - everything you've said here and the last paragraph of your original post (I just don't know what the economics of asteroid mining etc. are). I've lived an additional decade beyond college, I've seen how companies operate, how lazy people are. Many companies reflexively won't do things that are environmentally conscionable even if it works out better for them financially in the long term.

Companies are entities that are legal fictions composed of real people. There are companies on the way up where everything works the way it is supposed to. There are companies on the way down, run by the senile, or the CEO only concerned about his pay check, and staffed by lazy people whose most important qualifications are ass kissing. There are probably even companies composed of environmentally responsible people (as opposed to lip-service environmentalists). But there are only so many environmentally responsible people out there, and perhaps having them in one company just serves to take those people from other companies where they would do just as much good.

Individually, humanity operates like bats shitting guano in our own cave, not concerned about the looming day when that guano reaches the roof. Without top-down ordering "at the point of a gun" by "jack-booted thugs" to use libertarian parlance, the right thing long term won't get done. So that's the way it's got to be.

That's not to say that behavior of humans can't be shifted using market methods when appropriate. For example, probably the simplest method of getting a lot of resource conservation happening would be to shift the income tax to various resources (e.g. oil, water, etc.) so that the government is still paid for, and it justly hits hardest at the most wasteful people. And practically, a lot of government work is just contracted out to private industry anyway.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[TheRaven64]

Maybe next time we can learn from experience...

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[TheRaven64]

It would depend on the size of the rock, but you can get things down to Earth from orbit a lot more cheaply than you can get them up there. You'd need to get the reentry vehicle up there, but for a large enough lump of gold it would possibly be worth doing. If you can make things like long chain carbon nanotubes from near-Earth asteroids then it might be worth doing, but it's a big up-front capital investment to get the factories and capture facilities up and running.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[m50d]

The statement the GP was looking for was that if you developed a method to turn lead into gold in orbit, you'd lose money on the deal - the per-kg cost to send things into orbit is almost exactly the same as the price of gold.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[m50d]

What about crystals like diamonds, rubies, sapphires, etc.? Those are worth a *lot* more than gold by mass.

Only "natural" ones, and only because of artificial scarcity. If you found some of those in space, I'll wager de beers et al would run a campaign to declare them "not real diamonds/rubies/etc.", the same way they've done with the ones we produce in labs.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[ShakaUVM]

Fine! But hold on there, what's that you're doing, dumping chemicals? Sorry, buddy, you're hurting the local water table. That shit you're dumping doesn't respect property lines. We're going to have to tell you what you can and can't do when what you're doing has the potential of harming your neighbors.

Uh, that's more or less what we have right now. Largish companies have environmental control officers who make sure the company complies with law by watching what goes down its drains, etc.

Poor countries are much worse off for the environment than wealthy ones - do you see Gates chopping down his forest because his kids are hungry and he needs firewood? The best thing we could do for the planet would be to raise everyone up to middle class prosperity.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[khallow]

The thing to remember here is that there is a considerable economy of scale from launch frequency that nobody is exploiting. Also gold is now sufficiently valuable that even the Shuttle (after a breakeven point of five or so flights) can mine a solid gold asteroid and return the results profitable, assuming you ignore the decline of the gold market from flooding it with cheaper asteroid gold. My estimate is that a practical floor for a chemical powered launch vehicle is roughly a factor of three greater than the cost of fuel. That's what it costs in airlines which I consider similar enough. Currently, using diesel-LOX or liquid hydrogen/LOX, it costs somewhere around $100 per kg in fuel costs to put something in orbit using these common propellants. So a floor of around $300 per kg seems very reasonable to me. That would probably be using a highly reusable launch vehicle and a launch rate several orders of magnitude more than current.

Re:funnly enough most the tech

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"The Russians put our camera made by *our* German scientists and your film made by *your* German scientists into their satellite made by *their* German scientists."

-- "Ice Station Zebra"

A favorite film of Howard Hughes.

I wonder...

[Coraon]

if Russia will still take money for the first flight to mars. I mean if I got 1 dollar from everyone who told me they wanted me to leave this world, I could most likely be able to afford a seat on a Russian mars mission.

Where will the parts come from?

[jameskojiro]

Strung out Russian Cosmonaut: American Parts, Russian Parts.... All Made in Taiwan.....

Re:Where will the parts come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. This time, unlike for Apollo project, all (virtual reality rendering) hardware will come from Taiwan.

Funding and Incentives!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to spur public support, and technological progress, provide funding and incentives.

1. The money has to be there. NASA FY 2010 budget projection is $18.6 Billion. FY2008, the US collected $2.5 Trillion. Up it to a constant percentage of the Budget. Keep it at 2% of the collected US tax revenue. As revenue goes up, so does NASA's budget, albeit slightly.

2. Incentives. Generate technological proposal goals, with monetary incentives, and provide to the public, and public sector. Materials science, software, education, logistics support, you name it. Get the public involved, and wanting to participate. i.e., high schools, colleges, general populace...

Yes, Corporate has their role in NASA, but if you truly want it to succeed, you need public support. This means getting the public more involved, and the only way I see that is through education and active participation.

If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[MosesJones]

While the Russian(USSR) Space programme was certainly less sophisticated than the US one its also certainly true that the engineering efficiency of the Russian programme was based around long-life. This is why its a Soyuz capsule that works as the escape pod on the ISS and why the Russians have held the records around how long people stay in space.

Combining the electronic expertise of the US with the engineering expertise of the Russians sounds like an excellent thing to do. It also means that the US can learn from people who have experience of keeping individuals healthy in space for over a year which is what you will need to get to Mars and back.

The Best Space programme to Mars

Designed by Apple
Engineered by the Russians
Electronics by the Americans
Rockets by the Germans
Food by the French

The Worst Space programme to Mars

Designed by the US Senate
Engineered by Chrysler
Electronics by Alfa Romeo
Rockets by North Korea
Food by McDonalds

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[Colonel Korn]

The Best Space programme to Mars

Designed by Apple

As long as stylish, minimalistic interiors of ships that explode are your thing.

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[thered2001]

Hey now...Alfa's electronics aren't that bad! I'd rather see them do the design in "The Best Space programme", though...Italians are excellent industrial designers and have way more aeronautical experience than Apple.

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta say Land Rover would probably do a worse job than Alfa Romeo as far as electronics ;)

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

"why the Russians have held the records around how long people stay in space"

This record is easy to do: take one guy, put him in space and don't bring him back until the record is broken. His rights? what rights?! this is Russia!

It's funny and disturbing how people from more civilized countries think it is the same in Russia as it is in their own country. Leaving closer to Russia, I can see better the dead bodies behind the Success.

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[qmaqdk]

The Best Space programme to Mars

Designed by Apple

As long as stylish, minimalistic interiors of ships that explode are your thing.

I agree. It should have been Microsoft.

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[PaganRitual]

Designed by Apple

Good idea, because if you're stuck millions of miles from Earth, what you need above all is a completely counter-intuitive interface.

Engineered by Chrysler. Food by McDonalds

At least they will work well with each other. Chrylser make everything overly big and ugly, and McDonalds will ensure the astronauts expand to fill the newly available space.

Will it?

[Shivetya]

Because if you look the on the ISS page of Wiki it shows the US as financing three of the four euro modules.

So who is going to save money? Can we realistically expect that nations contribute equally or of their means? With regards to that last part I don't see how we have means, unless we are totally accepting of the fact we can spend money we never had.

Re:Will it?

[Dr_Ken]

"Means" as in launch infrastructure, tracking stations, facilities and trained and experienced personnel and etc. It would be waaaay cheaper to write NASA a check than take decades developing their own. Or so it seems to me.

I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general. At some point I got used to hearing the so-called predicted dates for when this could happen being pushed back yet another decade after yet another decade. The cold war race to the moon was one thing. But I think the only way we will ever conceivably branch out into space beyond the moon (and to mars) is for nations to work together sharing resources and knowledge. Nice to see these steps being taken in the right direction.

Re:I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[HanzoSpam]

Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general.

Actually, it could have been, it was within our grasp and we let it go.

Personally, I've always figured the day the US jumped the shark as a nation was 12/19/1972 - the day Apollo 17 returned to earth, and we never went back.

Somehow, I don't seriously think we ever will.

Re:I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[ColdWetDog]

You know this really wouldn't be so hard if they would just Read The Fucking Manual.

Sheesh. Do we have to think for everybody?.

Re:I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[DerekLyons]

Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general.

Actually, it could have been, it was within our grasp and we let it go.

Only if by 'within our grasp' you mean 'after a few tens, possibly hundreds, of billions of dollars and a decade or more', sure.
 
Seriously, one thing we have learned from MIR and the ISS is that keeping equipment running that long is hard. Launching to Mars in the 1970's with 1990's era Russian O2 generators... the mission would have had to carry essentially either four complete spares, or a set of body bags for the crew to zip themselves into. (And that's just *one* subsystem, out of hundreds.) Nothing short of Classical Orion would have been able to boost the resulting spacecraft to Mars.
 

Personally, I've always figured the day the US jumped the shark as a nation was 12/19/1972 - the day Apollo 17 returned to earth, and we never went back.

The belief that the US 'jumped the shark' is based on the mistaken belief that the Apollo program was something other than what it was - a Cold War pissing contest.

Re:I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[Un pobre guey]

The trilogy was ludicrous, and the third volume was a thoroughly boring, sententious waste of time. If you think reality can even vaguely resemble that story, please send me a few grams of whatever you're smoking immediately.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Now I can take

[vandelais]

Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova with me to keep me company on the lengthy trip there.
Sky rockets in flight. Afternoon delightski!

Future Conflict?

[Tablizer]

What if a new cold-war-style conflict arises during the mission? Or even a "hot" war? Nations may grow nationalistic and petty, harming the mission. Once it leaves the ground, a smooth divorce is not possible.
         

Re:Future Conflict?

[maxume]

Better to time simultaneous missions, so any conflicts can be extended to Mars.

Re:Future Conflict?

[sconeu]

Then the US team will go to Discovery, while the Russian team stays in Leonov.

Re:Future Conflict?

[cashman73]

Better hurry it up then. 2010 is almost here,... ;-)

Re:Future Conflict?

[jamstar7]

Then the US team will go to Discovery, while the Russian team stays in Leonov.

But only until the Monoliths implode the planet to kickstart it as a new star. Then they'll use Discovery for the launch booster and Leonov for the return vehicle.

Re:Future Conflict?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The mutual need for survival would probably cause the astronauts/cosmonauts to cooperate long enough to get back to Earth alive. Where they'd land would be an interesting question, of course.

Re:Future Conflict?

[Tablizer]

The mutual need for survival would probably cause the astronauts/cosmonauts to cooperate long enough to get back to Earth alive.

I'm thinking more about orders coming from the 3rd rock rather than problems with astronauts themselves. Astronauts by nature are goal-oriented and focus on results, as long is it doesn't conflict with tricky orders from home.
     

Robert H. Goddard

[Markvs]

Was neither Russian *nor* German, unless Massachusetts used to be even further east...

Re:funnly enough most the tech

[SuperBigGulp]

Who got it from the Grays after they crash landed in Tunguska.

In Soviet Russia...

[p.harshal]

In Soviet Russia, Mars lands on you.

All things considered

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that we are headed towards a time where it will be the Chinese model. China has one civilian space station going up (ran by their military) and a series of military only space station. Combine that their restarting of their nuke missles, the new nuke boomers, developing a new ability to take out sats, and yeah, I am guessing that we are looking at China in full control. Within 10 years, probably 5.

Re:All things considered

[orzetto]

I think you are projecting things a bit too fast, but yes—China is the next superpower, unless they screw up something bad time. They have an enormous population and a very well organised state, all things considered. I would say 50 years before the US become a has-been, like the UK and France. I would guess what will crack the US will ultimately be its disproportionate defence spending (where did I see this movie already?) and too much focus on unproductive sectors like pure finance. Who knows, maybe some states rich in resources (Texas? Alaska?) will try to secede at that point.

Among the most worrying signals is that research papers I read from the US are most often authored by people with foreign names; not just surnames, but first names as well, indicating they are likely immigrants, not hyphenated Americans. These people may leave as fast as they came, when they realise employment conditions in Scandinavia are much better e.g. for graduate students.

Cheer up, 50 years ago civil rights in the US were comparable to those in China today. There's a good chance China will improve its record in the next years, maybe they'll get their own Gandhi, Rudi Dutschke or Nelson Mandela. Make sure your kids learn Mandarin though, you USians are probably not used to the world expecting you to speak a language other than English.

Re:All things considered

[Shakrai]

China is the next superpower, unless they screw up something bad time

History suggests they might just do that. This isn't the first time that China has opened her borders to trade and investment. Every time she does so the coastal regions get rich while the rural interior rots on the vine. Eventually the country collapses and turns back inward for a few generations.

Among the most worrying signals is that research papers I read from the US are most often authored by people with foreign names; not just surnames, but first names as well, indicating they are likely immigrants

Why is that a worrying signal? The fact that the US can still attract immigrants intelligent enough to write research papers would seem to be an asset, not a liability. People want to come here. That's an advantage that we've had since the beginning of the Republic and something that China isn't likely to have for the foreseeable future if ever. Monolithic societies dominated by a single ethic group/culture/language don't have much appeal for someone looking to find a new home.

you USians are probably not used to the world expecting you to speak a language other than English.

It's American, not USian.

Victims of 9/11: 40,000/y [dot.gov]

That's a stupid comparison. You assume that the only impact of the 9/11 attacks were the fatalities. How many traffic accidents result in billions of dollars of economic damage, the invocation of article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the collapse of a major industry?

Re:All things considered

[im_thatoneguy]

That's a stupid comparison. You assume that the only impact of the 9/11 attacks were the fatalities. How many traffic accidents result in billions of dollars of economic damage, the invocation of article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the collapse of a major industry?

I find your reply ironic since his statement could be summarized as:
"9-11 was a huge crisis for our nation not because of the actual event but because of our reaction to it."

You're right. It did cost us billions of dollars. It did result in the collapse of a major industry--most of which was the result of stupid disproportionate panic not the actual attack. If people had viewed it in context of actual threats to their safety (i.e. you aren't going to die in an airplane flying into the WTC) then the airlines wouldn't have imploded.

It's only a stupid comparison because of stupid, easily frightened people.

Re:All things considered

[Shakrai]

If people had viewed it in context of actual threats to their safety (i.e. you aren't going to die in an airplane flying into the WTC) then the airlines wouldn't have imploded.

The airlines imploded because they were grounded for three days. It had nothing to do with the fear that took root in the country after the 9/11 attacks. It was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks.

Then there's the billions of dollars of damage down to lower Manhattan, loss of tax revenues for NYC, increased spending that was required on security, etc, etc.

Re:All things considered

[orzetto]

Why is that a worrying signal?

Because people go to the US mostly for the "branding" that was built over the last century: however, for what I have seen, conditions and opportunities are better elsewhere. One of the latest strips of PhD comics poked fun at graduate stipends being at about $18k/y. In Norway (got my PhD there) you get about 50, overall taxes at about 25%. This is bad for you because you are already losing the best candidates to Europe (except for excellence universities like Ivy league), and there are no US candidates to take their place. The immigration procedures at various airports never stroke me as particularly friendly, either.

Last but not least: a lot of research is defence-funded. Some do not have problems with that, but Einstein would not have accepted that. Guess where the next Einstein will look for a position?

It's American, not USian.

I'll tell you a secret: America goes from Canada to Argentina. The US are not America, whatever your language's customs may be. I was specifically restricting my focus to the US using an unusual word to avoid implying that non-US Americans do not already have to learn language at school (Canadian English speakers must learn French, all others have to learn English).

Re:All things considered

[Shakrai]

Because people go to the US mostly for the "branding" that was built over the last century

Yes, that's why my ancestors came here. The "branding". My grandfather often told me stories about how his family would sit around the hearth in Germany and debate which country they should relocate to. Public relations and marketing was a huge factor in this decision. Economic opportunity and personal liberty had nothing to do with it at all.

People don't come here because of the "branding". They come here because the United States was founded by immigrants and is one of a handful of genuinely multi-cultural countries that exist on planet Earth. I can drive across my small city of 50,000 and meet people "fresh off the boat" from areas ranging from Laos to the Ukraine to the former Yugoslavia. I can drive through neighborhoods built by Italian immigrants and their descendants. Ditto for neighborhoods built by Greek, Chinese and German immigrants. My small hometown has at least one each of a Christian Church, Jewish Temple, Islamic Mosque, Sikh Temple and a Hindu Temple.

That's just a sampling of the diversity that you'll find in one pathetically small American city. Visit a large city like New York and you'll find a representative of almost every culture, religion and race from planet Earth. That's why people choose to come here. It's also our greatest advantage and something the rest of the world will never be able to match us on. We do tend to get complacent periodically but sooner or later the sleeping giant wakes up and takes the world by storm. 25 years ago people were predicting that Japan was going to out-compete/out-innovate us and dominate the world. How'd that work out again?

Last but not least: a lot of research is defence-funded. Some do not have problems with that, but Einstein would not have accepted that. Guess where the next Einstein will look for a position?

And yet, amazingly enough, Einstein decided to come here. He even wrote a letter to FDR encouraging him to undertake the development of a weapon of mass destruction. You may not like the fact that America spends so much money on defense but when the chips are down you have no problems begging us to come and save your sorry ass.

America wasn't an interventionist power until the rest of the free world got clobbered twice in the span of twenty years by aggressive non-free countries. Would it surprise you to learn that at the start of WW2 our Army was smaller than Portugal's? We were quite content to remain out of your affairs until it became apparent that you couldn't save yourself and we'd wind up fighting your enemies sooner or later anyway. Might as well fight them on your soil instead of ours if the conflict is inevitable.

I'll tell you a secret: America goes from Canada to Argentina. The US are not America, whatever your language's customs may be. I was specifically restricting my focus to the US using an unusual word to avoid implying that non-US Americans do not already have to learn language at school

Take your geography lesson and shove it up your ass. Believe it or not but I am aware of the geography of the western hemisphere. Are you aware of the fact that the commonly accepted adjective to describe a citizen of the United States in the English language is American? Are you aware of the fact that the full name of my country is the United States of America?

The use of the "word" US'ian is intended as nothing more than a way to piss off Americans and manufacture an issue where none exists. Ireland is part of the British Isles but I don't hear anybody demanding that the British call themselves "UK'ians". Interesting bit of hypocrisy, isn't it?

Re:All things considered

[orzetto]

Yes, that's why my ancestors came here.

Please note my use of the present tense, and yours of the past tense. It used to be that America was the best country to relocate to. It's not that anymore.

[Multiculturalism is what] the rest of the world will never be able to match us on.

What I find difficult to match is your parochialism. At my workplace we have had Indians (lots of them), a half-Pole, a Chinese guy, we came once close to hiring an Iranian, we should soon get a Korean, we collaborate with a Kosovan from neighbouring division, and by the way I am an immigrant myself. This is East Germany, the part with least immigrants. In the West there are entire communities of Turks, Italians, and Vietnamese. Today I was at an event where I could count at least the following nationalities: Italian, Polish, Serbian, Montenegrin, Chinese, Indian, plus other people I did not know but who did not look ethnic Germans. And then there are people who could be ethnic Germans but who are not, like me.

Other thing: one of the five major German parties is headed by Cem Özdemir, a Muslim who did not even have citizenship 20 years ago.

Point being: America is still branded as The multicultural nation, but it is just one of many, and not necessarily the best to live in for immigrants anymore.

And yet, amazingly enough, Einstein decided to come here. He even wrote a letter to FDR encouraging him to undertake the development of a weapon of mass destruction.

Whose potential he did not know, that he later opposed, to which he did not contribute, and then there was that pesky issue of being at war with Nazi Germany that could have developed that weapon first, which changed perspectives a bit. But hey, don't let the fact that Einstein was a pacifist and a socialist get in the way of your selective quoting.

but when the chips are down you have no problems begging us to come and save your sorry ass.

When Churchill asked you to enter WW2, you stayed back because you did not want to enter. It took Japan to roundhouse-kick your ass at Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on the US to get you into the war. Also, the US did not really do that much: the Soviets did most of the work against Germany, you only fought against 14- and 40-year-old that Hitler had placed on the Atlantic Wall. So learn some humility and stop posing as the world's saviour.

America wasn't an interventionist power until the rest of the free world got clobbered twice in the span of twenty years by aggressive non-free countries.

Seriously, you need to lay off the neo-con Kool-aid and read up some history. The US stole half of Mexico, conquered the kingdom of Hawai'i, invaded the Philippines, Cuba, made Latin America into series of satellites, and I have not yet started with the whole colonisation-of-the-West thing yet.

I seem also to read in that twice word of yours that WW1 was a war with an "evil" side. WW1 was a usual old-style war among European powers, and who won mattered very little for the state of civil rights in Europe. The US waited to see who was going to win before jumping on the winner's bandwagon.

Ireland is part of the British Isles but I don't hear anybody demanding that the British call themselves "UK'ians".

Curious indeed, "British Isles" actually is a controversial term rooted in colonialism, because Ireland is not British. "British" refers, er, to "[Great] Britain". In fact I recall distinctly a UK newspaper's article criticizing

Re:All things considered

[Shakrai]

It used to be that America was the best country to relocate to. It's not that anymore.

That's your opinion. I still meet people fresh off the boat on a regular basis. Millions of people continue to sneak into this country illegally too. I think they'd take issue with your idea that America isn't a good country to relocate to.

But hey, don't let the fact that Einstein was a pacifist and a socialist [monthlyreview.org] get in the way of your selective quoting.

I never claimed he wasn't either of those things. I just said that he decided to come here in spite of all the flaws in our society. I also pointed out that his pacifism was grounded in the reality that sometimes violence is a necessary evil. In that respect he was light years ahead of you.

When Churchill asked you to enter WW2, you stayed back because you did not want to enter. It took Japan to roundhouse-kick your ass at Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on the US to get you into the war.

Bullshit. The United States was already engaged in hostilities with Germany months before Pearl Harbor. Once we formally entered the war we adopted the Europe first policy that had previously been agreed upon by FDR and Churchill. We also sent supplies to the Allied countries prior to our entry in the war, in flagrant violation of international law and the duties of neutral nations. Why don't you open a history book and educate yourself?

the Soviets did most of the work against Germany

No, the Soviets carried the burden of fighting most of the ground war. They didn't do "most" of the work against Germany. They contributed nothing to the Battle of the Atlantic or the Strategic Bombing campaign. They would have collapsed in 41-42 if it wasn't for the supplies that the US and UK were sending them. I don't say any of that to diminish the sacrifices that they had to make -- just to point out the stupidity of the claim that they carried "most" of the workload.

you only fought against 14- and 40-year-old that Hitler had placed on the Atlantic Wall.

You seem to have forgotten North Africa, Italy, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Pacific Theater. Find that history book yet?

The US waited to see who was going to win before jumping on the winner's bandwagon.

Wrong again. The murder of 128 American citizens and German attempt to bribe Mexico into attacking the United States decided which "bandwagon" we'd jump on.

Curious indeed, "British Isles" actually is a controversial term rooted in colonialism

I'm noticing a trend here -- every single point that disagrees with your world view has a colonialist or imperialist origin.

This is East Germany, the part with least immigrants.

You are from Germany and you are lecturing me on the skeletons in America's closet? That's pretty fucking rich, I gotta say :) Isn't it about time for you guys to try and conquer the world and get smacked down again? Do me a favor and knock France off her pedestal once more before you get your ass spanked by Anglo-American ingenuity and Russian disregard for life ;)

More than that

[WindBourne]

is that we have given LOADS more money to Russia to keep them going and that is not considered part of those modules. However, I have to believe that getting all the countries of the ISS to go to the moon AND mars is in everybodies best interest. We need to jointly develop space and learn to work closer together. It is the same spirit that NATO did for the west.

Sparse details

[FleaPlus]

Before everybody gets all crazy and excited about this, there doesn't seem to be any details about Marc Bowman's comments anywhere (not even NASA's site) except for a 5-sentence blurb from RIA Novosti (the Russian state-owned news agency). There was a cool article in IEEE Spectrum recently about Russia's Mars dreams, but they were along the lines of "here's some neat ideas, we need money."

My suspicion is that Marc Bowman said something generic like "it would be nice for Russia and NASA to work together more in the future on things like Mars missions," and RIA Novosti just decided to run with it.

Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this will help NASA reconsider their Metric vs. Imperial decision?

NASA and Russia?

[ddillman]

Yeah, right. These guys can't even agree on who gets to use what toilet on the ISS. There is no way this can work.

Re:NASA and Russia?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Well, if NASA and Russia were in the back seat of the spaceship, and my father was driving, he would tell them both that they should have gone before they left. And that they'll both just have to shut up and hold it in until they get there.

Re:NASA and Russia?

[ddillman]

Wow. That's a long trip to hold it...

Energia Has Already Won

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks to the U.S.A's elected criminals

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

success, but not efficient

[Gary W. Longsine]

With so many modules built, independently, in so many countries, spare parts from cancelled Russian and stalled American programs re-purposed, multiple, incompatible electrical systems, and whatnot, it's pretty easy to see that the ISS mode of international cooperation was not particularly efficient. Billions of dollars could have been saved if it had been coordinated in a smarter way. ISS was a success by some measures, but probably shouldn't be used as a model to be copied.

Re:success, but not efficient

[damburger]

Billions of dollars could indeed have been saved, if only NASA had visited 2009 and asked Gary W. Longsine how the ISS ought to have been coordinated.

Doing anything the first time is always difficult (perhaps you've heard of this little project called the LHC?) and the fact that the majority of planned modules for the ISS have been delivered and work, and that there have been no major accidents or really bad interface problems between the modules, means it was as much a success as it could reasonably expected to be. Furthermore, any management hiccups have provided insight into the pitfalls of such a project that will save us more money in the future than they cost us.

Re:success, but not efficient

[mjwx]

and that matters because?

We still learned something, in fact we learned far more about engineering the ISS then if it had of come in the form of a highly efficient kit from Ikea. Imagine, if everything with the ISS had of gone right, how much would we have learned about building in/for space.

Very few programs in the world, be they government or corporate are in any way efficient. Corporate inefficiency is only ignored because it makes more money then it loses.

Old joke

[istartedi]

"Heaven is where the Police are British, the Chefs are French, the Mechanics are German, the Lovers Italian and it's all organised by the Swiss.

Hell is where the Chefs are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, the Police are German and it's all organised by the Italians."

Re:Old joke

[ShakaUVM]

>>Hell is where the Chefs are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, the Police are German and it's all organised by the Italians."

'I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse'
-Charles V, HRE

With one country, wars simply become internalized

[Anonymous Coward]

Look what happened to the soviet union.

When we are ruled by just one government, you will find that large chunks of the world's population are oppressed and heavy handed use of police powers become the norm. While there is competition between states to take the high moral ground, there is also impetus to demonstrate freedom and democracy too. As soon as there is a unified world government you will see the bonds tightened and freedoms brushed aside.

It is better to have multiple systems running in parrallel. That way there is always somwhere left to run to.

Again again again...

[Un pobre guey]

It just doesn't fail. You all are completely incapable of spotting the scam, are you? There is no point to sending humans into space. The usefulness for exploration, for science, for "getting us of this rock" is exactly zero. There is absolutely nothing that is compelling or desirable from space exploration that requires the physical presence of a human. Robotic missions are incomparably more productive and far, far cheaper.

We, as a species, will never "get off this rock." Perhaps, at colossal expense and for no useful purpose, tiny groups of people (less than a hundred at a time) will be able to live briefly in lunar colonies, and a century later perhaps on Mars. They will be temporary, because it will be unsustainable.

But this adolescent infatuation with the magical-religious cult of sci-fi space adventures evidently has blinded almost all of you. It is a scam, a ploy to give billions upon billions of dollars to defense and aerospace industries. The point of spending 20 or 50 or 100 billion dollars to create a lunar base is not to create a lunar base, it is to spend 20 or 50 or 100 billion dollars. The lunar base is a pretext, the bait to get the suckers to open their wallets.

I don't really care much if you believe the "get off this rock" bullshit. Your magical-religious inclinations are a bore. I respect and defend your right to have them, but I certainly cannot respect the beliefs themselves. I strenuously object to having even more tax dollars squandered on bullshit, bloating the Federal deficit and national debt even more to enrich the same old ruthless sociopathic crooks.

Wake the fuck up! What are you, six years old?

Re:Again again again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trolling, or are you just stupid?

(Not that those are mutually exclusive, I suppose.)

Re:Again again again...

[Un pobre guey]

Instead of insulting, why don't you point out why you think I'm wrong without emotional or circular arguments?

By your brief and succinct remark, it is clear that I am referring to people very much like yourself.

Re:Again again again...

[Tablizer]

Robotic missions are incomparably more productive and far, far cheaper.

I generally agree from a pure science-per-dollar aspect. However, there are also social, educational, and political aspects to such a project. These factors must be weighed via the political and social process, not just science.

(Help, I'm thinking like a suit! I must go bathe...)
     

Re:Again again again...

[Un pobre guey]

I disagree that there are "social, educational, and political aspects" in manned space exploration that are absent in robotic missions. There may be a slight effect on kids looking at a picture of a guy in a spacesuit or watching the occasional NASA show video, but these effects are minor and fleeting, and certainly not worth 1) the enormous cost, and 2) the displacement of unmanned missions due to budgetary reasons (namely that the money gets used up on water, toilets, cabin space, breathable atmosphere, etc.). There really is no compelling and justifiable reason to do it.

Re:Again again again...

[Tablizer]

I think we have different views on human nature and human psychology that cannot be resolved here quickly.

Re:Again again again...

[Un pobre guey]

I agree, however the main point isn't that, it is that a huge amount of money hangs in the balance of "different views on human nature and human psychology".

Re:Again again again...

[Tablizer]

Yip, and that's why politicians get the big lobby bucks ;-)

Re:Again again again...

[Un pobre guey]

Now I can wholeheartedly agree with that. Unfortunately.

Something else maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Original: NASA wants Russia to join their Mars mission.
Read: NASA's Mars mission budget could use some help.

food

[Gary W. Longsine]

I'm pretty sure I don't want you eating smelly cheese and runny eggs when we're cooped up in a can the size of bus in zero gravity for a couple years. French fries, sure. French bread, fine. Just don't get carried away.

Re:food

[jandoedel]

Actually, french fries were invented in Belgium.

Monopolies are bad

[istartedi]

We've already seen what Globalization does when "the" economy has issues. A housing crisis in the USA doesn't cause issues in China without globalization.

The Free Trade advocates always sold the advantages, which were readily calculable; but ignored the disadvantages which are harder to measure until you actually experience them.

Only now are people beginning to realize something that should have been apparent right from the start: one single, massive economic system is inherently bad. It's like a monopoly. There's no backup.

It's even worse if you take this philosophy and duplicate it outside the financial realm. We already see this with the "war on drugs". Many countries that would like to legalize may not do so, not because of internal resistance; but because they've signed a UN convention.

Now take that, and apply it to ALL the laws. Yuck.

Most people don't like war, but if the alternative is a "one size fits all" solution, there will be times when it doesn't fit, and war becomes the only alternative. They just won't be wars between nation-states anymore. They'll all be civil wars, which are oftentimes far worse.

Also, what about refugees? Tell me, where do the boat people go when everywhere is Cuba?

Re:Monopolies are bad

[kevinNCSU]

Really? Backup economies? That got modded as +5 insightful? So we forgo all the benefits of trading between nations and then if our economy has a problem, what, we just yank it out and use Canada's as a backup? Of course, it's so simple. Why didn't we think of making a backup economy years ago?

Re:Monopolies are bad

[Tablizer]

Well said! Bravo.

Another way to put it is to compare economic specialization to personal investment portfolios: you may favor investments that have the best average return (over long-haul), but you should not make them your exclusive investment. You mix and match to spread the risks. Don't put all your eggs in one basket (numeric comparative advantage).

The same applies to a nation's economy. Don't toss manufacturing just because it does not appear to be your comparative advantage (at the moment). Keep the economy mixed. If that requires some tariffs on surplus nations, so be it. It would hopefully encourage them to lubricate[1] their consumer sector, balancing out trade.

[1] Please don't take that too literally.
   

Re:Monopolies are bad

[LouisZepher]

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
That's nice. But what about non-intensive purposes?

Re:Monopolies are bad

[istartedi]

I think you're taking it a bit too literally. Analogies tend to break down when... they are no longer taken as analogies!

I'm not advocating the direct opposite of Free Trade, which I guess would be sealed borders between all states. Somewhere between that, and zero tarrifs there is a fair tarrif that compensates for the costs of trade.

Re:Monopolies are bad

[lennier]

"Of course, it's so simple. Why didn't we think of making a backup economy years ago?"

Because the people who learned Chicago school economics were educated stupid.

Nature has backups. Superefficient right-sized outsourced just-in-time manufacturing... not so much.

Count Magnitudula

[Gary W. Longsine]

Earth to Moon: 384,000 km
x,000,000 km (One! One order of magnitude larger... Ah! Ah! Ah!)
78,000,000 km (Two! Two orders of magnitude larger... Ah! Ah! Ah! (well, close to 3))

Order of Magnitude (please click and read.)

The Count and Cooke Monster on cooperation

Re:Count Magnitudula

[TheRaven64]

As the page you cite states in the first sentence, an order of magnitude is a logarithmic factor, but the base of the logarithm is not defined by the term. In complexity theory, for example, it is most common to refer to orders of magnitude meaning factors of two. In engineering is is more common to refer to factors of ten.

Re:Count Magnitudula

[Gary W. Longsine]

Uh-huh. And did you read the second sentence? It is clear that you did not.

Re:Count Magnitudula

[Gary W. Longsine]

You probably didn't watch the Count and Cookie Monster, either.

Whoa, Clarke could see the future!?!

[wdavies]

Ok, this is beyond strange. We know Arthur C Clarke predicted the creation of geo-stationary satellites - but predicting the name of the father of the first man to reach Mars too! Marc Bowman? Father of Dave Bowman by any chance (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0002896/). That is a weird coincidence....

Anyway :) I'm sure he probably just changed his name to make history come true :)

History says this is a bad idea

[GodfatherofSoul]

With all the crap the Russians pulled during the construction of ISS, why try with them again? Diverting money and resources to Mir, not meeting engineering specs, etc. They sound like bad partners. I'd go with a joint US-Euro venture.

Is Marc Bowman

[Ralph Spoilsport]

David's dad?

and so the federation begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

just let me know when I can sign up for starfleet academy.

Who gets the "first step"?

[PHPNerd]

There is at least one rather large problem with a joint mission: who gets to take the "first step" onto Mars? United States or Russia? You know that each would want it.

Ah those crazy Russians!

[DarthVain]

Just don't have any women on board, particularly Canadian women, otherwise the the Russians will kill each other trying to kiss her.

Mars Epic Fail (Didn't last even one month):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6955149/page/3/

Mars Epic Win:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/07/15/after-three-months-in-a-tin-can-six-men-end-simulated-mars-mission/

Re:Ah those crazy Russians!

[MartinSchou]

Alternatively one could leave out the men from the mission. Women tend to weigh less than men, so you'll have room for more cargo. As they weigh less, they also eat less, which again allows you to either carry more cargo or have the food last longer.

In an environment where you either experience micro gravity or 1/3rd gravity you don't need the "big strong" physique that people tend to think is necessary for exploration. And women are generally better at multitasking than men, which is definitely an advantage in that kind of environment.

An as for the "but ten women locked up together for years will be useless for five days a month", that could be solved fairly easily with either medication or pre-flight surgery.

And let's not forget - who would you rather watch on pay-per-view? 10 guys locked up together for years or 10 women locked up together for years?

Re:Ah those crazy Russians!

[DarthVain]

"carry more cargo"

You sir have obviously never seen a woman pack...

Re:funnly enough most the tech

[markringen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Zander

No credibility.

[Geoffrey.landis]

This article has no credibility.

It's not even vaporware.

Bowman

[seebach]

Did I just read that name right? Bowman and Mars in the same paragraph, that sounds almost like a Space Odyssey. Does that mean that they have found the monolith?

This almost happened with Apollo

[Nick Ives]

Kennedy was desperate to find a way of getting into space without spending so much money and so opened talks with Kruschev, who was interested. Unfortunately the House passed a bill banning any such cooperation but Kennedy still kept negotiations open via a back channel. Unfortunately the idea of cooperation died with Kennedy and the Apollo programme was born.

I've been reading Craig Nelson's Rocket Men lately and it's the most fascinating history of the Apollo programme I've read yet!

If science fiction has taught me anything...

[arcsimm]

It's that, in this situation, the important thing to prevent the transnationals from building a space elevator on Olympus Mons.

...Well, also that the Russian commander will be a total skank, but hey, that's details.

Sometime in the future

[florescent_beige]

Russia is currently planning to send its own expedition to Mars some time in the future.

Smart thinking. That will avoid all those universe-destroying paradoxes caused by planning to do it sometime in the past.

Re:Sometime in the future

[Tablizer]

avoid all those universe-destroying paradoxes caused by planning to do it sometime in the past.

We already had the space race. The time race is on.
   

An analysis

[zogger]

I agree with you, both as to the space race and even moreso back here on earth, the chinese model.. Many years ago I did an analysis of the situation with globalization and demographics and came to the conclusion that china would *have* to go expansionist in a big way around 2012 to 2014, for a variety of reasons.

  They will be needing farmland,*water* in a big way (they already don't have enough adequate water for tens of millions of their people and demand just keeps going up daily), access to energy sources, access to other sorts of raw materials, etc, plus they will need someplace to stick all their surplus young males. Their one child policy lead to them killing a lot of baby girls and now they have millions of males who..well, you know what young males want for the most part, and there just ain't enough to go around back home...so they will be needing to export those surplus males..millions of them..history shows what that means.

They would have developed their own internal infrastructure and markets by that time frame so they don't actually need the western market (very close now if not already surpassed that point), only their own and the rest of the developing world where they get their materials from..that is a sufficient market, that is around 2.5 to three billion people they can sell manufactured goods to and get practical and valuable resources back from, and this will be primarily in the still developing nations where those resources are, in Africa, South America, and central Asia, and possibly Canada, Australia and the far east in Russia. And if you look now, they are already in those areas in a big way, or trying to, with plans to go even heavier. Expansion.

    And they no longer will be needing fancy repackaged IOUs being passed off as "money" from western nations they currently sell to, our printing press money and government bonds and treasuries, promissory notes backed by hot air buffoonery from the Fed and DC, they have enough of those things already and are getting rather spooked with what they might *not* be worth soon, so they will be needing and looking for the real mc coy, tangible wealth in some form, whether it is oil or natural gas or uranium or other metals or tens of millions of acres of farmland, etc., anything but more shaky IOUs.

And how I got to expansion is, if they *don't* expand, and I mean in a very large way, the rulers there will be risking massive "social unrest", way beyond what they get now which is large enough and not covered all that well in the west, maybe to the point they couldn't control it, therefore..they will expand, peacefully or otherwise. No rulers want to lose their cushy jobs. I would imagine it will be a blend of both ways.

And I think they will be strong enough at that point they can call anyone's bluff. Heck, little dipsquat north Korea has called everyone's bluff so far and got away with it. China is MUCH larger and more powerful across the board by every metric you can look at. So that means the Chinese model is going to take over huge areas of the planet, inevitable now I think.

Re:An analysis

[Curunir_wolf]

Crap. I need to stop putting it off and just go ahead and order this thing.

More Data

[zogger]

More proof that as the west concentrates on pro sports, government mc busywork jobs and "paper financial products", China is going for the tangible wealth, the *real stuff*. In this case, they already own it, and are looking to maintain an "in house" monopoly on some critical 21st century metals.

Re:Monopoly is bad

[Tetsujin]

I think you're taking it a bit too literally.
Analogies tend to break down when... they are no longer
taken as analogies!

Well, really, the break-down of an analogy is a lot like the break-down of a car...

Re:Connect Four is bad

[Tetsujin]

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

That's nice. But what about non-intensive purposes?

DO NOT QUESTION the almighty misquoted idiom!

If The Average Idiot has decided that it is "for all intensive purposes" from now on, then THAT'S WHAT IT IS, because language evolves to fit the speaker! Those of us who do not accept this change are simply living in the past! Thus, there is no such thing as "correct" speech or writing!

Fuck Santa!

[Tetsujin]

There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet.

There are a lot of things that Santa Claus could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet too...

I know. Don't get me started on that fat fucker...

I mean, he can do a complete tour of the globe in less than 48 hours, visiting hundreds of millions of homes along the way to leave toys for all the little children whose families celebrate Christmas (except the really poor ones, I mean) - I mean, what else could he do with that kind of power? A real kick-ass search and rescue service, I bet, or distributing food to those in need - hell, even if he just readjusted his Christmas program a bit - giving more to the poor and less to the comfortably wealthy - that would be worth a lot in my book.

UK & France

[OrangeTide]

Took you two over a hundred years and cooperating in two major wars as allies to bury the hatchet.

Of course Brits still go around bashing people's heads in, Falklands and Northern Ireland come to mind as recent history showing the UK to not be an entirely peaceful nation. And for France Algeria was quite a mess, although the French don't conduct brutality quite on the scale as the British.

Re:UK & France

[Shakrai]

Falklands and Northern Ireland come to mind as recent history showing the UK to not be an entirely peaceful nation.

Yeah, how dare the Brits go to war when another country invades and occupies lands filled with people who were quite content being under the British Crown and utterly opposed to coming under the sovereignty of the invading power. Damn Limey aggression knows no bounds does it?

Northern Ireland is a mess and I don't know enough about the history thereof to form an opinion on whether or not the British actions are justified but to imply that the Falklands War represented some sort of British aggression is absurd.

Re:UK & France

[Anonymous Coward]

So war (and violence) is justifiable in some circumstances? Interesting.

Re:UK & France

[Shakrai]

Yes, it is. Only a Hippie Liberal douche flower child would claim that it isn't. Even the UN Charter acknowledges that war is justifiable in certain instances.

Re:Connect Four is bad

[LouisZepher]

While it is true that language evolves, such turns-of-phrase as "intensive purposes", "could of", or "begs the question" are the linguistic equivalent of congenital birth-defects.

Re:Moonopoly is bad

[Tetsujin]

While it is true that language evolves, such turns-of-phrase as "intensive purposes", "could of", or "begs the question" are the linguistic equivalent of congenital birth-defects.

And yet people make that defense all the time, eh? "It's common usage now, therefore it's correct." Blah...

Great!

[SetupWeasel]

Now they can die together.

Re:Moonopoly is bad

[istartedi]

1: Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
2: The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour
4: Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5: Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
6: Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
7: Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
8: Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
9: And smale foweles maken melodye,
10: That slepen al the nyght with open ye
11: (so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
12: Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

it will never happen

[whyfreakout]

Regardless of whether or not you are a proponent of international cooperation on space ventures, I don't see this ever becoming reality. Already, there are countless voices in the US gov and space industry bitching about the decline of domestic space access. The US space program is a jobs program (with a domestic focus) â" not a grand space endeavor; NASA's mandate is to maintain as many (mostly useless) jobs as possible, with everybody wanting a piece of that government pie. NASA can't even agree on any long term plan within its own factions, so imagine how likely it is to line up the interest of NASA, the US government, the Russian government, and their space agency.

Maybe even more importantly, there is the self-inflicted wound of US domestic protectionism called ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation). Any kind of technical international venture needs to navigate that minefield of overzealous bureaucracy, and once you are talking âoegovernment agencyâ to âoegovernment agencyâ instead of âoecompanyâ to âoecompanyâ politics inevitably become a factor (e.g. we cannot buy your Russian engines, because you supplied arms to XYZ, or we wonâ(TM)t let you use our rockets, because weâ(TM)re sick of you pushing your IP law at the UN, etc.).

People can do it at a grass-roots level. Companies struggle with it and spend millions on international law firms â" and still fail. Government agencies? Not a chance.

Dont forget Murphy

[mrwolf007]

I think you have a point.
Aside from getting some real advantages from building a moon colony it does reduce effects Murphy could have. Something goes terribly bad on the moon base? Well, should be possible to get help there in a matter of days.
Something goes wrong on mars? Here take some shovels and dig your graves.

Monoculture

[PMBjornerud]

Only now are people beginning to realize something that should have
been apparent right from the start: one single, massive economic system
is inherently bad. It's like a monopoly. There's no backup.

Indeed. More people should be aware of this. It's basically the same issues as agricultural monoculture. More efficient, faster, better - and a downside of the occasional catastrophic failure.

The issue at hand is that everyone only things about the "efficiency" part, where removing redundancy is always a good thing. But this optimistic approach to efficiency is actually extremely fragile.

Redundancy is required at some points, or you are setting yourself up for an eventual collapse.

Globalization is cultural monoculture. A civilization will fail, sooner or later. Making earth a single civilization paves the road for an eventual catastrophic failure.

Guns

[PMBjornerud]

Guns are not for personal defense. They're for fighting the government if they become too corrupted and must be removed from power.

Just ask any founding father.

Re:Guns

[Shakrai]

They're for fighting the government if they become too corrupted and must be removed from power.

And that's not a form of personal defense, in this case against tyranny?

Money

[Phoghat]

Great idea but where will Russia find the money to fund it?

Re:Moonopoly is bad

[Tetsujin]

1: Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
2: The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour
4: Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5: Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
6: Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
7: Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
8: Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
9: And smale foweles maken melodye,
10: That slepen al the nyght with open ye
11: (so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
12: Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

Huh. Is there a point here?

Re:Connect Four is bad

[DrRiffic]

linguistic cancer in my opinion