Slashdot Mirror
Does the Moon Have Military Value?
MarkWhittington writes "Despite the fact that under President Barack Obama's space policy, Americans will not be going back to the moon any time soon, discussions are occurring about what, if any, military value the Earth's nearest neighbor has. Opinions, as can be expected, vary on the subject."
As for rare earth minerals, they're not that rare. Even the most expensive minerals only cost about $100k/kilo, meaning a $100 million dollar expedition - not even a Mars Rover - would have to bring back a ton in 100% pure form. And that needs to cover a full excavation, processing and launch system plus operating costs of such.
Something like gold is only $3k/kilo, so more like 300+ tons. It's doubtful you could turn a profit even if there were 24 carat gold bars lying on the moon surface waiting to be picked up. Maybe someday in the future we will become far more desperate for this, but most likely it's cheaper to exploit every vein, dig up every land fill and recycle every last gram rather than try getting it from space.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most of these technologies then furthered peaceful means. If there's no short-term profit in developing a technology, the military is the next best bet, provided it can somehow be adapted to make killing people easier.
Happens so only for the last 70-100 years and, again, not exclusively so: nano-technologies, genetics and Large Hadron Collider were not.
Steam engine (the reason for being out from feudalism and stepped into industrialization) was not invented for military purposes. Printed press wasn't either.
Even if it would be so, does it mean that we should bet always on military? Even worse, perhaps creating the needs the army need to react?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Everyone has biases, including reporters. The myth of objective journalism is just that, a myth. And your focus on Mr. Whittington's political leanings is nothing short of an ad hominem. Either his article and ideas have merit, or they do not. Attacking (which includes criticizing as well as simply "pointing them out") his politics is a distraction and waste of time.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Oh no not a Republican, I guess we can ignore everything he says then. Even though you point out he uses facts and draws conclusions from those facts we can't consider his point of view because he has an imaginary R at the end of his name. If you disagree with TFA then disagree with it, don't just not like someones politics and therefore dismiss TFA out of hand.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"