Slashdot Mirror
Solar Storm Nearly Wipes Out NASA's Messenger
tcd004 writes "There was a close call last week when an enormous coronal ejection nearly hit Mercury and the orbiting Messenger spacecraft. Scientists at the Space Weather Laboratory flew into action, modeling the event to determine how close it had come to the spacecraft using data from the twin STEREO sun observers. The group used an animated model called WSA-ENLIL, named after a Sumerian lord of wind and storms. Enlil, who wears a crown of horns, is known for being a kind but also cruel god who sends forth disasters, including a great flood that wiped out humanity. Fortunately Messenger escaped Enlil's wrath."
Sounds like it wasn't really that close of a call.
I just had one of those in the men's restroom.
Enlil, who wears a crown of horns, is known for being a kind but also cruel god who sends forth disasters, including a great flood that wiped out humanity.
When you meet one of them, you've met them all. A bunch of jerks, if you ask me.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Apart from the knowledge we obtain from these vehicles...can we justify these expensive ventures in these recession times?
Launched in the good ol' days of 2004, according to Wikipedia. Already made it's first flyby before the economic collapse.
The only way you could save money on it now is to shut down the ground team, effectively throwing away your investment and many years' work.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Gotta love the Sumerians. Who else could the Christians crib their entire mythology from and claim they did it first?
i say yes.
the knowledge we earn from this may (or may not) help a lot in many things. going from science to helping the economy.
remember that doing stuff like this gives people a job, people that will buy stuff, which once again gives other people a job and keeps the economy going.
cutting costs is not always the best way to fight a recession.
its not as if there weren't any other things that could be done other then space missions during previous years. solving the problems of earth first may not work, at the very least this way we might find some more solutions to earths problems
fly away little troll
I wonder if stuff like that has the potential to change orbits of plants. If the Sun were to push itself enough out of position everything circling it would begin to have irregular orbits around it and things could get really bad.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Designing, building, launching and operating a space mission is expensive. Very expensive, even.
But let's be realistic, the cost of this mission isn't even a rounding error compared to other expenses our government has taken upon itself. If we really wanted to cut back our expenses shouldn't be looking at one-off costs. There are plenty other places where orders of magnitude more money could be saved. We shouldn't save on science, again. We only have a little left anyway.
Where do you think the money is spent? The paychecks of thousands of people are directly related to spaceflight -- your neighbors and mine. The programs themselves buy products of every description, from commodities like gases and metals to highly engineered and specialized electronics and mechanical assemblies, from companies both large and small -- not to mention the services of a wide range of people, from painters to software engineers. These people then reinvest their paychecks in your community, at restaurants, department stores, and every other consumer outlet. It's hard to think of a more fiscally-responsible activity in "these recession times."
Absolutely not. We need that money to fund more pointless never-ending wars like the ones on drugs and terrorism. We need to be researching less invasive ways to invade the privacy of citizens, so we can make the nation secure without anyone realizing that we're doing it by monitoring them 24/7. We need bigger CEO bonuses so that the wealthy can make all the rest of us happier by keeping the money that doesn't buy happiness. We need to route more money through the political process in case someone there hasn't gotten the message on how to vote.
Gaining knowledge doesn't add to the bottom line and impress stock brokers, so that's clearly a waste of cash. Just like education in general.
First you have to find a plant in orbit, though...
Apart from the knowledge we obtain? Well no. Duh. The knowledge we obtain from these vehicles is the only benefit anyone ever intended or expected to get from them, so if you deliberately exclude that from the calculations, then of course we can't justify it.
The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology club.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
"...including a great flood that wiped out humanity."
Jesus, there was another one of those? How many does that make for humanity?
I might not be able to tell you exactly how this will benefit you, but in general more knowledge is never a bad thing. Consider the huge number of products and ideas that we use everyday that came from accidents or people just playing around (rubber, penicillin, and superglue, to name a few).
War, on the other hand, serves no creative purpose, but only destroys. I would ask you how we can continue to justify several different military actions during a recession.
One more thing: first, consider NASA's budget which is 0.6% of the federal budget. Now consider the Department of Defense's budget, which is 19%. (Both of these numbers are straight from Wikipedia for 2010.) I can't justify spending 32 times as much on wars that will only serve to kill people and create a worldwide hatred of America as we spend on our space program. It doesn't make any sense to me.
War, on the other hand, serves no creative purpose, but only destroys. I would ask you how we can continue to justify several different military actions during a recession.
Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war. To deny this is to admit one doesn't know history. And contrary to your assertion, war is frequently fueled by massive levels of creativity. Almost everything you take for granted in modern life, either directly or indirectly, can be attributed to war.
One more thing: first, consider NASA's budget which is 0.6% of the federal budget. Now consider the Department of Defense's budget, which is 19%.
19% is spent on the prevention of war. That's how you can justify several different military actions during a recession.
That and it is a sunk cost at this point. The money was 'spent' in 2004.
is the sun now enemizing us/our outer space program as well? the way it's blocked from our view all the time now, it must be so? got it, thanks.
is this guy now our enemy too, or do spies like us?;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&NR=1
real math; taking one (1) life =crime vs. humanity
give US a minute here. this can't be right? isn't there justdenyable
homicide? that's the old time religion? god's will? too many of us (by
about 5 billion)? still foggy? in these complex times, it can be
disgustingly enlightening to return to the teachings of the georgia stone
trustdead freemason 'math'?
freemason kids traumatized by native teachings
we're not the only (chosen) ones? the natives must have made some
mathematical errors? let's see, wasn't that problem taken care of before?
& before that. let's check the georgia stone, all the answers are there?
not to fret then, the #s never lie?
the GSM get their tiny (ie; selfish, stingy, eugenatic, fake math) .5
billion remaining population, & the money/weapons/vaccine/deception/fake
'weather' alchemist/genetically altered nazi mutant goon exchangers, get
us? yikes
the 'fog' is lifting? more chariots will be needed?
with real math, even being remotely involved in lifetaking (paying for,
supplying endless ordinance) is also a crime against ALL of the world.
ALL (uninfactdead) MOMMYS......
the georgia stone remains uneditable? gad zooks. are there no chisels?
previous math discardead; 1+1 extrapolated (Score:mynutswon; no such thing
as one too many here)
deepends on how you interpret it. georgia stone freemason 'math'; the .5 billion, then
variables & totals are objective oriented; oranges: 1+1= not enough,
somebody's gotta die. people; 1+1=2, until you get to
1+1=2 too many, or, unless, & this is what always happens, they breed
uncontrolled, naturally (like monkeys), then, 1+1=could easily result in
millions of non-approved, hoardsplitting spawn. see the dilemma? can
'math', or man'kind' stand even one more League of Smelly Infants being
born?
there are alternative equations being proffered. the deities (god, allah,
yahweh, buddha, & all their supporting castes) state in their manuals that
we needn't trouble ourselves with thinning the population, or being so
afraid as to need to hoard stuff/steal everything. chosen people? chosen
for what? to live instead of us? in the case of life, more is always
better. unassailable perfect math. see you at the play-dates, georgia
stone editing(s) etc... babys rule.
exploding babys; corepirate nazis to be caged (Score:mynutswon; hanging is
too good for them?)
there are plans to put them, (the genetically, surgically & chemically
altered coreprate nazi mutant fear/death mongerers (aka47; eugenatics,
weapons peddlers, kings/minions, adrians, freemasons etc...)) on display
in glass cages, around the world, so that we can remember not to forget...
again, what can happen, based on greed/fear/ego stoking deception.
viewing/feeding will be rationed based on how many more of the creators'
innocents are damaged, or have to be brought home (& they DO have another
one) prematurely.
not many bad guys survive a photon burst
you even knew that? cool. as a matter of fact, we're finding photons (in
their 'singular' form) to be quite useful as a general purpose life
extender.
seems like we already have enough rigging to escape a few of us out of
here, but if we were a bit more careful, we could extend our stay until we
could all go along. plus, by then, we'll have a clear destination?
looks like we're having a little trouble with math, science & history.
like we can't tell what happened, because there's now so many versions of
what we know didn't happen, &/or when, & how many innocents were
damaged/killed. seems like real history is catching
"There was a close call last week when an enormous coronal ejection nearly hit Mercury and the orbiting Messenger spacecraft.
Sun caught jerking off; nearly blows load all over Earth's satellites; Earth raises big fuzzy eyebrows in shock.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Libya is engagement in conflict, not a prevention of conflict. Prove me otherwise.
What does "engagement in conflict" mean?
That's the way it's been, however that's not because of any particular rule. It's more because it's easier to get funding to blow something up than to do something productive. People tend to be more willing to open their purses for something that they feel is in their interest, particularly if it helps them avoid something that scares them.
Societies that have other values tend to have other routes to developing technology. Ones which value agriculture tend to poor their resources there and into things which are related.
So Enlil is like God and Messenger is like Noah? Are they proposing that Noah's arc might be on Mercury?
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
I know what you are trying to say, but just think about it for a second: "prevention of war" by going to war? And you said that with a straight face? (Well, typed it, anyway).
If you really think dropping bombs on people is the best way to prevent war, then I humbly suggest you read Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Apart from the knowledge we obtain from these vehicles...can we justify these expensive ventures in these recession times?
Apart from the knowledge we obtain from this sort of endeavor...can we justify the value of the human race? Seriously, this is the goal. Everything we've done and all of our efforts as a species it lead up to this sort of exploration of the frontiers of science, astronomy, and meaning. If we don't do something other than reproduce and advertise, if we're only interested in looking inward and never outward, why do we even need to exist?
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
How exactly does one get to be "kind" and "cruel" at the same time? God or no god. How does that work?
He cruelly cuts people's breaks and then he kindly saves them from their burning cars?
Or does he give gifts - that also have a random chance of killing their recipient?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The bigger issue is that as soon as you start putting that kind of money into the DoD people want to see the military do something. Libya is a much better user of resources than Iraq was, albeit, a much cheaper conflict to get involved in. Even if they don't give us access to their resources, having an unstable regime headed by a dictator isn't in our best interest.
There's also the issue of the things which are going unfunded so that we can devote that much money to the defense department. Things like proper universal health care and education to name a couple.
Go away.
What matters beyond the knowledge it gains? What has gotten us to where we are as a civilization is NOT gold nor money but KNOWLEDGE. The pittance that is spent on NASA is NOTHING next to the mountains of money - literally HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR on the 'oh so worthwhile' activity of KILLING EACH OTHER IN WARFARE. FEH! Want to save some money? STOP KILLING PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD!
...NASA was entering the IM chat game.
I have no idea, since English is not my primary language. What do you think it means?
"Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war. To deny this is to admit one doesn't know history."
I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed. Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.
Adscribing technology and social advance to wars as if it were the only way to achieve those results just because that was how in fact they happened is naive at best, criminal at worst.
The bigger issue is that as soon as you start putting that kind of money into the DoD people want to see the military do something.
Why put the money into DoD at all?
Libya is a much better user of resources than Iraq was, albeit, a much cheaper conflict to get involved in. Even if they don't give us access to their resources, having an unstable regime headed by a dictator isn't in our best interest.
Violating sovereignty of another nation state (even the one led by an unstable dictator) is in the interest of the world's "pinnacle of freedom and democracy"? Taking sides in an internal conflict is right and justified? I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.
For some reason, my logic must be screwed up as well, since I don't see anyone talking about bringing down the regime of Kazakhstan, where Nursultan Nazarbayev won with alleged support of 95% of citizens. Which is quite an ordinary thing after 20 years of rule, right? What about Sudan, Yemen? Oh, let's not forget the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea and its leaders, who, after they lost power, were supported by China and the United States.
It seems I'm a pretty much messed up person, for opposing the senseless war. Since you worry about universal healthcare and education, you are probably a pretty messed up person yourself. Since of course the "security", "stability" and "spread of democracy" are a priority, right?
""prevention of war" by going to war? And you said that with a straight face?"
Not that I share such an opinion, but you can bet khallow is not the first one to try that path: did you never heard about the Latin saying 'si vis pacem para bellum', or its "original" from Vegetius 'Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum'.
That's more or less 1500 years ago, so not really hot news.
What if Libya is a prevention of wider conflict, or future conflict?
lets just say "prevention" != "engagement"
"why do we even need to exist?"
I know this one: 42
To be sure, in the case of MESSENGER; but IMHO the GP was asking about policy, not an implementation: He mentions "these vehicles" and "these expensive ventures", yet there is only one MESSENGER spacecraft.
Or maybe he's just a troll, and we're both screwed ^_^
That's just speculation. What's your evidence?
Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's stop the programs so we have to lay off the scientists and the factory workers that make the high precision parts! That will help us out in this poor economy!
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
"including a great flood that wiped out humanity"
Wait. We were wiped out? Why am I always the last one to be told about these things?!!!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Peace through superior firepower?
I drank what? -- Socrates
"Prepare," sure. "Go to," no.
There's a big difference between being the biggest, toughest kid on the playground that no one wants to mess with because they *know* they will get pummeled if they try, and being the bully on the playground who goes around picking fights.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You seem to be talking around in circles without a coherent statement.
I have a bit of a grasp on History and I plainly deny that: the only direct result of war is people being killed
Well, by you're own admission, you just contradicted yourself. Factually, history completely disagrees with you. The fact you state you know history and then directly contradict history to make your point, entirely invalidates your point as well as your credibility.
Everything else are indirect results and, as such, they could have been gotten by other ways -without the killing.
I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science. But no one lives in that world. No one. Furthermore, its true that some advancements may eventually be made, but in what time span? A decade? A century? More? Like it or not, for example, WWII and the despicable medical experiments conducted by the Germans alone advanced the state of the art by fifty to a hundred years in medical understanding. Literally some of that research is still used today in new research. That doesn't justify the horrors conducted by the Germans but its fact nonetheless.
The simple fact is, almost all of the things on today's "modern" technology literally is because of WWII, the Cold War, and Vietnam. Is it possible that technology could have been developed elsewhere? Absolutely! But likely not for another fifty to hundred years.
As for societal improvements, literally almost the entire world contradicts you. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, are all typical examples which completely prove your notions to be false.
So while it may offend your polite company sensibilities, it doesn't validate your opinion in the least.
Goddard's Community Coordinated Modeling Center just released a space weather app that lets you track solar activity in real-time. It also has data and simulation predictions for the solar surface, the solar wind, and Earth's magnetosphere/ionosphere. Really slick interface too :)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nasa-space-weather/id422621403?mt=8
The writeup seems to say that after the danger had already passed, scientists jumped into action to see how close it could have been. Does it matter how quickly they worked, since they couldn't have done anything to change the outcome?
There's also mention of avoiding Enlil's (or ENLIL's) wrath, but Enlil/ENLILI is the name given to the computer model they used to (again, belatedly) model the path of the ejection. All avoiding was done before they started modeling with something they called Enlil, which if it had any wrath would have been directed at the virtual model of the spacecraft, not the actual one.
But, hey, keep writing the interesting stories that almost make sense!
I don't remember the United States being so proactive during the war in my homeland. In fact, I remember certain embargoes while we were attacked. It must be just my memory.
The embargoes affected everyone in the former Yugoslavia including Serbia and Montenegro. It's just unfortunate that the victims were more strongly affected than the aggressors. But that's how conflicts are peacefully resolved. Big fish eats little fish.
One more thing: first, consider NASA's budget which is 0.6% of the federal budget. Now consider the Department of Defense's budget, which is 19%. (Both of these numbers are straight from Wikipedia for 2010.) I can't justify spending 32 times as much on wars that will only serve to kill people and create a worldwide hatred of America as we spend on our space program. It doesn't make any sense to me.
To equate all DOD spending with only war, killing, and hatred of America is ludicrous. Yes, the US military is actively engaged in hostile actions. However it is usually among the first to respond when humanitarian relief is required- such as recent efforts in "Japan." Furthermore military technology finds it's way to civilian "non-lethal uses."Also, kind of funny slamming DOD budget as all war and killing while posting to a site that is accessible thanks in large part to DARPA funded core technology. Granted probably a tiny piece of that defense war and killing budget, but part of it nonetheless. Arguably some of the same tech could have made it's way to civilian use without DOD, but to deny that DOD funding accelerated those moves is naive beyond belief.
Back on topic -- the recent experiences with Messenger as pointed out in the article only reinforce the need to understand, detect and frankly plan for a major terrestrial disruption due to CME or other type bursts. I'm confident we'll experience a major outage in my lifetime, and as electronics become more and more interconnected the disruptions caused by that outage will have a larger and unpredictable impact on ordinary folks. Time to get our heads out of the sand.
Certainly depends on the war.
What massive technological improvements did we see as a result of the 6 day war?
And I hate to break it to you, but a war is between the armies of two or more countries. What the US is engaged in in Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars anymore - they are police actions.
But please, do enlighten the curious amongst us - what civilian technological advancements have we seen as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq? I'll even let you use the first Gulf War, if you can think of anything other than improvements in GPS and autonomous navigation.
Now, it IS true that in the "good old days", both World War I and II brought some rather massive technological improvements, but the main reasons for that was the time they lasted and the amount of rapid evolution needed to keep up against the other sides.
Now, why can't we have similar improvements without war? We probably could, but that will never happen because of one thing - money. When we have an enemy that is on the brink of destroying us, we don't really care if we get paid on time. Or get paid. Keep us fed and clothed, and we'll work 16 hours a day pumping out new weapons and technology.
Let's put the money part into perspective.
In 2004 there were 2,630,000 first-time freshmen college students enrolled.
Let's set tuition at a REALLY high average cost of 100,000 dollars/year - TWICE that of Yale's most expensive program.
It would cost 263 billion dollars a year to give these student a 100,000 dollar college education. The US Defense Department budget was 689 billion dollars in 2010.
To be honest, I was expecting this to be a very different result. I seriously thought that the tuition for these freshmen would have been a LOT higher than the defense budget.
The question is - what would the US be able to achieve, as a nation, if they were to divert 263 billion dollars a year from its defense budget to pay for kids wanting to go to college? Sure, it'd have to drop the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which only cover some 150 billion dollars in the 2011 budget, so it'd have to pull another 120 billion from elsewhere in its budget. But would it really be that much less safe, if it reduced its budget from 661 billion to 398 billion? That would still put it a 3.98 times of what China spends in second place.
But seriously - can you look at these costs and still claim that you can never get any kind of similar boosts to technology and society, if you were willing to pump the same amount of money into education?
If we go with Yale's most expensive program (50k USD/year) and expect every freshman to complete and graduate a four year degree, we're looking at yearly costs of 526 billion USD. That'd still leave the Defense Department with 163 billion USD, which is STILL more than the second place spender.
The embargoes affected everyone in the former Yugoslavia including Serbia and Montenegro.
Which, even despite I'm in one of the attacked countries, does not make me happy.
It's just unfortunate that the victims were more strongly affected than the aggressors. But that's how conflicts are peacefully resolved. Big fish eats little fish.
Rather odd way at looking at things. Denying defensive weaponry and other things to build up a resistance surely is an effective way to resolve a conflict. Because then it cannot even be called a conflict; if there's only one properly armed side, how can you call it a conflict?
If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import embargo on a state that cannot defend itself means its citizens will be "dealt with" by the other side.
When comparing things to the other wars, people seem to miss one important thing: insurgents in Libya have insisted that there is, really, no division among Libyans. In that way, the situation is unlike the one in Yugoslavia: supporters of Gaddafi are "artificially" separated from insurgents. Not by difference of tradition, difference of language, difference of customs, but by their opinions of the current leader. Is there a religious difference, as in Iraq? What are their differences?
Why not attempt a diplomatic solution? Why not first just threaten Gaddafi to deploy troops, and demand negotiations and observers? Perhaps I did not track the events enough, but I don't remember anyone making such demands. It was immediately "They're suppressing a rebellion, lets attack them".
Nobody went into Libya to prevent a conflict, but to encourage one. If lives were all the world worried about, they would have let Gaddafi go when he wanted to take the money and run, instead of telling him "no".
Scientists at the Space Weather Laboratory flew into action, modeling the event to determine how close it had come to the spacecraft
They modeled how close it came to destroying the orbiter? Wow, that's pretty impressive, guys...way to keep one step ahead...
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Certainly depends on the war.
What massive technological improvements did we see as a result of the 6 day war?
Nice try in idiocy and trolling. Factually, the 6-day war was also deemed the end of tank warfare and the return to massive civilian deaths. As a result of such proclamations, the state of the art in metallurgy and material sciences received a boost. The resulting research has made advances to almost everything you see as "modern" today. Not to mention, composite armors are now standard fair on main battle tanks which means dramatically extended lives for tank crews.
Absolutely, the scale and scope of the war makes big differences and massive advances as a result of small wars, such as the six day war, are by far the exception. But then again, this is rather obvious. The longer and more protracted the war, the more money is going to be spent. If this is news to you, you're an idiot. The fact you mention this as somehow validating your point, extremely diminishes your credibility. Seriously, think about it. Derr...no money spent means no science earned. Its almost universally true in all aspects of life.
The rest of your bullshit is just that...baseless rhetoric and bullshit.
If you want to close your eyes and pretend the world doesn't exist, that's fine by me. It literally costs me nothing for you to be stupid and ignorant. If on the other hand, you want to evolve to the modern world, feel free to open your eyes and educate yourself.
about the animated modeling system, less information about dead gods plz.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If you however think there is someone who is defending himself, and has a right to defend himself, just help or don't interfere. Imposing a weapon import embargo on a state that cannot defend itself means its citizens will be "dealt with" by the other side.
Any silver tongued politician could have told you that they were "helping" not just "interfering". This sort of game is played whenever there is concern about evils committed somewhere, but nobody in power wants to be at risk from doing something concrete. Games were played in the days prior to the Second World War and in Cambodia and Rwanda. Evil was allowed to fester and grow.
This is why I consider a military as more than a thing that breaks things, kills people, and destroys societies. There are always powers which take from the weaker. Too often, pathetic, insignificant diplomacy has been substituted for meaningful measures such as the use of military force to get a tyrant to back down. I have no idea why some people think that mere diplomacy can settle matters where a bully picks on the weak. But that is the great conceit of modern pacifism, that understanding and cooperation is all that is needed for two foes to come to terms in a war.
19% is spent on the prevention of war? Well, that's money out the window. How many wars are you guys involved in now? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan. Might as well take that 19% and spend it on something useful.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
What if Libya is a prevention of wider conflict, or future conflict?
What if Libya is the trigger for a wider conflict, or future conflict?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Factually, history completely disagrees with you
And factually, present day completely disagrees with history. How's our roaring war economy doing now?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Some of us actually come here for the science stories. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of the amount of money MESSENGER requires in comparison to the federal budget overall can see your concern is facetious. Please take your lame political trolling to an iDevice "story" and leave us nerds in peace.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
The ultimate goal of any intervention in arab countries is stabilization. Destabilization invites war, particularly nasty war when Muslim dominated nations with what is considered a decent military for the region are so close to Israel.
Everything always must come down to Israel, doesn't it? This seems like an ironic twist on the Godwin's Law.
United States is on the other side of the world compared to the Middle East. It is not directly threatened. Israel does not seem like a natural ally. United States is not threatened militarily and it's not really threatened by the Middle Eastern countries at all, and should not look at small countries as its allies. United States should feel much more threatened by the China.
Government of the Gitmo Nation West should more closely try to end the dependence on the Chinese products and the Chinese market, work on economic ties with the rest of the world, kickstart manufacturing and science, and overall regain its economic and cultural strength. Gunning everyone that dares to oppose the "world's last standing superpower" and its wishes is not a solution.
And it will bring neither stability nor democracy. Instead, United States are for the last decade turning into the very monster whose creation they are trying to prevent.
Those parts are increasingly coming from China. Wake up!
And factually, present day completely disagrees with history. How's our roaring war economy doing now?
Considering your idiotic statement is verifiably false, in what way do you believe stating verifiable lies makes your point? How stupid are you?
The US wasn't threatened militarily in Korea or Vietnam, either. Israel is small, but influential with a very strong military and they are a nuclear power(supposedly). They also have the itchiest trigger finger. If Israel goes to full-scale war, it will send the whole region down the shitter and invite countries like Russia to get involved since they do a lot of business with other countries in the region(thus protecting their interests, same thing the US does). Israel only comes up because it is one of the reasons why countries like the US intervene. Ultimately, you want to keep the issues within the country. Manageable. The larger the conflict within the country, the greater the potential for it to spread. Israel is attached because of that, but so are other countries that major countries have major interests in
The US wasn't threatened militarily in Korea or Vietnam, either. Israel is small, but influential with a very strong military and they are a nuclear power(supposedly).
Who gave them that?
They also have the itchiest trigger finger. If Israel goes to full-scale war, it will send the whole region down the shitter
Are you saying that Israel is the problem? I am not that actively tracking the status in the region, but they never seemed like a major troublemaker to me. If they are, what is the logic in destroying everyone around them?
and invite countries like Russia to get involved since they do a lot of business with other countries in the region(thus protecting their interests, same thing the US does).
Russia is not half-way around the world.
Israel only comes up because it is one of the reasons why countries like the US intervene. Ultimately, you want to keep the issues within the country. Manageable. The larger the conflict within the country, the greater the potential for it to spread. Israel is attached because of that, but so are other countries that major countries have major interests in
I'm afraid I do not understand how all this justifies entering the conflict in Libya. If Gaddafi was mad enough to openly attack Israel, he had over 40 years to do so. I'm also not sure that bringing US' "sons of bitches" into power to replace one who was previously US "son of a bitch" is the solution. You should observe problems in political transition of countries from socialism to capitalism. Even worse scum comes to power.
There's an insightful campaign slogan for local elections in one small town in Croatia: "Vote for us; we already stole what we wanted." If other people come into power, you have no idea who you'll be dealing with.
It is interesting that in less than a month since the first uprisings, a rebel "government" has been organized in Libya. It has already organized a "central bank" (with what money?) and secured oil export contracts, not to mention armed itself. Hmm.
Who is trigger happy here?
"Factually, history completely disagrees with you."
Actually? Then you can easily point me to the war started "to the advancement of Science and Technology", can you?
"I never said they couldn't be obtained in a world of purely research driven science."
Yes you did, since you pointed technology advancement as a direct outcome of war while the truth is that those advencements, except maybe for the case of weaponry development are just side effects that, by your own account could be achieved by other means without the killings.
"As for societal improvements, literally almost the entire world contradicts you. Japan, Vietnam, Korea, are all typical examples"
So you really beleive that, say, Japan, became what it is *because* of the war? Did you see any photgraphs from Japan by 1945? Have you seen photographs from Hirosima and Nagasaki right after the A-bombs? *That* is what war achieves. What you see now is not because of war but because the way USA happened to drive its neocolonialism *afterwards*. If it were a direct outcome, North Korea or North Vietnam would be the same than their South counterparts since they were involved in the same wars. Same cause with different effects directly shows that your presumed cause is not the one that drove the effects.