Slashdot Mirror
What Star Trek Owes To Robert Heinlein
HughPickens.com writes: As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the original Star Trek, Manu Saudia, author of Trekonomics, has an interesting article on BoingBoing about how according to Gene Roddenberry himself, no author had more influence on The Original Star Trek than Robert Heinlein, and more specifically his juvenile novel Space Cadet. That book, published in 1948, is considered a classic. It is a bildungsroman, retelling the education of young Matt Dodson from Iowa, who joins the Space Patrol and becomes a man. (In a homage from Roddenberry, Star Trek's Captain James Tiberius Kirk is also from Iowa.) The Space Patrol is a prototype of Starfleet: it is a multiracial, multinational institution, entrusted with keeping the peace in the solar system. In Space Cadet, Heinlein portrayed a society where racism had been overcome. Not unlike Starfleet, the Space Patrol was supposed to be a force for good. According to Saudia, the hierarchical structure and naval ranks of the first Star Trek series (a reflection of Heinlein's Annapolis days) were geared to appeal to Heinlein's readers and demographics, all these starry-eyed kids who, like Roddenberry himself, had read Space Cadet and Have Spacesuit -- Will Travel. Nobody cared about your sex or the color of your skin as long as you were willing to sign up for the Space Patrol or Starship Troopers' Federal service. Where it gets a little weird is that Heinlein's Space Patrol controls nuclear warheads in orbit around Earth, and its mission is to nuke any country that has been tempted to go to war with its neighbors. This supranational body in charge of deterrence, enforcing peace and democracy on the home planet by the threat of annihilation, was an extrapolation of what could potentially be achieved if you combined the UN charter with mutually assured destruction. "The fat finger on the nuclear trigger makes it a very doubtful proposition," concludes Saudia. "The Space Patrol, autonomous and unaccountable, is the opposite of the kind democratic and open society championed by Star Trek."
Another Heinlein influence, if second hand, is via the 1950 to 1955 television show "Tom Corbet Space Cadet". This was also based on Heinlein's novel "Space Cadet", and established that there was TV interest in this sort of thing.
Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young.
Heinlein's The Long Watch is well worth a read. A quick story, but powerful, if you appreciate the implications of technological power and in particular of atomic fission for human society and for the human condition.
The original Day the Earth Stood Still came out just a few years later and also embraces the concept of absolute power used to prevent the ultimate war. There is a wisdom to it. "We do not claim to have achieved perfection. But we do have a system. And it works."
Trek was more hopeful than Heinlein about the institutions of mankind, about building a society stronger together than apart. But there is a strong streak of Heinlein in it, especially in TOS.
Real lawyers write in C++
Also this fact was explicitly called out in ST V: The Undiscovered Country..."If you could only hear yourself. 'Human Rights.' "
Manu Saadia, the writer of the article, clearly has not read a lot of late '40s, 1950s or even early 60's science fiction.
In the books of the early nuclear age, it's not unusual to read about individuals and organizations having control over nuclear weapons or "radioactive energies" that are derived from them. Along with Heinlein (don't forget Johnny Rico carried nuclear weapons in "Starship Troopers"), Frederick Pohl, A.E. van Vogt, Andre Norton, H. Beam Piper and others all wrote stories about various organizations (governmental and otherwise) building, storing and using nuclear weapons. A lot of these authors have stories that would be considered appalling in their use of nuclear weapons when read through today's eyes - in them, they generally are seen as part of an arsenal, very efficient compared to other weapons, but not see with the same feeling of horror that we have now.
To be fair, a number of the authors of the time (notably Asimov, Clarke and Bradbury) saw nuclear weapons as being world/civilization/life enders and wrote stories with these themes at the same time.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Mankind learning to get along in peace and love after a massive thermonuclear war, or mankind learning to get along under the shadow of the bomb?
Hint: only one of those conditions exists today, and is credited for preventing World War III...
Yes, that's right. Everybody knows sci-fi is not news for nerds anymore. These days, IT is brown-collar work for Indians, today's techys only care about the money, and they don't give two shits about science fiction. Ever since geek posers went mainstream there's nothing left of nerd culture to celebrate.
Heinlein wrote a very far-sighted story -- in 1941! -- called "Solution Unsatisfactory" that imagined a deadly weapon, "nuclear dust". Just drop the dust from an ordinary bomber, and anyone who breathes or touches the dust dies. All the animals and plants die too; the land becomes uninhabitable until the radiation dies away after many many years. Such an awful, ultimate weapon posed a grave threat to all of humanity; the solution was to form the "Peace Patrol" and recruit its members from all around the world. And if any country became a threat to world peace, the Patrol could bomb with radioactive dust; the Patrol was specifically created as a neutral and accountable organization with no specific loyalty (as an organization) to any single country. The climax of the story was when a new President of the United States wanted to use the dust to conquer the world, and the Patrol was ready to dust-bomb Washington D.C. (or in other words, treat the USA exactly as any other threat to world peace would be treated). The bombers were already in the air, ready to drop dust, and the crew of the bombers contained only non-Americans, specifically to avoid asking any Americans to bomb their own country. (Standard operating procedure for the Patrol; no English would be asked to bomb England, no Chinese would be asked to bomb China, etc.)
The story presented this Patrol as an unsatisfactory solution to the problems caused by the existence of "radioactive dust" weapons, but no better solution was available.
The Space Patrol being discussed here was invented by Heinlein as a direct descendant of the original Peace Patrol, but now patrolling in space. (As was typical of SF from that era, Mars and Venus were imagined to be habitable and contain alien races.)
So, the Space Patrol "is the opposite of the kind democratic and open society championed by Star Trek"? Considering that it was explicitly a military organization devoted to peacekeeping and given a monopoly on the most awful destructive power available, it's hardly a surprise that it was neither democratic nor a society.
Gene Roddenberry loved a Utopian vision of the future. In Star Trek: The Next Generation the characters claimed that the Federation no longer needs or uses money, which seems unlikely in the extreme to me. Heinlein had a more libertarian and much more individualistic bent than Roddenberry, and his Utopias were different from Star Trek.
However, a major theme of the novel was to respect the culture of others. There was an entertaining subplot where one cadet wanted to eat pie with his hands, and was ordered to eat with a fork, and it was intended as a small lesson toward learning the big lesson that manners vary according to where you are, and respecting the local culture wherever you are. There are obvious parallels with "the Prime Directive" but I can't imagine Heinlein ever going so stupid as some of the Next Generation Prime Directive episodes. ("Oh no, this planet is about to be destroyed and all the intelligent native people will die. But we can't save them without violating The Prime Directive!" "Guess we'll just have to let them die, then." Okay, they didn't, but they felt the Prime Directive was more important than saving the native people. Lucky for them there were so few natives that they were able to fit them all into the Holodeck and convince them they were still on their own planet!)
The other major theme, which this novel shares with Starship Troopers, is that it is a highly moral act to put the needs of others above your own needs. It's easy for people to look out for themselves; it's not much of a stretch to look out for your own children. It's higher morals to put the good of your country above your own good, and even higher morals to put the good of humanity above the good of any single country. The Space Patrol was entrusted with the most powerful weapons and expected to use them only to preserve the peace, and to preserve it no matter who was threatening it.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Actually, if I had points, it'd be "Offtopic". I don't actually care that many of the articles are references from elsewhere.
I come for the discussions - they're not quite like other forums (fora?).
In short, if you don't like it, close your account and don't lurk as AC.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Better known as the guy who wrote books about old Gary Stus, young Gary Stus and lots of Mary Sues all having sex with each other.
As somebody who's been here a whole lot longer than you, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself with a broken baseball bat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
In the 1930s, chemical warfare was looked on the same way. It was just assumed that the next war would be chemical. Remember all the gas masks that were issued during the London Blitz? It looks bizarre to modern eyes as chemical weapons were not used during WWII but everyone certainly expected it. The only ones who actually used chemical weapons were the Italians invading Ethiopia, a conflict mostly forgotten today. To the extent the 30s are remembered, it is for the Spanish Civil War and little else.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You win the "Jackass of the Thread" award for changing the topic to an already thread-worn distraction. Good job, jackass.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
annihilate the planet
Mess it up for a lot of life for a few hundred years, but hardly destroy it. A typical h bomb is a few orders magnitude less energetic than a hurricane.
OK, *now* it's +1 Funny. Well done. I *so* wish I had mod points today.
Are you a secret 4-digit I.D.? Or does 1149581-1109409 not compute?
Lay off the triple-shot coffees, dude. It's just a discussion about Star Trek.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
"The fat finger on the nuclear trigger makes it a very doubtful proposition," concludes Saudia. "The Space Patrol, autonomous and unaccountable, is the opposite of the kind democratic and open society championed by Star Trek."
There we go. Thought I would just help you out there. I know many people on Slashdot don't read the articles but I didn't realize that summaries had gotten that burdensome.
P.S. Hope you made it this far.
If memory serves, that's a pretty accurate summary of most Heinlein protagonists. The guy couldn't decide if he loved "frontier libertarianism" or militarism more.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I believe Putin already does, so maybe the point is moot.
""The Space Patrol, autonomous and unaccountable, is the opposite of the kind democratic and open society championed by Star Trek.""
Section 31.
"The Space Patrol, autonomous and unaccountable, is the opposite of the kind democratic and open society championed by Star Trek."
What? You spectacular idiot. Clearly you skipped Enterprise, in which it is revealed that Starfleet is neither democratic nor open. I understand, a lot of people did that, but it's still stupid. Also, even in TNG, during time of war with the Borg (and the prelude to same) Picard is always getting secret orders to go manipulate some situation.
Starfleet has its secret, unaccountable core, and you can only conclude otherwise by ignoring whole story arcs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Star Trek wasn't pervy like Heinlein's books. His juvenile books were great, but his adult books were effing gross.
In the 1930s, chemical warfare was looked on the same way. It was just assumed that the next war would be chemical. Remember all the gas masks that were issued during the London Blitz?
I don't know why this belief seems "bizarre" at all.
Given the widespread use of chemical weapons during WWI (despite the fact that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 prohibited them and made their use a war crime), I think it was pretty reasonable for people to make preparations that assumed they might be used in a future war.
It looks bizarre to modern eyes as chemical weapons were not used during WWII but everyone certainly expected it.
Huh? The Japanese made widespread use of them in WWII, just not against Western troops (for fear of retaliation). But in their invasions of Asian countries (particularly China), they used them on a number of occasions... so much so that FDR threatened that America would use chemical weapons against Japan if they kept doing it. Note that the U.S. also had NOT ratified the Geneva Protocol prohibiting use of chemical weapons. (Just the number of unused abandoned chemical weapons shells the Japanese left behind in China probably number in the millions. Australia was so concerned that they'd be used in a Japanese invasion that they secretly imported and stockpiled nearly a million chemical munitions, since the Australians knew the only reason Japan targeted China with them was because the Chinese had none and couldn't retaliate with them.)
And both the Germans and the Allies seriously considered deploying them -- but unlike in WWI (where a gradual escalation of their use against treaties by both sides eventually led to open warfare -- at first the Germans merely opened up gas canisters when the wind was favorable, arguing that the international law only prohibited chemical shells) in WWII neither side was willing to be "the first." Instead they took up firebombing and other new methods to intimidate the enemy.
And don't forget Dune, where the great landed estates had their "family atomics".
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Have to agree with him to a degree. *Every* fucking article doesn't have to be linked into the current election. You could have kept it in the abstract.
This idea appears in other sci-fi novels too
Indictment is not conviction. You're not a 'criminal' unless you're convicted.
Back in late 16th century Japan, upper class Japanese people became bored with "perfectly made ceramic pots" that Japanese potters were making. So, they asked Chinese traders "Bring us any strange looking pots that you can find. We will pay you for them". Chinese traders didn't understand why but brought all sorts of pots. Japanese picked up and bought (with silver and gold) deformed, weird looking pots from Korea. They didn't care that some of them were even used as toilets. They cleaned these pots, gave poetic names and treated them as "artistic pieces showing merging of nature and man". You can see them even today if you go to museums in Japan. You can buy some of them for millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is what will happen in a post-scarcity civilization. People will start treating "defective products" as a "real thing".
I read it first time at age 12, but forgot the ending. Then was pleasant thrilled when Inhad reread it as a MIT student. I dont know why this was never made into a movie. The Mother Thing whom I picture as a Star Trek Horta may have been hard to do before computer F/X. They could have done it as a pixie pupput like E.T. Or Yoda. The closest movie plot to this novel was the 1980s Last Starfighter. It was also about a bored small teen catapulted into a galatic war.
I don't remember ever seeing elections on earth in the series. We see some big councils, but the current state in the Soviet Union, I mean Russia, shows that councils aren't necessarily voted in democratically.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
But it doesnt matter due to the story telling and quantum leap in space battle scenes. You see elements of Kurosawa movies, Flash Gordon, Dune, etc. This was covered by an online book about the writing of StarWars in slashdot around six years ago.
The biggest rip-off, er "homage", was in one of the most popular episodes of TOS, where tribbles were simply the martian flat cats from The Rolling Stones.
Perhaps you should go first and set an example, Coward.
That phrase came from "Starship Trooper" - the marines had suits that let them make huge leaps into the air.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
The issue many folks have with the prime directive is that they don't realize it's not perfect. The Federation Realizes that it's not perfect but limits in perception and such, it's the best that could be agreed upon. Keep in mind that the "Prime Directive" is an Ethical Decision based on the "Butterfly Effect and Slippery Slope". Simply put, the Federation Counsel Didn't feel Qualified to act as God; forget about "Q", thus the Prime Directive was crafted to avoid the issue and debates.
A good solid read that covers some of the politics involves the novelizations of Trek IV in regards to Kirk's Actions in killing the Klingon Commander for killing his son David and that's the kid of crap the counsel wanted to avoid.
Become whatever the fuck you want, just quit with this SJW bullshit. Must we really over analyze everything in our lives to match your narrative? FFS, not everybody agrees that just because you chop off your cock, and take some meds,'doesn't make you a woman. Can't you see that? Is that okay to hold that opinion? Because I see nothing wrong with it.
Also I see the other side, if that's what's going to make you happy, so be it. But don't try to pollute our forums with that bullshit.
Star Trek's society is neither democratic or open; citizens seem to have a lot of restrictions on what they can do. After the founding of the Federation, there are almost no examples of major research or exploration efforts outside Star Fleet; the only Federation citizens who seem to do anything outside Star Fleet either do so in collaboration with outsiders, or are in self-imposed exile of some form or another.
What Star Trek really describes is a kind of technocracy, or an ideal of progressive or socialist government: for the most part, it has competent and effective leaders and adminstrators, strong guarantees of "human rights" (both positive and negative rights), it delivers on its economic and social promises, and the occasional bad actor is dealt with effectively. That kind of government appeals to lots of people, while other people loathe it. Unfortunately, even if you are among the people it appeals to, you need to understand that that kind of government is fiction, and will always remain fiction. And it is certainly incompatible with a "democratic and open society".
[quote]This supranational body in charge of deterrence, enforcing peace and democracy on the home planet by the threat of annihilation, was an extrapolation of what could potentially be achieved if you combined the UN charter with mutually assured destruction. [/quote]
They bomb you into democracy.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
... Space Patrol controls nuclear warheads in orbit around Earth, and its mission is to nuke any country that has been tempted to go to war with its neighbors.
Because nuking them from orbit is the only way to be sure. (or so I've heard)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Remember all the gas masks that were issued during the London Blitz?
Not to pick nits, but I imagine that 99.999% of /.ers (may) "know of" rather than "remember" them - The Blitz ended 75 years ago.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Heinlein's early books just took big government and big military as a given and explored ideas about how they might function; I don't think that means that he viewed such societies as desirable. Heinlein's main body of work clearly advocated and favored individualism and self-governance, and describes it as far superior to the large hierarchical organizations and bumbling militaries of Earth's nation states. Roddenberry, on the other hand, places little value on individualism: Star Fleet is rigidly hierarchical, free enterprise doesn't seem to exist in the Federation anymore, and the few misfits and individualists we encounter have usually turned their back on the Federation, often in pursuit of nefarious or at least dangerous goals. Other than that, we learn little about how Roddenberry envisioned Federation society would actually function, other than that elections are somehow involved, resources appear to be allocated centrally (rather than through trade and money), and that it magically makes Earth extremely wealthy.
So, yes, Star Trek was a "critique of Heinlein": Roddenberry envisions technocratic, non-capitalist, hierarchical societies as being highly successful, tolerant, and stable and probably hated Heinlein's characterization of them as unfree, imperialistic, and doomed to failure. These visions are diametrically opposed, and I think Heinlein got it right. But that doesn't keep large numbers of idealistic people from following Roddenberry's unrealistic dream.
There's far too many people that even a concrete example won't do. Too many have replaced heaven and angels in their mental space with the federation and star fleet.
As somebody who's been here a whole lot longer than you, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself with a broken baseball bat.
You've not been around longer than I, and I cordially invite you to test your proposal out for yourself. And not to bother letting us know how it went.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The spaniards used chemical weapons against the riffian in Morocco during the twenties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_the_Rif_War
Speaking of early SF writers, George Smith's _Venus_Equilateral_ (1940s era) matter duplicators and transmittters were also defeated by a wonder-substance. Writers will ALWAYS add in rights management to technology, because (1) it's imaginable, and (2) it adds complication.
To be a writer, you need imagination. To move a plot, you REALLY need complication....
Heinlein did not like the counter culture that he helped create. In fact, he went out of his way to distance himself from it. He was a crypto-fascist at heart, and would have been right at home in today's American Tea Party. He would denounce them for their racist and sexist morality, to be sure, but their idea of a society ruled by elites that use their economic and politcal power to maintain control over their society is something he would have heartily agreed with. His novels are rife with that kind of elitism, and there are echoes of it in Trek, especially in TNG.
Heinlein was a great story teller, and his stories helped elevate SF from the pulp ghetto to mainstream literature, especially novels like SiaSL and ST. But don't be tempted to think Heinlein the political man is the same as Heinlein the author. I grew up on a steady diet of Heinlein's juveniles, and was blown away by SiaSL when I read it for the first time at the ripe old age of twelve. I was (and still am, to a large extent) a Heinlein fan boy, but I've learned that my politics and Heinlein's are not equivalent, and are in fact diametrically opposed. It's tempting think that an author who entertains and delights you shares your politics, but that is not the case with Heinlein. There is no way Heinlein can be expected to rationally hold the opposing ideologies that permeate some of his best work. He was embraced on the left (over his strenuous and public objections at the time) by counter culture hippies who saw in Stranger in a Strange Land a blueprint for a better human civilization. But the same Heinlein that taught the human race how to grok also was embraced by libertarians who saw his novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress as a part of their Ayn Rand wet dream. There is no way Heinlein the man could champion both of these ideologies simultaneously and be taken seriously by anybody.
As I've come to understand them, the only novel that really reflects Heinlein's personal politics is Starship Troopers. It distills Heinlein's fascism and reflects his very real political conviction that the State is the only thing that stands between civilization and chaos, and that the only way to deal with an enemy is to destroy him, if you think you can't win him over to your side. Detente was not in his book of tactics, nor was the idea of live and let live. Check out his speech to the 1960 WorldCon in Seattle if you need further evidence of Heinlein's real politics.
ST was a morality play about duty, and a call to arms, and it was a doozy. No wonder Paul Verhoeven, when he was looking to skewer the reflowering of Euro-fascism in the 1990s, chose ST for its very fascist themes.
Even before that infamous speech, Heinlein was involved with rightwing politics in the US, even forming the "Patrick Henry League" to counter calls for nuclear disarmament. After that WorldCon, he became a vocal supporter of Barry "We can win a nuclear war" Goldwater for president in 1964, hosting a number of fund raising dinners for him. For Heinlein, the US not using their nuclear capability to finish off the Soviets after Nazi Germany had severely weakened them and the US had it's only window of nuclear superiority was a far greater sin than any fallout (pun intended) resulting from turning Moscow into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot.
So be careful lionizing somebody for the politics they espouse in their fiction -- Heinlein's gift as a writer was in knowing his audience and knowing which levers he needed to pull, and which ones only needed a nudge. His politics are more in line with the junta that seized control of Earth's governments in ST than with the free-love anarcho-messiah Michael Valentine Smith in SiaSL.
And the Italians used them (Mustard Gas) extensively in Ethiopia in 1935.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At the end of the war, the US even whisked the head scientist of the Japanese Chemical Wars unit, Unit 731, to the US to avoid having him prosecuted and executed. He became a key scientist in the US chemical war research effort. This after it had been well documented that this scientist's unit had even engaged in chemical weapons experiments using US POWs as subjects (along with many, many more Chinese civilians). The US military really, really wanted the results of these war criminal's research, and to make them part of the US team.
to nuke any country that has been tempted to go to war with its neighbors.
So if we have some despotic power that deny democracy to its population and starts a war, the idea is to nuke the population while its leader hides in its bunker. That looks smart, but I am certain a 6 years old children would have drafter a less stupid scenario.
And both the Germans [and the Allies] seriously considered deploying them
That is incorrect, the germans did not even have them in quantity. Plenty of the military was strictly against their usage. I doubt there was a production line set up for them.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Like the Queen of the UK?
Sorry, in Dune there were two "parties" having nuclear weapons. The Emporer and the Peers (Landsraad). No private organization had them, and likely even cults like the Bene Gesserit or the Ixians had none. (At least not to the lore in the books)
And the prime doctrine was: "if anyone uses nuclear weapons against a civilian population: his planet gets annihilated", hence Paul Atreides used nukes only to destroy the shield wall to get the sand worms in.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Democrat or Republican does anyone think it's a great idea to let Hillary or Trump have control of enough nuclear weaponry to annihilate the planet ?
Space Patrol as a concept may be looking really good in January.
they don't really have control, of course. the folks sitting at the consoles with the keys have control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You forget 71% of Democrats are comfortable electing a criminal
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...
republicans prefer to have their president commit the crimes when in office.
i can keep this up as long as you can.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
tranny scum fuck off and die
doo dah
doo dah
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The Space Cadets/Officers live like monks and there are no women in the service.
In the end it's a military (benevolent) dictatorship...
And how effective do you think you're persuading these cowards to stop their SJW bullshit, and rally opinion against it, when you're posting as an anonymous coward?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Which were actually issued around 2 years before the Blitz, which affected far more of the country than just London.
Yes, there were gas masks, issued to every man, woman and child (including babies) ; no, the issue only had an accidental temporal relationship with the "Blitzing" of London, Swindon, Southampton, Bristol, Coventry, Birmingham, Nottingham, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. (To name just the cities I know suffered heavy bombing. And I forgot Plymouth. And Belfast.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
There are probably (it's still classified) some tens of thousands of tonnes of very old, tired, sweaty and unstable chemical munitions buried near where Dad (and the "eclipse mask") still lives - they used American troops to bury them on the ground tht they were less likely to hang around and talk later. And if the nuclear missile base had been megatonned, then the chemical weapons would not likely have been a big problem.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It would have been quicker to re-classify them as "enemy non-combatants, to whom the Laws of War don't apply.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Same here.
And you are correct - the plural of "forum" is "fora".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
He loved fucking his daughters (in the novels) more than either.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
And that sort of Space Patrol is the sort of authoritarianism of which Heinlein would have heartily approved.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
> And you are correct - the plural of "forum" is "fora".
In Latin, yes. In English, "forums" is perfectly acceptable.
You're a criminal as soon as you commit a crime. Conviction is the step legally required for the government to punish you for your crime.
"Innocent" and "legally innocent" are two different and decreasingly related concepts.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
And of course, you just KNOW without due process that the accused must have actually committed the crime.
After all, if they didn't do it, why would they have been accused in the first place?