Is it just me or has no one noticed that this movie is a rip off of the Japanese Anime movie "Laputa" (by Miyazaki Hayao)...? Maybe the story is original, but the world and technology it is set in doesn't seem to be.
All the works of Miyazaki have a much more European feel to them. At nausicaa.net there is an oft-cited FAQ that directly addresses the question of when and where Laputa takes place: "It is believed to have taken place at the end of the 19th Century or the beginning of the 20th Century, in an alternate universe where flying technology was more advanced (a la Verne). According to Miyazaki, he wrote "Laputa" as a "science fiction novel which was written in the end of the 19th century". The events of Laputa takes place "In an imaginary country. The Slug Ravine, where Pazu lived was modeled after a mining town in Wales. Miyazaki went to Wales for location hunting, and learned that the town had had a huge labor dispute the year before. This story and the scenery of the depressed mining town (he being a former chairman of a union) affected him, and made him put the scene of the townfolk fighting with the pirates in the movie. You can also see a socialist-looking poster in the house of Pazu's boss." It seems thus Laputa has more of a Jules Verne/Johnathan Swift 18th/19th century flavor to it. In contrast, "Sky Captain", from the looks of the trailer, takes it visual cues more from mid 20th century WWII era cultural icons. I'd go so far as to say "Sky Captain" also feels more American than anything Miyazaki has done.
Ya know, I can only think of one way to simulate true microgravity in that thing. Too bad it can be done just once for at most a few minutes before you need to bail out.
My motives are not as noble as you percieve. All I want to do is make him sqirm in embarassment to points he can't address.:-P We have a well established history of playing oneupmanship. His religious practice has afforded me endless amusement and it will continue to do so as he's as stubborn as you imagine. I'm a baaad man!
One of my friends is a practitioner of Christian Science. If I understand what he tells me, Christian Science teachs that we experience the world because we choose to give it all a realty. In other words, it's all in your head. Most would agree there is some figuratively truth to this, but Christian Science takes it literally and uses the idea as the central component of their system of health and well being by wrapping this metaphysical layer around the bible. I wonder how he would react to the article. On the one hand, there is validation in the fact that we can channel positive perception into better health and healing. On the other hand, Christ and Christianity is completely unnecessary as implemented by the doctors featured in the article. I've tried to point out you don't need the biblical stuff in numberous conversations, but now there is something concrete I can show him.
Man! There are so many things wrong with your post I don't even know where to begin.
It will only accelerate their impoverishment and send them tumbling the way of the USSR. Their economy is about as bad off as the old Soviet Union, full of positive reports to keep ministers from being executed.
The economies of Russia (past and present) and China are fundamentally different in many ways. First, China's economy has been evolving toward capitalism for more than 20 years since Deng Xiao Ping was in charge. As with any kind of change of this magnitude, growing pains are to be expected. A hickup every now and then should be expected. Banking scandals? We've got Enron, Worldcom, Martha Stewrt, etc. No big deal. Regardless, the point is that it is all moving forward at a managable pace. For a little historic perspective, it is worth noting that China was actually one of the Anchors that kept the Asian Economy from crashing even harder many years ago. The Soviet Union, had no control over the economic changes that occured in the aftermath of the breakup. It was basically a free for all, everyone for themselves kind of situation.
They've got entire villages infected with AIDS that are about to disappear
Like urban legends, this is just one of those things that won't die. The villagers who contracted AIDS by selling their blood has been reported so much by major media, it feels like O.J. Simpson all over again. Let it go, there's no point in beating a dead horse. At the very least, the article details medical aid being given to the villagers. That is a great deal better than how US treated many southern blacks who were intentially infected with syphillis a few decades ago.
They ignore it all to produce a few gems like cavitation torpedoes, a space program, and a couple of capitalist sector cities.
You need to get your facts straight. Cavitation torpedoes are not Chinese, they are Russian . With regards to "a couple of capitalist sector cities." - I was born in a part of China which when I left could very properly be described as the boonies. Rice paddies and water buffalos everywhere. As little as 10 years ago, , everything I had known was gone. The rural quietness bulldozed over and replaced with freeways and automobiles. Modernization is not just happening in Shanghai and ShenZhen, it is happening to the whole country. A great deal of the news you get from the American press in really no better than supermart tabloid reporting. I guess no matter how outlandish it is, there are still those who would swallow it all hook line and sinker.
With all the aid the US was providing to the allies in Europe up until Pearl Harbor, we were effectively at war long before Pearl Harbor. I think parent post is speaking in the context of national resources and industrial capacity during the Great Depression, so this is very relevant as it shows the ability of a nation to produce under stress.
You know, I've thought of this very question for a long time. I eventually realized that aside from being a chilly place to live and work, any industrialization down there would likely increase the ambient temperature enough to melt some ice. I don't know if enough would be melted to raise the oceans, but why take that risk? Feasibility aside, it might also spark a land grab by world governments as no nation-state have yet made serious territorial claims there.
Here! Here! mod parent up! However, I don't think reinventing the wheel is such a bad idea. Let us remember diversity is supposed to be healthy. Whatever the Chinese end up doing, this is a good opportunity for NASA, ESA, and the Russians to see if something they have *not* choosen or concieved would work well. Then let *everyone* learn from that experience and reinvent a better wheel.:-)
.....some 60 nations are supporting our actions in Iraq in some form.
Being the sole superpower, we're likely to have similar support no matter what we do. But just because we can doesn't make it right.
Even Japan has sent combat troops outside of its borders into a war zone for the first time since WW2.
Don't kid yourself into thinking Japan is doing this purely to support the US. The Japanese have been justifiably nervous about the Korean situation since long before North Korea lobbed a rocket over their airspace. Iraq happens to be an exellent opportunity for them to wiggle their military pinky to prepare the Japanese public for the potential need of Tokyo to take more aggresive stance in regional affairs. While Japan is forbidden to use it's military for anything by defense, a fighting force that has *some* experience is a better deterent than one with none, don't you think?
Strangely enough, the loudest complaints came from either those who Saddam bought off with oil deals or had arms deals with, like... France and Russia. Runner up - Germany and the construction firms that built Saddams bunkers.
This unfortunately is true. But it just goes to show that it's never purely a question of military initiative. There are economic as well as political forces at work that can not be ignored. This isn't to say we should cave in to businesses and political interests any more than we should caving in to the trigger-happy hawks. Many comments I've responded to takes a purely jingoistic view of American foreign policy. I am reminded of a scene from the movie "Crimson Tide" where Gene Hackman plays a ballistic sub captain who remarks "war is the continuation of politics by other means". To this, Densel Washington, playing his executive officer responds, "but the true nature of war is to serve itself". If we all choose to fight simply for the sake of a fight, we are simply condeming our soldiers to build their own coffins.
The reason that it makes no sense to you is because you are apparently paying no attention to the ideas of those who wish to do us harm. We in the US are a relatively free, democratic, capitalist, very tolerant, largely Christian nation. Al Qaeda, our main foe, advocate rigid, authoritarian, fanatical Islamist states with sharia law filling the globe. There is no middle ground. We will not willingly change to their ways, and they are willing to die to try to weaken us to the point we can no longer resist their will. Sadly, a nontrivial percentage of the Islamic world is in sympathy with Al Qaeda.
On the contrary, the ideas of those who wish to harm us weighs heavily on my mind. It isn't because I'm afraid of our enemies but because their is a small element of truth to their grivances. No one should be so naive and self righteous as to think US policies have done more for others than for "US interests".
I hope you don't mean to make this a religious issue - that because we are Christians, we should compel the muslims to change their ways and pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" the way we do.
Whether there is a middle ground or not is *not* a statement of fact, it is a conscious choice we all make, al qaeda and americans alike. Neither of us need to change over to the others ways. It would be far less costly in terms of resources and human lives to choose to acknowledge and respect the differences between us and focus our efforts instead on how to practically reconcile ourselves to coexist.
If we really were the terrible nation that some, mainly the left, try to portray the US as, we would nuke them, seed the land with salt, and be done with them. Instead we will end up fighting a long term war until the hearts of enough Muslims turn toward peace, or the governments of the Islamic countries act more responsibly, or we kill all who wish to try and harm us, or are destroyed ourselves.
In WWI, both sides believed they could count on the complex web of alliances and pledges of mutual defense developed over the years to help them defeat their enemy.
In WWII, the Germans believed their blitzkrieg tactics would overwhelm the rest of Europe while the Allied forces hopelessly underestimated the initial might of the German war engine.
In both of these wars, the initial expectation was that the conflict was going to be brief due to whatever perceived tactical advantage of the participants. Initially, they each thought they could win very quickly. No one knew beforehand they were going to fight the meatgrinder type of war it eventually became.
The same mistake was made in Vietnam. US at the time realized only after many lives had been lost that they couldn't win the war.
Though it was just as bloody, Korea was one conflict where both sides were very much aware of the resulting stalemate and the enormous cost of braking that stalemate. That is why, even as the bullets and bombs flew, negotiators at Kaesong worked hard to hammer out an armistice agreement.
This is all assuming however, that the participants are rational calculating diplomatic minded leaders. Now, remember the context of this discussion assumes that the participants are space-faring. So far, no nation-state with the national industrial capacity to support space launches have allowed a someone who is *not* rational, calculating and diplomatic minded to lead them. Despite what American popular media would tell you, Stalin and Mao, even at their worst, were very lucid and methodical people.
I'm not sure about Stalin, but when Mao started loosing his marbles, his collegues in the communist party moved to counter his bad decisions. They weren't entirely successful until after the worst of the cultural revolution, but my point is the size and complexity of a ruling body like the one governing a powerful country like China is to some degree self-correcting.
This kind of stability is totaly different from the kind of chaos facing the US occupation of Iraq and Afganistan right now. It is doubtful the use of more advanced technology will make suicide bombers realize the futility of their cause and give up. This is a war of attrition the US is fighting. There is no need for space based weapons to fight insurgents in these places.
Let's not be too harsh. The vehicle was not designed by an idiot. The films of Miyazaki are filled with themes of flying because his family made airplane parts for Japan during the WWII. (which also explains the harsh perspective on war and conflict in Nausicaa and Mononoke) Miyazaki's mecha designs may not have much geek appeal, but I think he has a better gut feeling for flying than most. Besides, the success of the scale model flights counts for something, doesn't it?:-)
Your darwinian world view is hopelessly obsolete by today's standards. Is it so hard to consider the idea that human beings are more than just animals driven by instinct? Of all living creatures, we have the power to shape our surroundings in whatever way we desire. For good or bad, we get to choose how to respond to the situations we are in. Give that we have this power, I think we should be held to higher standards of behavior. There is certainly nothing wrong with anything you've pointed out, but you are laying out a self fulfilling prophacy of agression and paranoia that spirals down inevitably toward destruction for all of us.
Based on your post, I suppose I should steer clear of you if I should ever come into conflict with you. I mean, I don't want to get on your shit list and have you come after me with the justification of self preservation, right? Perhaps. But speaking for myself, I'd be more interested in understanding why you are the way you are and what I can do to help.
I feel sorry for you that you choose to live in a world where everyone is out to get you. Perhaps that world is more "real" to you than the ones some of us aspire to. However, when you say things like "we have been a largely positive influence on the world" you're really stretching my tolerance for narrowmindedness.
Ceasar and Bush are apples and oranges. Would you really judge today's leaders by the values and norms of antiquity?
It would probably be more accurate to say 95% of the the people out there don't know jack about the other 95% and are afraid of them but are either too lazy to or don't have the resources to learn about them.
Well argued. But you're missing my point. The problem is not with having weapons, it is with developing and refining them to make them more dangerous and easier to use. Escalation is what ultimately leads to potential doom. There's your social, political and economic causes. We know the Soviets relied heavily on espionage in the success of their nuclear program. Lord knows if our engineers had not been so diligent, we wouldn't have so critically helped to potentially blow ourselves up. The United States is hardly defenseless. We have already weaponized space more than any other nation. The fact that other can and probably will do the same would serve to remind the hotheads amongst our leaders to think twice before raising battle cries. I for one believe armed conflict should be avoided as much as possible. In the nuclear age of Mutually Assured Destruction, players in the field need to think twice before commiting to an action. Though the risks are lesser, the same principle applies with convential weapons. If I know we can both lick each other pretty badly, I would try harder to seek an alternative resolution through political/diplomatic means.
Translation: I'm too afraid to try and change real suffering and abuse because I might get killed
What the hell?!?! Beijing gonna send ninja assasins after you? Unless you're a Chinese national, you've got to be the most paranoid poster on this thread.
Palestinians feel Israel is encroaching on their land. Those who live in the Gaza strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights feel their homeland should not be occupied by israeli soldiers. Much of the conflicts in the region has to do with preventing Israel from establishing settlements in places that isn't technically within their officially recognized borders.
The situation is more complicated than that. But this is a simple reply to a simple parent post.
You seem to have no idea how dangerous the last arms race was for us. Do you know how many times we got within a hair's breath from a real nuclear exchange? The Cuban missile crisis is the most well know of all the close-calls. (too close. We now know the Cubans had field ready tactical nukes.) But there are other lesser known events that could have been just as deadly. Some of these events involved mistaking civilian space activity for missile attacks. In the 1990s, at least one satellite reentry triggered the Russian nuclear response to a point just short of Boris Yeltsin pushing the button. Arms races are dangerous business. It makes us all paranoid. like you.
seems like a troll, but you raised some interesting points, so I'll bit.
have 0 tariffs while other countries subsidize their own exports
Have you forgotten the US is also one of the worlds leading exporters? The idea is balanced fair play and mutual cooperation, not atrophying our economic power.
Pull all of our troops out of anywhere that someone doesn't want them - anywhere in the mideast, etc. We'll pull out of protecting south korea and Taiwan too. I am sure the enlightened governments of China and North Korea will act responsibly.
That's no a bad idea. If you've been following international events, you'd know that China doesn't want *Any* shooting on the Korean Peninsula, no matter who starts it. With enormous economic and cultural ties to South Korea, there is too much at stake. (did you know that Korean soap operas enjoy significant air time in mainland China?) As far as Taiwan is concerned, the same kind of economic stability issue is also applicable. Plus, diplomatic relationships, even if only superficial (if you're a cynic), is hard to terminate. China is a big country with a lot to loose in the event of geo-political nastiness. They can be counted on to play fair if not play nice. You also seem to overlook the fact that the far-east isn't really our tramping grounds. There is no shame in letting others take care of themselves. Though some are nervous about it, the Japanese have made non-trivial efforts to flex its defense force. The latest evidence of this being their recent deployment to the gulf of non-combat units. Less obvious is the fact that they are a nuclear capable nation with an established space industry. How much effort do you think they would need to slap together a nuclear tipped rocket? I don't think they've made any explicit declerations along those lines, but the message is quite clear to everyone who matters.
Give free uranium to Iran and North Korea
Why? What purpose is served by helping others self-destruct? Idiotic suggestion with no rational merit.
Kill all the jews in Israel and reform the palestinian state...can you point me to the map that shows where the original palestinian state was?
completely off the wall.....Should not be dignified with a response.
Allow genocide in the baltics - after all, we did act without a UN sanction there
My impression has been that the baltics situation have been run mostly by the Europeans as of late. They certainly have the most at stake, so that is as it *should* be. They should certainly be able to handle it if they get their act together. As a part of NATO, we are obliged to help if called up. But by the book, *only if called upon*! If the mutual defense clause is involked by any European NATO member, our military presence would be completely justified.
Put leaders in power in 3rd world countries like Clinton did in Haiti - that has worked out well
Do *you* know what happened in Haiti? Please explain what went wrong for us.
Give all of our billions of dollars in drug research away for free to everyone
indeed. We paid for much of it already with our tax dollars. The international angle is very different, but that has been well hashed and I will not continue that arguement here.
Pull out of Afghan and Iraq so their benevolent former leaders can return to power
Those former leaders may not have been nenevolent, but they're not coming back. leaving the job half done is what gets the US into so much trouble in the first place. The irony is, we know how to do it right, we're just too lazy to bother in recent years. I will leave *you* the task of finding out why the nation-building success stories of Japan, Germany, and South Korea are different from disasters like Vietnam, latin America, and the Mid-East. (hint: I've already told you.)
Let France, Germany and China resume blackmarket trading with Iraq - I'm sure eventu
Slashdot Mirror
There are many boxes, particularly older hardware, which does not have a DVD-ROM drive.
Is it just me or has no one noticed that this movie is a rip off of the Japanese Anime movie "Laputa" (by Miyazaki Hayao)...? Maybe the story is original, but the world and technology it is set in doesn't seem to be.
All the works of Miyazaki have a much more European feel to them. At nausicaa.net there is an oft-cited FAQ that directly addresses the question of when and where Laputa takes place: "It is believed to have taken place at the end of the 19th Century or the beginning of the 20th Century, in an alternate universe where flying technology was more advanced (a la Verne). According to Miyazaki, he wrote "Laputa" as a "science fiction novel which was written in the end of the 19th century". The events of Laputa takes place "In an imaginary country. The Slug Ravine, where Pazu lived was modeled after a mining town in Wales. Miyazaki went to Wales for location hunting, and learned that the town had had a huge labor dispute the year before. This story and the scenery of the depressed mining town (he being a former chairman of a union) affected him, and made him put the scene of the townfolk fighting with the pirates in the movie. You can also see a socialist-looking poster in the house of Pazu's boss." It seems thus Laputa has more of a Jules Verne/Johnathan Swift 18th/19th century flavor to it. In contrast, "Sky Captain", from the looks of the trailer, takes it visual cues more from mid 20th century WWII era cultural icons. I'd go so far as to say "Sky Captain" also feels more American than anything Miyazaki has done.
Ya know, I can only think of one way to simulate true microgravity in that thing. Too bad it can be done just once for at most a few minutes before you need to bail out.
Forget about clustering, I want to see someone overclock one of these without the thing smoking and going up in flames!
My motives are not as noble as you percieve. All I want to do is make him sqirm in embarassment to points he can't address. :-P We have a well established history of playing oneupmanship. His religious practice has afforded me endless amusement and it will continue to do so as he's as stubborn as you imagine. I'm a baaad man!
One of my friends is a practitioner of Christian Science. If I understand what he tells me, Christian Science teachs that we experience the world because we choose to give it all a realty. In other words, it's all in your head. Most would agree there is some figuratively truth to this, but Christian Science takes it literally and uses the idea as the central component of their system of health and well being by wrapping this metaphysical layer around the bible. I wonder how he would react to the article. On the one hand, there is validation in the fact that we can channel positive perception into better health and healing. On the other hand, Christ and Christianity is completely unnecessary as implemented by the doctors featured in the article. I've tried to point out you don't need the biblical stuff in numberous conversations, but now there is something concrete I can show him.
A really big stretch you're making, but I will ask a very simple question:
Would you rather have the Chinese military building human-tipped space capsules or Nuclear-tipped missiles?
Man! There are so many things wrong with your post I don't even know where to begin.
It will only accelerate their impoverishment and send them tumbling the way of the USSR. Their economy is about as bad off as the old Soviet Union, full of positive reports to keep ministers from being executed.
The economies of Russia (past and present) and China are fundamentally different in many ways. First, China's economy has been evolving toward capitalism for more than 20 years since Deng Xiao Ping was in charge. As with any kind of change of this magnitude, growing pains are to be expected. A hickup every now and then should be expected. Banking scandals? We've got Enron, Worldcom, Martha Stewrt, etc. No big deal. Regardless, the point is that it is all moving forward at a managable pace. For a little historic perspective, it is worth noting that China was actually one of the Anchors that kept the Asian Economy from crashing even harder many years ago. The Soviet Union, had no control over the economic changes that occured in the aftermath of the breakup. It was basically a free for all, everyone for themselves kind of situation.
They've got entire villages infected with AIDS that are about to disappear
Like urban legends, this is just one of those things that won't die. The villagers who contracted AIDS by selling their blood has been reported so much by major media, it feels like O.J. Simpson all over again. Let it go, there's no point in beating a dead horse. At the very least, the article details medical aid being given to the villagers. That is a great deal better than how US treated many southern blacks who were intentially infected with syphillis a few decades ago.
They ignore it all to produce a few gems like cavitation torpedoes, a space program, and a couple of capitalist sector cities.
You need to get your facts straight. Cavitation torpedoes are not Chinese, they are Russian . With regards to "a couple of capitalist sector cities." - I was born in a part of China which when I left could very properly be described as the boonies. Rice paddies and water buffalos everywhere. As little as 10 years ago, , everything I had known was gone. The rural quietness bulldozed over and replaced with freeways and automobiles. Modernization is not just happening in Shanghai and ShenZhen, it is happening to the whole country. A great deal of the news you get from the American press in really no better than supermart tabloid reporting. I guess no matter how outlandish it is, there are still those who would swallow it all hook line and sinker.
With all the aid the US was providing to the allies in Europe up until Pearl Harbor, we were effectively at war long before Pearl Harbor. I think parent post is speaking in the context of national resources and industrial capacity during the Great Depression, so this is very relevant as it shows the ability of a nation to produce under stress.
You know, I've thought of this very question for a long time. I eventually realized that aside from being a chilly place to live and work, any industrialization down there would likely increase the ambient temperature enough to melt some ice. I don't know if enough would be melted to raise the oceans, but why take that risk? Feasibility aside, it might also spark a land grab by world governments as no nation-state have yet made serious territorial claims there.
Here! Here! mod parent up! :-)
However, I don't think reinventing the wheel is such a bad idea. Let us remember diversity is supposed to be healthy. Whatever the Chinese end up doing, this is a good opportunity for NASA, ESA, and the Russians to see if something they have *not* choosen or concieved would work well. Then let *everyone* learn from that experience and reinvent a better wheel.
What does any of this have to do with space technology?
maybe you should post something that is on topic.
How did this get modded up? Parent post is connecting phantom dots drawing relationships where none exist.
.....some 60 nations are supporting our actions in Iraq in some form.
... France and Russia. Runner up - Germany and the construction firms that built Saddams bunkers.
Being the sole superpower, we're likely to have similar support no matter what we do. But just because we can doesn't make it right.
Even Japan has sent combat troops outside of its borders into a war zone for the first time since WW2.
Don't kid yourself into thinking Japan is doing this purely to support the US. The Japanese have been justifiably nervous about the Korean situation since long before North Korea lobbed a rocket over their airspace. Iraq happens to be an exellent opportunity for them to wiggle their military pinky to prepare the Japanese public for the potential need of Tokyo to take more aggresive stance in regional affairs. While Japan is forbidden to use it's military for anything by defense, a fighting force that has *some* experience is a better deterent than one with none, don't you think?
Strangely enough, the loudest complaints came from either those who Saddam bought off with oil deals or had arms deals with, like
This unfortunately is true. But it just goes to show that it's never purely a question of military initiative. There are economic as well as political forces at work that can not be ignored. This isn't to say we should cave in to businesses and political interests any more than we should caving in to the trigger-happy hawks. Many comments I've responded to takes a purely jingoistic view of American foreign policy. I am reminded of a scene from the movie "Crimson Tide" where Gene Hackman plays a ballistic sub captain who remarks "war is the continuation of politics by other means". To this, Densel Washington, playing his executive officer responds, "but the true nature of war is to serve itself". If we all choose to fight simply for the sake of a fight, we are simply condeming our soldiers to build their own coffins.
The reason that it makes no sense to you is because you are apparently paying no attention to the ideas of those who wish to do us harm. We in the US are a relatively free, democratic, capitalist, very tolerant, largely Christian nation. Al Qaeda, our main foe, advocate rigid, authoritarian, fanatical Islamist states with sharia law filling the globe. There is no middle ground. We will not willingly change to their ways, and they are willing to die to try to weaken us to the point we can no longer resist their will. Sadly, a nontrivial percentage of the Islamic world is in sympathy with Al Qaeda.
On the contrary, the ideas of those who wish to harm us weighs heavily on my mind. It isn't because I'm afraid of our enemies but because their is a small element of truth to their grivances. No one should be so naive and self righteous as to think US policies have done more for others than for "US interests".
I hope you don't mean to make this a religious issue - that because we are Christians, we should compel the muslims to change their ways and pursue "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" the way we do.
Whether there is a middle ground or not is *not* a statement of fact, it is a conscious choice we all make, al qaeda and americans alike. Neither of us need to change over to the others ways. It would be far less costly in terms of resources and human lives to choose to acknowledge and respect the differences between us and focus our efforts instead on how to practically reconcile ourselves to coexist.
If we really were the terrible nation that some, mainly the left, try to portray the US as, we would nuke them, seed the land with salt, and be done with them. Instead we will end up fighting a long term war until the hearts of enough Muslims turn toward peace, or the governments of the Islamic countries act more responsibly, or we kill all who wish to try and harm us, or are destroyed ourselves.
Another common theme I've encountered on thi
inacurate.
In WWI, both sides believed they could count on the complex web of alliances and pledges of mutual defense developed over the years to help them defeat their enemy.
In WWII, the Germans believed their blitzkrieg tactics would overwhelm the rest of Europe while the Allied forces hopelessly underestimated the initial might of the German war engine.
In both of these wars, the initial expectation was that the conflict was going to be brief due to whatever perceived tactical advantage of the participants. Initially, they each thought they could win very quickly. No one knew beforehand they were going to fight the meatgrinder type of war it eventually became.
The same mistake was made in Vietnam. US at the time realized only after many lives had been lost that they couldn't win the war.
Though it was just as bloody, Korea was one conflict where both sides were very much aware of the resulting stalemate and the enormous cost of braking that stalemate. That is why, even as the bullets and bombs flew, negotiators at Kaesong worked hard to hammer out an armistice agreement.
This is all assuming however, that the participants are rational calculating diplomatic minded leaders. Now, remember the context of this discussion assumes that the participants are space-faring. So far, no nation-state with the national industrial capacity to support space launches have allowed a someone who is *not* rational, calculating and diplomatic minded to lead them. Despite what American popular media would tell you, Stalin and Mao, even at their worst, were very lucid and methodical people.
I'm not sure about Stalin, but when Mao started loosing his marbles, his collegues in the communist party moved to counter his bad decisions. They weren't entirely successful until after the worst of the cultural revolution, but my point is the size and complexity of a ruling body like the one governing a powerful country like China is to some degree self-correcting.
This kind of stability is totaly different from the kind of chaos facing the US occupation of Iraq and Afganistan right now. It is doubtful the use of more advanced technology will make suicide bombers realize the futility of their cause and give up. This is a war of attrition the US is fighting. There is no need for space based weapons to fight insurgents in these places.
Let's not be too harsh. The vehicle was not designed by an idiot. The films of Miyazaki are filled with themes of flying because his family made airplane parts for Japan during the WWII. (which also explains the harsh perspective on war and conflict in Nausicaa and Mononoke) Miyazaki's mecha designs may not have much geek appeal, but I think he has a better gut feeling for flying than most. Besides, the success of the scale model flights counts for something, doesn't it? :-)
Your darwinian world view is hopelessly obsolete by today's standards. Is it so hard to consider the idea that human beings are more than just animals driven by instinct? Of all living creatures, we have the power to shape our surroundings in whatever way we desire. For good or bad, we get to choose how to respond to the situations we are in. Give that we have this power, I think we should be held to higher standards of behavior. There is certainly nothing wrong with anything you've pointed out, but you are laying out a self fulfilling prophacy of agression and paranoia that spirals down inevitably toward destruction for all of us.
Based on your post, I suppose I should steer clear of you if I should ever come into conflict with you. I mean, I don't want to get on your shit list and have you come after me with the justification of self preservation, right? Perhaps. But speaking for myself, I'd be more interested in understanding why you are the way you are and what I can do to help.
I feel sorry for you that you choose to live in a world where everyone is out to get you. Perhaps that world is more "real" to you than the ones some of us aspire to. However, when you say things like "we have been a largely positive influence on the world" you're really stretching my tolerance for narrowmindedness.
Ceasar and Bush are apples and oranges. Would you really judge today's leaders by the values and norms of antiquity?
It would probably be more accurate to say 95% of the the people out there don't know jack about the other 95% and are afraid of them but are either too lazy to or don't have the resources to learn about them.
Well argued. But you're missing my point. The problem is not with having weapons, it is with developing and refining them to make them more dangerous and easier to use. Escalation is what ultimately leads to potential doom. There's your social, political and economic causes. We know the Soviets relied heavily on espionage in the success of their nuclear program. Lord knows if our engineers had not been so diligent, we wouldn't have so critically helped to potentially blow ourselves up. The United States is hardly defenseless. We have already weaponized space more than any other nation. The fact that other can and probably will do the same would serve to remind the hotheads amongst our leaders to think twice before raising battle cries. I for one believe armed conflict should be avoided as much as possible. In the nuclear age of Mutually Assured Destruction, players in the field need to think twice before commiting to an action. Though the risks are lesser, the same principle applies with convential weapons. If I know we can both lick each other pretty badly, I would try harder to seek an alternative resolution through political/diplomatic means.
Translation: I'm too afraid to try and change real suffering and abuse because I might get killed
What the hell?!?! Beijing gonna send ninja assasins after you? Unless you're a Chinese national, you've got to be the most paranoid poster on this thread.
Very briefly:
Palestinians feel Israel is encroaching on their land. Those who live in the Gaza strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights feel their homeland should not be occupied by israeli soldiers. Much of the conflicts in the region has to do with preventing Israel from establishing settlements in places that isn't technically within their officially recognized borders.
The situation is more complicated than that. But this is a simple reply to a simple parent post.
You seem to have no idea how dangerous the last arms race was for us. Do you know how many times we got within a hair's breath from a real nuclear exchange? The Cuban missile crisis is the most well know of all the close-calls. (too close. We now know the Cubans had field ready tactical nukes.) But there are other lesser known events that could have been just as deadly. Some of these events involved mistaking civilian space activity for missile attacks. In the 1990s, at least one satellite reentry triggered the Russian nuclear response to a point just short of Boris Yeltsin pushing the button. Arms races are dangerous business. It makes us all paranoid. like you.
seems like a troll, but you raised some interesting points, so I'll bit.
have 0 tariffs while other countries subsidize their own exports
Have you forgotten the US is also one of the worlds leading exporters? The idea is balanced fair play and mutual cooperation, not atrophying our economic power.
Pull all of our troops out of anywhere that someone doesn't want them - anywhere in the mideast, etc. We'll pull out of protecting south korea and Taiwan too. I am sure the enlightened governments of China and North Korea will act responsibly.
That's no a bad idea. If you've been following international events, you'd know that China doesn't want *Any* shooting on the Korean Peninsula, no matter who starts it. With enormous economic and cultural ties to South Korea, there is too much at stake. (did you know that Korean soap operas enjoy significant air time in mainland China?) As far as Taiwan is concerned, the same kind of economic stability issue is also applicable. Plus, diplomatic relationships, even if only superficial (if you're a cynic), is hard to terminate. China is a big country with a lot to loose in the event of geo-political nastiness. They can be counted on to play fair if not play nice. You also seem to overlook the fact that the far-east isn't really our tramping grounds. There is no shame in letting others take care of themselves. Though some are nervous about it, the Japanese have made non-trivial efforts to flex its defense force. The latest evidence of this being their recent deployment to the gulf of non-combat units. Less obvious is the fact that they are a nuclear capable nation with an established space industry. How much effort do you think they would need to slap together a nuclear tipped rocket? I don't think they've made any explicit declerations along those lines, but the message is quite clear to everyone who matters.
Give free uranium to Iran and North Korea
Why? What purpose is served by helping others self-destruct? Idiotic suggestion with no rational merit.
Kill all the jews in Israel and reform the palestinian state...can you point me to the map that shows where the original palestinian state was?
completely off the wall.....Should not be dignified with a response.
Allow genocide in the baltics - after all, we did act without a UN sanction there
My impression has been that the baltics situation have been run mostly by the Europeans as of late. They certainly have the most at stake, so that is as it *should* be. They should certainly be able to handle it if they get their act together. As a part of NATO, we are obliged to help if called up. But by the book, *only if called upon*! If the mutual defense clause is involked by any European NATO member, our military presence would be completely justified.
Put leaders in power in 3rd world countries like Clinton did in Haiti - that has worked out well
Do *you* know what happened in Haiti? Please explain what went wrong for us.
Give all of our billions of dollars in drug research away for free to everyone
indeed. We paid for much of it already with our tax dollars. The international angle is very different, but that has been well hashed and I will not continue that arguement here.
Pull out of Afghan and Iraq so their benevolent former leaders can return to power
Those former leaders may not have been nenevolent, but they're not coming back. leaving the job half done is what gets the US into so much trouble in the first place. The irony is, we know how to do it right, we're just too lazy to bother in recent years. I will leave *you* the task of finding out why the nation-building success stories of Japan, Germany, and South Korea are different from disasters like Vietnam, latin America, and the Mid-East. (hint: I've already told you.)
Let France, Germany and China resume blackmarket trading with Iraq - I'm sure eventu
Yeah, but what crazy loon would go commando with zippers? and what if you're a girl?