NationStates Jolt Archive

please vote AGAINST the current UN topic of whether or not all nations should combine space programs... it doesnt make sense! did european countries combine their forces when staking claims in north america? NO! it should be every country for itself, the way its been with exploring in the past... its just human nature... every nation wants to win the race!!!

vote AGAINST free trade!

You're obviously not familiar with the UN science treaty of Antarctica, then.

NO! it should be every country for itself, the way its been with exploring in the past

Yes, and what balanced and stable nations that policy produced.

its just human nature... every nation wants to win the race!!!

No we don't. That's why we're passing this resolution.

And it's "human nature" to live in caves eating raw meat and shivering in fear at the leopards outside. We're civilised now, which means we are intelligent and are capable of transcending our animal nature and acting co-operatively.

The simple fact still remains that for the last 2,000 years the only tried and true method of human advancement is social Darwinism. Each nation must be free to expand into the final frontier or it will always remain just that, an unexplored frontier because the nations capable of making the advancements in space see no benefit to themselves in doing so.

The simple fact still remains that for the last 2,000 years the only tried and true method of human advancement is social Darwinism. Each nation must be free to expand into the final frontier or it will always remain just that, an unexplored frontier because the nations capable of making the advancements in space see no benefit to themselves in doing so.

It does make sense, but I voted no anyways. Just because it make sense it doesn't mean I will like it. It's better if we keep off the moon. I think we should blow up the moon. Nice fireworks for the world!

But seriously, why is this proposal such a good idea? In fact, since I've been playing this game, I had to vote on 4 proposals, and only the first one was good. The last three were just useless, didn't make sense, or were just hurting the world (like the limiting on woodcutting). I think too many liberals play this game.

i am not saying that you dont all make very good points... but the fact remains that, if each country of the world really acted upon what they wanted to do, we would end up having separate space programs like we do now. the whole original motivation of the space program in the united states was the race with russia to be the first in space. do we really want to take this element of competition out of space exploration? it WAS called the "space RACE" in the 60s!

kyntire, space travel is hugely expensive. each country CAN'T act as it wants, because not all of us have enough money to spend on independently funding a space program.

however, space exploration is vital to human progress, simply because it's what's next. we tamed fire, we made the wheel, we built houses and figured out clothing. we invented writing and long-distance travel and all have improved the human race-- we are founded upon exploration and discovery, and this is what's next.

every nation doing for itself is EXACTLY what led to fifty years of american students practicing how to crouch under their desks in terror, had families building bomb shelters and hoarding canned goods and twinkies for the nuclear holocaust they just *knew* was about to happen. selfish individualism is dead, and more than that, inherently counterproductive to social and individual progress.

can you really say that it's a better idea to have ten nations building ten inferior stations on the moon, than to have us all cooperate to build the single greatest achievement in the history of international cooperation since the eradication of smallpox?

competition hinders goals this big-- cooperation can only help it.

-the esteemed ambassador from the most serene republic of funkatronia

The simple fact still remains that for the last 2,000 years the only tried and true method of human advancement is social Darwinism. Each nation must be free to expand into the final frontier or it will always remain just that, an unexplored frontier because the nations capable of making the advancements in space see no benefit to themselves in doing so.

Or maybe we as a world organization are a nation

can you really say that it's a better idea to have ten nations building ten inferior stations on the moon, than to have us all cooperate to build the single greatest achievement in the history of international cooperation since the eradication of smallpox?

I say let them build their inferior stations, let them fail miserably, and let those who didn't fail choose whether or not to combine their efforts for mutual benefit. Why should weaker nations, destined to lose on their own, be allowed to leech off the strength of others?

Weed out the parasites first and let this decision be made by those who actually have something to contribute to the final frontier.

-Cirrus "Viva la Spongy" Kain

If you don't want to follow the UN's rules, then do what most do, don't join or leave

If you don't want to follow the UN's rules, then do what most do, don't join or leave

LOL... no offense. That is how the UN operates in NationStates, but I just find it amusing since if it were in real life a choice between always following the UN's rules or leaving, then I'm sure the UN would be pretty much empty.


Anyways, the Republic of Bootai-Bootai needs clarification on the now poorly defined rights of stock holding nations versus those non-stock holding nations before it will consider supporting this resolution.

It seems that in any space program there are 3 results:

1) technological knowledge (how to build spacecraft and colony installations, etc.)

2) physical resources and equipement (the actual spacecrafts, conlonies, space probes, etc.)

3) scientific knowledge (knowledge about extraterrestrial bodies such as the sun, the planets, etc.)


Bootai-Bootai is uncertain about how proper it would be to withhold information about new technologies.

Obviously, it is proper to restrict usage of the programs physical resources and equipment to only member states.

In the opinion of the nation of Bootai-Bootai, ALL scientific knowledge gained must be accesable to ALL nations, regardless of whether or not they are stock holders. It is highly improper and irregular to withhold such information from the scientific community at large, and to do so would hinder scientific progress.

If this resolution would restrict the scientific knowledge gained to only the stock holding states, then perhaps it would be better if states devote their resources to independant space programs, especially if large states with significant space programs were not involved in the UN space program since they would effectivly have isolated scientific communities.

I voted against simply because we live HERE,and not in space.Such money shouldn't be wasted on a something as insignificant to us as outer space.We must concentrate on improving the place we live in- Earth.

ibut the fact remains that, if each country of the world really acted upon what they wanted to do, we would end up having separate space programs like we do now.

i think that u will find that Europe has a joint space agency

All nations stand to gain from the exploration of space and as such, all responsible nations must share the burden of cost. Joint exploration will also allow the responsible development of the Moon for peaceful means for the advancement of all.

Dakares is keen to embark on the next frontier of discovery and will place its industry and its scientific community fully behind this initiative. However, we would welcome the future discussion of safeguards to prevent the exploitation of outer space for military means, and would ask that this be addressed as a serious issue by those appointed to manage the UNSC.

I voted against simply because we live HERE,and not in space.Such money shouldn't be wasted on a something as insignificant to us as outer space.We must concentrate on improving the place we live in- Earth.

I like the way you think.
Earth improvement is a noble venture.
However one cannot disregard that well-worn phrase about the Road to
Hell being paved with...ah...somesuch.
The nature of humanity to make colossal errors when attempting
something noble has come to the forefront many times. The time may
come where it is uninhabitable.
But having said that, I find that that same quote more than applies to
this venture also.

So, whilst I look forward to seeing Earth's inhabitants residing
on other planets, it may not be the time for it now, as I'm uncertain
of the motives of some of those who would hurriedly pass this
resolution. So I, too, will for now vote AGAINST.

Kind regards to you all,

King Aramas Verimagne VI,
King of Tyrenburgh

one cannot disregard that well-worn phrase about the Road to Hell being paved with...ah...somesuch.
...So, whilst I look forward to seeing Earth's inhabitants residing on other planets, it may not be the time for it now, as I'm uncertain of the motives of some of those who would hurriedly pass this resolution.

We find this attitude both excessively cynical and a little short-sighted. We have never quite understood what is wrong with good intentions, and moreover we fail to understand Tyrenburgh's concern over the motives of those supporting this resolution.

East Hackney's chief motive is to see all nations benefit from the development of the Moon, which we hope will be used as a stepping-stone towards our ultimate destiny among the stars.

There has never been a better time than now to start looking beyond the Earth. This planet may be the cradle of humanity, but it is a fragile one. Bearing in mind the imminent threat to human existence from potential environmental catastrophe, whether man-made or natural, as well as the very real danger of a chance asteroid wiping out humankind, it is imperative that we avoid leaving all our eggs in this one evolutionary basket.

Comrade Dawkins
Delegate for Science

We veiw y'r pithy an' futile arguments
An wonner jus' how far you meant.
It's nae problemo, the sharin' o' the space
It's when ye land an' find a place!
Fer we, the Feigle, space is dam'd
when it shud be fu' wi another dram!

Our little blue comrades, the fairies
Seem to find outer space rather scary.
But you'll find that a whisky
Will help any pictsie
Brave the journey to Alpha Centauri.

ooc - Boom Boom!

If your nation does not have an imploded aconomy, you should logically vote no on this resolution. Don't you see that this is an attempt by smaller, poorer nations and their allies to condemn everyone's bank accounts using the principles of socialism?

This is just one more version of "take from the rich (and/or middle class) who earned their money and give to the poor who did nothing to earn it. In my society, everyone starts with a clean slate (inheritances are not allowed), but those who work their way to the top get to stay there until the end of their natural lives. Please don't revoke this right to keep what we as a nation have earned.

If this resolution does pass, I can only hope that someone will propose a resolution determining that those who give the most useful resources to the space programs will receive voting rights in direct proportion to their contributions.

Don't you see that this is an attempt by smaller, poorer nations and their allies to condemn everyone's bank accounts using the principles of socialism?

Huh? We're entirely baffled by this comment. The resolution mandates the funding of the venture by the sale of stock, therefore the amount that each nation contributes is entirely voluntary.
Moreover, it does not specify how stockholders are to be rewarded - although any reward that is forthcoming is likely to be in proportion to the amount of stock held. In other words, wealthy nations are likely to be made wealthier by this proposal. It is most certainly not going to redistribute wealth.

The free peoples of East Hackney politely ask what planet The Lone Locust is on.

Comrade Albert
Delegate for the Economy

Since when is the UN listed on the stock exchange? The Island of Kalm finds the idea of selling shares to fund this project to be completely offensive. The driving factor here should be the spirit of exploration and cooperation, not money and power grubbing. This resolution should not pass.

The Federation of Zephyrs agrees with the Island of Kalm that the idea of selling shares for funding purposes is a bad idea. I believe countries should be able to develop any type of space program that they wish at their own choosing. I voted against the resolution.

I believe countries should be able to develop any type of space program that they wish at their own choosing. I voted against the resolution.

This resolution does not prevent your nation or any other from developing its own space programme. See paragraph 4:
Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives, but would not reap the rewards of the investors.

Will there be a mechanism to prove that this is not all a hoax, like those earlier moon landings, and that space isn't something found inside a TV studio by blokes in tinfoil suits?
Maybe we should concentrate on dispelling this evil, pernicious, rumour that the Earth isn't flat before we jump to expensive grander schemes??

UN Space Consortium....

A novel idea, but I will quickly and without remorse vote against it. Giving power to any nation (as by the sell of stock) on such a universal and opportune surface as the moon is a mistake. Power over such a place could give a nation military presence that we would be unable to check. Although the idea is great in an ideal society, subversion and manipulation of such a board could produce cataclysmic results.

It is with the cautiousness of a responsible leader that I will reject this proposal. If anyone wishes to rectify any mistakes that I have made in my assumption or to disagree with me on any point feel free to do so.

Also, I don't know if anyone addressed this (I got tired of reading when everyone was saying the same thing...) but as a way for less economically blessed nations to get in on a space exploration program, how does it do so when stock must be bought? It works in theory, but I don't believe the sell of stock should be factored into the equation. If we want to let everyone benefit from space exploration, why don't we just make it universally open with nations who can contributing funds, instead of selling stock and giving nations part "ownership" in such a venture?

I voted against simply because we live HERE,and not in space.Such money shouldn't be wasted on a something as insignificant to us as outer space.We must concentrate on improving the place we live in- Earth.

this is no reason to vote against!! of course we need to go into space in some way or another! if people had concentrated on improving europe instead of venturing into the unknown, we americans would still be crowded up in england! of course im not denying that the we need to go into space, im just saying that we should do it as a world power. i mean, it would never ever work... people would have too many disagreements... let people use their technology the way they want and we'll learn from trial and error... besides, when one country comes up with a groundbreaking idea, another one will most definitely adapt it into their space program