NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, let's just say that the UN magically agrees to attack a "little" country with the platform. A few of these "little" countries you speak of turn around and buy some nukes off the black market and blast the heck out of Paris, or Washington D.C. or where ever they like. So, there is a balance. The UN could blast a "little" country, but then again, that little country could blast them back.

Wadway objects to this statement which seems to imply that we, the smaller countries in the UN, are terrorist-nations which buy "nukes" as you call them. I find this statement highly discriminating and offensive. We are a very spiritual state, concerned with the well being of all people, and we are against weapons of any kind. Buying weapons, be they nuclear or any other kind, is against our belief completely.

I think this shows that a lot of the more wealthy nations in the UN have a very negative and twisted view of poorer nations such as Wadway. We, the Holy Empire of Wadway, hope that these wealthy nations will realise their wrong assumptions, and change the wrong view that they have of us poorer nations.

First off, allow me say that the Republic of Tipannia is a small country as well, so we understand your viewpoint. That being said, I was referring to the real world, not NationStates. In NationStates, there are many countries such as yourself that wouldn't dream of attacking anyone because of your spiritual and non-violent ideals. However, in the real world, many people believe that spirituality and violence go hand-in-hand. This is regretful, but it also is the truth. I do apologize if I offended you.

The clause in the resolution stating that it "URGES but does not compel all nations to participate in this endeavor" is a fiction. Our compliance ministries will drop by later to collect the bill.

It's too bad the game isn't completely compatible with all the provisions of the resolutions passed. If NationStates incorporated a monetary system for the world economy, your concern would actually matter. Considering there is no real money to be spent anyway, the debate should focus on the content of the proposal, not on how the limitations of the software might handle it.

Regardless, the money your nation will actually spend on this bill, voluntarily or not, is as non-existent as the laser gun it's going to pay for.

---
Big kudos to Mikitivity for the econ lessons!

Those with grand designs for thousand-year weapons platforms often forget little details like the poor.


Let's see ... a platform that eliminated impacts .... forgetting details such as the poor. Your logic is FUBAR.

If you're saving the planet, an individuals economic status is not a fact.




Cost of Levee <= Risk of Flood * Cost of Damage of Flood

If the cost of building and maintaining the levee is less than the expected outcome of flood damages, governments build the levees.

It is economics 101 and called "expected value theory".


In light of your earlier statement that we can't assign a dollar value to human life, these cost/benefit analyses seem somewhat, well, hypocritical.


But we do everyday.

Do we spend money to improve a life?
Do we spend money to save a life?

The numbers are there. The difference here is this is when our different cultural values kick in.

But you certainly see this in the quality of life of our societies.


[OOC: I've noticed that in online forums one of the most common rhetorical fallbacks is an ex cathedra argument. ?Well in real life I'm a lawyer/engineer/teacher/etc and as such I'm an authority on the issue at hand?, no matter what that issue happens to be.


I only restort to this when people like you, who are ignorant of economics dismiss things any college freshman learns in their econ courses.

But you are wrong too ... people only restort to this when they do have the expertise. I avoided touched the World Blood Bank proposal in great detail, because while I am an engineer and do have extensive chemistry, atmospheric sciences, and economic backgrounds to round out a traditional CE background, my knowledge of biology ends once we get past the basics of aquatic life.

As for in general, most people actually stick within reason to what they know. I've yet to see you demonstrate any knowledge of economics or probablistic decision making theory.


You like to expand it to: ?You're obviously ignorant of the particulars of my field, therefore you're ignorant in general, so shut up and let us smart guys do what we do best.? Thirteen year olds might be cowed by this, but to adults it's just obnoxious.

Your argument is that if the cost of X, divided by likelihood of it happening, is equal to the cost of Y, then we should do Y. This assumes that Y will be effective in preventing X. You've mocked me for being ignorant of your econ-101ism at least three times. You still haven't addressed my logic-101ism: it's a fallacy to think risk analysis proves Y is worth a rat's ass.]

Because I've answered the question, and you've flatly ignored it. Just because I don't walk away from my computer and force you to read it, doesn't mean I've not addressed your question.

I'm sorry if you are offended that I'm calling you ignorant. That doesn't change the fact that you are. If there is a fallacy in my risk analysis, then show it. Better yet, back it up not only with your "theory" on how decision theory is not practiced in the real world, but develop your own.

You've said many times that you can't spread the cost of lives across ... I've worked out an example using lottery winnings (classic econ decision theory example), and yet I've noticed you've ignored it.

I am certain I'm not the only person here who is completely convinced you ignore the answers to your questions that you don't like for the simple reason that you have no way to refute them.

And I still await the day that you submit ANY proposal to this forum. I hope you run into some ignorant children who ask the same questions and refuse to listen to whatever answers you have. It would be ironic, despite what you might think, because you'd be getting a taste of your own medicine.

10kMichael

Regardless, the money your nation will actually spend on this bill, voluntarily or not, is as non-existent as the laser gun it's going to pay for.


I know. Those stat ratings don't really exist either. Neither do decisions on issues have any impact on the development of your nation.

It's all a fiction!

Except for the fact that they do, and that when you pass a resolution "to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets" it's a fair bet it does impact you. But then maybe you're a moderator, or admin, and have access to information I don't. Please let me know.


Big kudos to Mikitivity for the econ lessons!

Too bad they're an obfuscatory diatribe that masks a faulty premise.

That being that a platform in orbit, bristling with lasers and ion rays and so on, is going to be effective against a rock a thousand times its size hurtling towards it at a million miles an hour.

You know, this resolution would be supportable if it were the creation of a commission to study the problem in general terms and suggest solutions, but it's not. It jumps straight into orbital platforms and particle cannons. It's a leap of faith against an empirical enemy. A terrible proposition and a worthless “solution”.

And let's not forget the “Axis of Evil” clause, which lends a good insight into its farcical nature.

This is why so many other nations are concerned about it being an imperialist tool.

The clause in the resolution stating that it "URGES but does not compel all nations to participate in this endeavor" is a fiction. Our compliance ministries will drop by later to collect the bill.

It's too bad the game isn't completely compatible with all the provisions of the resolutions passed. If NationStates incorporated a monetary system for the world economy, your concern would actually matter. Considering there is no real money to be spent anyway, the debate should focus on the content of the proposal, not on how the limitations of the software might handle it.

Regardless, the money your nation will actually spend on this bill, voluntarily or not, is as non-existent as the laser gun it's going to pay for.

---
Big kudos to Mikitivity for the econ lessons!

Well said.

It is also as non-existent as the asteroid that will hit the earth, or as the organs that will be provided to the Red Cross blood bank, or to the schools that will get the UNEC funding, or to the moon base that we are working on now, or to the estuary / bay habitats that we are protecting by having ships cycle their ballast water, or to the children dying in conflicts between nations.

FACT: The only ways you are going to loose your country in nation states is due to breaking a rule and the mods kicking you, you lossing your password without having provided a real email, or you decided to close shop.

Getting upset about game mechanics and calling people liars because they tried to make a realistic proposal is at best a waste of time. I'd say it is a pretty petty argument.

As for the econ lessons, no problem! :) I'm glad that somebody at least is following them instead of crying, "FALSE FALSE FALSE I tell you! I have no proof, and I'm ignoring everything, but I say its FALSE!"

10kMichael

You know, this resolution would be supportable if it were the creation of a commission to study the problem in general terms and suggest solutions, but it's not. It jumps straight into orbital platforms and particle cannons.

But that's exactly what it does do.

RESOLVES to undertake the research and development of an orbital defense platform designed to defend Earth from threatening interstellar objects;

URGES the development of proper equipment for said platform

The particle cannons are only a suggestion of one possible route, nothing more. See that word "research"? That means that it is going to "study the problem in general terms and suggest solutions".

And if you're going to repeatedly deny Mikitivity's reasoning, you could at least point out the supposed flaw in it rather than just say over and over again that it's false.

And if you're going to repeatedly deny Mikitivity's reasoning, you could at least point out the supposed flaw in it rather than just say over and over again that it's false.

Its of little use convinced Clark ...

I've already DIRECTLY answered his question earlier today in the post in this thread titled "Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:56 pm Post subject: Expected Value / Decision Theory".

He has already posted several times since that post, which he couldn't have missed, and apparently has decided to ignore it.

I'll continue to direct people to that specific post. But there is little point in continuing with a guy who has nothing to add.

10kMichael

If you're saving the planet, an individuals economic status is not a fact.


But you're not saving the planet, you're supporting a farce. If you're coercing my nation's economy into ignoring social welfare for worthless weapons projects then I'm sorry, but those individual's economic status is in fact a fact.



I only restort to this when people like you, who are ignorant of economics dismiss things any college freshman learns in their econ courses.

Well at least you can admit to your argument's failings.


Because I've answered the question, and you've flatly ignored it.


No, YOU'VE ignored it, and continue to do so.

If there is a fallacy in my risk analysis, then show it. Better yet, back it up not only with your "theory" on how decision theory is not practiced in the real world, but develop your own.

The question is not wether risk analysis is valid theory, or whether you're applying it properly.

The question is wether a weapons platform in space will stop a giant rock.

You still haven't discussed this question. I can understand that, however. You wish to speak as an athority and your vaunted fields of expertise don't touch it. If you'll pardon the pun, civil engineering and risk analysis are'nt rocket science.


You've said many times that you can't spread the cost of lives across ... I've worked out an example using lottery winnings (classic econ decision theory example), and yet I've noticed you've ignored it.

Oh no, as a matter of fact I like this allegory. Let's examine it, shall we?

If being a living planet is equivalent to being a man that buys a lottery ticket every day,

i.e. every day he has a very, very, very slight chance of striking it rich,

and every day the earth a very, very, very slight chance of getting struck by Doom,

(i know, i know: the man should only buy a ticket when the jackpot is large enough to make the cost of the ticket equivalent to his chance of winning, but let's assume that the 'jackpot' for planet earth is always a full kitty)

then spending enormous amounts of our money in anticipation of a lucky strike is like the man who buys his ticket throwing away his car because he needs the parking space for his new Cadillac.

It's a big waste of current resources on a longshot.

And in this case it's not a Caddy, it's a Jag: just as expensive, but probably won't run right.

I am certain I'm not the only person here who is completely convinced you ignore the answers to your questions that you don't like for the simple reason that you have no way to refute them.

You see, I'm not ignorant of this at all. My father, a rocket scientist (well nuclear physicist actually, but he did do some work on the Thor missile), explained risk benefit analysis to me when I was fifteen. In fact he used the very same lottery example you thought I was ignoring, taking me to watch him buy a lotto ticket when the chance was worth twice the price of the ticket to illustrate his point. Your assumption that I'm ignorant would be insulting if it weren't laughable.

And I still await the day that you submit ANY proposal to this forum. I hope you run into some ignorant children who ask the same questions and refuse to listen to whatever answers you have. It would be ironic, despite what you might think, because you'd be getting a taste of your own medicine.

Actually, I submitted a draft proposal three days ago. See the archive for the "Preserving BioHeritage" thread. The criticisms were all quite good and I learned a great deal. I'm surprised I didn't meet you there.

The particle cannons are only a suggestion of one possible route, nothing more. See that word "research"? That means that it is going to "study the problem in general terms and suggest solutions".

Yes, but, um. “Orbital defense platform”, remember? That's not a suggestion. That's the underlying assumption of the research: that it needs to be on an orbital platform.

“Orbital platform” is the platform, see? That's not general, that's specific.


And if you're going to repeatedly deny Mikitivity's reasoning, you could at least point out the supposed flaw in it rather than just say over and over again that it's false.

I've pointed out the flaw in it what feels like seven times, now. Let me break it down for the very simple:

The risk-assessment can be as impeccable as Queen Vicky's knickers

BUT

orbital platforms != saving us from a giant space rock.


Let's review: the assumption that an orbiting defense platform will stop a NEO from hitting us is called... class?

“A false premise.”

So when risk-assessment says we should build an orbital defense platform it's wrong because

Mikitivity didn't get his/her math right or

It's the wrong tool for the job, or

b is the correct answer, or

b is still the correct answer.



Seriously. Why intelligent people like you are accepting this orbital platform thing prima facie is beyond me.

Though we are currently a developing nation and not a member of the UN, I pledge all the support that The Rogue Nation of the Phoenix Ash can offer. I will agree that I would rather have a Space Platform built by the global community keeping my nation safe than that of an aggressor nation.

James the Benevolent
Ruler, The Rogue Nation of the Phoenix Ash

Thank you for finally stating your objection in clear terms. Right. Well, we're going with this orbital platform thing because it seemed fairly obvious that whatever we do to any incoming body, be it fire nuclear missiles at it, launch some smaller projectile to knock it off course or try to grab or vapourise it with a hypothetical tractor beam or laser cannon, it would be better off done in space than at the bottom of a great big gravity well and behind a dense atmosphere. If that's not a reasonable assumption to make, then we'll happily change our position.

The orbital platform itself won't protect us, but the method developed for defense, be it a tractor beam or a missile, will be initiated by the platform. The platform would also be used for research purposes.

Thank you for finally stating your objection in clear terms. Right. Well, we're going with this orbital platform thing because it seemed fairly obvious that whatever we do to any incoming body, be it fire nuclear missiles at it, launch some smaller projectile to knock it off course or try to grab or vapourise it with a hypothetical tractor beam or laser cannon, it would be better off done in space than at the bottom of a great big gravity well and behind a dense atmosphere. If that's not a reasonable assumption to make, then we'll happily change our position.

Reason. Sweet.

Okay. It's not a reasonable assumption. Why? Because:


High orbit is still more or less the bottom of the gravity well,

Even with a nuclear missile all we can do is give these things a tiny nudge ,

If it's close enough to be in range of our orbital Tiny-Nudge Platform, it's too close.


We have to push these things out of the way farrrrr in advance. That means we need to see them first. We can do this from the ground. In fact, almost all of the NEOs currently being tracked were spotted from the ground.

Then after we spot it we send something to intercept it at long, long range. We can do this with a nuclear missile fired from earth. That's much cheaper.

If this were an initiative for an international NEO-spotting effort it would make sense. If this were a resolution for an international “what do we do?” committee it would make sense.

But it's not. It's for big (in human terms), tiny (in asteroid terms) guns in space.

The character of the thing is crazy.

Tractor beams? Those won't work because of reaction forces. You'll have to have something massive enough to anchor the tractor against the pull of the rock. One delegate suggested a base on the moon, but if the NEO is big and fast enough that might push the moon out of orbit. There isn't enough matter on earth to make a platform big enough.

Energy cannons? We can't make an energy cannon big enough, either. It would have to be powerful enough to atomize Africa. Otherwise it'll just break it up and the pieces will hit us. That's just as bad.

And the “Axis of Evil” clause. What's that about?

Obviously if the resolution mentions a political matter like “The Axis of Evil” that means part of the intent is for it to be used as a weapon. Against people. On Earth.

Who decides who's in the Evil Axis? The U.N. states that voted for the resolution, that's who.

Can you see why that worries people?

[OOC: guys. this is just like the reagan/bush missle shield. the one that costs a lot, doesn't work, and scares the hell out of everybody who thinks it might. why does no one get this?]

Thank you for finally stating your objection in clear terms. Right. Well, we're going with this orbital platform thing because it seemed fairly obvious that whatever we do to any incoming body, be it fire nuclear missiles at it, launch some smaller projectile to knock it off course or try to grab or vapourise it with a hypothetical tractor beam or laser cannon, it would be better off done in space than at the bottom of a great big gravity well and behind a dense atmosphere. If that's not a reasonable assumption to make, then we'll happily change our position.

Reason. Sweet.

Okay. It's not a reasonable assumption to make.

Why? Because:

High orbit is still more or less the bottom of the gravity well,

Even with a nuclear missile all we can do is give these things a tiny nudge,

If it's close enough to be in range of our orbital Tiny-Nudge Platform, it's too close.

We have to push these things out of the way farrrrr in advance. That means we need to see them first. We can do this from the ground. In fact, almost all of the NEOs currently being tracked were spotted from the ground.

Then, after we spot it, we send something to intercept it at long, long range. We can do this with a nuclear missile fired from earth. That's much cheaper.

If this were an initiative for an international NEO-spotting effort it would make sense. If this were a resolution for an international “what do we do?” committee it would make sense.

But it's not. It's for big (in human terms), tiny (in asteroid terms) guns in space.


The character of the thing is crazy.

Tractor beams? Those won't work because of reaction forces. You'll have to have something massive enough to anchor the tractor against the pull of the rock. One delegate suggested a base on the moon, but if the NEO is big and fast enough that might push the moon out of orbit. There isn't enough matter on earth to make a platform big enough.

Energy cannons? We can't make an energy cannon big enough, either. It would have to be powerful enough to atomize Africa. Otherwise it'll just break it up and the pieces will hit us. That's just as bad.

And the “Axis of Evil” clause. What's that about?

Obviously if the resolution mentions a political matter like “The Axis of Evil” that means part of the intent is for it to be used as a weapon. Against people. On Earth.

Who decides who's in the Evil Axis? The U.N. states that voted for the resolution, that's who.

Can you see why that worries people?

[OOC: guys. this is just like the reagan/bush missle shield. the one that costs a lot, doesn't work, and scares the hell out of everybody who thinks it might. why does no one get this?]

Well, an orbital platform does make response time a good deal better - it takes a lot of effort to shove something up into orbit, but once you're there you can slingshot. You can then design your missile for launch from orbit rather than the surface, and kit it out to be far more effective for the purpose - it wouldn't have to be aerodynamic in the slightest, for instance, so you could design it to attach to the asteroid before detonation for maximum effect. (Random idea, so don't address it specifically; my point is that a launch from orbit would make the weapon, whatever the hell it eventually turns out to be, a lot more flexible in its application).

Getting an object out of the atmosphere is a big, big design constraint.

That said, we're assuming this resolution will fail by now, and would prefer to concentrate on a weaker proposal, emphasising tracking with no military application.

And the “Axis of Evil” clause. What's that about?

Obviously if the resolution mentions a political matter like “The Axis of Evil” that means part of the intent is for it to be used as a weapon. Against people. On Earth.

So far as we can see... the proposal author just listed all the previous resolutions that seemed to have some bearing on this one because they were related to scientific or military funding. But we're not entirely happy with it being there, either.

Ach, it's late. Full reply to the other points to follow tomorrow, probably...

-DP-

Well, an orbital platform does make response time a good deal better - it takes a lot of effort to shove something up into orbit, but once you're there you can slingshot. You can then design your missile for launch from orbit rather than the surface, and kit it out to be far more effective for the purpose - it wouldn't have to be aerodynamic in the slightest, for instance, so you could design it to attach to the asteroid before detonation for maximum effect. (Random idea, so don't address it specifically; my point is that a launch from orbit would make the weapon, whatever the hell it eventually turns out to be, a lot more flexible in its application).

Getting an object out of the atmosphere is a big, big design constraint.

That said, we're assuming this resolution will fail by now, and would prefer to concentrate on a weaker proposal, emphasising tracking with no military application.

Well, an orbital platform does make response time a good deal better - it takes a lot of effort to shove something up into orbit, but once you're there you can slingshot.

Well, first off, if you need response time it's already too late.

Secondly, it doesn't make response time better. It takes less than fifteen minutes for an ICBM in a silo to reach orbit. You can't line up a slingshot in fifteen minutes, and if you have to wait for the platform to come around to the near side of the planet before it can launch a rocket, well, that could take hours. Maybe even a day.

An international body, composed of military liasons from states around the world, would almost always have at least ONE missle pointed in the right direction. You just reporgram the things to keep flying straight.

But, as I said, if you need to react quickly you're already screwed. Might as well go home, hug the kids, and die with dignity.


That said, we're assuming this resolution will fail by now, and would prefer to concentrate on a weaker proposal, emphasising tracking with no military application.

And thank God. This James Bond supervillian nonsense is enough to dive someone crazy.

Getting an object out of the atmosphere is a big, big design constraint.

That said, we're assuming this resolution will fail by now, and would prefer to concentrate on a weaker proposal, emphasising tracking with no military application.

Well, I would still say that the research might best be qualified as military ... but here are some clauses I'd like to put into our weaker proposal:


1. ENCOURAGES all nations, United Nations members and non-members, to share any information on the trajectories of any Near Earth Objects (NEOs);
2. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to indentify and track NEOs;

3. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS the continuation of pre-existing international, national, and non-governmental research in the space sciences (which are considered to be included in military budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. RECOMMENDS that international, national, and non-governmental space science research groups continue to research and develop possible contingency plans should an impact be likely;

We can continue to work on the details ... but basically I'm thinking there need to be several points:

- Sharing NEO Information
- Stressing the importance of tracking NEOs
- Acknowledgement that research is already taking place
- Remind those less familiar with the game that military budgets may be the way to do this
- Start the ball rolling on research contingency plans
- Introducing Hazard wrt Risk (can be done in the preamble and other activating clauses).

I'll have to poke around, as there are two different indices that NASA uses that I'd say we just adopt when classifying NEOs ... already being done, but it would actually force a standard reporting.

These are just ideas. And even if the current resolution passes (which I honestly hope it does), I'd like to still draft an amendment resolution to it, attaching these ideas *and* setting up monitoring networks on the station and the moon base. We can put something on the moon base right now.

One more thought: all science learned from a station / moon base should be shared with nations that buy into the projects.

10kMichael

So when risk-assessment says we should build an orbital defense platform it's wrong because

Mikitivity didn't get his/her math right or

It's the wrong tool for the job, or

b is the correct answer, or

b is still the correct answer.



Seriously. Why intelligent people like you are accepting this orbital platform thing prima facie is beyond me.

Because:
A) my math is correct,
B) my math hasn't been disproven by ANYONE, or
C) I've answered your question four times .... you've yet to reply.

Take your pick, but no matter how you look at it, you've yet to prove your case, I've proven mine. If your rocket scientist father could join us, maybe you'd ask him to re-explain this to you, because you've shown us nothing.

I'd say any intelligent person reading this thread is going to see through your posts. If you want to show why Expected Value / Decision Theory doesn't apply please go right on ahead. But I assure you it is what is used when preparing for other natural disasters ... there is no reason not to use the same tool for another natural disaster. The bottom line is you are attacking the math *without* proof, because you don't like the suggestion of the tractor beams and the reference to the Axis of Evil resolution. Why don't you just say that. Stop making yourself look like a troll and pick your arguments where you have a leg to stand on.

Again, my reply your question is already in this thread above, please direct your next flame to that post.

10kMichael

DP

Because:
A) my math is correct,
B) my math hasn't been disproven by ANYONE, or
C) I've answered your question four times .... you've yet to reply.


Well, you didn't even posit the question that that was supposed to be answering, but okay.

Anyway. I can only make this so simple:

It's not your math.

No one is questioning your math.

Your math is okay.

Your math r gud.

It's that the thing you want to build won't work.

Space platform no workey.

Space platform.. not stop rock.

It r teh bad.

Okay?

So, it's not a question anymore. "What makes you think it will work?" was the question, but you can't answer that, obviously. It was a rhetorical question anyway. And now it's moot. But thank you for prattling on about your risk-assessment obsession, and how highly qualified you are to build floodways, and all the rest of it.

Really. Thanks. When we need you we'll call.



1. ENCOURAGES all nations, United Nations members and non-members, to share any information on the trajectories of any Near Earth Objects (NEOs);

2. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to indentify and track NEOs;

3. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS the continuation of pre-existing international, national, and non-governmental research in the space sciences (which are considered to be included in military budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. RECOMMENDS that international, national, and non-governmental space science research groups continue to research and develop possible contingency plans should an impact be likely;

Now that, my learned colleague, is a reasonable, civilized, eminently worthy proposal. Bravo. Well done.

It's times like these that reaffirm my faith in the democratic process.

Too bad we'll have to oppose it.

1. ENCOURAGES all nations, United Nations members and non-members, to share any information on the trajectories of any Near Earth Objects (NEOs);

2. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to indentify and track NEOs;

3. SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS the continuation of pre-existing international, national, and non-governmental research in the space sciences (which are considered to be included in military budgets for the purposes of NationStates);

4. RECOMMENDS that international, national, and non-governmental space science research groups continue to research and develop possible contingency plans should an impact be likely;

Now that, my learned colleague, is a reasonable, civilized, eminently worthy proposal. Bravo. Well done.

It's times like these that reaffirm my faith in the democratic process.

Too bad we'll have to oppose it.

You say this is a worthy proposal ... and yet you have to oppose it? Man are you petty.

BTW these are all amendments that we originally discussed adding to the proposal, but nobody objected at the time.

10kMichael

You say this is a worthy proposal ... and yet you have to oppose it? Man are you petty.

BTW these are all amendments that we originally discussed adding to the proposal, but nobody objected at the time.

I did. I specifically stated that it would better for the planet if we were all wiped out by a big asteroid. Extinction events are good, and that one is at least less permanently toxic than our own.

I had other objections to the platform, namely that it wouldn't work, but I object to this on the grounds that it will.

Nice blue, by the way.

You say this is a worthy proposal ... and yet you have to oppose it? Man are you petty.

BTW these are all amendments that we originally discussed adding to the proposal, but nobody objected at the time.

I did. I specifically stated that it would better for the planet if we were all wiped out by a big asteroid. Extinction events are good, and that one is at least less permanently toxic than our own.

I had other objections to the platform, namely that it wouldn't work, but I object to this on the grounds that it will.

Nice blue, by the way.

There you have it folks, Clark *is* in fact a UN troll.

I was pretty certain last week when he was running around calling everybody liars, but it should be pretty plain to see now.

10kMichael

Ah, so petty and objectionable, then.

At least it doesn't take thirty repetitions before I understand what the question is.

I still don't think he understands it, though.

Because:
A) my math is correct,
B) my math hasn't been disproven by ANYONE, or
C) I've answered your question four times .... you've yet to reply.


Well, you didn't even posit the question that that was supposed to be answering, but okay.

Anyway. I can only make this so simple:
It's not your math.
No one is questioning your math.
Your math is okay.


Really? Earlier you said the risk based expected value theory was wrong. That is math. I do not appreciate how you change your statements. It is manipulative. I'm not surprised, but I don't appreciate it. Frankly, I have ZERO respect for the type of person you are.

As for the station working: others have answered that. I don't have to: the resolution calls for the development of new technologies. If you would have bothered to read the UK paper I posted on Friday (PDT) you'd see that after they talk about RISK and HAZARD that *that* research group then talked about planned / theoretical courses of action.

The bottom line is if you would spend 1-hour googling up any Popular Science / NASA / Sky & Telescope styled magazines, you'd find that there is a wealth of information on NEOs, including plenty of theories how to prevent collision / impact.

Fortunately, there are plenty of real world rocket scientists who do take an interest in this, and agree that this is a hazard worth devoting their time for. I'm sure real world rocket scientists would be a bit hurt to learn that their son's only interest in the field was getting a cheap thrill by trolling the United Nations.
If you are here to troll, there isn't much we can do. But if you honestly want to work on things worthy of international attention, why don't you see if anybody cares about your proposal. Especially now that it is clear that your goal is to destroy the Earth or at least human race.

10kMichael

P. S.


I was pretty certain last week when he was running around calling everybody liars, but it should be pretty plain to see now.

I was calling him a liar because he was lying.

I think I repeated that thrity times, too. And explained why.

And you didn't understand that, either.

Really? Earlier you said the risk based expected value theory was wrong. That is math. I do not appreciate how you change your statements. It is manipulative. I'm not surprised, but I don't appreciate it. Frankly, I have ZERO respect for the type of person you are.

No, I said your analogy was wrong. It was good math, badly applied.

Don't try to analogize anymore. It's not working for you.


Fortunately, there are plenty of real world rocket scientists who do take an interest in this, and agree that this is a hazard worth devoting their time for.

To, devoting their time to.

But anyway, there's more than enough bad science with big money motives out there. See also: "Texas A&M" and "Missile Defense Shield".

I'm sure real world rocket scientists would be a bit hurt to learn that their son's only interest in the field was getting a cheap thrill by trolling the United Nations.

Thanks, for making a wild stab, but my dad is now happy to admit that his work on nuclear weapons was a detriment to humanity.

Also, trolling on NationStates isn't what I had in mind when I asked him what he did for a living.

Presumption isn't working for you, either.

Especially now that it is clear that your goal is to destroy the Earth or at least human race.

I don't want to destroy anything! Just let nature take it's course. Is that really so bad, now? You're going to die anyway.

Giant meteors or colon cancer?

Com'on. think about it.

P. S.
I was calling him a liar because he was lying.
I think I repeated that thrity times, too. And explained why.
And you didn't understand that, either.

Whatever, I replied to that earlier as well. It isn't my job to hand hold you to my responses.

If you think anybody has been purposefully lying, you should really file a complaint to the moderators.
With that said, I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that the reason your whining about liars *as well as your UN proposal* fell largely upon deaf ears is that quite frankly: some of us don't respect you. Somehow I doubt that thought ever occurred to you.



Folks, the point is: the currently resolution was an honest and sincere attempt to address something that a number of us are concerned about. It calls for research and development. Its text says that it is voluntary.

I think that I've proven that there is a cost associated with inaction. I've also provided links (search back a few pages to Friday / early Saturday) showing what international costs for things like the US military presence in Iraq is *and* on the probability of impact. Others have posted costs for the international space station.

I think that if you look at the cost of a military operation in Iraq vs. the cost of the international space station, you'll see that one dwarfs the other.

Please don't let some kid convince you that this is an attempt to snow anybody over. Myself and many of the other proponents believe in this, we are not here to troll the UN by any means.

10kMichael

As this proposal is doomed to fail, I suggest an alternative proposal as an intermediate step to a resolution to construct an actual _defense_ platform.

Draft Proposal --

Recognizing that given enough time, a catastrophic, civilization threatening event _is_ inevitable.

We propose that a trust be created to increase the funding for scientific research aimed at detecting Earth threatening objects in space.

This trust will extract a small amount of UN funds from nations. Nations falling below basic minimum economic categories (OOC perhaps Fragile economy?) will not be obligated to fund the project.

Recognizing the essentiality of keeping costs low, the administrative structure should be trimmed to an absolute minimum to ensure functioning. Proceeds of Funds to be decided by Assembly votes at each annual budget making cycle.

Criteria for funding grants to worthy causes should be based upon merits of capabilities of applicants for funds.
1) Means of accessing effective equipment to increase knowledge at least cost.
2) Basis of their standing within global scientific community.
3) Merit of organized plan for accomplishing goal, in the context of furthering global knowledge of Earth threatening space objects.

This would be a far less expensive means of gaining more information about the threats posed to known life.

Why I argue this in favor of the SDI? First of all, there is little enough technology to implement the SDI as specified. Member nations of the UN are not prepared to undertake this huge leap. Fostering greater understanding of threats and research aimed at finding inexpensive means to deter these threats, IS a huge interest.

A more appealing alternative to funding an apparatus that is essentially military in nature is probably not the desired outcome of this proposal, but is certainly seen as a risk. A proposal the first increased scientific exploration and research budget at a FAR lower material cost to member nations would be not only more likely to pass, but would have a greater chance of achieving the desired end in the long run.

Note: I realize the aforementioned alternate draft proposal aimed at creating a "first step" toward deterring civilization threatening events was probably not according to resolution guidelines. I was just attempting to throw out an alternative course of action and gauge if there would be more interest in this.

At the same time, I the last couple of paragraphs weren't really part of the resolution draft. Rather they were justification for this alternative post.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

If you think anybody has been purposefully lying, you should really file a complaint to the moderators.

Just as when a politician misleads his people, in the, um, other world, there are no moderators I can complain to. The best one can do is call him on it, over, and over, and over.

Tedious as it is.

With that said, I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that the reason your whining about liars *as well as your UN proposal* fell largely upon deaf ears is that quite frankly: some of us don't respect you. Somehow I doubt that thought ever occurred to you.

For someone with deaf ears you sure respond quite vehemently.

I think you're confusing "ignoring" with "incomprehension".

Folks, the point is: the currently resolution was an honest and sincere attempt to address something that a number of us are concerned about. It calls for research and development. Its text says that it is voluntary.

The text said it, but according to game mechanics it isn't.

See? You still don't understand it.

I think that I've proven that there is a cost associated with inaction.

Yeah, but the question was whether the proposed action was worth a damn.

It wasn't, and you still don't understand that, either.

Please don't let some kid convince you that this is an attempt to snow anybody over. Myself and many of the other proponents believe in this, we are not here to troll the UN by any means.

Just because you believe in it doesn't make it right. Or even relevant. I thought that it was a clever attempt to make richer, militaristic nations richer at the expense of the poor. I gave you that much credit, at least.

I guess you really were that obtuse.

I like the red far less. It's unpleasant on the eyes.

We propose that a trust be created to increase the funding for scientific research aimed at detecting Earth threatening objects in space.

Mikitivity just proposed such a draft, and his was a little more coherent. Look up a few posts.

This trust will extract a small amount of UN funds from nations. Nations falling below basic minimum economic categories (OOC perhaps Fragile economy?) will not be obligated to fund the project.

No. They will be obligated to fund it. It is unfortunate, but the U.N. is not a very sophisticated instrument. Its billing procedures cannot be so finely tuned.

Poorer nations might object less if there was a misleading clause like this in the resolution, but misleading the electorate isn't very sporting, eh?

(obviously nobody gets this. not even civil engineers.)

It's still a good idea, especially the bits that call for more input from the scientific community, and less from the politicians. All they can seem to come up with are orbital death rays.

Of course ClarkNovinia will object to all this on the grounds that it might lead to saving the human race from extinction, but once we're called out on that point we can be dismissed for the raving lunatics you're sure to think we are.

Pity for mother Earth, that.

(OOC) I apologize for essentially reposting in bastardized form an earlier topic. I'd been reading through and thought I'd skimmed most posts, but I apparently missed one. (/OOC)

In response to ClarkNovinia's assertion that he has no interest in taking steps to ensure the continuity of cognizent life: I believe this is effectively a good argument for rational nations to ignore ClarkNovinia's rebuttals.

His or her basic position is grossly negligent in responsibility to the existence of his/her people's lives and a threat to all of our lives. The idea that the human race should die is nihilistic and as such ClarkNovinia's opinions should be looked upon with suspision as it is in direct conflict with all nationstates' interests.

As I see it, the goal of the UN is essentially to encourage political dialog between various disparate regions. In the end, the greater goal is to ensure the continuity and freedom of action of individual sentient entities. Occasionally, for the greater good of preserving all people's interests must override the interests of a single nation, if perchance it is violently and willfully trampling over other nations' interests. The goal of this through a political medium is to ensure prevent war. To avoid such laws, one must only remove oneself from the UN. But in that case, one removes oneself from the protections the UN provides.

As for Mikitivity's draft. I support it, but with the qualification that the funding required is very low (since this will necessarily be a cummulative and long term knowledge acrual project). Additionally, there should be restrictions on how funding is used and guidlines for how funding is to be delegated. I realize this looks nit-picky, but I feel it is necessary to add specifications to ensure that the process isn't abused and the bureaucracy does not become unwieldly.

As for Mikitivity's draft. I support it, but with the qualification that the funding required is very low (since this will necessarily be a cummulative and long term knowledge acrual project). Additionally, there should be restrictions on how funding is used and guidlines for how funding is to be delegated. I realize this looks nit-picky, but I feel it is necessary to add specifications to ensure that the process isn't abused and the bureaucracy does not become unwieldly.

Point well taken. There are clauses from your proposal that I liked as well. Mine was just a cut and paste from deleted clauses from the current proposal with very minor tweaking (like adding the military budget reference). It is not a finished product.

I'm still holdling out hope that this resolution will pass, as a representative from my region has already created or lifted a cool conceptual image of the platform. (The point here is that there are nations that like this idea.)

http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=1002&st=20&#last

:)

10kMichael

I have been enjoying this debate a great deal. Not only has it been educational, but entertaining as well. And even though this proposal seems as if it is going to go down to defeat, I think I will have to vote to support it.
First because I want an equal opportunity to place my nations own research scientists in space, and this would be the most cost effective way for my nation to do so.
Second, when all hell does break out, and I need a place to go to watch the fireworks from a safe distance, I can't think of a better place to do so.


Alaric the Red
Supreme Commander of Deagol Deaod

In response to ClarkNovinia's assertion that he has no interest in taking steps to ensure the continuity of cognizent life: I believe this is effectively a good argument for rational nations to ignore ClarkNovinia's rebuttals.

I said that already!

Also, it's "cognizant".

Also, I'm right about that being a good thing. You'll see.

Also, I'm right about that being a good thing. You'll see.

Considering the the pysical impossibility of you having a 4th dimensional perspective (being able to see the future), it is physically impossible for your statement to be either true or false (read a fact). This means, it is your opinion that it would be a good thing if people ceased to exist. As it necessarily implies a willfull end and limitation of freedom (of cognizant life to exist) the Jovian people decree this to be a "BAD THING!"

If the UN were to act within the framework of furthering such nihilistic ideals, the Jovian people will fight you tooth and nail on the issue of continuity. We will not submit and have our freedom to exist limited by a nihilistic cult bent on ending the human race and/or cognizant life.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future people of the Jovian Worlds

Also, I'm right about that being a good thing. You'll see.

Considering the the pysical impossibility of you having a 4th dimensional perspective (being able to see the future), it is physically impossible for your statement to be either true or false (read a fact). This means, it is your opinion that it would be a good thing if people ceased to exist. As it necessarily implies a willfull end and limitation of freedom (of cognizant life to exist) the Jovian people decree this to be a "BAD THING!"

If the UN were to act within the framework of furthering such nihilistic ideals, the Jovian people will fight you tooth and nail on the issue of continuity. We will not submit and have our freedom to exist limited by a nihilistic cult bent on ending the human race and/or cognizant life.

No one is asking you to submit, my esteemed colleague. ClarkNovinia can only persuade, coercion is our anathema.

Furthermore our ideals aren't nihilistic at all. If industrial society continues on its present course, even those nations that preserve themselves in the most pristine and natural state will have their environments despoiled by the toxic effluvia of the more feckless. The human species is an extinction event more through, more complete than any celestial impact in our planet's history. We will, with our heedless culture, wipe this globe clean.

Unless the Jovian Worlds posses a device capable of changing six billion minds at once, of transforming every individual human from a consumer into a deep ecologist, this will happen as surely as dropped stone striking the bottom of a well.

It doesn't take a 4th dimensional perspective to predict the future. Even Newton would agree with that.

However, a Manhattan-sized asteroid will kill everything bigger than a chicken, including us. A few hundred million years will elapse, and life will recover: new jungles, teeming with unimagined species will grow and bloom. Rivers will run thick with strange new fish. The sun will rise on verdant vistas as yet undreamed. The sudden upheaval may even reverse the short-term drying trend we find ourselves faced with. Who knows? Whatever happens after the impact of such a body, it'll look better in an eon down here with it than without it.

Honestly, what does Man offer his neighbors? Mindless, thoughtless, consumerist destruction of the living jewel that is our earth? A systematic despoilment and poisoning of every living habitat until, as one noble savage put it, “[we] will find that we can not eat money”?

THAT, my honorable colleague, is a nihilism ClarkNovinia finds truly terrifying.

Anyway, what do you guys care? You're in the Jovian system for crying out loud.

No!

Hear hear!

Ah well, at the very least we'll be able to use this proposal as proof that resolutions can be voted down.

Can i get an Amen! to that?

A few hundred million years will elapse, and life will recover: new jungles, teeming with unimagined species will grow and bloom. Rivers will run thick with strange new fish. The sun will rise on verdant vistas as yet undreamed. The sudden upheaval may even reverse the short-term drying trend we find ourselves faced with. Who knows? Whatever happens after the impact of such a body, it'll look better in an eon down here with it than without it.
Honestly, what does Man offer his neighbors? Mindless, thoughtless, consumerist destruction of the living jewel that is our earth? A systematic despoilment and poisoning of every living habitat until, as one noble savage put it, “[we] will find that we can not eat money”?

THAT, my honorable colleague, is a nihilism ClarkNovinia finds truly terrifying.

The people of the Jovian worlds would not agree with your choices to trade one nihilistic end over another. Nihilism is nihilism. That which means the end of our cummulative cognitive existence is still the end of our existence. The people of the Jovian worlds support policies that reduce environmental impact and reverse damage to the extent of our interests in ensuring the continued and prosperous existence of all the worlds people (and especially ourselves!).


Anyway, what do you guys care? You're in the Jovian system for crying out loud.

Well...to address that minor technicality... We should specify that we are the...uh...future people of satellites of Jupiter's moons. Due to certain technical...and certain budgetary constraints....this emigration has been...ah...put off, shall we say? Yes....Well...ah...carry on!!

While we recognize and appreciate the desire for international cooperation to construct and operate a platform designed to defend the Earth against an interstellar threat, I share the concerns of some of my esteemed colleagues that the platform could have disasterous effects if it falls into the wrong hands. Such a platform could become a highly dangerous weapon if it falls into the wrong hands.

Additionally, the scientific probability that an asteroid would hit the Earth is so infinitessimal as to render the massive expense involved a wasteful use of the limited resources of our world's countries. Should we really be spending our money, our resources, and our time developing a system that may realistically never be used?

We intend to vote AGAINST the Resolution at this time.

Mike Sarzo
President
Incorporated States of Sarzonia

Although I am not a delegate to the UN yet, but a member, I will vote against it for the reasons that Incorporated States of Sarzonia had mentioned. I believe that it would be a waste of money. But at the same time, I do believe that we do need a system to protect all nations of the world. The problem with the space defense system is that it can miss its target or shatter the asteroid like in the movies Deep Impact and Armagedon. We cannot afford to have any miscalculations if we are to destroy the asteroid. At this time, I will vote against it. The likelihood of an asteroid hitting our planet is very slim.

I tend to believe that they will need it more than Earth since Jupiter got hit by a big comet within five years ago and it is a much bigger planet than Earth is. Jupiter has a gravity that is so much stronger than Earth's and it is by the asteroid belt. As for the platform, I think that Jupiter may need it a lot more than Earth itself.

Therefore, although my vote is still no on this issue, I think the Jovian Worlds needs a defense against the debris from outer space. :) If Jovian Worlds gets the space defense platform, I believe that it should pay for it and use it for that purpose only. The concerns are that it may be misused and be used as a weapon, the main reason for my negative vote. Well, that is all I have to say.

I tend to believe that they will need it more than Earth since Jupiter got hit by a big comet within five years ago and it is a much bigger planet than Earth is. Jupiter has a gravity that is so much stronger than Earth's and it is by the asteroid belt. As for the platform, I think that Jupiter may need it a lot more than Earth itself.

Not only does this imply that Jupiter tends to attract space junk, as it were, but it has the effect of nudging smaller objects in stable orbits into unstable ones. It's the unstable orbits and changing ones that we have reason to be worried about. This is why all people should be worried.


Therefore, although my vote is still no on this issue, I think the Jovian Worlds needs a defense against the debris from outer space. :) If Jovian Worlds gets the space defense platform, I believe that it should pay for it and use it for that purpose only. The concerns are that it may be misused and be used as a weapon, the main reason for my negative vote. Well, that is all I have to say.

Well...as aforementioned...ahem...we are to eventually live in other places. Actually, aside from the wonderful scenary, our reason for wanting to move to the Jovian systems is due to our desire to diversify the places life lived....To better avoid extinction events.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Future Peoples of the Jovian worlds

:tantrum: The Commonwealth of Vladyka supports the mission and purpose of the Space Defence Inititive, as does the member nations of the region of 000Federation of Enlightenment. The world on which we all live is indeed threatened by the potiential impact of large cosmic debrie to such a degree that we should all be thankful that we are at a stage in our tecnological development that we can lower this threat to a more survivable level. Unfortunatly, the Space Defence Inititive after close evaluation has been deemed in need of redrafting, therefore we are removeing our political support from this draft of the Space Defence Inititive and urge others to support a redraft.
:idea: To be able to deflect anything the orbital lasser array would have to be huge and use an incredible amount of power. Rather than deflect an incoming object the lasser array could slow an object down so it may be captured in the Earth's gravitational field as a satellite such as our moon.
:idea: While we are at it... how are we going to see an object incoming? We could also place into orbit a astronomical observation array, so we might gain further knowledge of the heavens while looking for approaching threats.
:idea: The lasser array when not in use could be redirected toward Earth so that it may heat selective portions of the atmosphere in order to affect weather conditions.
Such would be the endevor of accomplishing the above, that it would become the focus of the participating nations economies for years to come, giving them and incredible booste in nearly all major industrial fields and the byproduct massive development and introduction of new advanced technologies will improve the lives of all.

You know, this resolution would be supportable if it were the creation of a commission to study the problem in general terms and suggest solutions, but it's not. It jumps straight into orbital platforms and particle cannons.

But that's exactly what it does do.

RESOLVES to undertake the research and development of an orbital defense platform designed to defend Earth from threatening interstellar objects;

URGES the development of proper equipment for said platform

The particle cannons are only a suggestion of one possible route, nothing more. See that word "research"? That means that it is going to "study the problem in general terms and suggest solutions".


No. It suggests researching an orbital defense platform. it does not suggest general terms and suggest solutions. The solution is already in the suggestion. Not the most optimal solution is researched, but how a solution can be implemented.


And if you're going to repeatedly deny Mikitivity's reasoning, you could at least point out the supposed flaw in it rather than just say over and over again that it's false.

His reasoning has some value, however, the honourable Mikitivity assumes that the current proposal will be the solution. The danger of NEO is clear to everyone. It is the solution that is questionable. Considering previous resolutions that have been passed, it is curious that this path is not what most nations would like to follow. We hope that the proposer, or any other nation, will come up with a better worded proposal in this field.

I see that no one has bothered to calculate the odds on this one. The chances of an asteroid hitting the earth is less than that of winning the lottery several times in a row.

But besides that:

The UN charter (in the real world, I'm not sure in this one) forbids international surveillance of a nation without that nation's consent. Don't you think this violates that? An orbiting battlestation is not exactly my idea of one of the vehicles of the supposedly neutral UN.

In addition, think of the funds I have to put into this thing! I'm already trying to cut taxes and boost my economy, why are you even proposing developing TRACTOR BEAMS when my people can't even buy a REGULAR TRACTOR at home.

This resolution is so farfetched that all your noble sounding words can't really cover its flaws. And also, note this. The 100 m asteroid... it didn't even brush the atmosphere, and just barely went in the moon's orbit. And even once it got through our atmosphere, it wouldn't do much more damage than one of the WTC planes. In fact, less, because we wouldn't have anybody to blame for it. Why spend billions on a largely nonexistent threat? I'll save my money for relieving the problems closer to home.

I see that no one has bothered to calculate the odds on this one. The chances of an asteroid hitting the earth is less than that of winning the lottery several times in a row.


Read the thread above.
We've posted the odds several times:

1:20,000 for smaller rocks
1:100,000 for mid-to-large rocks
K/T rocks are higher

Chances of winning the UK lottery:

1 in 14 million

source: http://lottery.merseyworld.com/Info/Chances.html

Sound astronomical? Guess what, the UK lottery isn't the only one you ain't gonna win:

1 in 3.5 million chance if you play the lottery in Missouri

source: http://www.molottery.state.mo.us/aboutourgames/howtowin/numbergames/lotto/lotto_understandingodds.shtm



Please don't make claims that nobody has bothered to calculate the odds, if you aren't going to:

1) Read the posts above,
2) Calculate numbers to back your statements, &
3) Search google ... they are easy enough to find.


The UN charter (in the real world, I'm not sure in this one) forbids international surveillance of a nation without that nation's consent. Don't you think this violates that? An orbiting battlestation is not exactly my idea of one of the vehicles of the supposedly neutral UN.


[OOC: The real UN charater does not forbid this.]

We have a moon base, the UN approved it, I think your assumption here is wrong. But at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if some other NationStates UN resolution said something like "Don't spy!"


In addition, think of the funds I have to put into this thing! I'm already trying to cut taxes and boost my economy, why are you even proposing developing TRACTOR BEAMS when my people can't even buy a REGULAR TRACTOR at home.


Annual US Army (not Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) cost in Iraq and Afghanistan: $50 - $80 Billion. (again, already discussed)

(source in other post)

Next 10 years cost for International Space Station:
100 Billion Euros.

source: http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAQHA0VMOC_iss_0.html

That 100 billion figure is shared over a period of almost 30 years between all the participants: the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan and 10 of the 15 European nations who are part of ESA. The European share, at around 8 billion Euros spread over the whole programme, amounts to just one Euro spent by every European every year: less than the price of a cup of coffee in most of our big cities.

Please people that was the FREAKING first google hit. The European Space Agency no less ... credible.

It isn't hard to use your brains. Really it isn't.

If it isn't trolls like Clark coming in here and changing his posts and statements in an attempt to mislead people for god knows why (I'm thinking he gets off on it), it is people asking questions that *anybody* who has internet access can find on their own. Do schools no longer teach critical thinking?


This resolution is so farfetched that all your noble sounding words can't really cover its flaws. And also, note this. The 100 m asteroid... it didn't even brush the atmosphere, and just barely went in the moon's orbit. And even once it got through our atmosphere, it wouldn't do much more damage than one of the WTC planes. In fact, less, because we wouldn't have anybody to blame for it. Why spend billions on a largely nonexistent threat? I'll save my money for relieving the problems closer to home.

*hits head into wall*

It isn't just the 100 m rocks we are worried about. The 500 m ones are deadly enough:

5000 projected human casualties.

That sounds like the same number from the World Trade Center attacks. Obviously somebody feels that is a risk worth spending $50 - 80 Billion per year to reduce!

source:
http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/resources_task_intro.cfm

Chapter 4 covers risk, but the rest of the pdf article is worth reading.

Anyway, the next time you are going to bring up "real world" examples of cost and fatalities, please do yourself a favour and do some BASIC fact checking on the ... you know ... intraweb. :roll:

10kMichael

i must admit that, although the imposing threat of an asteroid hitting the earth is very high and that it is a good idea to attempt to deflect or even destroy it, that is not the only issue here. i can imagine that most nations would like to protect the live s of their citizens, and many of us, the other nations that exist but once you creat this platform and stop the asteroid, the problems are not over. I quote

"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations;"

i belive this to be a sheer impossibility. owing to the diversity of the nations in the UN it will be nye on impossible to get "ful concensus of all participating nations." if it come about that say, another distant life form comes to contact he earth then i belive thaty there are nations who would, at first contact wish to attack with the platform. also, some asteroids may not be a threat but some nations may also then want to destroy them for no reason, also arguing nations could disagree for the sake of it as they do not want to agree over petty squablles.

however, i must stress that i do not have a lot of time on the internet and so did not have time to read all of the previous posts. if this issue has already been dealt with i apologise for wasting ppl's time.

The PRoGG has found time to read some more on the subject of NEO, specifically the report mentioned by Mikitivity.

Interestingly, it appears that there are several other possible solutions to deflect or destroy NEOs, as mentioned in this report (emphasis mine):
To try to destroy an asteroid or comet in space by a single explosive charge on or below its surface would risk breaking it uncontrollably into a number of large pieces which could still hit the Earth, doing even more damage. A more promising method would be to fly a spacecraft alongside the object, perhaps for months or years, nudging it in a controlled way from time to time with explosives or other means.This relatively gentle approach is particularly important because many asteroids and comets are held together only by their own very weak gravitational fields.The longer the time before impact, the more effective even a small nudge would be.

The report (http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/chapter8.htm) is also sceptical of Nuclear Weapons. Not so much in usefullness, but in lack of consencus about the use of nuclear weapons. Considering the opposition to this resolution, and the clause that requires unanimity, we consider an SDI as a suboptimal solution.

The PRoGG hopes that the proposer is able to adjust his proposal, limiting it to research in this matter so a better solution can be found. The PRoGG will support such research as long as it is not biased towards using dangerous and impossible solutions.

Looking forward to the final votes on this resolution with confidence,

With kind regards,

The President of the People's Republic of Groot Gouda.

Can i get an Amen! to that?
"Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamen!"
http://www.ia.wvu.edu/~magazine/issues/spring2002/jpegandpsd/chior.jpg

Perhaps is has already been mentioned, but Gethamane cannot support the Moon being turned into a weapon. Why?

The current residents, who have a UN Delegate and had colonized the Moon prior to it being declared neutral, would be pissed. How would you feel if your nation was turned into a huge, UN controlled gun?

I've largely been absent for a number of reasons, one of which is the inevitability of the resolution's failure to pass. Nonetheless, I address the latest commentor: please tell me how anyone could possibly interpret the resolution to call for turning the moon into a weapon? I mean, seriously, I'm really curious. Such a reading constructs the words in such a manner as to deprive them of all reasonable meaning.

How can all you people who joined the UN for the desire to better humanity be so opposed to the building of a device that would protect humanity from being wiped out by some giant interstellar rock that could be heading for us right now?!

SuperHappyFunPlace wrote that the asteroid that passed near us barely came into a Lunar orbit and that if it did enter Earth's atmosphere, it would do little more damage than a WTC plane hitting the Earth. What if that plane landed in the middle of London, Washington, Paris, Berlin, Rome or any other capitol or even just a "normal" city in the world? I seem to recall that happened and there were quite a few lives lost and quite a lot of damage was done...

Markolia commented on the fact that the resolution calls for complete consensus is unfeasable. This was tackled early on but as you said, you don't have a lot of time on the net so please don't take this as a jibe at you, only something to inform you and others: if a huge asteroid was coming towards Earth on a collision course, it would affect the whole world (remember the dinosaurs? no? that's 'cos they were completely wiped out by one several million years ago...)

I hope those of you unwilling to prolong the life of the species feel free to finish yourselves off soon and leave those of us looking to protect each and every life we can to further our goals in peace

pnlrogue1

How can all you people who joined the UN for the desire to better humanity be so opposed to the building of a device that would protect humanity from being wiped out by some giant interstellar rock that could be heading for us right now?!

How can you be so sure that this device will actually work?

Markolia commented on the fact that the resolution calls for complete consensus is unfeasable. This was tackled early on but as you said, you don't have a lot of time on the net so please don't take this as a jibe at you, only something to inform you and others: if a huge asteroid was coming towards Earth on a collision course, it would affect the whole world

Only it wouldn't, because chances are higher that a smaller impact will happen, only affecting one or two nations. And what will happen then? Who can guarantee that no-one will suddenly say "hmmm, it's a bit expensive to stop this asteroid which doesn't even hit our nation...". Or that the device will work at all? Would you bet 100 billion dollars while you don't even know the chance you'll win?

"How can you be so sure that this device will actually work? "
"Would you bet 100 billion dollars while you don't even know the chance you'll win?"

Hmmm. what if everyone said that. lets see... we wouldn't have lights, Alternate fuels woudn't be possible, and Computers wouldn't exsist. Manned Flight would not have occurred. Nationstate America won't be found by the European nationstates... In fact most inventions/discoveries won't be around.

I would rather spend the 100 billion or more to get somthing up there, improve on it as technology advances, than spend the 100 billion lives down here because we did not want to even try or we were so selfish that if it doesn't affect me directly... you're on your own.


It may work, it may not. Technologies will improve and methonds refined. But still, it's better to attempt and fail than not even try and always wonder "what if."

So, whereas you guys are debating the feasibility of this, a simple ammendment to the resolution would fulfill the resolution and your 'problems' with the resolution. Agreed that currently the technology of having an interstellar platform is...........lacking, yes, but there is technology to have several platforms all over the earth that can launch various 'deterrence measures' whatever they may be into interstellar space. These things probably do exist as is, in the form of nuclear missile platforms. Recently, the Russians tested such a platform that can prevent detection and bypass the patriot missile shield in the U.S. It is obvious that such technology is in the hands of nations at this given time. Considering that the missiles are launched well outside the earth's atmosphere before re-entry, it is possible then to launch missiles into wherever the asteroids are coming from. Therefore, if an ammendment can be made to simply have ground based launch systems that are controlled jointly by the United Nations, it would
a) prevent rogue states from using this technology
b) would use existing technology to fulfill the same purpose with even better efficiency
and
c) save a hell of a lot of money in comparison to the billions spent on space based research
You people can go do your research to refute that, Limbodia stands firm to the resolution as the ammendments suggest........ :D

The UN is useless for any sort of international space defense program. The UN is obsolete for any sort of program which deals with weapons and military, army or armed forces. That is the exact reason we have seen creation of NATO and other such alliances.

Why is it useless? Because of the diversity in opinions and beliefs, and also power and resources. The UN is however more useful in humanitarian field, and therefore should continue to function to improve the lifes of others through humanitarian means.

I propose the creation of a space defense alliance with like minded nations that are willing to contribute their resources to do so. The nations that are opposed to the idea can just watch us. This new body should comprise of everyone willing to protect our own self and humanity. This new organization will also be seperate from the ineffeciencies when it comes to decision making of the UN.

Therefore lets start a new thread and lets have all the nations come together.

"How can you be so sure that this device will actually work? "
"Would you bet 100 billion dollars while you don't even know the chance you'll win?"

Hmmm. what if everyone said that. lets see... we wouldn't have lights, Alternate fuels woudn't be possible, and Computers wouldn't exsist. Manned Flight would not have occurred. Nationstate America won't be found by the European nationstates... In fact most inventions/discoveries won't be around.

You are ridiculising my point, and prove once again that your debating tactics are...debatable. I do not say we should not research *anything* because we do not know whether it will have results.

I would rather spend the 100 billion or more to get somthing up there, improve on it as technology advances, than spend the 100 billion lives down here because we did not want to even try or we were so selfish that if it doesn't affect me directly... you're on your own.

You assume that it will work. Based on what? What our nation proposes is open, unbiased research into the field of Near Earth Objects. The report provided by Mikitivity shows a great example. Not a document aimed at providing an excuse for some megalomaniac project, but well founded research aimed at preventing a disaster from happening. *That*, honourable Ichi Ni, is what leads to improvements. Not putting a big cannon into orbit and then see how it might work. Because you might as well shoot 100 billion dollars into orbit and have the same result. Let us first gather our scientists and see in what ways NEO can be deflected or destroyed. *Then* we will take action, and see whether an SDI is actually a good idea.

All other arguments have been repeated over and over, so we will not repeat them. What we will repeat, for those who haven't been paying attention, is that the PRoGG has no objection to further research into this field, provided it is unbiased towards any solution with regards to preventing disaster from happening by a NEO.

Regards,

The office of the president of the PRoGG.

(OOC: and just today, because of the lauch of the dutch Astronaut Andre Kuipers, there was an interview about the IIS, with a scientist saying that it is very probable that we will look back on it as a waste of money considering the tiny amount of scientifical research happening in it, and that it was more built as something for the also hideously expensive space shuttles to go to)