NationStates Jolt Archive

The Dominion of Habstein would like to register its opposition to the resolution on the grounds that it's grounded in bad physics and plagued by incomplete planning and wasteful spending.

The proposal calls for three things: long-range scanners, tractor beams, and energy cannons. We in the Dominion feel this is a waste of time and money.

Long-range scanners exist. We call them 'telescopes.'

Tractor beams are physically impossible.

Energy cannons, while theoretically possible, are potentially a very stupid idea. If a large object is on a collision course with the Earth, breaking that object into smaller object is the last thing you'd want to do. Think sawed-off shotguns.

Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposed verification mechanism is dangerously incomplete. That is, those nations participating in the program will be in command of a very large, very powerful weapon that could easily be turned against any nation choosing not to participate, including non-UN members.

We encourage all UN Members to vote against this proposal when brought before the General Assembly.

The peoples of Persecuted Redeemed agree with the Dominion of Habstien.

Not only is this proposal horribly planned, it is also very vague in it’s language about who contributes what to what.

Every piece of this resolution that addresses funding speaks of urging the UN member nations to join in and fund it. There is nothing compulsory, nothing required. While this may seem like a boon to some, it means that only interested nations will have any say in how it is used. Yes, the resolution states that everyone will have a piece but seriously, If I put 60 Billion dollars and someone else puts in nothing, there is no way I’m going to let them use my platform. Not only will there be struggles over this, it could also be used as a weapon of great power.

Besides the arguments I have made, everything Habstien has stated about the physics of the energy cannons is entirely correct.

I lodge this complaint in the fact that the wording concerning funding for the project is hopelessly vague and incomplete let alone being rather out of place. Let’s all vote on something to implement and enforce in all member nations that is voluntary? That contradicts the UN itself.

The proposal calls for three things: long-range scanners, tractor beams, and energy cannons. We in the Dominion feel this is a waste of time and money.

Well, not really. It just suggests those as possible techniques that might be developed in future to ward off asteroid strikes.

Tractor beams are physically impossible.

Says who?
"A "tractor beam" that can reach out, trap and move objects has been developed by British scientists." Not much, but it's a start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1310771.stm

Energy cannons, while theoretically possible, are potentially a very stupid idea. If a large object is on a collision course with the Earth, breaking that object into smaller object is the last thing you'd want to do.

Actually, it could well be the best thing to do. Small objects are likely to burn up in the atmosphere before they ever hit Earth, depending on how small you're talking. And an energy cannon would be more likely to vapourise the target than fragment it, in any case.

, If I put 60 Billion dollars and someone else puts in nothing, there is no way I’m going to let them use my platform.

Really? You'd allow the destruction of the entire planet purely because your bean-counters thought you'd carried an unfairly large burden of the costs? An interesting policy.

All of you writing on this thread should post opinions and such on the other thread :
RESOLUTION AT VOTE: SPACE DEFENSE INITIATIVE

This will help to consolidate the conversation, and ensure that people don't have to debate on two seperate threads. Concerns regarding the cannon and such have already been addressed, since

1. it takes virtually zero contribution to have a veto vote over the space station. Contributing either engineering talent or simply a desk pencil is technically enough to gain this veto vote. Surely any country can afford that (I hope, otherwise telegram me, and i'll give you a pencil you can donate to the cause) =)

"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; "


2. The station is designed only to deter interstellar objects from earth. See the following passage:

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

When constructing this proposal, we and many other nations who contributed, tried our best to ensure that it would never be used for any purpose either than the one it was designed for. The veto power given to all contributing nations is this protection.

Please post all replies and such in the other thread.

Thanks for your time,

FuriousBabar
Founder of Hawaiian Brians

Energy cannons, while theoretically possible, are potentially a very stupid idea. If a large object is on a collision course with the Earth, breaking that object into smaller object is the last thing you'd want to do.

Actually, it could well be the best thing to do. Small objects are likely to burn up in the atmosphere before they ever hit Earth, depending on how small you're talking. And an energy cannon would be more likely to vapourise the target than fragment it, in any case.


Actually, that is still a potentially bad solution. If you have a large amount of debris burning up in the atmosphere, you're still potentially releasing enough energy to raise global temperatures. More importantly, it increases the odds that a large fragment will get through and either explode in the atmosphere (as was the case in the Tunguska event) or land on a major city. As such, you would need a weapon capable of vaporizing the entire object before it enters the atmosphere. The Dominion repeats its opposition to having a weapon of that magnitude in the control of those few nations with the technology and capital needed to fund the project.

I heartily concur with Habstein. While the intentions behind this dangerously flawed plan are good, it is the best of intentions that end up hurting us the most.

First off, like my collegue Habstein already stated, Tractor Beams are a physical improbability. But even in the off chance that such a technology might be possible it would take thousands of years for us to even begin to develope it even with our most advanced technology. This resolution would have all of the members of the UN doling out money for a project that has no tangible end in sight.

However, in order for the space platform to perform adequately, the energy beam weapons would have to powerfull enough to blast any asteroid in a crash course with earth into pieces small enough to be burnt up by our atmosphere. These beam weapons would hold so much power that it wouldn't be hard to imagine their use for other, less honorable, purposes. With weapons of that magnitude the UN could concievably hold nations or even the whole world hostage, and that is completely unacceptable.

The only part of this Idea that has merit is the actual space platform. What if instead of creating a weapons platform whose sole purpose is destruction, we created a space platform dedicated to science, learning, and the benefit of the entire human race? It could be a haven for our men and women of science, and it could be equiped with powerfull telescopes that would give us a clearer view of the heavens, one not marred by clouds or pollution. It would stand vigilant in the sky as a symbol of peace, prosperity, and cooperation, NOT of an ever present death that could rain down at any moment were this defense platform to succeed. I am in no way suggesting this "New International Space Station" as an alternative to the space defense platform, I dare say it is a better Idea than this "Space Defense Platform" currently being voted on in the UN.

Finally, I will not send any of the funds from hardworking Bohemian people towards this space platform because I feel it is a flawed and recklessly dangerous Idea.
Since I cannot in good concious vote for this good intentioned resolution, I must others to do so too. I respectfully ask that all nations who read this vote against the Space Defense Proposal, not only for the people of their country, but for the people of the world.

Respectfully,

El Presidente

Ruler elect of the Bohemian Republic

The Holy Empire of Wadway is strongly against this new proposition,
Arch Bishop Aalderik explains.


Many small countries, such as our proud small nation lack the financial space to support such programs. We have plenty of other more useful things to devote our budget to, like Emperator Wopke Alof Geiserik XXI's new palace. More importantly, these "space programs" are against all our holy laws. It is not our place to travel beyond the heavens. This is sacrilege I say! Sacrilege!

By the terms of the resolution you do not have to participate in the endeavor if you choose not to.

Moreover, if you do choose to participate, you will get a voice on the committee and a veto power, and no contribution would be mandated. Contributions are asked for in good faith and if your nation feels that it cannot spare any funds, it will not be compelled to do so.

With regard to the travelling to the heavens thing, um, well, I guess I can't really do much about that. I guess if a meteor were to smash into the planet and destroy us all, that would be god's will?

Thanks for your comments.

Also, please direct further comments to the other thread.

The Dominion of Habstein would like to register its opposition to the resolution on the grounds that it's grounded in bad physics and plagued by incomplete planning and wasteful spending.

Not only do I agree with you, I too have expressed my objection against this unecessary proposal complete with a poll.

Check it out if you want:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=139764

I am now glad to see that there are more nations sharing similar views on this proposal.

ANYONE who thinks this idea is mad is absolutely crazy, yes that's right, CRAZY. how can it be a bad thing to protect our little planet? God, people are so stupid sometimes. Tractor beams are NOT impossible, only narrow-minded idiots think so, it's because they can't stand change, or maybe they're jealous because they didn't think of it first and they're just being silly and childish.

Prime Minister Gelydh Gongwaith explains the position of Harhun Emyn on this matter.

"Surely anything we can do to protect the planet as a whole is a good idea. However, on economic grounds, I cannot commit my country to this without assurances that financial aid would result from the use of our resources."

Prime Minister Gelydh Gongwaith explains the position of Harhun Emyn on this matter.

"Surely anything we can do to protect the planet as a whole is a good idea. However, on economic grounds, I cannot commit my country to this without assurances that financial aid would result from the use of our resources."

On economic grounds how can your country refuse to protect its citizens?

How much do you think the international space station cost? Let's say 20 billion US$.

How much do you think the United States is spending on military operations in Iraq per year? Let's say 50 billion US$ -- a conservative effort.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_money_021104,00.html

The White House had sufficient detail and foresight last year to request $87 billion for the coming fiscal year on Sept. 7, 2003.

How many lives do you think will be lost due to a small impact? How many lost due to a large impact? And how many lives will really be lost due to Iraqi sponsored terrorism (remember hunting for weapons of mass destruction still is the justification for being there)?
How many lives will be lost if your nation doesn't build a reservoir / damn? How many lives will be lost if your nation doesn't build levees to prevent rivers from flooding?

All of these questions are constantly being answered by each of our governments. But in the case of an asteroid impact, the risk is global, and the response should be as well. I know how hard it is to think of the UN as something other than the "Committee of the Week: Save the Raccoons and Third Graders of the World" organization. I know how hard it is for people to not want the UN to just tell us what do do and think. "Is prostituion legal?" "Should suicide be legal?" "Can gay people be married?" Yes, wonderful national issues ... and yes, I understand that most nations love to just let the UN think for them.

But when a real international issue comes, then people start thinking about cost. But they don't really. They don't really look at real world costs and events. The economic analysis are always missing.

Basically I'd like to request to see your nation's economic analysis. Perhaps when you share your numbers more nations will change their vote and vote no with your nation.

10kMichael

Can you not all see what could happen with such a platform!? If anyone could get a hold on it, the destruction would be immense. It is, in fact, the perfect terrorist weapon.

I propose instead, that every nation deal with the asteroid when it comes. If, indeed, one does, we can deal with it then: we often have a lot of warning, so we can figure something out then. For instince, we could all send a token force of nuclear divices to destroy it. But a centralized weapons platform is an accident waiting to happen.

Can you not all see what could happen with such a platform!? If anyone could get a hold on it, the destruction would be immense. It is, in fact, the perfect terrorist weapon.

Yes, the terrorists will start their own space program, build a rocket and launch pad, train their pilots and secret space ninjas, build pressure suits, purchase fuel, manage to launch, and will steal this precious international station! All without being detected! All without interference by any nation!

Right. There are so many easy ways to prevent that. The station could be rigged to self-destruct if necessary. You might argue that a ground control station would be vulnerable, but there you assume both that (1) there is one single ground control station which would need to be captured and (2) terrorist organizations have the capacity to attack such facilities. It is presumable that many such facilities would be placed in or near the same bunkers which are designed to withstand a nuclear attack -- I somehow don't think the terrorists are a threat to this operation.

A point: blasting a rock while it is a ways off will certainly cause it to change course or speed. That could be good if it pushes it away from the earth. (and BAD if it takes a near miss and turns it into a hit).

I must concur with Late Earth on the issue of terrorism. It has long been known and is a proven fact that terrorists will do anything and everything to cause destruction and terror. If that includes illegally stowing away in a government spaceship or finding some other way into space to gain control of this weapon they will do it. Imagine the control terrorists would be able to exert over the world if they got control of this weapon. This is why the Dictatorship of Tryanny has decided to vote against this resolution and I hope the rest of you will too.