From: slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Flames of the Future (was Re: Is NASA really planning...)
Summary: This has nothing to do with sci.space
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:47:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In this article, Dave Knapp's postings are indented with an even number of >'s,
and Doug Mohney's are indented with an odd number of >'s.

Apologies, if I am spelling anyone's name wrong.

Re: nuclear stockpiles
David is unhappy at the prospect of nuclear war  :(  Doug is chastising him.

>Obviously, I need to spell things out for you. 

>You were one of the ones whining for a "nuclear freeze" in the early 80s. 
>Surprise, it didn't happen. Now, we'll end up CUTTING TOTAL EXISTING WEAPONS in
>half. But, instead of being happy because the United States and the Former
>Soviet Union are going to CUT weapons. We are off of "hair-triggers" on both
>sides. You'd have to work really really hard to go back to the way things were,
>with bombers on pad alert, loaded with gravity bombs and SRAM and ALCMs ... 

Really?  That's news to me.  I mean, you can *bet* that we would not have
come down from that alert if we weren't perfectly capable af fielding a 
same magnitude of response as before.

There are signs all over here reminding us that the Russians are still the
Russians.  Vigilance is not to be relaxed.  Etc.

>>>Another Club of Rome member. <yawn>

>>Huh?

>Hm. Suggest you become well-read on Club of Rome, _Limits to Growth_ and other
>various pop-mythos.

Why should anybody?  Other than to find the flaws.

>No, the point is, based upon roughly 100-150 years of "good" factual reporting,
>you can't really project anything other than the fact we don't know too much :)

>>You are correct about global warming. We have no conclusive evidence. On the
>>other hand if it is truly happening, and we just cannot figure it out, we're
>>fucked. 

>Nope. We're not. It is known that the earth goes through various climatic
>phases. Can you say "Ice Age"? Thank you. Man will adapt. It may be beneficial
>because you'll be able to grow more food in Siberia and other colder areas. 

Is there more land available in colder areas than temperate areas?  Any land
made arable in a colder climate by global warming will be paid for with coastal
flooding or inland desertification.  Somehow I doubt that coastal flooding
will be beneficial to, say, Holland.

>> Ozone loss, on the other hand, is quite real and quite anthropogenic,
>>or will you now call me a bunny hugger because I liked ozone the way it was?

>>I urge you to fight against the chicken littles of the world and stop
>>wearing sun screen just to prove you're right.

>We know there are two holes in the ozone layer. We know these holes fluctuate
>in size. We do not know if these holes are dramatically affected by man's
>activity, or by sunspot cycles. 

It would please me to know, since we are in high solar activity, that the
ozone layers are dramatically affected by said activity.  However, the effect
of CFC's is real and should not be ignored.  It is folly to continue to do
something damaging to the ozone simply because we have not concluded what
the extent of the damage can be attributed to our actions.  

>>>I didn't know we had gone to world goverment. Now, who in the third world is
>>>going to come and tax US, hmm? 

>>There is effectively a world government, Yes. You misinterpreted the context 
>>of the word 'taxed'.

>If you're referring to the U.N., it is not a "world government." At least not
>in the sense of government which you seem to have the hots for. It's more along
>the lines of a mutual cooperation society by individual member-states. It does
>not collect taxes. It does not build infrastructure. It does not elect a
>Congress to live off the largess of taxes :-). 

I will not comment on the "world govt", as I am constrained by US govt ethics.
However, I would like to know how Mr Mohney thinks the UN gets its money.  

Also,
instead of letting the quibbling about "taxing" get out of hand, I point out
that Dave Knapp meant "tax resources" in the same sense that a difficult
orbital mechanics problem might tax your analytic abilities.

>>When the global population saturates, you will not be thinking 'piss ant' 
>>wars anymore. I don't have to try to convince you either because all you 
>>have to do is wait and remember somebody mentioned it to you.

>When? Malthus and each successive generation of doom-sayers has picked a 
>magical date where population growth was supposed to exceed the support limits
>of the world ecosystem. Funny, those numbers keep on going and going and
>going... just like that Energizer Bunny. (Hm, does he wear shades to be cool,
>or to avoid too much UV? ooooh, how subtle ...) 

Space...the final frontier.
For the first time, the human race has nowhere to expand.  As population goes
up, the amount of arable land goes down.  The only solution to this in the past
has been to expand into the frontier.  But now only governments and rich
companies have access to the frontier, which is space.  And population in
undeveloped countries is increasing exponentially.

>>>We've been running out of fossil fuels for 100 years. Before that, there was
>>>a fear of a great shortage of whale oil, due to overhunting. 

>>No, we will *run out* of fossil fuels in less than fifty years.

Um.  Maybe oil.  Not coal.  Of course, accessing coal will reduce the amount
of available arable land, and also contribute greatly to pollution and global
warming; but nevertheless it is the cheapest way to go.

I personally would like to see solar powersats in place; astronomers 
notwithstanding.  But the human race is lazy and will take the easiest stopgap
solution first.  To rephrase; the market will not support powersat development
on an operational scale until other alternatives with shorter lead times and
cheaper development costs are exhausted first.

>>>Could you tell me what the current demand for whale oil is? 

>>Ah, you're right. Somebody will think of something before there is a problem.
>>Let's have a beer.

just because something is thought of doesn't mean it will be developed.
I am thinking of an orbiting Jovian colony, right now...it could pay for itself
by tourism alone...   :)

>Naw, I'll be drivin' my Saturn III (GM, not NASA product:) past your raggy
>eco-bike with my "John DeArmond for President" bumpersticker in your face. 
>:->
       who is John DeArmond?

>>>Furthermore, the Club of Ignorance also ignores little things like A)
>>>Technological Innovation is not static,

innovation is not static but will never truly take place until driven by
necessity.  My example is synthetic rubber.

It's nice to think about this stuff now but nothing will get done until a
substantial amount of people with money are threatened.

>Gradual fixes to gradual problems. I know that's scary to consider.

Especially since the magnitude of the problems dictates gov't funding, and
this funding is short term.

>>>Naw, you'd better line up now to put Saturn's rings off-limits to Szabo's Ice
>>>Mining, Inc. And then prepare to go out there and enforce your law, hm?

>>I'll have some of what you're smoking! ;-)

>I respect Mr. Szabo <ack, gag> in certain areas, despise him in others. If he
>got a couple of billion dollars, he might be able to do some of what he has
>proposed in messages on here. 

I respect Mr Szabo in all areas.  I rarely agree with him but that certainly
does not mean professional respect should be disposed of.  Apparently you
disagree.  As soon as a net.person airs points of view which you disagree with
y'all have to go off and exchange insults.  A non-space discussion seems to
only serve to make it no-holds-barred.

>There isn't a world goverment. There's an organization to coordinate
>cooperation between nations. Big difference. I know, it's a little bit subtle
>for you to figure out, but I'm sure if you examine the role of the U.N. in the
>past 40 years, you'd figure it out. 

Please name one instance where the UN actually coordinated cooperation in such
a manner to fulfill its charter.

>>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem, 
>>we should not worry about it. Good strategy.

>Sounds good. Prove to me there is a problem. 

Wow.  I can see it now.  I come to you saying there is a potential problem
with the doowhack on this launcher, and you say prove it, nothing's gone
wrong yet.  Next thing you know, bits & pieces of the payload are all over
the Atlantic.  I sure am glad NASA isn't run that way.

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             shari@caspar.nosc.mil
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space