Wi Air Force's Scare-Mongering Space Ad Shoves Facts Out of the Airlock

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: May 12, 2008 3:26:30 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Wi Air Force's Scare-Mongering Space Ad Shoves  
> Facts Out of the Airlock

> I find the framing of this discussion in terms of "what military
> operations require" quite interesting.
>
> To eliminate the blinders, consider if we framed inter-governmental
> economic interactions in terms of "what counterfeiters require" or  
> "what
> international fraudsters (such as the "Nigerian" cons) require".
>
> While it is fashionable to think of "the military" as heroic and
> "intelligence professionals" as ethical, at least to their own
> countrymen, to others they are murderers and thieves.
>
> Perhaps we can keep space free of activities and people who are (in
> their own nations) heroic and ethically good only in an extremely  
> narrow
> contextual perspective.
>
> Should we wear the blinders of ultra-nationalists when there are no
> nations in space?
>
> David Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > *From:* DV Henkel-Wallace <david () abscott com <mailto:david () abscott com 
> > > >>
> > > *Date:* May 12, 2008 12:38:41 PM EDT
> > > *To:* "farber1 () byrden com <mailto:farber1 () byrden com>"
> > > <farber1 () byrden com <mailto:farber1 () byrden com>>
> > > *Cc:* David Farber <dave () farber net <mailto:dave () farber net>>
> > > *Subject:* *Re: [IP] Re:    Wi Air Force's Scare-Mongering Space Ad
> > > Shoves Facts Out of the Airlock *
> > >
> > > Sorry, by "stationary" I meant either "geostationary" or "at a
> > > lagrange point".
> > >
> > > And indeed, the space junk issue was what got me thinking of  
> > > it.    At
> > > first I figured it would likely collect in a common ecliptic band
> > > (presumably coplanar with that of our moon).  And in fact that might
> > > be what happens.  The problem is the timescale.
> > >
> > > The fascinating part of all this (for me) is social context.   In  
> > > the
> > > (very late) 60s and 70s, when I was little, the cold war was in full
> > > bloom and even earth day et al didn't (as I remember) have a huge
> > > impact on space exploration.  So this question of leaving trash in
> > > orbit was just a "huh" question.  Nowadays I realise the space junk
> > > issue can be yet another example of poisoning the (extra-)global
> > > environment in an irreversible way, so I wonder if you could attract
> > > actual attention / reduction in the amount of crud through  
> > > publicity.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I suspect if you're going to fight a war anyway,
> > > abrogating a treaty is the least of your worries.  The only checks  
> > > are
> > > resources and self-interest.
> > >
> > > -d
> > >
> > > PS: Military operations are basically by definition environmentally
> > > nasty: make the other guy's local environment so nasty that he
> > > croaks.  And since you're really worried about accomplishing that,  
> > > you
> > > expand the definition of "local" a bit in case he's moved around or
> > > has a few buddies over.
> > >
> > > But we often forget that military maintenance (practice,  
> > > surveillance,
> > > etc) are also environmentally bad news during peacetime too as the
> > > military is immune the the various EPA/OSHA laws (I suspect OSHA  
> > > would
> > > not approve of a workplace that included people shooting at you).  I
> > > imagine there's a small bit of environmental consideration in  
> > > military
> > > decisions just to avoid poisoning your own people.  But I doubt  
> > > anyone
> > > would seriously consider making that a meaningful issue in planning
> > > any military operations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 12, 2008, at 01:29 , David Farber wrote:
> > >
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: David Byrden [farber1 () byrden com <mailto:farber1 () byrden com>]
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:43 AM
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > From: DV Henkel-Wallace [gumby () henkel-wallace org
> > > > > > > <mailto:gumby () henkel-wallace org>]
> > > > > > in the exploding-stationary case stuff exploding in directions
> > > > > > other than axially will  shift around and take millennia to clear
> > > > > > up.
> > > >
> > > > Er, there's no such thing as a stationary case. If you put  
> > > > something
> > > > stationary in space above Earth it will, not surprisingly, fall  
> > > > down.
> > > > You have to orbit things, extremely fast, to keep them up there.  
> > > > And
> > > > that is the problem.
> > --- 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/>      [Powered by  
> > Listbox]
> > <http://www.listbox.com>

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com