[IP] Wi Air Force's Scare-Mongering Space Ad Shoves Facts Out of the Air

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 <<> [Powered by Listbox]

<http://www.listbox.com>

interesting-people message