newfangle
hates you.
Let private enterprise do it with half the funds and half the time.
Bush to call for moon base, Mars missions
- Thread starter SeleucusNicator
- Start date
private enterprise wont be ready to do it until far past the chinese have at least attemoted it already, nope, such a project needs government support to even get it off the ground anytime soon- which will also have the effect of making private enterptrise more ready to do more things involving the moon after wards
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Private companies will never do such a thing. There's no return on Investments... I mean, it will cost dozens of billions of dollars... a bit expensive just to plant a "drink Coca-Cola" flag on Mars.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Cause now you're in competition with China ? Don't you like better to work together ???
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Okay. I guess that you would consider that as a declaration of war if the EU were launching their own project. It would be a new reason to bash the EU of being "anti-american". Seriously, such things should be international. I'm stunned to see you're still believing it should be made by nations... That could be seen as a will to prove the US preeminence on the world... If we're still looking for World Peace, that would be counter-productive.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Marla, you're absolutely right. I would consider the launch of a similar program by the EU or by China as little more than a declaration of war. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.
It's a matter of political theory. You either:
a) subscribe to a belief that world peace can be achieved only through international democracy or something similar
b) realize that France will be largely left out of space exploration if the Americans dominate it, thus making arguing point a, whether you believe it or not, in your best self-interest.
I, on the other hand, subscribe to a belief that peace cannot be achieved through international cooperation, for there are too many opposed interests, and must rather be achieved through global hegemony, which would support a space exploration program based on the United States and the United States alone, for control of space is a rather nifty advantage to have.
It's a matter of political theory. You either:
a) subscribe to a belief that world peace can be achieved only through international democracy or something similar
b) realize that France will be largely left out of space exploration if the Americans dominate it, thus making arguing point a, whether you believe it or not, in your best self-interest.
I, on the other hand, subscribe to a belief that peace cannot be achieved through international cooperation, for there are too many opposed interests, and must rather be achieved through global hegemony, which would support a space exploration program based on the United States and the United States alone, for control of space is a rather nifty advantage to have.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
"I will not divide the world into us versus them. Rather, I will rally the world around fundamental principles of decency, responsibility, freedom, and mutual respect. Our foreign and military policy must be about the notion of America leading the world, not America against the world." Howard Dean.
That's the kind of America I want to.
That's the kind of America I want to.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Oh yeah ??! It can't be achieved with international cooperation ? Then what the EU is about ? I consider both world wars and especially the second one as a strong evidence that "World Peace being achieved through global hegemony" can't work. You can't reach peace if you dominate other people ! It's not Peace ! It's Imperialism !! Obviously, between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill, your point of view about that issue is closer to the first one. Sorry to say I can't share it.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
The EU nations, for the most part, do not have opposed international interests, or they have interests on which they are in agreement that, in their view, far outweigh the interests they have in opposition.
The same reason the EU is intercooperative (sorta) now is the same reason the US and Western Europe tolerated each other for most of the Cold War. However, in the latter case, once the unifying interest (weakening of the Soviet Union) was gone, the alliance disapated.
Nothing inherent in Democracy prevents two nations from holding competitive interests. Once this occurs, there cannot be peace, only conflict, nonviolent or otherwise.
Your analogy is flawed.
In 1914 and 1939, the world could be said to have been multipolar. There were several great powers: Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia (sorta), the United States, perhaps Italy (again, sorta). They balanced each other out. In such system, it is difficult for one state to achieve hegemony.
In 2004, the world is unipolar. A completely different situation.
Yago
came undone
Strangley enough, I agree here with you SN. Iran, USA, Japan, Brazil, China, what the heck. They're all the same. Just countries with their own interests. So are the Europeans. So it does not make any sense do hold on to the North-Americans except for cases were it's about mutual-benifit.
But I hope the disputes will not be ressolved with arms, as the UK and France have enough nuking power themselves to blow the whole ****ing planet to kingdom come. And the Americans have some more.
But then, I'm somehow happy that you marched over your Zenith already.
SeleusNicator,
what exactly are the opposed interests between the EU and the US? There are different POVs on some subjects...but nothing major I could see.
Marla, there is no point in putting billions and billions of tax money into such a program. You can achieve better results with less symbolical missions If the US taxpayer are willing to finance that to have something "really cool" -why not?
what exactly are the opposed interests between the EU and the US? There are different POVs on some subjects...but nothing major I could see.
Marla, there is no point in putting billions and billions of tax money into such a program. You can achieve better results with less symbolical missions
If the US taxpayer are willing to finance that to have something "really cool" -why not?
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Yeah, and that common interest is World Peace. Grow up guy ! It's not like if we were at the end of the 19th century kiddy ! We had two world wars during the 20th century. Stop your BS.
Ho ho ! Interesting news ! According to you, the alliance between the EU and the USA have disappeared ? You've "tolerated" the EU during the cold war ??? What kind of warmonger are you ? On which facts is based your silly statement considering the alliance between the EU and the US as gone ?
It's true there are conflict of interests between nations... there are conflict of interests everywhere ! Even between two kids who want to play to the same videogame. However, we are enough grown up to not fight against each other to be the first to play. In a world where 10 countries are nuclear power, we have no other choice than compromise to resolve such conflicts of interests.
My analogy is perfect. Adolf Hitler considered that a real world peace would be achieved only once Germany would be the preeminent power in this world. After World War 2, Winston Churchill declared that people of Europe should learn to talk between each other, to accept each other so that we could go above mere national interests for a greater mutual interests which is our own existence. When Churchill said so, he was thinking of the post-Hiroshima world.
Never call a world where there are 10 nuclear powers as unipolar. Of course, the United States leads the world, but I don't consider it's the only power... never under-estimate the ranks of countries such as China or India in the world of tomorrow.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
That's not a realistic possibility. Not unless somebody manages absolute nuclear domination, which is technologically impossible at present.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
If it goes ahead...then Bush must surely be called one of the greatest leaders of the modern era...only time will tell 
Now, you're exaggerating a bit...the EU's purpose is to make sure that there will be no more wars between its own coutries. We all have strong common values and integration combined with strong economic relationships and wealth is the best way to achieve this.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
World peace? And you're telling me to grow up?
Yes, and rain is wet. What is your point?
Europe and the United States have had conflicts during the cold war, be it on Middle East policy or on Vietnam. At times, these even strained EU/US relations. They were always overriden by the threat of the Soviet Union. However. hat threat is now gone. There is very little basing for an alliance.
Who is advocating nuclear war? I'm not. Not yet, at least.
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
The analogy is flawed more because of differences in the outside world than in differences between my own thought on this and that of Hitler's. Refer to my original post for that, it is explained clearly.
Nuclear weapons, as of now, can be considered negligible, because nobody is going to use them against another nuclear power. Nobody likes to get nuked.
Conflict does not have to be directly violent. How many times must I say this?
Similar threads
- Locked
