3 ms·

The downsides are millions of dead people. There is never a "net positive" situation here.

by oaiey 7y ago

michaelborromeo 7y ago
Ok but then if one country doesn’t do this then another will. It’s like nuclear weapons. You cannot reverse or stop technology from progressing and you can’t stop governments from using that technology to build weapons. How many wars did it take for humans to adopt a different “steady state”? And even now it’s not a real steady state. Maybe we have more lessons (I.e mistakes) to learn from in space where billions die. Hopefully not. Hopefully we let the 20th century continue to instruct us.
buzzkillington 7y ago
On the one hand millions vastly underestimates the possible death toll. On the other hand kinetic bombardment is much better than than nuclear exchanges for the people left alive and makes nuclear weapons pretty close to obsolete.
- oaiey 7y ago
  The long term effects... Yes. Short term ... No benefits I guess.
Tempest1981 7y ago
I keep hoping the world leaders will "become adults" and find a way to stop fighting/killing each other. Meanwhile world leaders spend well over $1 trillion a year on their militaries. What else could we do with that much money?
prebrov 7y ago
If anything, armed conflict in space will likely play out with autonomous and remotely controlled weaponry and might as well be death-less. There’s absolutely no reason to launch humans to space for the purpose of operating space-based machinery.
- oaiey 7y ago
  There is no purpose in death-less war. War is about killing humans beings till the other side accepts your conditions. The current us space force has the sole purpose of supporting ground wars. And when they start battling in space in a hundred year, they will nuke planets or throw rocks on them.
Yetanfou 7y ago
Si vis pacem, para bellum [1] or "If you want peace, prepare for war". Yes, there are many downsides to war, those millions of dead people you mention amongst them. The thing is, just because you have decided the downsides of war - millions of dead etc - do not weigh up to the potential upsides does not mean your neighbour thinks the same. Eventually you'll get a neighbour who sees you as ripe for the picking, unprepared for war as you are. Some people might die, sure, you being one of them, but in this neighbour's eye the trade-off is worth it. Humans are a belligerent species. Just wishing for this not to be the case does not make it so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem%2C_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem%2C_para_bellum

The downsides are millions of dead people. There is never a "net positive" situation here.

by oaiey 7y ago

The downsides are millions of dead people. There is never a "net positive" situation here.

Ok but then if one country doesn’t do this then another will. It’s like nuclear weapons. You cannot reverse or stop technology from progressing and you can’t stop governments from using that technology to build weapons. How many wars did it take for humans to adopt a different “steady state”? And even now it’s not a real steady state. Maybe we have more lessons (I.e mistakes) to learn from in space where billions die. Hopefully not. Hopefully we let the 20th century continue to instruct us.

buzzkillington 7y ago

On the one hand millions vastly underestimates the possible death toll. On the other hand kinetic bombardment is much better than than nuclear exchanges for the people left alive and makes nuclear weapons pretty close to obsolete.

oaiey 7y ago
The long term effects... Yes. Short term ... No benefits I guess.

Tempest1981 7y ago

I keep hoping the world leaders will "become adults" and find a way to stop fighting/killing each other. Meanwhile world leaders spend well over $1 trillion a year on their militaries. What else could we do with that much money?

prebrov 7y ago

If anything, armed conflict in space will likely play out with autonomous and remotely controlled weaponry and might as well be death-less. There’s absolutely no reason to launch humans to space for the purpose of operating space-based machinery.

oaiey 7y ago
There is no purpose in death-less war. War is about killing humans beings till the other side accepts your conditions. The current us space force has the sole purpose of supporting ground wars. And when they start battling in space in a hundred year, they will nuke planets or throw rocks on them.

Yetanfou 7y ago

Si vis pacem, para bellum [1] or "If you want peace, prepare for war". Yes, there are many downsides to war, those millions of dead people you mention amongst them. The thing is, just because you have decided the downsides of war - millions of dead etc - do not weigh up to the potential upsides does not mean your neighbour thinks the same. Eventually you'll get a neighbour who sees you as ripe for the picking, unprepared for war as you are. Some people might die, sure, you being one of them, but in this neighbour's eye the trade-off is worth it. Humans are a belligerent species. Just wishing for this not to be the case does not make it so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem%2C_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem%2C_para_bellum