3 ms·

>As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Yes, but you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russ

>As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Yes, but you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it. The land mines, I agree with. The nuclear situation is a little more complicated, since some believe nuclear MAD has actually (so far...) saved far more lives in total than if it weren't there, but I agree cutting back is probably a good idea. I think these things are different from having a military presence in space. I think it's like creating an air or cyber force. It's a vacuum that's inevitably going to be filled with a host of entities, so you might as well be first.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it." This argument would be more convincing if Russia was the first to escalate, but they weren't. Yet again the US took the lead. Even if Russia had been the first to escalate, the US could respond in all sorts of non-military ways before resorting to a military solution. This also ties back in to many other aggressive actions the US has taken, arguably since WW2. If it didn't keep squandering its political and moral capital, it would be much more persuasive to the world at large in leading the way to peace. Instead, its self-serving aggression is resulting in ever more polarization, paranoia, and enemy-making. It would be bad enough if the US was simply digging its own grave, but it seems to be intent on digging a grave for everyone. This is truly madness, and I don't see it ending in anything but a global fireball, especially if everyone keeps insisting on throwing more gasoline on the fire.
- meowface 7y ago
  I would bet a large percentage of my savings that a country other than the US would've created such a military force within the next 20 years if the US hadn't (probably the next 10). Creating a military presence in a new domain doesn't necessarily imply any sort of aggression. It can be a buffer, an incentive not to attack America, etc. The world isn't currently in a state of peace and harmony, or anywhere near it. If it were, then I'd agree that this would be a disgusting and peace-threatening precedent set by America. But this is not the world we live in, even though I hope it will be the world at some point within the next few millennia. To be clear, I'm not supporting or defending any other actions taken by the US since WWII. I empathize with the citizens of countries that our government has abused, exploited, and killed. I just see nothing wrong with creating a space force. If we have an air force, why shouldn't we have an above-air force? If your argument were "we shouldn't have an air force or an above-air force", then I'd be much more inclined to agree (though with caveats, given all the game theory coordination stuff I alluded to). If we're going to have a military, why would you half-ass it? I think you should either have nothing but a token military like Switzerland, or one that tries to be capable of engaging in combat in every domain. Having a "just mostly pretty sort of capable" military doesn't make any sense. Shit or get off the pot. Again, I'd love it if everyone in the world only had a token military, or no military. Actual peace-threatening, provocative actions are things like cancelling the Iran deal, assassinating Soleimani, invading Iraq, Bay of Pigs; the list goes on for pages. I don't see the parallel between those and this. Now, if the government had announced our space force is going to colonize half of Mars in the name of the US, then I'd fully agree with you. That's a thing that could happen, and I certainly don't want it to. Trying to establish a true, fair one world government might be the only way to create lasting peace, but, again, sadly I don't think that'll be possible in our world for a very long time.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it." This argument would be more convincing if Russia was the first to escalate, but they weren't. Yet again the US took the lead. Even if Russia had been the first to escalate, the US could respond in all sorts of non-military ways before resorting to a military solution. This also ties back in to many other aggressive actions the US has taken, arguably since WW2. If it didn't keep squandering its political and moral capital, it would be much more persuasive to the world at large in leading the way to peace. Instead, its self-serving aggression is resulting in ever more polarization, paranoia, and enemy-making. It would be bad enough if the US was simply digging its own grave, but it seems to be intent on digging a grave for everyone. This is truly madness, and I don't see it ending in anything but a global fireball, especially if everyone keeps insisting on throwing more gasoline on the fire.

meowface 7y ago
I would bet a large percentage of my savings that a country other than the US would've created such a military force within the next 20 years if the US hadn't (probably the next 10). Creating a military presence in a new domain doesn't necessarily imply any sort of aggression. It can be a buffer, an incentive not to attack America, etc. The world isn't currently in a state of peace and harmony, or anywhere near it. If it were, then I'd agree that this would be a disgusting and peace-threatening precedent set by America. But this is not the world we live in, even though I hope it will be the world at some point within the next few millennia. To be clear, I'm not supporting or defending any other actions taken by the US since WWII. I empathize with the citizens of countries that our government has abused, exploited, and killed. I just see nothing wrong with creating a space force. If we have an air force, why shouldn't we have an above-air force? If your argument were "we shouldn't have an air force or an above-air force", then I'd be much more inclined to agree (though with caveats, given all the game theory coordination stuff I alluded to). If we're going to have a military, why would you half-ass it? I think you should either have nothing but a token military like Switzerland, or one that tries to be capable of engaging in combat in every domain. Having a "just mostly pretty sort of capable" military doesn't make any sense. Shit or get off the pot. Again, I'd love it if everyone in the world only had a token military, or no military. Actual peace-threatening, provocative actions are things like cancelling the Iran deal, assassinating Soleimani, invading Iraq, Bay of Pigs; the list goes on for pages. I don't see the parallel between those and this. Now, if the government had announced our space force is going to colonize half of Mars in the name of the US, then I'd fully agree with you. That's a thing that could happen, and I certainly don't want it to. Trying to establish a true, fair one world government might be the only way to create lasting peace, but, again, sadly I don't think that'll be possible in our world for a very long time.