03-18-2006, 01:00 PM
Browsing through the Jolt archives I bumped into the "Space Defense Initiative" discussion. It was the first big debate I participated in. One of my fiercest opponents: Mikitivity. I'll post it here to show how things can change 
:discussion:
Mikitivity East Hackney Groot Gouda
the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations".[/quote]
So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution?
hock:[/quote]
Yes, Gouda is being amazingly shortsighted and childish. I'm just waiting for him to scream, "We'll bury you!" and stomp out. Then we'll be able to take care of business.
10kMichael[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda East Hackney Groot Gouda
the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations".[/quote]
So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution?hock:[/quote]
Because it's highly unlikely that an asteroid will strike the earth within the lifetime of our president, we do not think that there are any actual dangers.
The fact that the wording of this resolution leaves this possibility open is worrying. Of course, having said that, our nation probably won't be able to do so. But there are plenty of rogue nations who could abuse that power. And there would be no possibility within this resolution to stop those nations.[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda
Mikitivity The Eroded Washita Groot Gouda The costs simply outweigh the advantages. [/quote]
Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:
[/quote]
Good point, but here is a better one directed to Gouda, who likes to make threats to the Earth ...
Could you show actual proof that the costs outweight the advantages? [/quote]
Considering the billions spent on the International Space Station and it costing way much more than planned, the costs for an SDI would be huge, even if all nations work together.
(see for example http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/f...-140521,00.html and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79vup...sk.sympatico.ca
I await your figures on likelyhood of impact and the implications of such an impact for the coming, say, 100.000 years. That period is *near certain* to contain an ice age, with desastrous consequences. (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/...bc7b165&ei=5062)
I agree, that the costs can be 0 if a nation chooses not to participate. However, considering the dangers also noted by some supporters of this proposal in terms of rogue nations and terrorists, not participating is not an option. Not participating means no influence over how this is used. If all who are against would not participate, it would leave a huge amount of power with the richer nations, whose intentions might not be world peace and defence against interstellar objects.
We have no doubt about the good intents of the proposer, however we fear the optimism about possible abuse, and the lack of measures in the proposal against such abuse.[/quote]
:discussion:
Mikitivity So far the only nation to announce that they'd participate but refuse to ever allow use of the platform was yours. If there is any nation we should be concerned against abusing the station, it is yours.
Second you've illustrated costs of the station, but you've totally failed to assess the costs of not acting.
Hazard = Risk * Loss
Let's look at this [OOC: real world] report:
http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/pdf/04.pdf
Let's assume that the risk is the inverse of the return period. From the table in this report a "sub-global" event occurs once every 25,000 years, i.e. a rock about 1 km in diameter. In this case risk would be: 0.004%.
Hazard = 0.004% * Loss
The estimated fatalities (no property damage, no loss in productivity of agricultural, not even costs associated with the wounded) are 500,000 lives.
Hazard = 0.004% * 500,000 ==> roughly 20 lives lost this year
How much value is your society willing to place on 20 lives / year? Bear in mind this is 20 lives EVERY year. But what would your populations shock be if instead of 20 lives lost, 5,000 lives were lost (such as what happened with the World Trade Center)? Surely your "President" (though I don't see how anybody can call a leader a president if he / she issues threats to vote no on use of a station to protect the Earth out of petty reasons such as they just don't like the station) would not want the blood of 5,000 lives on his / her hands!
Now let's look at a larger event: the 5 km rock.
Fatalities: 1.5 billion
Interval: 6 million years
Risk: 1.66E-5 % (Check my math please)
Hazard = 1.5 billion * 1/6 million ===> roughly 250 lives lost per year
This doesn't consider increases in population density. But obviously these bigger rocks are worth our attention ... 20 lives vs. 250 lives.
I've not even talked about the largest rock: the global killer, which is estimated to take out 6 billion instead of 1.5 billion.
My point is, it is great and wonderful that you *think* you know that this type of event won't happen in the next 10 years. But while your nation is willing to "throw away" 20 to 250 lives per year, I would say let's agree to build your "expensive" station.
Because the truth is those lives aren't really lost until we do "win" the celestial lottery and get hit. But instead of 20, we are talking 500,000 to 6 billion lives lost. And what sort of value do you want to put on a human life then?
I'd much rather tell my government that we've started research on tracking and managing this risk, so that when one of our nation's does dected the sub-global or global killer, that we won't be spending the years to days before impact making extra body bags, but actually attempting to do something.
This of course says nothing of whatever secondary benefits will come of this project.
BTW: read your "ice age" article again. It says that climatologists don't know what will happen. Being that I happen to know one really well (HINT: you're reading his post), I would say that when that article says "some" it isn't speaking for what most climatologists are projecting when they talk about global warming and green house gases doubling scenarios.
10kMichael[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda The PRoGG admires the research done by Mikitivity. However, a few issues remain.
First of all, translating the hazard into a number of lives per year is, in our opinion, not valid statistics. Because those people aren't dying each year.
Secondly, even if we follow these numbers, the PRoGG thinks there are more pressing issues to be resolved by the UN, where lives can actually be saved. Building what appears to be a huge telescope and gun in space is no garantuee for those lives to be saved. As mentioned by other states, technology is not at a sufficient level yet. The PRoGG has no objection into further research in this field, which could lead to a better proposal.
Of course, there is a chance that we will "win", as Mikitity calls it, the "celestial lotto", and a tremendous amount of human lives will be lost. The PRoGG would not like to see this happen, and will retract the statement about vetoing all proposals regarding the SDI, seeing the unnecessary commotion this perhaps too quickly uttered statement has caused. We will of course remain cautious about any developments in this field.
We still consider the risk to be too small to prioritise an SDI, despite the disaster the would follow from an impact. We prefer non-millitary options to be researched as well, before anymore time and money is spent on a SDI which might not prevent an impact, and is still open for abuse.
And on the Ice Age: that *will* happen in the coming 100,000 years. Global warming and related processes play only a minor part in that, and might delay it or vice versa for a few thousand years at most. It is still a great and certain risk, which alas lacks the coolness of space.[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda The PRoGG has found time to read some more on the subject of NEO, specifically the report mentioned by Mikitivity.
Interestingly, it appears that there are several other possible solutions to deflect or destroy NEOs, as mentioned in this report (emphasis mine):
Quote: To try to destroy an asteroid or comet in space by a single explosive charge on or below its surface would risk breaking it uncontrollably into a number of large pieces which could still hit the Earth, doing even more damage. A more promising method would be to fly a spacecraft alongside the object, perhaps for months or years, nudging it in a controlled way from time to time with explosives or other means.This relatively gentle approach is particularly important because many asteroids and comets are held together only by their own very weak gravitational fields.The longer the time before impact, the more effective even a small nudge would be.[/quote]
The report (http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/chapter8.htm) is also sceptical of Nuclear Weapons. Not so much in usefullness, but in lack of consencus about the use of nuclear weapons. Considering the opposition to this resolution, and the clause that requires unanimity, we consider an SDI as a suboptimal solution.
The PRoGG hopes that the proposer is able to adjust his proposal, limiting it to research in this matter so a better solution can be found. The PRoGG will support such research as long as it is not biased towards using dangerous and impossible solutions.
Looking forward to the final votes on this resolution with confidence,
With kind regards,
The President of the People's Republic of Groot Gouda.[/quote]
:discussion:
:discussion:
Mikitivity East Hackney Groot Gouda
the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations".[/quote]
So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution?
hock:[/quote]Yes, Gouda is being amazingly shortsighted and childish. I'm just waiting for him to scream, "We'll bury you!" and stomp out. Then we'll be able to take care of business.
10kMichael[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda East Hackney Groot Gouda
the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations".[/quote]
So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution?
hock:[/quote]Because it's highly unlikely that an asteroid will strike the earth within the lifetime of our president, we do not think that there are any actual dangers.
The fact that the wording of this resolution leaves this possibility open is worrying. Of course, having said that, our nation probably won't be able to do so. But there are plenty of rogue nations who could abuse that power. And there would be no possibility within this resolution to stop those nations.[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda
Mikitivity The Eroded Washita Groot Gouda The costs simply outweigh the advantages. [/quote]
Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:
[/quote]
Good point, but here is a better one directed to Gouda, who likes to make threats to the Earth ...
Could you show actual proof that the costs outweight the advantages? [/quote]
Considering the billions spent on the International Space Station and it costing way much more than planned, the costs for an SDI would be huge, even if all nations work together.
(see for example http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/f...-140521,00.html and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79vup...sk.sympatico.ca
I await your figures on likelyhood of impact and the implications of such an impact for the coming, say, 100.000 years. That period is *near certain* to contain an ice age, with desastrous consequences. (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/...bc7b165&ei=5062)
I agree, that the costs can be 0 if a nation chooses not to participate. However, considering the dangers also noted by some supporters of this proposal in terms of rogue nations and terrorists, not participating is not an option. Not participating means no influence over how this is used. If all who are against would not participate, it would leave a huge amount of power with the richer nations, whose intentions might not be world peace and defence against interstellar objects.
We have no doubt about the good intents of the proposer, however we fear the optimism about possible abuse, and the lack of measures in the proposal against such abuse.[/quote]
:discussion:
Mikitivity So far the only nation to announce that they'd participate but refuse to ever allow use of the platform was yours. If there is any nation we should be concerned against abusing the station, it is yours.
Second you've illustrated costs of the station, but you've totally failed to assess the costs of not acting.
Hazard = Risk * Loss
Let's look at this [OOC: real world] report:
http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/pdf/04.pdf
Let's assume that the risk is the inverse of the return period. From the table in this report a "sub-global" event occurs once every 25,000 years, i.e. a rock about 1 km in diameter. In this case risk would be: 0.004%.
Hazard = 0.004% * Loss
The estimated fatalities (no property damage, no loss in productivity of agricultural, not even costs associated with the wounded) are 500,000 lives.
Hazard = 0.004% * 500,000 ==> roughly 20 lives lost this year
How much value is your society willing to place on 20 lives / year? Bear in mind this is 20 lives EVERY year. But what would your populations shock be if instead of 20 lives lost, 5,000 lives were lost (such as what happened with the World Trade Center)? Surely your "President" (though I don't see how anybody can call a leader a president if he / she issues threats to vote no on use of a station to protect the Earth out of petty reasons such as they just don't like the station) would not want the blood of 5,000 lives on his / her hands!
Now let's look at a larger event: the 5 km rock.
Fatalities: 1.5 billion
Interval: 6 million years
Risk: 1.66E-5 % (Check my math please)
Hazard = 1.5 billion * 1/6 million ===> roughly 250 lives lost per year
This doesn't consider increases in population density. But obviously these bigger rocks are worth our attention ... 20 lives vs. 250 lives.
I've not even talked about the largest rock: the global killer, which is estimated to take out 6 billion instead of 1.5 billion.
My point is, it is great and wonderful that you *think* you know that this type of event won't happen in the next 10 years. But while your nation is willing to "throw away" 20 to 250 lives per year, I would say let's agree to build your "expensive" station.
Because the truth is those lives aren't really lost until we do "win" the celestial lottery and get hit. But instead of 20, we are talking 500,000 to 6 billion lives lost. And what sort of value do you want to put on a human life then?
I'd much rather tell my government that we've started research on tracking and managing this risk, so that when one of our nation's does dected the sub-global or global killer, that we won't be spending the years to days before impact making extra body bags, but actually attempting to do something.
This of course says nothing of whatever secondary benefits will come of this project.
BTW: read your "ice age" article again. It says that climatologists don't know what will happen. Being that I happen to know one really well (HINT: you're reading his post), I would say that when that article says "some" it isn't speaking for what most climatologists are projecting when they talk about global warming and green house gases doubling scenarios.
10kMichael[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda The PRoGG admires the research done by Mikitivity. However, a few issues remain.
First of all, translating the hazard into a number of lives per year is, in our opinion, not valid statistics. Because those people aren't dying each year.
Secondly, even if we follow these numbers, the PRoGG thinks there are more pressing issues to be resolved by the UN, where lives can actually be saved. Building what appears to be a huge telescope and gun in space is no garantuee for those lives to be saved. As mentioned by other states, technology is not at a sufficient level yet. The PRoGG has no objection into further research in this field, which could lead to a better proposal.
Of course, there is a chance that we will "win", as Mikitity calls it, the "celestial lotto", and a tremendous amount of human lives will be lost. The PRoGG would not like to see this happen, and will retract the statement about vetoing all proposals regarding the SDI, seeing the unnecessary commotion this perhaps too quickly uttered statement has caused. We will of course remain cautious about any developments in this field.
We still consider the risk to be too small to prioritise an SDI, despite the disaster the would follow from an impact. We prefer non-millitary options to be researched as well, before anymore time and money is spent on a SDI which might not prevent an impact, and is still open for abuse.
And on the Ice Age: that *will* happen in the coming 100,000 years. Global warming and related processes play only a minor part in that, and might delay it or vice versa for a few thousand years at most. It is still a great and certain risk, which alas lacks the coolness of space.[/quote]
:discussion:
Groot Gouda The PRoGG has found time to read some more on the subject of NEO, specifically the report mentioned by Mikitivity.
Interestingly, it appears that there are several other possible solutions to deflect or destroy NEOs, as mentioned in this report (emphasis mine):
Quote: To try to destroy an asteroid or comet in space by a single explosive charge on or below its surface would risk breaking it uncontrollably into a number of large pieces which could still hit the Earth, doing even more damage. A more promising method would be to fly a spacecraft alongside the object, perhaps for months or years, nudging it in a controlled way from time to time with explosives or other means.This relatively gentle approach is particularly important because many asteroids and comets are held together only by their own very weak gravitational fields.The longer the time before impact, the more effective even a small nudge would be.[/quote]
The report (http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/chapter8.htm) is also sceptical of Nuclear Weapons. Not so much in usefullness, but in lack of consencus about the use of nuclear weapons. Considering the opposition to this resolution, and the clause that requires unanimity, we consider an SDI as a suboptimal solution.
The PRoGG hopes that the proposer is able to adjust his proposal, limiting it to research in this matter so a better solution can be found. The PRoGG will support such research as long as it is not biased towards using dangerous and impossible solutions.
Looking forward to the final votes on this resolution with confidence,
With kind regards,
The President of the People's Republic of Groot Gouda.[/quote]
:discussion: