In reply to Standing Bear's message of Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:52:00 -0500: Hi, [snip]
Hasn't Iraq provided the military industrial complex with enough profit yet? They need a war with China as well? I assure you, after any such war, there would be no military industrial complex left (or much of anything else either for that matter). China is no little middle eastern country with a weakened army and no WMD. So China plays the same game internationally as the US. Tough, get used to it. Mind you, I am no supporter of the Chinese regime per se. But disposing of them is a job for their own people, not the "World Policeman". >Repost of originals follows comment on reply. > >One of my wargames is a flight combat similator. An experienced >fighter pilot was used as a technical advisor to the game. He adds >some cogent commentary: > There is no substitute for victory. > > The biggest problems combat pilots face in an aerial dogfight >is not just winning the fight you know you are in, but not losing the >fight that you do not know you are in. > > Aerial dogfights attract other participants like moths to a flame, >and the combat pilot must be situationally aware of this....translation > from a Luftwaffe ace. > > We are already in a military space race with China. Look at all the >even recent spying events, the predatory computer invasion attempts by >organized Chinese hacking groups. Look at the recent speeches by >Chinese politicians talking about 'redressing the unipolar power structure...' >That is political code in their governance system for global 'regime change' >Look at the mysterious satellite left behind by the recent Chinese space >shot. Look at Chinese pronouncements to get to the Moon one year ahead >of even our fuzzy minded accountant guided bureauflunkyracy's nonplans... >2017 instead of our '2018'. Remember what happened to the JIMO project! >Look at the Chinese plans for mining helium3 on the moon, and their plans >to stake territorial claims along with their flags and their exploration >teams. Look at their hiding their defense budgets, at their accelerated >military buildups, at their piracy recently of Japanese oil rights in the sea >between China and Japan in the Japanese exclusive economic sea zones. >That piracy was backed up by 56 Chinese warships for which the Japanese >have no counter. Look at the taking over of the Panama Canal by a front >organization of the Peoples Army of China...The list is endless. One would >have to be a fool or a coward or a Chinese agent not to see. And that is >not even addressing what continency plans they have for us in case of >war in North Korea. In addition, China is running out of fresh water and >arable land to feed its population. It is seeking to control supplies of >fuels around the world and to deny them to us. The only supply of fresh >water to supply their needs in the short run is Lake Baikal in Russia. >Russia better get its head out of its dreams of peace in Asia before it >is too late. Chinese maps include all the Russian far east as its 'natural >territory'. This warning about the most odious threat to our people and >culture and values in the history of man is plainly evident to those who >would open their eyes to see. > And who also wrote: None are so blind as those who would not see. > >Maybe Anton Checkov was right. > He is now probably weeping in his grave to see what is in store for his >nation. > >Standing Bear > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday 05 November 2005 02:43, Wesley Bruce wrote: >> Standing Bear wrote: >> > [Big snip] >> >> Don't panic about a chinese space race. I suspect that if China really >> gets going it will spell the end of communism. People are dropping out >> of the party buy the millions. To many chinese who see the opportunities >> of space, are also able to see that gulags on Mars wont work well. As a >> citizen of a country founded as a convict settlement, Australia, I >> happen to know that it can work but only if the govenor is a genious. If >> a Mars Gulag fails that would be sad but what wonderful opportunities to >> the free setttlers that follow to reclaim the ruin. >> >> Frankly I think we can make a nuclear reactor that works fine in a >> meteor storm. If meteors are punching holes in things then the last >> thing the crew would be worried about is the reactor! Big bumper bars >> will be easy. Just stick the bulk cargo out front. So what if the bull >> dozers got a hole in it! >> >> >I hope all of our suggestions don't eventually prove to be just >> >academic. I just read an interview that the good people at >> >nuclearspace.com had with some government agencies: >> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >------------------ quote from webpage-- >> > NASA's Project Prometheus is in partnership with the Department of >> >Energy's Office of Naval Reactors (DOE-NR) within the National Nuclear >> >Security Administration (NNSA) to develop a space nuclear reactor for use >> > in future robotic exploration activities. The Office of Naval Reactors >> > (NR) is a joint Navy-DOE organization having responsibility and authority >> > in both agencies. The Secretary of Energy assigned NR to partner with >> > NASA in support of Project Prometheus solely as a DOE civilian project. >> > >> > >> > We made an inquiry over current status in efforts to build a space >> > reactor, nuclearspace.com (NS) contributors posed questions to the agency >> > responsible for building a premier space nuclear reactor. DOE-NNSA/NR >> > Public Affairs Officer, Kevin Davis declined an NS phone interview >> > request, but in a written response to the following questions posed by NS >> > contributors Ty Moore, Jaro Franta and Bruce Behrhorst responded; excerpt >> > of text below...... >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >------------------------- >> > >> >there followed a long obviousely scripted 'interview'. All of the >> > 'questions' appear to have been required to have prior submission and >> > approval, and all the answers appear to be direct from the agencies >> > public relations branch after being run through their general legal >> > counsel. As such, most of the questions are ducked and evaded by the >> > interviewee, who appears to sound like a classic broken record much of >> > the time. The interviewee interjects 'probable lunar mission' or words >> > to that effect into many of the questions that the agency did consent to >> > have presented; and then gives a standard boiler plate denial of a >> > 'lunar mission' over and over again. This is akin to the old rhetorical >> > game of setting up a 'straw man' and knocking him down. The conclusions >> > reached by NuclearSpace at the end were pessimistic about our prospects >> > and our intents concerning realistic space exporation. I tend to agree >> > with NuclearSpace in this, and wonder if the present administration only >> > wants the programs around with minimum funding to use as photo ops and to >> > show that it is 'doing something'. Even if it is wrong! It is >> > evidently not now percieved in the national interest to invest seriousely >> > in space, really. If so all our suggestions to this present >> > administration are going to be ignored until circumstances change. Face >> > it, present so called plans involve using some nebulous 'appolo' capsule >> > of very small size considering what might have to be done, and chemical >> > rockets all the way. No repair capability! If a micrometeoroid holes a >> > tank and fuel is lost, too bad! And if a crew is lost...throw up ones >> > hands and give up like the French in 1940.....as if this is the aim all >> > along. But then the chem ships will use a lot of petrol, happily sold to >> > the government by the oil and oil service people now primarily >> > contracting in Iraq and the administration high official with well known >> > connections to that company and its corporate child there with the three >> > letters in its name. >> > The Russians, God bless 'em, have a better vision. The Russian >> > President said as much last March with an appeal for nuclear propulsion. >> > Knowing they lack funds to do it themselves, the Russians appealed then >> > for international cooperation on a joint venture or a series of them in >> > order to go to Mars by 2017. >> > The Europeans appear to be listening. They are joining with them to >> >buy the Kliper. That little ship is 'cute', and it may prove quite >> > practical. If some of the above other technologies prove viable, it can >> > be a platform for a real shuttle all by itself. >> > The Chinese may be listening as well. They have sought out the >> > Russians for some close and secret agreements in recent months, many of >> > which involve technology transfers and weapons system purchases. The >> > Chinese 'Taikonaut' crew that just returned from orbit left behind a >> > mystery satellite that they are NOT talking about. It is no secret that >> > the Chinese have military interests in space. After all, it is the high >> > ground. Look what we did to Iraq with just photos of 'insane hoosain's >> > sites. >> > For now we seem to have lost our ambition for space in a self >> > fulfilling civil service miasma of paperwork and 'mission-plans' with >> > open ended timelines extending to infinity, productive of nothing but >> > 'cushy' retirements for political hacks given GS-18 jobs for hatchet jobs >> > done elsewhere. And 'empire builders' that the civil list is known to be >> > full of! Such was our military-political establishment in 1957 with >> > regard to space. >> > >> > ---- Then came Sputnik! ------- >> > >> >Only this 'Sputnik' may be a little larger! >> > >> >And a little meaner! >> > >> >And have a Chinese name! >> > >> >And our government will act with its typical 'surprise'...... >> > .........and the spin doctors will have another 'science gap'! >> > >> >Standing Bear >> > >> >We will go to space! The only question us under what conditions! >> >It IS in our national vital interest whether we effectively realize it or >> > not! Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
