Sailors, fighting in the dance hall...
...oh man! Look at those cavemen go... to Mars? It's a great idea, isn't it? Man on Mars, the red planet. That way the whole of mankind could... um... do... um... stuff. On Mars. Yeah!
It's a point though, isn't it? I was a great advocate of man going to Mars. In fact I was so caught up in the whole idea that it was all I could think about for days after he in the White House suggested the US of A was going to go and do it.
I told a friend of mine about my enthusiasm, to which she curtly replied "What's the fucking point?"
"Well, imagine if we didn't go, and then the Earth got hit by a meteor, and everyone would be dead. End of Man Kind." It's an argument that has bolstered my belief in the space program for as long as I can remember.
She raised her eyebrows. "I just think the money could be better spent, that's all." We left it at that.
Surely the continued existence of man kind is the important thing here, right? I mean, what's the point in doing anything at all if we're not going to be around in ten thousand years time?
Only, poverty is happening right now. To people who are alive right now. The BBC has estimated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3378837.stm) that a manned mission to Mars would cost in the region of $1Triliion (that's an American Trillion, or 1000 American Billion). They go on to estimate that, in contrast, to aleviate world poverty would cost $50 Billion a year. So, we have the choice between a manned mission to Mars or aleviating world poverty for the next 20 years. Hmmm.
The bottom line, for me, is this: Life is about making the best of it while you're here. Shit happens, and will keep happening. You have to get through it, and sometimes that means a little help from your friends. Imagine how you'd feel if, in your hour of need, when you're cold and starving, your friends all turned round and said they couldn't possibly help because they were putting all their spare time and resources in to building a giant stamp collection. You'd wonder about their moral compass, wouldn't you?
Now imagine what spending a $Trillion on sending an over educated few to Mars must look like to the people of sub-Saharan Africa.
Yes, one day it would be great to go to Mars. I really, really hope I'm alive to see man set foot on the Red Planet. But we have a responsibility to Earth, and to the billions of real, living and breathing people on this big blue ball, before we spend all our money on an effort that amounts, in the end, to satisfying curiosity. Poverty might be boring, but it's here to stay, unless we take the bull by the horns.
Besides, Mars isn't going anywhere.
P.
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Monday, 4 June 2007
Putin, Bush and Big Fireworks
Oh deepest joy...
...those pesky Ruskies are at it again. Putin is moaning about the US of A putting anti-ICBM missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Doesn't he know they're going to be for defence against nasty Iranian types? Well doesn't he?
Does he bollocks. He thinks these bases are the first step towards unbalancing world peace.
And he has a point.
You see, the cold war may have gone away, but the nukes didn't. The majority of the nukes are still sat quietly in their various launching aparatus, passing the time by keeping the world safe from world war three with a simple and undeniable truth: it would be a war that nobody would win, and everyone would lose. That is why they existed during the Cold War, and that is why they exist today.
The second World War in the Pacific was brought to an abrupt end with the only use of atomic weapons in anger. The Japanese people were fanatical about their Emperor and their war effort, and would have continued to fight to the absolute bitter end were it not for the demonstration of unimaginable destructive power brought down on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the blink of an eye. At that point they knew it was a war they could not win, so they surrendered. Nukes are a very quick and comprehensive way to settle an argument.
In a conflict where both sides have nukes, there is no conflict, because there is no winner, and both sides know it. It is stability through the threat of mutual destruction; an ugly, terrifying way to attain a peace, but peace it provides, nonetheless.
And now George W. (for you know what) Bush and his band of Umpalumpas want to tip the scales by putting in place a system to remove the threat of mutual destruction. A lot of column inches have been devoted today to how little an impact the proposed anti-missile system would actually have on an all out strike from Russia (slim to none), and how it could only defend against attacks from "rogue nations" (a description the criteria for which I have been unable to find, but which presumably includes "poor", "ignored at all other times" and "pissed off with being poor and ignored at all other times").
So that's alright then; Putin need not worry because his ability to kick seven shades of shit out of the whole planet is only deminished a teeny weeny bit by these bases that the monkey in the White House wants to build on Russia's doormat...
...but where does Putin draw the line? One or two anti-missile bases, but absolutely no more? Oh OK, maybe one more. Oh, you need to protect against the new Iranian SuperArseKicker RedBull powered rocket? OK, maybe one more base then.
No, no, no and thrice more no. Putin wants to nip this in the bud, like any world leader with even half a braincell would. Do you really blame him?
If the USA really wants to secure world peace, the answer is simple enough: ask Russia for help with the securing the skies against "rogue" nukes. Show them how to build their own missile defense system, or better still, sell them one. Where could the harm be in that, if these bases are really intended to protect against terrorist states and not, as we have been assured, Russia?
P
...those pesky Ruskies are at it again. Putin is moaning about the US of A putting anti-ICBM missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Doesn't he know they're going to be for defence against nasty Iranian types? Well doesn't he?
Does he bollocks. He thinks these bases are the first step towards unbalancing world peace.
And he has a point.
You see, the cold war may have gone away, but the nukes didn't. The majority of the nukes are still sat quietly in their various launching aparatus, passing the time by keeping the world safe from world war three with a simple and undeniable truth: it would be a war that nobody would win, and everyone would lose. That is why they existed during the Cold War, and that is why they exist today.
The second World War in the Pacific was brought to an abrupt end with the only use of atomic weapons in anger. The Japanese people were fanatical about their Emperor and their war effort, and would have continued to fight to the absolute bitter end were it not for the demonstration of unimaginable destructive power brought down on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the blink of an eye. At that point they knew it was a war they could not win, so they surrendered. Nukes are a very quick and comprehensive way to settle an argument.
In a conflict where both sides have nukes, there is no conflict, because there is no winner, and both sides know it. It is stability through the threat of mutual destruction; an ugly, terrifying way to attain a peace, but peace it provides, nonetheless.
And now George W. (for you know what) Bush and his band of Umpalumpas want to tip the scales by putting in place a system to remove the threat of mutual destruction. A lot of column inches have been devoted today to how little an impact the proposed anti-missile system would actually have on an all out strike from Russia (slim to none), and how it could only defend against attacks from "rogue nations" (a description the criteria for which I have been unable to find, but which presumably includes "poor", "ignored at all other times" and "pissed off with being poor and ignored at all other times").
So that's alright then; Putin need not worry because his ability to kick seven shades of shit out of the whole planet is only deminished a teeny weeny bit by these bases that the monkey in the White House wants to build on Russia's doormat...
...but where does Putin draw the line? One or two anti-missile bases, but absolutely no more? Oh OK, maybe one more. Oh, you need to protect against the new Iranian SuperArseKicker RedBull powered rocket? OK, maybe one more base then.
No, no, no and thrice more no. Putin wants to nip this in the bud, like any world leader with even half a braincell would. Do you really blame him?
If the USA really wants to secure world peace, the answer is simple enough: ask Russia for help with the securing the skies against "rogue" nukes. Show them how to build their own missile defense system, or better still, sell them one. Where could the harm be in that, if these bases are really intended to protect against terrorist states and not, as we have been assured, Russia?
P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)