What to do about North Korea.

[bankside]

If an asteroid can be found of a sort that's predicted to be out there, we could have enough rare elements to drop current prices by over half. The real problem with asteroid mining isn't cost, it's time: we don't have any method for getting a substantial asteroid from the main belt into earth orbit in anything less than years.

There are several companies betting on finding the right asteroid out of the near-earth group; while it would take a few tens of billions to grab one and bring it back, the return on investment would be on the order of 1k to 1, assuming a selling price at three-quarters of current prices. So while planet-based mines are cheaper in the short run, in the long run asteroids win.


And we could drop pieces of the waste on North Korea.....

I don't know too much about the economics of mining. I can't help but wonder that as rich in minerals as an asteroid might be, unless they are self-refining, we'd have to mine them anyway. It comes back to mining minerals on earth being cheaper than bringing minerals here from outer space to then have to mine them anyway, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the kind of thinking that got us into this situation in the first place.

What, recognizing reality?

When hordes of hungry city dwellers with no ability to meet their needs except by taking it from rural dwellers, the rural dwellers will have two choices: defend what they have, or let civilization collapse. And the only way to defend what they have will be to eliminate those trying to take it.

That's nothing like what got us into the situation with North Korea -- indeed, it may be precisely the opposite, because if we'd been willing to be the rural dwellers with machine guns, there wouldn't be a North Korea in the first place, so what go us into this was failing to deal with reality and trying to make it be something else.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know too much about the economics of mining. I can't help but wonder that as rich in minerals as an asteroid might be, unless they are self-refining, we'd have to mine them anyway. It comes back to mining minerals on earth being cheaper than bringing minerals here from outer space to then have to mine them anyway, n'est-ce pas?

Refining in space is easy -- you have an infinite power supply at a cost that is effectively zero, no need to worry about emissions, and a delivery system driven by gravity.

But the science indicates that there should be asteroids that are just about pure metal -- all that has to be done is separate them. And they'll be in such quantity that the amount in one moderate-sized asteroid would dwarf the supply on any continent on the planet, and a large asteroid (d>5k) enough to dwarf the supply in the accessible earth's crust.

The economics are such that several companies expect to be able to get a trillion dollar return on each billion invested -- which is another reason NASA ought to be working on this; one good-sized asteroid could pay off the U.S. national debt.

 

[ballcaphair]

It's time to hire some Russians to hack their launch systems and the donald's tweets.

 

[cityboy-stl]

What, recognizing reality?

No. That weapons, force, and aggression are the answer to everything. Do something pro-actively so it doesn't come to the point where that is the only answer. If you back a mean dog into a corner, it's going to try to bite you. That's what we're doing.

 

[gsdx]

If you back a mean dog into a corner, it's going to try to bite you. That's what we're doing.

And Trump is doing it just to drum up support. Or, more likely, to try to prove that there is no relationship between dick size and stubby fingers.

I truly believe he's looking for a fight and, since he managed to get out of fighting 4 times, it's a war he can fight from the safety of the 8th green at one of his resorts.

 

[ballcaphair]

And Trump is doing it just to drum up support. Or, more likely, to try to prove that there is no relationship between dick size and stubby fingers.

I truly believe he's looking for a fight and, since he managed to get out of fighting 4 times, it's a war he can fight from the safety of the 8th green at one of his resorts.

"Fore!"

 

[gsdx]

"Fore!"

You're right. The 'foreth' green would have been funnier.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. That weapons, force, and aggression are the answer to everything. Do something pro-actively so it doesn't come to the point where that is the only answer. If you back a mean dog into a corner, it's going to try to bite you. That's what we're doing.

Just what imaginary thing do you have for rural residents to do "proactively" once a nuke takes out a big city near them?

Besides which, I'm not advocating aggression, I'm OPPOSING it: weapons for self-defense are the OPPOSITE of aggression because they're its deterrent.

And again, we're in this position in the first place because we failed to use force when we should have. We created the current threat by not using weapons when we should have. North Korea is a monster made by the U.S.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's time to hire some Russians to hack their launch systems and the donald's tweets.

Heck, we don't need Russians, there's a potent hacker community in the U.S. who might just do it for fun if given an incentive.

Long-range missiles often have multiple stages -- maybe hack the system so the second stage lights off first?

 

[bankside]

It seems a bit bizarre that a foreign power could attack a major city in a country and the thoughts of its rural dwellers would be "Nothin' to do with me! Get the guns, Martha, the cityfolk's comin!"

In the event of any kind of massive foreign attack that might risk the survival of the country, I would suggest that any available rural resources would simply be commandeered, for use by the military in mounting a defence, and for use by the survivors. Nothing would remain as legal private property for rural people to defend, other than their ration coupons.

 

[kallipolis]

we're in this position in the first place because we failed to use force when we should have. We created the current threat by not using weapons when we should have. North Korea is a monster made by the U.S.

I quote:

' I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria.... It was my plan as our amphibious forces moved south to spread behind us—from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea—a belt of radioactive cobalt.' Gen Douglas MacArthur

Fortunately for the human race President Truman relieved Douglas MacArthur of his command.

 

[Kulindahr]

It seems a bit bizarre that a foreign power could attack a major city in a country and the thoughts of its rural dwellers would be "Nothin' to do with me! Get the guns, Martha, the cityfolk's comin!"

In the event of any kind of massive foreign attack that might risk the survival of the country, I would suggest that any available rural resources would simply be commandeered, for use by the military in mounting a defence, and for use by the survivors. Nothing would remain as legal private property for rural people to defend, other than their ration coupons.

In other words, you expect that our government would turn into the enemy, ignoring human rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

I quote:



Fortunately for the human race President Truman relieved Douglas MacArthur of his command.

The two items you quoted are only peripherally related. That MacArthur was a nutcase is not relevant to the point that we created the current problem by neglect.

 

[johaninsc]

Just what imaginary thing do you have for rural residents to do "proactively" once a nuke takes out a big city near them?
....

what would Jesus do...?

 

[kallipolis]

The two items you quoted are only peripherally related. That MacArthur was a nutcase is not relevant to the point that we created the current problem by neglect.

MacArthur was removed for he believed he could dictate military policy. Truman acted promptly, and decisively.

Neglect of what? North Korea has no influence outside North Korea.

Unless Kim's sabre rattling is considered reason to strike first.

 

[bankside]

In other words, you expect that our government would turn into the enemy, ignoring human rights.

No, I think the government would stop its rural citizens from aiding and abetting the enemy, with force if necessary.

Commandeering private resources to repel a foreign attack, or to recover from a national emergency, has a history as long as any of our other human rights. It's perfectly correct for a democratic government to do in times of extreme need.

If a country is attacked by nuclear weapons or if it faces nuclear obliteration, I expect my government to ensure everyone's human rights to the degree still possible, by billeting us in some safe rural farmland somewhere, or by driving off with the heavy equipment from that farm so they can build defensive perimeters around our critical infrastructure under attack, or by doing whatever else is necessary to secure the country from a foreign attack.

Over the dead bodies of these "minding their own business" farmers if need be.

If they can draft your body to fight and die for a country under attack, they can draft your possessions too.

Commandeering unaffected rural resources is a totally legitimate form of taxation, when done equitably per capita, in the face of a dire military threat.

(Same for unaffected city resources of course - if a country were attacked but the onslaught didn't reach the cities and only scorched a bunch of rural farmland, then of course the Government would be correct to impose taxes or commandeer goods or billet people or impose other measures on the happy shiny unaffected cities, to alleviate the suffering of the rural victims of attack)

You might almost say that was the original, and still core, definition of what a country is: it's people who stick together in a war.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Just what imaginary thing do you have for rural residents to do "proactively" once a nuke takes out a big city near them?

Besides which, I'm not advocating aggression, I'm OPPOSING it: weapons for self-defense are the OPPOSITE of aggression because they're its deterrent.

And again, we're in this position in the first place because we failed to use force when we should have. We created the current threat by not using weapons when we should have. North Korea is a monster made by the U.S.

You know how to read. Pro-active means prevention - before nukes drop on cities, not after. The United States of America should be the peacemaker in the world. There must be options other than annihilation. But dropping bombs is a whole easier than the real hard work of making peace. That takes time, effort, and patience.

But....OK Got it. It's our fault we didn't bomb them back to the 4th century 60 years ago so let's do it now.

 

[eddielee]

I blame President Trump for making the current situation worse by "trash talking" instead of choosing his words responsibly. It seems that N Korea is looking at Guam as a possible target.

 

[gsdx]

instead of choosing his words responsibly

Trump doesn't know how to do that. His mouth/thumbs are in overdrive before his brain gets out of first gear.