U.S. Can Remain Strongest Nation Via Space and Ocean Resources
giveitaw...@gmail.com
One time I said to a coworker that though I'm not a socialist, I would
not mind if, supposing the U.S. were sitting on a sea of oil or some
other equally valuable resource, we were one giant Kuwait and the
government DID pay for and give us everything! That is, if the gov't
could afford this, then go ahead! But of course the gov't cannot
afford to do everything for us, even if it takes ALL the money from
people who earn it and redistributes the wealth.
My coworker, a woman who previously had worked for NASA, said we DO
have a valuable resource like that: the space program! I initially
disagreed with her. What was she talking about? But I have kept on
thinking about this and related things. Believe it or not, I think she
is on to something! This is NOT a short-term solution, BUT: if the
U.S. expands its economy into outer space, we will acquire resources
that in the LONG run will be very useful. Expensive at first, with a
long run payoff. Kind of like Seward's Folly.
You know what the greatest, essentially inexhaustible source of energy
in the solar system is. Someday, facilities in orbit fairly close to
the Sun could collect all the energy we need, convert it, say, to
antimatter, and then it could be transported back to Earth. The solar
system has many other valuable resources, as well. Like I said: LONG
TERM! But worth it!
One other suggestion: that the U.S., for general and energy purposes,
as well as to remain economically ahead of the European SuperState,
and China, and EVERYONE, sets up a big program to acquire control of
the lion's share of UNDER OCEAN resources!
Well, Greta, when are you going to invite me on the show to promote my
space and ocean plan? :-) If you do, please wear something black, to
symbolize the "New Ocean:" SPACE!
BTW - If I ever run for office, it will be as a Republican. But I
nevertheless insist that NASA reacquire about 4% of the federal
budget, like it had in the Apollo days. Plus 4% for the Ocean
Resources Project. Another 4% for GENERAL ENERGY research, including
fusion! A nearly 12% increase! But in the long run, the U.S. becomes
energy independent and remains the world's largest economy! Then OPEC,
Europe, China and Russia can stick it!
Jerry Kraus
You're correct, in the general sense that fundamentally new
technologies are the answer to our problems. But, we don't really
even know if antimatter exists!
New technologies are a tricky business. That's why our leaders prefer
stealing.
giveitaw...@gmail.com
>
We both agree that new technologies can be a big help to us. But we do
know that antimatter exists; it is created in laboratories all the
time. We don't know where the first cell came from - see "Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed" and pay attention to the Dawkins interview. But
that's changing the subject. Back to the original subject, this is the
way I see it:
Expansion across the ocean floor and across the solar system would be,
in important ways, similar to our westward expansion in the 1800s and
to the purchase of Alaska. It would be expanding territory and natural
resources under our control. Russia is over twice the size of the U.S.
China is marginally larger (by about the size of Kansas, as I read it)
and has four times the population of the U.S. I have not researched
lately the size of the European Union but it is growing. Predictions
are that China's economy will be larger than ours, shortly. The E.U.
poses a threat, China poses a threat, and even Russia, with only half
our population, poses a threat due simply to its size and the
potential for future resource discovery and utilization. Not to fail
to mention the threat posed by OPEC and our dependence on foreign oil.
By fanciful analogy, let's suppose a continent equal in size to the
U.S. and its fifty states suddenly arose in the Pacific. Nevermind the
horrendous geologic/tsunami events that would be involved; I'm making
another point. Let's suppose that, for some reason, it worked out that
this new continent could LEGALLY, by international law and treaty,
become a part of the United States if only we paid the U.N., say, $300
billion. Should we spend the $300 billion to acquire this new
territory? Well, should we have bought Alaska?
Of course we should spend the money to obtain this continent and its
resources! Its a no-brainer! Whether we had to beg, borrow, steal and/
or tax it, we should come up with and spend the money for this! People
would argue that this money should instead be spent on health,
education, welfare, the National Endowment for the Arts, or whatever.
(Don't get me wrong: I'm not against art nor even a certain amount of
public support for it! It's only if a public art museum put a picture
of the Prophet Mohammed in a bottle of urine that questions would
arise.) But this has to do with the basic, physical, geopolitical
foundation of our very land and country. It ultimately relates to how
long we can HAVE a country, as we have known it. How long can we delay
the time when another earthly power will be able to decide our fate at
will, instead of the other way around?
The ocean floor, what's underneath it, and the solar system have vast
resources, far surpassing what that fantasy continent would have to
offer. I insist that spending LOTS to acquire ocean floor and space
resources is worth it, in the long run. I use this analogy to relate
to the acquisition of territory and resources such that we can do it
without, say, invading Canada. This means the U.S. could remain the
leading power. I do not wish a lack of material wealth on anyone:
African, European, Asian, South American, or ANYONE. I just say there
is good reason for the U.S. to remain the richest nation: so it can
support the world's dominant military force.
If the Soviet Union wanted global dominance, if China wants it, if
Putin wants it: it is to gobble up and enslave the world.
Dictatorships want the world for evil purposes. In spite of its faults
and periodic missteps, the U.S. is, overall, on a unique mission as
the world's leading power. We want to PROTECT and HELP the world, as
much as is practical and within our power to do so. I admit, if the
European Union were the world's leading power, the world would not be
that bad off. The E.U. IS a democracy and is committed sincerely to
human rights. But it does not have as LONG a tradition of freedom and
responsible government(s) as does the U.S.; Hitlers and Mussolinis and
Francos are still recent in European history. As is left-wing
dictatorship, which is usually even worse - significantly worse - than
right-wing dictatorship: in eastern Europe. ALSO, the E.U. does not
have a good track record for standing up to threats, such as Saddam
Hussein, Iran, etc. The Euros tend to still go with Chamberlainish,
"peace in our time," appeasement/putting-the-head-in-the-sand policies
when it comes to threats. The U.S. record is better. Pacifism is fine,
because that means there will be peace on your enemies' terms! After
you have been conquered and killed and your enemy has stolen all your
property, then there will be peace! "War IS the Answer," say the
enemies of the West and of global civilization. Only America seems
willing to face up to and do something about the world's enemies. And,
man, we sure take flak for doing it! But one single, European, private
citizen was quoted in a news report one time, who had it figured out
correctly; he said, "The world needs a strong America." So ONE
European has it right!
Since the world needs a strong America, America needs to acquire more
resources. They are there, waiting for us, under the ocean and across
the solar system!
Jerry Kraus
> On May 31, 12:48 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, just spending money doesn't translate directly into
important new technologies. Professional scientists are most
brilliant at doing nothing. Get to know a few of them. The fact that
scientists claim they have produced antimatter in laboratories does
not mean they have. They lie a lot.
Scotius
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, giveitaw...@gmail.com says...
> Submitted on Greta Van Susteren's blog about Gas Prices:
>
> One time I said to a coworker that though I'm not a socialist, I would
> not mind if, supposing the U.S. were sitting on a sea of oil or some
> other equally valuable resource, we were one giant Kuwait and the
> government DID pay for and give us everything! That is, if the gov't
> could afford this, then go ahead! But of course the gov't cannot
> afford to do everything for us, even if it takes ALL the money from
> people who earn it and redistributes the wealth.
>
> My coworker, a woman who previously had worked for NASA, said we DO
> have a valuable resource like that: the space program! I initially
> disagreed with her. What was she talking about? But I have kept on
> thinking about this and related things. Believe it or not, I think she
> is on to something! This is NOT a short-term solution, BUT: if the
> U.S. expands its economy into outer space, we will acquire resources
> that in the LONG run will be very useful. Expensive at first, with a
> long run payoff. Kind of like Seward's Folly.
>
> You know what the greatest, essentially inexhaustible source of energy
> in the solar system is. Someday, facilities in orbit fairly close to
> the Sun could collect all the energy we need, convert it, say, to
> antimatter, and then it could be transported back to Earth. The solar
> system has many other valuable resources, as well. Like I said: LONG
> TERM! But worth it!
It would be cheaper and healthier to put manufacturing bases on
the moon, and mine helium 3 there to power them. Helium 3 has a fusion
temperature far lower than hydrogen, and produces less radiation also.
The idea of turning the energy of the sun into anti-matter is kind of
insane, I think. It's true that 1kg of anti-matter has the same energy
as 47 ten megaton nuclear warheads, but how would you contain any kind
of anti-matter reaction? Also, are you aware that anti-matter/matter
reactions would produce far more radiation than even the dirtiest
nuclear weapons?
>
> One other suggestion: that the U.S., for general and energy purposes,
> as well as to remain economically ahead of the European SuperState,
> and China, and EVERYONE, sets up a big program to acquire control of
> the lion's share of UNDER OCEAN resources!
Russia just recently claimed a huge slice of the Arctic, including
resources on the sea floor. Too late.
>
> Well, Greta, when are you going to invite me on the show to promote my
> space and ocean plan? :-) If you do, please wear something black, to
> symbolize the "New Ocean:" SPACE!
>
> BTW - If I ever run for office, it will be as a Republican. But I
> nevertheless insist that NASA reacquire about 4% of the federal
> budget, like it had in the Apollo days. Plus 4% for the Ocean
> Resources Project. Another 4% for GENERAL ENERGY research, including
> fusion! A nearly 12% increase! But in the long run, the U.S. becomes
> energy independent and remains the world's largest economy! Then OPEC,
> Europe, China and Russia can stick it!
>
...yeah! And your kindergarten teacher Ms. Nasty as well!