Is war in space inevitable?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Quote
"Yes, I think that's inevitable. I also think, however, that without some measure of accompanying space diplomacy, there is a distinct danger of space war of some sort being a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Johnson-Freese. "I would like to see a major effort by this new administration in space diplomacy, specifically toward transparency and confidence building measures."
Quote

War is another way Nature fights overpopulation. I believe that, sadly, it will take some form of aggression to stabilise population.

I am worried about the reduction in vegetation (vide Amazon rain forests) and hence reduction in photosynthesis which produces our essential oxygen.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo
Dec 9, 2020
602
447
1,260
War is organized violence on large scale no matter where it's fought. Basically, war is defined in two ways: 1. A species killing/injuring others of the same species and 2. A species killing/injuring another species. e.g.: Consider the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest as a stupid, irrational war by ignorant humans/politicians against a critical resource(s) and against the long term welfare of the planet. As for our doing organized mayhem to each other; that's genetic, and what we do very well. Consider the outbreak of war, #1, as a failure of the political process, and the triumph of the monstrous ability for humans to hate and denigrate one another. My sour opinion: given our Evolution, all bet's are even. ...... Just hope that any LGM's we meet in the future have "better angles in their nature"; thus, we may actually evolve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
sam85geo, "My sour opinion: given our Evolution, all bet's are even. ......"

Unfortunately I have to agree. The Amazon is probably my main concern at the moment.

Cat :)
 
Aug 16, 2020
7
2
515
I worked along time ago for a company that was doing research in particle beam weapons for space. Of course war will be waged from space as well as the ground. Space weapons already exists.
 
Last edited:
May 13, 2020
53
16
535
Ther are a lot of myths about the nature of War, and the biggest myth of them all is about population control. For the past four thousand years humanity has been engaged in the constant struggle over the planets natural resources and dominance. Although there is a massive amount of lost lives in the killing fields of war, canon fodder, the over all population of the world in not greatly affected by the carnage of war. Although, the two "great" wars have dialectically changed the nature of how war affects the civilian population. As in the targeting of civil populations and the use of concentration camps, reservations and death camps. Wars are fought for the control of natural resources and the dominance of one social regime over the interests of others. The Reagan Doctrine stated that no one, friend or foe, shall challenge our hegemony in the American twenty-first century. War is inevitable when there is a struggle, competition, for natural resources and the need to expand one national interests. The old saying, "Whose cow is to be fattened; whose cow is to be led to slaughter, " is a more succinct way of looking at the the root cause of war in the new frontier. Russia was an ally after the fall of the Soviet Union, as Asama bin Laden was an ally during the Soviet Afghan war. The Military/Industrial Complex are just now turning their gaze to the natural resources exoplanets may provide, but the etc. technology is still decades away from fruition. India and China, two powerhouses representing the Asian community are posed on the brink of catching up to the US, and some say may surpass it technologically. Russia and China are coalesced to developing future exploration, leaving India to be left out on its own. NASA does not want India to play in its sand box, setting up a three way split for who is going to be king of the mole hill. There is still talk that the Pentagon has resurrected the MAD Doctrine , and toying with the notion of a winnable nuke war. A war that starts in space will not be good for humanity, for there are no winners in this madness.
 
May 13, 2020
53
16
535
Quote
"Yes, I think that's inevitable. I also think, however, that without some measure of accompanying space diplomacy, there is a distinct danger of space war of some sort being a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Johnson-Freese. "I would like to see a major effort by this new administration in space diplomacy, specifically toward transparency and confidence building measures."
Quote

War is another way Nature fights overpopulation. I believe that, sadly, it will take some form of aggression to stabilise population.

I am worried about the reduction in vegetation (vide Amazon rain forests) and hence reduction in photosynthesis which produces our essential oxygen.

Cat :)
Are you referring to the War of the Apes? That was a war that erased half of the Ape population in the fist Orangutan conflict. It is nature's way. Whose population are you referring to? In Vietnam the generals stated that they wanted to bomb them into the Stone Age. There was the view of, "kill them all; and let God sort them out." Europe has gone through its epoch of carnage of war, and no war has ever been fought on these land. There is the ongoing war against Indigenous peoples, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, and the Civil War. This land has had over 100 years of peace and development. The population of the US is not threatened by the results of war, so, population control is not an issue, but only if you are the original inhabitants of this land. Population control is an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
k276
What you are quoting is what I quoted from the article at the head of the thread. It is from the very bottom, so I took it as a summary.

I then posted:
War is another way Nature fights overpopulation. I believe that, sadly, it will take some form of aggression to stabilise population.
I am worried about the reduction in vegetation (vide Amazon rain forests) and hence reduction in photosynthesis which produces our essential oxygen.

I am referring only to what choices "blind" Nature might take. As in an epidemic, Nature makes no choices - it is human's actions in overpopulating that makes it easy for the virus.
In war, I suppose it is the result of total resources divided by population equals (theoretical) average standard of living. Human's overpopulation results in decreasing standards and unequal division which may lead to war of some kind.

Sorry, I am not a sociologist or humanity sort of expert. I am just a scientist very unhappy about the way this world is going.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: sam85geo
May 13, 2020
53
16
535
I do understand the frustration that you are feeling, and your need to act in order to remedy the situation. You say that you're concerned about the degradation of the rain forest, but what of those who live in the forest. The Rain Forest is their home, and their population has been disseminated by big cattle farmers, Agri-business and logging. War is a man-made construct, and only man can end it. Maybe, when humanity is on the extinction list, we will stop killing off each other for the sake of the Almighty Dollar. It bowls done to, "Our money, or our lives." : War or peace." It is up to us to determine which it will be. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance. What will you chose to do? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
I do have to say something about the use of the word "BLIND". Many people in the Blind " seeing impaired" community cringe at the constant use of the word. What's wrong with you, it's right in front of you. Are you BLIND? "Yes I am. I really glade you noticed. Now get out of my way before I hit you with my blind cane." Does being blind equate to being ignorant? I guess so, because you have to be blind not to see it.
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"What will you chose to do?"

Nature will try to re-establish an equilibrium. If humanity is incapable of coming through the population reducing measures with improved ability to survive then it will become extinct. If it is capable of evolving then it stands a chance. Will humanity evolve and survive or will it follow the dinosaurs?

Bad question, as the dinosaurs had no chance to choose.

Cat :)
 
May 13, 2020
53
16
535
I don't agree to the premise that the problem is "overpopulation". What is overpopulation? Is it that there are so many humans on Earth that we can't feed, cloth and shelter ourselves as a species? We as an industrialized nation suffer from over abundance and waste. We waste more than most countries consume, but still we crave for more. Our cities are garbage dumps that litter the seven seas, but still we create more, There are those who wallow in the lap of luxury, while we have those who die in the lap of poverty. We have super rich landed gentry whose land holdings are in the millions of acres, while there are those who can't afford a roof over their heads. If there is an "overpopulation", who is responsible for this dilemma?

<<Content removed by moderator>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May 1, 2021
67
40
60
I think 'Satellite Wars' is likely. I'd be concerned about an EMP attack. We need to shield our electrical grid and sensitive electronic components from such an attack. If we suspect an object in space is on the way to explode a nuclear device over the country, we need to take a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
<<Removed by moderator>>

You have taken a comment, made from the point of view of Nature, that her resources are being squandered, irrespective of any physical characteristics, and turned it into a quasi religious, racist attack which I believe is totally against the rules of this forum. Please desist immediately.

Look at the graph of population against time. That steeply increasing curve is irrespective of the characteristics of individual elements it represents. That is my viewpoint.

You do not accept overpopulation. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide we breathe out is taken in by plants which enact photosynthesis and provide oxygen. You must see that some balance is necessary. If we continue breathing in oxygen and continue destroying the rain forests that produce that oxygen you will understand the meaning of overpopulatiom.

I am a very peaceable person and my motto, you may see beneath, is "There never was a good war, or a bad peace". I shudder at the word or instead of nor, but the quotation was spoken by someone not an inhabitant of England. So I hope you will stop treating me like <<Removed by moderator>> , and engage in a polite civilized interchange of ideas. There is no prejudice in numbers of people who breathe oxygen. That was my meaning of overpopulation.

With sincere best wishes,

Cat :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
May 13, 2020
53
16
535
If a war breaks out between the US and Russia or China, would it be between satellites? It may begin there but it would not end there. We have a lot of nukes in the world's arsenal, but the only time nukes have been used, in a very limited manner, was in WWII. We don't know what an all out nuke war would be like. Maybe we will kill off all life on Earth? Maybe we will have a nuclear winter, making Earth uninhabitable for millions of years. Who will be the fist to pull the nuclear trigger. Remember, they are all Mad about this Doctrine.
 
Aug 14, 2020
713
126
2,060
I could reduce the inevitability of war to one concept, one word: 'Tyranny'. Another: 'Slavery'.

'Government', taken too far. 'Utopia' ('Dystopia'). Orwellianisms: Tyranny is liberty (liberty is tyranny). Slavery is freedom (freedom is slavery). Double-think. Double-speak.

Evolution is an energetic tree of branches and branching, it is not an energyless monolithic monstrosity. It isn't Aldous Huxley's 'A Brave New World'. If an energetic nature cannot divide (explode) outwardly in nova, it will divide (implode) inwardly in blackhole. Division will have its half of nature even if it has to rip it out of the guts of unity.

War has been a part of life from the beginning of life or life would never have expanded from mudhole to mudhole. Expansion from the mudhole for divisions and survivals, prosperities and evolutions, is revolutionary and is itself war (in never being anything like 'naked singularity').

You could say the reason "frontier" exists in the first place as a concept to be most devoutly wished for is to give division ("exodus") its half of nature so unity can keep its half. "Frontier" is itself a form of non-localizing war that gives peace a greater chance and measure of local being. There is a truism, "Grow or die" ("Birth or die") ("Expand or contract"), be energetic or entropic... spin your wheels and go places, or spin your wheels in place and go extinct. The historian of civilization, Will Durant, said in his brief "The Lessons Of History", that nature (life nature) has no use for organisms that cannot reproduce abundantly, that cannot or will not compete. Civilizations that are not fertile are not vital and, thus, mark themselves for extinction.

To live, itself, is actually the highest form of war. To die, itself, is actually the highest form of peace.
------------------------
"When the human race dies out, it will be because it was brainwashed to be so totally, completely, utterly safe that it no longer dared to keep on living, a risky business at best."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY