National security expert warns of Asian space race

Dec 08, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
China Xichang Satellite Center; The launch of Tianlian I-01 satellite (a Data Relay & Tracking Satellite); The newly developed Long March 3C Carrier Rocket. Image: Wikipedia.

(PhysOrg.com) -- James Clay Moltz, an associate professor in the department of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, has published a commentary paper in the journal Nature where he warns of a possible space race involving many Asian nations, possibly leading to an arms race.

Moltz writes that despite denials by the major Asian players, there exists the beginnings of a space race among the most technologically advanced countries in the area. In the lead of course is China, which besides the United States and Russia, is the only country to have put a person in space on its own. Other Asian countries actively involved in space technology include India, and Japan, though others such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan are working on building a presence as well.

Japan of course, has been actively involved with the , and India has been putting nerves on edge by mixing its with military goals by building rockets capable of carrying a all the way to Beijing. The country has also launched its own rockets into space to deliver satellites, though it’s not yet achieved the broad range of successes of the Chinese program.

The problem with an Asian space race, Moltz contends, is that it builds an arena of unhealthy competition bred out of historic geopolitical rivalries. It also wastes resources, but that’s not something that should concern other countries. What should he writes, is the possibility of an Asian space race morphing into an Asian arms race, something that could impact virtually every nation on Earth.

The current situation, he explains, is a collection of Asian countries who are unwilling to work together to meet mutual goals such as can be seen with the European Space Agency (ESA). Instead, individual countries work independently, quite often duplicating work done by other countries both in Asia and in the west, resulting in secretive programs that have as a goal beating one another to the next level, rather than building programs that serve the national, or international good.

What is perhaps most chilling about an Asian space race is the way China, which is the clear leader, has gone about its space program, highlighted not by its triumphs in manned exploration, but in it’s destruction of one of its dead weather satellites by an anti-satellite weapon back in 2007. Not only did that action contribute to the vast collection of space junk, but it sent shock waves through the entire international community as it demonstrated very clearly the types of technology China has been secretly working on. And because of its leadership role in the Asian community, the action has likely set other countries to develop their own such weapons.

One other worrisome offshoot of the is the impact it might have on those unable to join in. Pakistan, for example, a country with nuclear weapons, has voiced concerns over the missile technology that India has developed and has repeatedly made it clear that any actions by India it deems a threat to its own survival would be met with all out war, including the use of nuclear bombs.

Explore further: Mysteries of space dust revealed

More information: Technology: Asia's space race, Nature 480, 171–173 (08 December 2011) doi:10.1038/480171a

Related Stories

China breaks ground on space launch center

Sep 14, 2009

(AP) -- China broke ground on its fourth space center Monday, highlighting the country's soaring space ambitions six years after it sent its first man into orbit.

China meeting on space waste delayed

Apr 20, 2007

China, apparently fearing criticism of its recent satellite destruction, has put off hosting next week's global meeting on hazardous space waste.

Russia To Launch Satellite For World Space Observatory

Nov 01, 2005

Russia is planning to build and put into orbit a satellite that will lay the foundation for the creation of the World Space Observatory (WSO), a project to explore deep space in the ultraviolet spectrum by 2008, a Russian ...

Worried on China, US seeks rules in space

May 11, 2011

The United States said Wednesday it wanted to set guidelines with China on the use of space, voicing worries that the Asian power is increasingly able to destroy or jam satellites.

China opens up military space programme

Nov 04, 2011

China is opening up its military-run manned space programme to foreign nations, seeking its own alliances as US concerns see it excluded from the international space station project, analysts say.

Recommended for you

Mysteries of space dust revealed

Aug 29, 2014

The first analysis of space dust collected by a special collector onboard NASA's Stardust mission and sent back to Earth for study in 2006 suggests the tiny specks open a door to studying the origins of the ...

A guide to the 2014 Neptune opposition season

Aug 29, 2014

Never seen Neptune? Now is a good time to try, as the outermost ice giant world reaches opposition this weekend at 14:00 Universal Time (UT) or 10:00 AM EDT on Friday, August 29th. This means that the distant ...

Informing NASA's Asteroid Initiative: A citizen forum

Aug 28, 2014

In its history, the Earth has been repeatedly struck by asteroids, large chunks of rock from space that can cause considerable damage in a collision. Can we—or should we—try to protect Earth from potentially ...

Image: Rosetta's comet looms

Aug 28, 2014

Wow! Rosetta is getting ever-closer to its target comet by the day. This navigation camera shot from Aug. 23 shows that the spacecraft is so close to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that it's difficult to ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rawa1
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 08, 2011
It also wastes resources, but thats not something that should concern other countries
I'd disagree. The national economics are interconnected mutually, so that every waste of resources stresses the economy of the whole world. On the other hand, what else the western countries may expect? When they developed some technology, they can just expect, other countries will develop it too, whenever possible. Before some time I explained here, the existence of large and small countries doesn't make problem for international stability. The problem arises from situation, when one country is becoming richer or poorer faster, than the other countries, which increases the risk of war. So, if you want to keep the international stability, don't support the Chinese import, if you don't have to. Support the cold fusion, which will make the East Asia countries independent to the fossil fuel export from China.
NotAsleep
4.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2011
In a world where the economy is linked globally, super powers that can afford a space race likely will not attack each other... so what's wrong with another space race? Perhaps it will be good for individual societies to work towards staking a claim in history as "first to land a man on mars" or similar feats of ingenuity.

It doesn't seem like we're headed towards that semi-utopia now but it makes life a little easier to believe it's possible
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2011
In a world where the economy is linked globally, super powers that can afford a space race likely will not attack each other...

Ideally, yes. but it could go the other way. Meaning: some nations might not be able to afford NOT to participate in a space race - even though their economies aren't in good shape. Case in point would be the Soviet Union. They could not afford to have the US dangling the threat of ICBMs over them so they had to sink money (they didn't have) into the cold war arms race. The result was: they went bankrupt.

As to 'afford' - most all nations have outstanding debts (even China). If we purely go by that then no nation could invest in anything.

Nanobanano
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2011
Perhaps it will be good for individual societies to work towards staking a claim in history as "first to land a man on mars" or similar feats of ingenuity


Nationalistic colonialism leads to world wars.

The first "real" world wars (excluding the greeks and persians,) happened during the colonial period when explorers were staking claims to distant continents and islands.

Nationalistic claims of land on Mars or the Moon could lead to global calamity and the weaponizing of planets, moons, and asteroids in the solar system with lasers and even eventually a new class of warheads in the gigaton range.

After all, if you need to hit the enemy's nuclear missile silo on an asteroid, you need to kill it in one hit, because they too wll have laser defense systems. So then people will build even bigger, more powerful hydrogen bombs, which are scalable to any size imaginable.

International treaties are sort of worthless, because the "Bad guys" never follow the treaty anyway.
pres68y
5 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
Not all countries look at space technology from a standpoint of enhanced destruction capability. Most other countries are pursuing space from a knowledge and understanding standpoint.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2011
If it really takes another "cold war" space race and space militarisation to finally encourage humanity to commit significant resources towards spaceflight again, then screw the treaties and welcome our new multi-megaton Battlestars! Maybe when the Chinese militarise the Moon western spaceflight (and western politicians) will finally wake up.
I think true space colonisation is not possible without at least some space police force, so space will be weaponised sooner or later anyway.. Thats just the way we are..
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2011
I hope there are a few optimists out there...

Yes, yes, all signs point to humanity struggling to maintain fresh food and water supplies while fighting amongst each other for the worlds energy reserves. Yes, many people are very petty about the nationalism of "land claims" and if these people get in power it can lead to war. History shows that people elect fighters more than lovers.

My comment was an optimistic one, hoping that humanity can look beyond the need for casualty and go back to something akin to the original Olympics: nations pitting athletes against each other instead of fighting. If only we could have a non-detrimental battle of the wits to see who could push our species to its pinnacle... if only...
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
I think true space colonisation is not possible without at least some space police force,

You are aware that space is big? I'm not even talking about interstellar space, or interplanetary space, or even the space between the Earth and the Moon - but just the space in which our current batch of sattelites orbits around Earth.

Good luck establishing a police force that can get to any point in that tiny part of space within a week or so - let alone in time to react to any kind of emergency.

My comment was an optimistic one, hoping that humanity can look beyond the need for casualty

Unfortunately, 'humanity' is made up of individual humans.
rawa1
1 / 5 (14) Dec 08, 2011
to finally encourage humanity to commit significant resources towards spaceflight again
Such spaceflight race is self serving anyway. What we actually got from Moon flights? A few grams of rock? A pair of reflectors at Moon?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2011
bigger, more powerful hydrogen bombs, which are scalable to any size imaginable.
Sorry, do you have a link to back up this incredible bullshit? Thanks.

Just a comment, maybe it is your preceived level of competence which is scalable to any size imaginable?
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2011
Ghost, given an infinite amount of resources, it's technically possible to create a fusion bomb (hydrogen bomb) of any size. The sun works on the same principles. Obviously, it becomes impractical to create bombs over a certain size.

Largest thermonuclear weapon: Tsar Bomba, the test of which was actually scaled down for safety reasons. There was nothing limiting them from going larger
Nanobanano
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2011
bigger, more powerful hydrogen bombs, which are scalable to any size imaginable.
Sorry, do you have a link to back up this incredible bullshit? Thanks.

Just a comment, maybe it is your preceived level of competence which is scalable to any size imaginable?


Why yes, yes I do, you know nothing, as usual.

youtube.com/watch?v=m22wDMZzcuc

Five minute mark:

Michio Kaku:

"There's no upper limit...to a hydrogen bomb..."
nononoplease
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2011
"Not all countries look at space technology from a standpoint of enhanced destruction capability. Most other countries are pursuing space from a knowledge and understanding standpoint."

That's hilarious.
Nanobanano
1.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
Largest thermonuclear weapon: Tsar Bomba, the test of which was actually scaled down for safety reasons. There was nothing limiting them from going larger


Correct, the test was about 50 megatons, but they left out half the fuel source and replaced it with Lead. The design was 100 megatons, which is only about a factor of 10 less than a gigaton.

To put that in perspective, the largest explosion in the 1883 Krakatoa eruption was around 200 megatons.

Point is, big bombs are more efficient for penetration if you're trying to kill a bunker or some underground missile complex or whatever.

Small bombs are more efficient for maximum coverage of area, if you are trying to kill military or infrastructure on the surface.

I know, I know, ghost won't get that either, but just play around with area of a circle vs volume of a sphere and you'll see why that's true...
panorama
not rated yet Dec 08, 2011
The real question is, how do you drift in space?
that_guy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2011
I think this is alarmist.

One: They cry about India mixing space and military technology, and worry they will create an ICBM that can hit beijing.

If you can put a satellite in space, then you can make an ICBm that will hit anywhere you want. That applies to any country in space...

Did we make long range ICBMs first or put a satellite up first...I'm sorry, but didn't we base our space rocket designs on ICBM designs at first?

So what if Asia has a space race. Most of them already have the ability to make a regional ballistic missile or better. More space technology doesn't make that missile any more of a missile.

This analysis totally misses the geopolitics of the region, the world, and the fact that Nuclear Bombs are the real issue, not rockets.

If the last space race was any indication, eventually the race overtakes the military applications.

So to asia - Go at it, have fun. Make us americans work hard to keep our lead.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2011
Michio Kaku: "There's no upper limit...to a hydrogen bomb..."
I doubt is, as the chain reaction 7N + 7N 24Mg + 4 x 2He (alpha particle) + 17.7 MeV would ignite the atmosphere. http://www.fas.or...9010.pdf
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (14) Dec 08, 2011
"Global Climate Change" was adopted as the common enemy of all nations in ~ 1971 [1] or ~1975 [2] to save the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation as part of international agreements to:

a.) Unite nations [1],
b.) End the space race [1],
c.) End the nuclear arms race [1], or
d.) Reduce the worlds population [2].

After these agreements, natural instabilities in Earth's heat source [3,4] were ignored.

See:

1. "Deep roots of the global climate scandal"

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. "The 1975 Endangered Atmosphere Conference," 21st Century Science & Technology (2007)

www.21stcenturysc...Born.pdf

3. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

4. "The Sun Kings" (Princeton University Press, 2007)

www.amazon.com/Su...91126607
Pirouette
1 / 5 (10) Dec 08, 2011
Here's an interesting link showing the high intelligence of FrankHerbert$hit:

http://www.physor...lem.html
plasticpower
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
Case in point would be the Soviet Union. They could not afford to have the US dangling the threat of ICBMs over them so they had to sink money (they didn't have) into the cold war arms race. The result was: they went bankrupt.


The Soviet Union didn't go bankrupt because of the arms race. It went bankrupt because in the 80s the Saudis have unexpectedly and sharply lowered their prices of crude oil and undercut the Soviets. The USSR petrol-driven economy took a major hit after that and they began mindlessly borrowing (their credit rating was quite good back in the day), just like the US is doing now. Then the Afganistan war and other wars slowly and surely sealed its fate. The USSR was a ticking time bomb since the 80s, because of oil prices and not so much because of the Cold War. That little known fact is not common knowledge, of course, since the West was all too happy to officially blame the collapse on their own superiority.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2011
Ghost, given an infinite amount of resources, it's technically possible to create a fusion bomb (hydrogen bomb) of any size. The sun works on the same principles. Obviously, it becomes impractical to create bombs over a certain size.
"The largest pure-fission bomb ever constructed had a 500 kiloton yield, which is probably in the range of the upper limit on such designs. Fusion boosting could likely raise the efficiency of such a weapon significantly, but eventually all fission-based weapons have an upper yield limit due to the difficulties of dealing with large critical masses. However there is no known upper yield limit for a fusion bomb."

And I thought all fusion bombs got most of their energy from fission? Silly me.

NanoQC is learning to GOOGLE. Its not the info he finds, but what he thinks he can do with it, which is the problem.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2011
Not all countries look at space technology from a standpoint of enhanced destruction capability. Most other countries are pursuing space from a knowledge and understanding standpoint.


I agree with this statement. Most countries, with the exception of those who have nuclear weapons capabilities, are NOT pursuing a militarized presence for outer space. Common sense and the hope for peaceful coexistence between all countries and governments, however unrealistic-seeming to some, is the prevailing goal for scientific research by most countries. They understand that they would be powerless to stop a nuclear war anywhere, so they become the real peace makers in the hopes of preventing dangerous situations through diplomacy.
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (99) Dec 08, 2011
Since Pirouette is so anxious to link people to this topic I thought I'd help him out.

http://www.physor...lem.html

I guess he thinks it's supposed to be embarrass me which is the only explanation for his mindlessly linking it everywhere.

Well I figured I'd help him out :)

It'd be helpful for his cause if he didn't link to a topic where he comes off as an unhinged moron, but hey, that's better for me!
LivaN
3.3 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
The real question is, how do you drift in space?

Turn, tap x for spacebrake, countersteer.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2011
Ghost, you are correct, we use fission as a primer to push the fusion reaction. There is no other way (currently known) to instantly provide the correct environment for a fusion reaction on earth. The major limiting factor in building a bigger bomb, though, is weight. Unless you plan on building a skyscraper-bomb and blowing yourself up, you need to build it light enough to transport.

Besides, if you can blow up an entire metropolitan area with a single bomb, do you really need to make a bigger one?

As for theoretical possibilities: if you're going to argue that there's a limit to the size of a fusion bomb then you have to either disprove the existence of fusion in stars or detail what happens inside a black hole and show, somehow, that fusion doesn't occur. Perhaps Oliver can help you out
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2011
Pirouette, why did you post that link? It does nothing to help your argument. FrankHebert is undoubtedly an asshole, but he's a smart asshole and he ran circles around you in your link. It's not worth getting upset over something that doesn't matter
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2011
The major limiting factor in building a bigger bomb, though, is weight. Unless you plan on building a skyscraper-bomb and blowing yourself up, you need to build it light enough to transport.
Nano/QC wants to build asteroid-busters for destroying enemy chinese bases, perhaps not realizing the destructive kinetic potential of asteroids traveling at 6 mi/sec. Which is why obama announced the proper military objective for NASA; missions to asteroids and the martian moons... the high ground.
As for theoretical possibilities: if you're going to argue that there's a limit to the size of a fusion bomb then you have to either disprove the existence of fusion in stars
Alas we cannot yet use pseudogravity in our hardware.
Perhaps Oliver can help you out
No he cant.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2011
Perhaps Oliver can help you out
No he cant.

Indeed.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2011
NotAsleep says:
Pirouette, why did you post that link? It does nothing to help your argument. FrankHebert is undoubtedly an asshole, but he's a smart asshole and he ran circles around you in your link. It's not worth getting upset over something that doesn't matter


I disagree that anyone ran circles around me. There was nothing to get upset about a couple of clowns not knowing anything about the topic in that thread, but apparently wanting to reveal that they are perfect assholes. They did a fine job of it too, and it makes good reading for those of our fellow members who are unaware that the assholes exist in Physorg that they may not initially suspect. You might consider it a friendly warning to innocent members.
BTW. . .in case you weren't aware, FrankH is a race-baiter. He lied that I sent him a PM with the N word that starts with "nig" the derogatory word that blacks use amongst themselves. He used the whole word 3 times in one thread, very repugnant person.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2011
Here's a link that may or may not be pertinent to the space race. We shall see as things evolve and everything falls into place. The New World Order, and that sort of thing. :)
http://www.infowa...-summit/
MarkyMark
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2011
Here's a link that may or may not be pertinent to the space race. We shall see as things evolve and everything falls into place. The New World Order, and that sort of thing. :)
http://www.infowa...-summit/

You really are a moron are you not? At least we now know your enviroental beliefs!!!
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (98) Dec 10, 2011
He lied that I sent him a PM with the N word that starts with "nig" the derogatory word that blacks use amongst themselves.


LMAO that's the most comical description of the word "nigger" I've ever read. That made my day.
350
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2011
Children children children... take your little fights to P.M.s because as far as anyone here is concerned we all hate BOTH OF YOU... See, now you don't have to fight about it anymore..
_nigmatic10
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2011
America has dropped the ball when it comes to space exploration, so is it any wonder other nations are picking it up? Sure, we could say "we're sharing with the rest of the world in a drive toward free open cooperation with humanity." , which is a nice way of saying "yeah, we're broken, not supported anymore, and selling out."
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2011
Paradoxically, but not surprisingly, both Pirouette, both FrankHerbert enjoy the mass downvotes of other posters here. And now they're fighting together... The hatters just gona hate..

http://www.aether...ette.gif
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (95) Dec 10, 2011
Uhh Callippo, you're seeing things that aren't there again. I upon quick glance I gave Noumenon at least one 5 and didn't vote on some of his comments.

Children children children... take your little fights to P.M.s because as far as anyone here is concerned we all hate BOTH OF YOU... See, now you don't have to fight about it anymore..


False equivalency. Ed Shultz IS NOT Rush Limbaugh, so to speak :)
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2011
I doubt is, as the chain reaction 7N 7N 24Mg 4 x 2He (alpha particle) 17.7 MeV would ignite the atmosphere. http://www.fas.or...9010.pdf
Whereupon zephir links to a document that says very specifically in the abstract "whatever temperature to which a section of the atmosphere may be heated, no self-propagating chain of nuclear reactions is likely to be started." Very clever of you to make a claim and negate it in the same post.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2011
Callippo says:
Paradoxically, but not surprisingly, both Pirouette, both FrankHerbert enjoy the mass downvotes of other posters here. And now they're fighting together... The hatters just gona hate..

http://www.aether...ette.gif

Callippo. . .let me put it this way. When he's pestering ME, that means he is unable to pester Noumenon, Ryggesogn2, Nerdy or any of the others that he attempts to drive away from Physorg by name calling and telling lies about them. You might say that that is part of the plan, if you will. :)
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2011
nigmatic says:
America has dropped the ball when it comes to space exploration, so is it any wonder other nations are picking it up? Sure, we could say "we're sharing with the rest of the world in a drive toward free open cooperation with humanity." , which is a nice way of saying "yeah, we're broken, not supported anymore, and selling out."

The climate of enthusiasm has changed, both economically and politically. It's probably just a temporary setback until we "clean house", so to speak. I remember all the excitement in the air when Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the Moon's regolith and said his famous words. We were enthusiastic about manned missions then and years after. . . .but too much has happened since that time, and America is not the same as she used to be. It's like a part of us has died.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2011
The Soviet Union didn't go bankrupt because of the arms race.


There were many intriguing events at about that time:

1987: Former movie actor, Ronald Reagan, went to the Brandenberg Gate separating East & West Berlin and ordered:

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

1988: Dr. Stephen Schneider, later contributor to IPCC Assessment Reports, said:

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

http://climatesig...r-quote/

1990: Communism fell; US President Ronald Reagan took "the evil" out of the Evil Empire?

www.nytimes.com/1...ire.html

The rest of the story: "Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)"

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile....anuelo09
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (96) Dec 11, 2011
^report abuse

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
http://karws.gso....yle.html

As early as 1985-86 a conspiracy was entered into between the climatologists of China and America. For nearly thirty years these conspirators have kept the people quarreling over less important matters while they have pursued with unrelenting zeal their one central purpose.Every device of treachery, every resource of statecraft, and every artifice known to the secret cabals of the IPCC are being used to deal a blow to the prosperity of the people and the financial and commercial independence of the country.


That's almost identical to a paranoid screed written in 1895 against the Populists. Change a few words and BLAMO instant conspiracy!


kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2011
TBH we should stop sending valuable resources out of earths orbit until we can mine asteroids and such.
Pirouette
3 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2011
@kaasinees. . . .which valuable resources?
The_Physicist
2 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2011
I doubt humans will even make it to type 1 civillization. However, if they do manage to make it to type 1 civillizaton, type 2 won't be hard.

By the way....people are so insensitive...they try to promote misunderstandings in the society, there exists no proof that any Asian country is trying to invade anyone. As far as I can tell, only Americans and European Union is continously invading the rest of the world. Look at the entire middle east....its all messed up. The Euro Union and Americans have spy bots everywhere...even in South Asia and East Asia...one was recently caught by the Iranians.

If this world gets screwed before becoming a Type 1 civillization, I would not be surprised. Just look at the Americans, European Union invading everyone's ass secretly and spreading poisons worldwide. And ofcourse the craziness going on in the Middle east.
World War 3 scenario = USA, Australia and Euro Union VS Entire Asia, Middle East, and Russia.
The_Physicist
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2011
Ultimately, no matter the argument....Humans are all in the same boat...but they are too stupid to realize that.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2011
By the way....people are so insensitive...they try to promote misunderstandings in the society, there exists no proof that any Asian country is trying to invade anyone
I don't believe in feelings, but in objective reasons of wars. Remove these reasons and we could forget the silly human nature for ever. One reason now is, the human civilization is getting poor fast, because the fossil fuel sources are getting depleted. We are like protozoa, which become cannibalistic under poor life conditions. Just implement the cold fusion and we'll experience a piecefull period again. It's as simple as it is and it has no meaning to speculate about it.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2011
@The _Physicist. . . .I doubt the human race will ever become a Type 1 civilization. There are just too many differences that may never be resolved before an Armageddon happens. Callippo is right about likening humans to protozoa. But in the case of humans, it is the humans with the poor life conditions who will become cannibalistic toward the humans who are better off economically. The Chinese Communists are very patient which is a good trait in some ways. Red China means to take over the whole of Asia and Southeast Asia and they will have the ability to take over and quickly when the time comes. Our Comrade Obama is biding his time to make it so as he whittles away at our faux Capitalist system and U.S. Constitution Laws. I think that the Communists and their sympathizers in Australia will welcome the overthrow of their own government and embrace the Communist Chinese when they come to reeducate the Aussies or eliminate those who refuse.
Pirouette
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2011
@Callippo. . . .could you please provide us with any evidence that Cold Fusion is a viable supply of energy to make electricity. Could you also include valid links to websites that explain Cold Fusion and the names and addresses of those who are actually working on the research into whether or not a Cold Fusion process can result in an abundant supply of energy. I mean to say, I have continuously read your praise of Cold Fusion as worthy of serious research, but so far, I have not seen anything to validate your claims.
You might be right. . . .but without your citing of valid sources, everyone who reads your claims will still consider it as nothing but fluff. So do yourself a favor. . .give us the true science.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2011
.I doubt the human race will ever become a Type 1 civilization... Chinese Communists.. Red China.. Comrade Obama.. Communist Chinese..
This silly labellings won't help the building of Type I civilization anyway. You apparently didn't realize, at the wealthy conditions the human society becomes more liberal, under poor conditions every society becomes socialistic and centrally driven. This is deterministic, physical mechanism. We should understand, if we will not replace the fossil fuel for more effective source of energy, then the antiliberal governmental control will become unavoidable at all countries. The USA aren't poor because of Obama (after all, Obama didn't start the economical crisis, the Republicans did) - but the USA are becoming socialistic country, because of economical crisis. USA could become more capitalistic country only through anti-revolution (i.e. the central putsch leading to dictatorship) or by adopting a cold fusion, which would stop their stagnation.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2011
could you please provide us with any evidence that Cold Fusion is a viable supply of energy to make electricity
LOL. Do you realize, that you have no other option anyway, than just to try it? I can give you thousands of links to the cold fusion experiments - but if you even cannot find these sources for yourself, then nobody will help you anyway. We depleted the energetic sources - not technically (there is still lotta oil in the underground) - but economically, because the hidden cost of fossil fuels (including the price of redistribution of energy and the price of oil wars) becomes higher, then the economical benefit of it. The fossil fuels aren't sufficient to maintain sustainable development already, because their mining is more and more expensive. The actual price of oil has nothing very much to do with it, because it's kept low artificially. Yet.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2011
Before years the civilized world did become richer in essentially two ways: through technological progress and via finding of transoceanic colonies. The finding of America ended the feudalism era in Europe, the exploitation of coal, steam and electricity helped to start another industrial revolution. But the nuclear energy was not so large achievement, because its exploitation is costly and dangerous and it started the era of nuclear confrontation. Now we have to find another wealthy colonies at the extraterrestrial space (which we still haven't) or start to use the cold fusion. Everything else is just a step back again. The so-called renewable energy sources aren't environmentally clean and they're material and resource costly. We can use them, but we will destroy the rest of life environment gradually, which will end the agony of human civilization.
Nanobanano
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 11, 2011
NanoQC is learning to GOOGLE. Its not the info he finds, but what he thinks he can do with it, which is the problem.


Actually, I had that memorized.

Eidetic Memory

Especially for visual, but also often for auditory.

Usually doesn't seem to work with text, though.

But yeah, I pretty much can't forget movies, pictures, or video game levels.

I didnt have to "Google" it, because I remember watching that video back when I first encountered it. In fact, I've posted links to it several times here in past discussions, because Dr. Kaku addresses other relevant subjects.

Point is, you're wrong again, Ghost.

I didn't use Google to find that.

Even if I did, so what? I'd probably just memorize it automatically anyway.

Get over it.
astro_optics
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2011
WW3 is coming...about time!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2011
Actually, I had that memorized.

Eidetic Memory

Especially for visual, but also often for auditory.
Yes I know you are superman with a superconducting brain. Let's see what else - egomaniac with an inferiority complex? Self-will run rampant?

You imagine you can do what teams of scientists working for months cannot. You are oblivious to evidence that proves you cannot. You imagine your rantings here at physorg are somehow impressing thousands.

I would know exactly what you suffer from, and know exactly how to fix it, if I suffered from the same level of delusion as you do. But I don't so I can only make a guess that you are some kind of lunatic.