|
Post by PeterB on May 2, 2008 0:58:46 GMT -4
Well a way to start is to point out that every dollar spent on Space Exploration is spent on Earth and goes into making jobs for everyday Americans right the way across the US. Sorry, that argument doesn't work with me. Yes, it's true, but it's also irrelevant. If the money was spent on, say, housing, the salary dollars would also be going into the pockets of Americans, but the result would be infrastructure here on Earth, rather than up in space. That's more worthwhile. Another argument which I like, but which mightn't go down so well with those who have a more short-term view of things - you never know what benefits society might gain (often quite directly) from space exploration. For example, searching the sky for large rocks tells us whether we need to be worried about one falling on us in the next year, next century or next millennium. Also, the exploration of other worlds has often opened up profitable opportunities back on Earth (though I can't think of one at the moment).
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 2, 2008 3:21:29 GMT -4
Well a way to start is to point out that every dollar spent on Space Exploration is spent on Earth and goes into making jobs for everyday Americans right the way across the US. Sorry, that argument doesn't work with me. Yes, it's true, but it's also irrelevant. If the money was spent on, say, housing, the salary dollars would also be going into the pockets of Americans, but the result would be infrastructure here on Earth, rather than up in space. You are, of course, correct, and I have advanced the same argument multiple times both here and at BAUT. The reaction I have gotten on those occasions is what has pretty much gotten me to quit both boards, and forever destroyed my prior belief that scientists and engineers are more rational than other people. I hope it goes better for you. The direct benefits of space exploration are, of course, how such things ought to be evaluated (and how anything ought to be evaluated), although many people do seem to take it as axiomatic that we would all be neolithic cave-dwellers without space exploration. Another argument which I like, but which mightn't go down so well with those who have a more short-term view of things - you never know what benefits society might gain (often quite directly) from space exploration. I think this one has the same issue the first argument has - you can say this about just about anything. Any project on which we choose to spend money could result in unforeseen benefits. In the competition for funding, projects that promise some vague, unforeseen benefits may not do very well against those that promise specific, well-understood benefits... Also, the exploration of other worlds has often opened up profitable opportunities back on Earth (though I can't think of one at the moment). I'd try to think of one before using this argument
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 2, 2008 10:34:26 GMT -4
You thought scientists and engineers were more rational than other people? Are you related to any?
One possible argument would be that space exploration would be a much better use of government funds than many other areas they are spending them in, though again someone can argue that there are even better uses than exploration.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on May 2, 2008 14:11:17 GMT -4
One possible argument would be that space exploration would be a much better use of government funds than many other areas they are spending them in, though again someone can argue that there are even better uses than exploration. Certainly better than spending it on a useless war.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 2, 2008 14:39:08 GMT -4
On the other hand, spending it on a necessary war is, well, a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 2, 2008 15:43:38 GMT -4
You thought scientists and engineers were more rational than other people? Are you related to any? I was one. I know, I know... One possible argument would be that space exploration would be a much better use of government funds than many other areas they are spending them in, This argument is frequently advanced, sometimes by no less a personage than Phil Plait. Personally, if I am going to bat to get funding for some project, I'd like to have a better argument than saying something else the government is doing is an even bigger waste of money than the thing I'm proposing though again someone can argue that there are even better uses than exploration. And if they can make that argument, they should. That's how these things ought to be decided - resources should be devoted to their best possible use, not to anything that is slightly better than the worst possible use. I fear this basic principle of optimality, well known to anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture of economics 101, is completely rejected at places like BAUT. Certainly better than spending it on a useless war. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the decision of how much to spend on space exploration and which particular projects to spend it on should be based on the costs and benefits of those projects, not on the silliness or lack thereof of other things the government or society might be doing.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 14, 2008 2:40:19 GMT -4
On the other hand, spending it on a necessary war is, well, a necessity. Well to be blunt, was the war in Iraq necessary? Was Saddam about to declare war on the US and UK or anyone else for that matter. If the answer is no, then the war was indeed unnecessary.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2008 11:08:27 GMT -4
On the other hand, spending it on a necessary war is, well, a necessity. Well to be blunt, was the war in Iraq necessary? Was Saddam about to declare war on the US and UK or anyone else for that matter. If the answer is no, then the war was indeed unnecessary. Difficult to say. If Saddam had actually had large stocks of WMDs, and was willing to parcel them out to organizations that would be willing to use them in the U.S. as we feared then yes, it would have been unquestionably a necessary war. Now that we have been able to look at Saddam's own records we can see that he was not as much a threat as everyone thought he was (no stocks of WMDs, though he did retain the capability to begin producing them again quickly once the world's attention had turned elsewhere), but at this point it's necessary to stay and win the war because if we retreat millions of people will suffer even more and the terrorists will secure a huge victory. The last time the U.S. lost a war through loss of political will even though we had won militarily (Vietnam) caused inumerable problems throughout the world. Millions were slaughtered in the area, our enemies world wide were emboldened, the nation slumped into a malaise of depression for the rest of the decade, and the military took twenty years to recover their confidence. So it may not have been necessary to fight it when we first went in, but it is a necessary war now that we have committed ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 14, 2008 13:57:15 GMT -4
Having stuck our arm into our own bear trap, and having failed to stop the bleeding, we can't pull out of the bear trap... or the bear wins!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2008 14:54:18 GMT -4
Quite true in this case, unfortunately, except that we have stopped the most serious bleeding at this point, and are almost ready to start extracting ourselves from the trap.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 14, 2008 15:36:02 GMT -4
That might be wishful thinking. US casualties seem to be on an upward trend. Casualties bottomed out in December 2007 with 23. The US had 40 casualties in January, 29 in February, 39 in March and 52 casualties in April 2008 -- which is the exact number of casualties in April 2005. I can't say that I can predict what is going to happen next, but it doesn't look particularly good.
But, then... we broke so we had to buy it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2008 15:49:14 GMT -4
Casualty numbers are only one indicator of how things are going in Iraq, and not neccesarily the best one either. For instance, the Iraqi effort to control Basra (with only air support from the U.S. and Britain) seems to have been a success. Having the Iraqis win their own campaigns with minimal support from the U.S. is definitely progress. 33,000 Iraqi troops have provided security for their own people there.
Something similar is happening in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad, where the Iraqi government has forced a "truce" on the Mahdi Army militia that includes conditions like abandoning their heavy and medium weapons, ending their shelling of the Green Zone, and shutting down their kangaroo courts in favor of Iraqi law. What the Mahdi army gets out of it in comparison is a promise not to arrest lower-level militia members. Again, progress.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 14, 2008 16:23:06 GMT -4
Another big indicator of how things are going in Iraq is whether or not the war is making us safer. It is not. We would be way ahead of the game if we had never set foot in Iraq. The presence of our troops in the middle east is a huge factor in why we are in a war on terror in the first place.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 14, 2008 16:53:57 GMT -4
Another big indicator of how things are going in Iraq is whether or not the war is making us safer. It is not. We would be way ahead of the game if we had never set foot in Iraq. The presence of our troops in the middle east is a huge factor in why we are in a war on terror in the first place. That's debatable. One of the reasons we haven't had an attack in the U.S. since 2001 may be because the terrorists are concentrating on Iraq rather than on new strikes on U.S. soil. Resources and men that might otherwise have been sent to the U.S. are being expended in Iraq, which is generally closer to their source and thus easier to reach. Libya dropped their WMD program because of the Iraq War. And, of course, 9/11 - the deadliest terrorist attack ever - happened before the war. It's true that Osama Bin Laden used the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia as his excuse for 9/11, but he might have attacked us anyway. What specific tactics or methods would you suggest would be better at fighting terrorism?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 14, 2008 17:18:14 GMT -4
For starters -- not attacking countries that don't threaten us.
|
|