From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Mon Dec 30 1996 - 13:49:59 MST
Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> Michael Lorrey writes:
> >>Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko wrote:
> >> At 04:26 PM 12/28/96 -0500, Michael Lorrey wrote: ...
> >> >but until you plant a 17 year old kid with a gun and a flag on that damn
> >> >hill, its not yours...."
>
> I think the intuition here is that official borders often try to
> approximate natural game-theoretic "Schelling Point" boundaries of
> existing military powers. If there is a line such that if I expect
> you to cross it I will want to try and repell you, and vice-versa, and
> if given these responses neither of us wants to attack, then we have a
> stable border. A "border" for which there is not such an equilibrium
> is much less useful.
>
> Under current military technology, putting a kid with a gun on a hill
> greatly deters attack, relative to just a flag sitting there.
>
> >> - Should I keep a 17yo kid on that hill of mine at all times, or he can
> >> occasionally come down ?
> >> - Will a 16 year old do?
> >
> >As nitpicky as you seem to be getting, basically we could use the old
> >homestead laws that were used to govern the european settlement of the
> >western territories of the US. You must maintain a constant human
> >presence, be actively exploiting the resources....etc.
>
> I don't think these old homestead laws will be that useful here; we
> can't really create rules to approximate natural military boundaries
> until we learn more about the military space technology that will be
> concurrent with actual space colonization.
>
> To the extent that there are large powers or legal systems which can
> enforce contracts, then we can begin to think more in terms of
> allocating space property rights in a more efficient manner, rights
> which can be enforced via this power or legal system. But to the
> extent that colonists are beyond the reach of such law, there isn't
> much point in gaining such property rights.
>
> Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/
Well, you could use their prior existence, as well as laws passed by
european powers on the apportionment of colonies, as background to
support the jurisdiction of a colony, in the WOrld Court. looking at the
history, seeing that colonies wre granted by: The Pope, and The King of
England (who was the head of the Anglican Church). We will ignore failed
colonies that were assimilated into one or the others domains (i.e. the
original New York colony, which was of Dutch origin is an example).
These domains were enforced by naval power (i.e. to quote Mao: "Justice
comes from the barrel of a gun").
Based on this historical example, I would say that the company that
builds the first linear induction mass driver could become the defacto
power on the Moon, and would be in a superior position to prevent Earth
authorities from putting up an argument about it. The fact that
Heinlein, an Annapolis graduate, saw this as highly probable is in my
mind additional supporting evidence. I would also say that the Air Force
has made projections about this, due to the newest X plane project is a
classified aerospace vehicle capable of carrying a squad of special
forces troops and their equipment (this is the X-35). It is being touted
by NASA in closed circles as a "Space Station Crew Rescue Vehicle", i.e.
a vehicle to rescue the Space Station (Internationale) from opposing
forces should the present state of things erode.
According to people I've talked to, this is also the reason why the US
wants to steer the worlds space effort away from using the moon to any
extent: They fear being supplanted in the 21st century by a military
force on the moon, which could rule it over all Earth nations, simply
due to their superior position in the gravity well.
WHy? because the exchange of military might is for the most part, and in
the strategic sense, a competition of cost effectiveness. It is this
reason why the US beat the USSR in the Cold War, we bankrupted them. It
is also the reason why we lost the Vietman War: they spent far far less
than we did for essentially equal military benefit. Being at the top of
the gravity well with a large resource base puts you on top of the
highest hill around with a huge store of ammo. With an induction gun,
you don't even need to build warheads, you can just throw rocks and get
nuclear sized explosive power with no radiation in earth impacts. using
electricity generated from solar panels and nuke plants, you don't need
an extensive chemicals industry to produce explosives and propellants.
Having to expend a small fraction of the energy and resources as any
Earth based power to attain equal destructive result puts you in a
superior position to dictate terms.
For anyone with further interest, I would suggest two books:
The Art of War, by Sun Tsu
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert A. Heinlein
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
President retroman@tpk.net
Northstar Technologies Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com
Inventor of the Lorrey Drive Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com
Website: http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/
Now Featuring:
My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA)
http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/MONEA1.htm
MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday
http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/mikymas1.htm
Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH)
http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/TRANSHNH.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Transhumanist, Inventor, Webmaster, Ski Guide, Entrepreneur,
Artist, Outdoorsman, Libertarian, Certified Genius.
------------------------------------------------------------
If I saw further than others, it is because I had an
unjoggled view from standing on my own two feet.
- Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:56 MST