| Wednesday,
October 16, 2002
Your Mars Is Still Good
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
As an antidote to a good, but depressing, author I
like, I pulled "Birth of Fire" off the bookshelf. The retelling
of the American Revolution in terms of Martian settlements was as good as
I remembered. Interestingly, your Mars described in a novel copyrighted in
1976, stands up very well compared to current data. It shows that it pays
to do your homework. In fact, your description of Mars is closer to
reality than your description of gang warfare at the beginning of the
novel. But, who'd expect gang warfare to devolve into spraying automatic
weapons fire at houses from $50K German automobiles?
I did, however, find an error. In an earlier part of
the novel, some of the freedom fighters are brought in from a chilled Mars
surface excursion and given coffee and sandwiches. But, later, the
protagonist is given coffee by the academic people and is grateful because
he has not had the beverage since coming to Mars. I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt by assuming that the "coffee" mentioned
earlier in the novel was some ersatz brew.
It's always refreshing to be immersed in a novel
that strives toward showing the triumph of the good side of human nature.
I know I can depend on your works and the Heinlein "juveniles"
to restore some of my faith in human nature when the world - and other
fiction - looks so grim.
-- Pete
Thanks. That story did hold up well. It was
written in one week flat, originally as a Laser book. And I do like it
still. Maybe I'll revisit that Mars again one day.
oy. the mother load.
here's a real cool time waster.. every cover of
popular mechanics for the last 100 years..
http://popularmechanics.com/albums/index.phtml?dispsize=640
Eeek!
===========================
Mr. St. Onge takes on Greg Cochran:
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
subject: Mr. Cochran's analysis in re Iraq
Dear Jerry:
I don't agree with Mr. Cochran's reasoning. In fact,
I frequently can't follow it.
For example, your summary of Sen. DeLay's argument
said: "Yes, Saddam Hussein would be deterred from using his weapons,
but a standoff with a nuclear armed Iraq _MIGHT_ well turn that country
into a new haven for world terror." (my emphasis) Mr. Cochran
replies: "By that argument China is harboring anti-American
terrorists right now."' How did 'might' become 'is'?
And what is one to make of this: "E. O Lawrence
conned the government into blowing about a quarter of the Manhattan
Project budget on [calutrons]. Concentrating enough U-235 for one small
fission bomb cost hundreds of millions of 1944 dollars. Probably the
Japanese could have constructed new cities for less money than this
approach took to blow them up." WWII was costing about $200 million
dollars _per day_ in August 1945, and the calutrons cost about $500
million dollars, so if they shortened the war by three days, they were
profitable. As for the cost or rebuilding Japanese cities, the point is .
. . ???
Btw, if there'd been a layer of Lithium Deuteride in
the tamper, the explosion would have been in the hundred kiloton range at
least. Perhaps we should be happy Dr. Teller didn't think of that till
1947?
Turning to evidence, the State Dept. says that Cuba,
Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Iraq currently sponsor terrorism, and
the former Soviet Union (ooh! I love to type 'former Soviet Union'! ) used
to sponsor terrorism. If Mr. Cochran has an argument concluding that
acquiring nukes will make Iraq stop, I'd like to see it. I'd also like to
see his evidence that China _doesn't_ support anti-US terrorism.
Mr. Cochran goes on to say: "Most likely they
[the Iraqis] are getting steadily farther away from having a nuclear
weapon." According to a German intelligence estimate released on
February 23, 2001, Iraq was about three years from a bomb (note, that was
_20 months ago_), and would have an IRBM by 2005 ( http://www.lifegoeson.net/InTruth/iraqnuke.htm).
Perhaps Mr. Cochran would care to explain where he got different
information?
Mr. Cochran also says "I would guess that they
realized their limitations . . . Implosion is not so easy to make
work." Well, in the article at http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/building-bomb.html
they don't use the word implosion, but what they describe certainly sounds
like it. Said article also maintains that UN weapons inspectors were
convinced, after seeing the specs, that it would work. It appeared in the
NY Times magazine in _1992_.
Under the circumstances, I can't share Mr. Cochran's
confidence that Iraq lacks the money required (especially when he
overlooks the fact that Iraq doesn't need oil revenue for its domestic
govt., just for imports), or that Saddam has fired all the weapons
engineers so he could keep "a few Powerpoint specialists"
employed. Nor does his facile projection that an Iraq with nukes wouldn't
be able to deliver them on the United States reassure, when ship launched
missiles or smuggled weapons would do the job.
Btw, if five years down the road, an a-bomb goes off
in a US city, whom do we retaliate against? N. Korea which sponsors terror
& already has nukes? Pakistan, which also sponsors and has? Iraq,
which should have them by then? Iran, which is also working on nukes? Half
the former Soviet Union, for not keeping its stockpile secure? China?
Israel? France?
Mr. Cochran goes on to say Saddam: "would cause
himself practical trouble by harboring anti-US terrorists. If they ever
made a significant hit on the US, he'd be in deep shit. What would he get
out of it?" I believe the technical term for this is 'whistling in
the dark.' The ten links at the end of this letter lead to some of the
evidence that Iraq _has planned or already carried_ out attacks on the
United States, directly and indirectly. One might also note the rather
suspicious rage of bin Laden over USAmericans in the holy Arabian
Peninsula that supposedly caused him to start al Qaida's campaign against
the US. There've been USAmericans in Saudi Arabia for decades. 1990 was
when they were there to attack Saddam. Bin Laden's payback for the support
Iraq funneled him?
As for what Saddam would get out of harboring
anti-US terrorists, what did he get out of standing fast in Kuwait, after
we told him to leave or be attacked? Out of blowing Kuwait's oil wells
before the pullout? What would he have gotten out of assassinating Bush
41, which he attempted in 1993? What has he gotten out of his
non-cooperation with weapons inspections, considering that cooperation
would have resulted in the sanctions being lifted, vastly boosting his oil
income? What does he get out of his continuing harassment of US/British
overflights that sometimes result in the destruction of his air defense
sites?
The history of the 20th century is full of dictators
and political fanatics doing things no one expected, because we wouldn't
have considered them rationa'. We forget that whether an action is rationa'
depends on ones goals and values. We also forget that people make
mistakes. It's time to admit to ourselves that everyone is not like us,
and they will sometimes do things we would never do.
Saddam in particular has a history of taking large
chances that turn out to be boneheaded mistakes. According to some
mid-East scholars, Saddam expected to win the Gulf War, and thinks he _did
win_ 'the second half of the war'!! Consider Eugene Volokh's recent
scenario (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh092702.asp):
Iraq acquires nukes, smuggles some into the US, explodes one harmlessly in
the desert, then tells us he'll leave us alone if we pull out of the
Middle East. Success means he's the greatest Arab hero since Saladin.
Failure means he only inflicts a a butcher's bill about ten to one hundred
times our WWII casualties. If he makes such a mistake, killing him and a
few million Iraqi civilians would be cold comfort. Of course, we could
avoid that by backing down . . .
One would have hoped that by now we'd have learned
that totalitarians who threaten liberal democracies should be dealt with
immediately and violently. Alas, no. I understand the temptation to shrink
from the burdens we'll face over the next decades. I'd like to avoid them
myself. But taking refuge in comfortable delusions, because said course
lets us avoid hard choices, led to the Sept. 11th attacks. Perhaps Mr.
Cochran hasn't learned from that experience, but some of us have.
Best, Stephen
DELENDA EST SAUDI ARABIA!
http://www.usis.usemb.se/terror/ http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZAp%20Iraqi%20
Involvement%20in%20Sept%2011%20Attacks%2003.htm
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/58346.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20021004-30441705.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/columnists/4201780.htm
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/faces_of_al_qaida.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename
=article&node=&contentId=A42094-2002Aug20¬Found=true
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;
$sessionid$MXABWXTPECBP3QFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?
xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml&sSheet=
/portal/2002/08/25/ixport.html&_requestid=245102
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/
-/031230644X/qid=1034754717/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8
_1/002-7361693-8912028?v=glance&n=507846
His point on caultrons is that if you need that
technique you don't have a better one, and they ain't much good. He's
right on that point.
I haven't time for a real analysis: I'm headed
for a doctor's appointment. But I doubt this is the last of this
discussion.
Subject: Bears discover avalanches.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/10/15/38201.html
Roland Dobbins
Well they have long known about backpacks hanging
from trees by ropes, and fish stringers...
Subject: Another amazing waste of time or two...
If you like the work of M.C.Escher then check out : http://www.lipsons.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/escher/ascending.html
On the other hand if you like Wallace and Gromit
then the first of their 1-minute shorts ( called Soccamatic ) is a free
download in QuickTime format at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/entertainment/02/wallace
_and_gromit/front_page/html/default.stm
Good luck with the doctors and hope you keep writing
and being well
Douglas Smith
We will see. Looks like the kind of flu I had
takes a lot longer to recover from than I had supposed. At least at my
age.
Subject: This is getting silly
Dear Dr Pournelle,
This speaks for itself. Red Hat can't publish a
security patch within the US because it constitutes a DMCA violation.
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26656.html
Regards, TC
PS Being resident outside the US I have downloaded
the appropriate patch...
-- Terry Cole admin@maths.otago.ac.nz System
Administrator
Silly indeed. Perhaps not as silly as the next
one, but then maybe the next one is serious...
Subject: What to do with Iraq
The solution of what to do with Iraq after we
conquer it is remarkably simple. Simply put Ted Kennedy in charge of the
occupied territories.
This rather elegantly accomplishes three things:
1. It gives the Senator a safe locality - by the
time Iraq is ready to be occupied, you can be certain there will be no
bridges left.
2. It insures Iraq will not have a functioning
military, as long as Teddy shows half the hostility to Iraq's military
that he has shown to America's.
3. Its the only way Teddy Kennedy will ever have his
own Camel-lot.
With apologies, but SOMEONE had to say it,
John Nichols
Eugene, Oregon.
I suppose...
And I include the following for what it's worth.
Ad agencies are always doing stupid things, and the bigger the company,
the more likely a stupid account executive:
Subject: MS Switch?
Dr. Pournelle-
I'm guessing you already heard about this one. I
first heard about it yesterday on CNNfn. Found the story this morning.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/
2002Oct/gee20021015016813.htm
Rob Madison
And on a more serious note:
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your interesting Disquistion
on Republic vs. Empire dated Oct 9, 2002. It was quite moving as one
can plainly sense your sincere concerns about how America is evolving. I
share those concerns but have a few questions by way of clarification:
Do you think a “vigorous energy independence
program” would succeed in allowing America to extract itself from the
Middle-East in a short enough time-frame to head off the rising tide of
Islamic fundamentalism?
Is there not also a inherent danger in looking back
too fondly at the good old days? Has the world not evolved beyond a point
where it’s really possible for any state to live in “splendid
isolation?”
Do you honestly think the current administration
thirsts for overseas adventures and American parades in foreign capitals?
Do you see Bush’s pre-emptive doctrine as code for “empire building”?
I agree overall with your concerns about the
centralization of domestic power as a corollary to Empire. But what are
the alternatives? I personally believe that there is no negotiation with
fundamentalist Islam. I do believe they pose a real and significant danger
to western civilization. I have reluctantly concluded that the threat of
overwhelming force is our only option. Do you see another way?
Thanks again for your insights. It is at times like
this that we need the balanced and experienced voices of men such as
yourself.
Mike Quinn – Vancouver Mikeq35@hotmail.com
First, never ascribe to malice that which is
adequately explained by incompetence: or in cases like this one, don't
even assume incompetence, much less malice, when honest people disagree.
Your view, that the fundamentalist Muslims can never be satisfied; add to
that Saddam Hussein's known analogy of himself to Saladin, the Kurdish
upstart who united the Muslim empire and destroyed the Latin Kingdom of
Jerusalem in one battle at the Horns of Hattin; and your conclusion isn't
at all unreasonable; and it's likely that of the President.
I can be swayed by that argument myself. After
all, we have the power; why put up with an known enemy in power in a
strategic place?
But I still have misgivings. Perpetual War for
Perpetual Peace does not lead us to the republic I grew up in. I am slowly
coming to the view that nothing will, and that the best advice I can give
is on imperial competence; but I will always mourn the republic, and lapse
back into republican ways of thinking, longing for a time of self
government that was small, effective, and cheap, and which didn't concern
itself a lot with overseas adventures.
Yes: I do believe that a vigorous program of
military and civilian research and development into space resources
including energy capabilities and cheap access to space; coupled with
withdrawal of the US from places where we have no outstanding interest --
which is to say most everywhere outside this hemisphere -- would avert the
war, and allow the possibility of standing down to return to the republic.
But I have to say that it's not likely to happen.
And alas, measures to make us a better empire
move us away from being a republic, and measures to return to the republic
are probably detrimental to our imperial vision. Understand that by Empire
I mean precisely the vision that began the Roman adventure: To protect the
weak, and make humble the arrogant. That was Rome's vision of its
role in the world. What they actually accomplished was not quite that, but
that was the vision that lured them onward after the collapse of Carthage.
Delenda est Carthago. But once the salt had
be sown in North Africa...
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
