Michael Lorrey wrote:
> While I'd call you an incredible cynic.
Guilty as charged.
> John Marlow wrote:
> > I'd call you a raging optimist.
Adrian Tymes: all the rage. ^_^;
> > "And if you wanna breathe you gotta buy his air..."
>
> Whose air? What? You think a Mars penal colony is likely to be built
> first?
Nope. The scenario presumed that the corporation would be the only one
able to actually access Mars, and thus be the de facto owner of all
human habitation on Mars. That includes the breathable air.
> > Also, keep in mind any earthside government could nuke the whole
> > works with relative impunity--nobody's gonna start a nukewar on earth
> > over a bit of slagged Martian real estate.
>
> Only if they ship up a nuke. Launching a nuke with a TitanIII/Agena
> booster for a ballistic strike on Mars is a far more difficult mission
> than a normal ICBM. I doubt they'd get any better than 10-30 km
> accuracy.
"They" = government -> Scenario presumes that the government *can't*
ship up anything, including a nuke. Besides, anything incoming - even
with a lot of decoys - is going to be spotted far in advance. A
non-pacifist corporation would already have intercept capability by the
time this became an issue, and plenty of time to use it.
"They" = corporation -> why bother with nukes? They have the high
ground, so kinetic weapons are much cheaper. Precision targeting might
be an issue: you only want to bap the high-ups who are giving you
trouble, not your customers in that country.
> > "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
Not always. To borrow from another thread: the greens can derail all
kinds of tech progress towards a greener world. That doesn't mean they
control progess, because if they did, they'd be using it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:36 MDT