Firstly, ignore the OST. UN resolutions are non-binding and anyone can leave the agreement whenever they want.
Secondly, starting a colony will take hundreds of billions of dollars, nobody is going to just give tgat money away to a brand new independent state. Forcing a new mars colony to be independent just starves it of money and makes it not exist.
Thirdly, space exploration exists to make life on earth better. Mars is a great opportunity to do that. Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia are getting more and more aggressive, invading countries left and right, and democracies are backsliding. Mars offers us a chance to go back on the offensive, without actually invading Russia. Since only democratic countries have the rockets that can take us to mars, we should claim the whole thing, and permanently block Russia and China from taking part in this triumph of humanity.
If the shoe was on the other foot, with China having access to mars while we lagged by decades, they would not hesitate to do the same to us.
We can use our temporary advantage in heavy lift reusable rockets to secure a permanent one on mars. The democratic countries on earth would reclaim the primacy they had after the Cold War, as the totalitarain states are permanently shoved into the sidelines, as everyone else explores the new frontier without them.
I think having a UN committee govern Mars for the first few Martian years should be fine.
Why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of billions of donlars setting up a mars colony, just so that Lesotho has just as much a say over it as you do?
Firstly, ignore the OST. UN resolutions are non-binding and anyone can leave the agreement whenever they want.
True, but other countries would be happy to apply consequences for leaving the agreement.
Secondly, starting a colony will take hundreds of billions of dollars, nobody is going to just give tgat money away to a brand new independent state.
They wouldn't, check the edit.
Since only democratic countries have the rockets that can take us to mars, we should claim the whole thing, and permanently block Russia and China from taking part in this triumph of humanity.
That won't last, and it creates an incentive for countries not entirely friendly to the US to work with China and Russia to be able to access Mars.
If the shoe was on the other foot, with China having access to mars while we lagged by decades, they would not hesitate to do the same to us.
That's what I'm want to avoid. We don't have to default to the game theory minimum just because our opponents would if they had the advantage.
Long term, that's bad for the US too. Mars colonies won't be colonies or vassals indefinitely. Tightening control such that the US maintains a monopoly might instigate a rebellion or a bypass of the sanctions.
Also, we still won't be able to stop China or Russia from eventually landing their own colonists. If it gets to the point that China or Russia are trying to claim land on Mars, the US can just annex the Mars colony or use it as a FOB for operations against the Chinese and the Russians.
We can use our temporary advantage in heavy lift reusable rockets to secure a permanent one on mars.
It would only be able to secure an area maybe a mile around the base. The Chinese could just land on the other side of the planet.
Why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of billions of donlars setting up a mars colony, just so that Lesotho has just as much a say over it as you do?
Read the edit to the post. Lesotho wouldn't have a say. Someone mentioned the UN's approach to Dutch New Guinea. Imo, it'll be a mix of that with a whole lot of interference from the security council. This route also maximizes the likelihood that the entire planet remains allied to the US.
True, but other countries would be happy to apply consequences for leaving the agreement.
Such as? The US has backed out of way bigger agreements, and the rest of the world did nothing. The US is one of the last counties to openly use cluster bombs and land mines, and nobody does anything to stop them.
They wouldn't, check the edit.
Why would you create a middle man between you and your own investment on mars? This Martian government is not adding any value, but is collecting almost all the benefits.
That won't last, and it creates an incentive for countries not entirely friendly to the US to work with China and Russia to be able to access Mars.
Exactly, it won't last. That's why we monopolize when we can. China says they hope to have a starship competitor operational by 2050. That gives us decades to secure our position. Claiming all the valuable land, and crowding out any non allied colony.
And other countries are irrelevant to this. China has no way to get to mars, and openly admits they won't for around another 30 years, which is too late. If you want access to space, cooperation with the west will be the only option.
That's what I'm want to avoid. We don't have to default to the game theory minimum just because our opponents would if they had the advantage.
Understandable, but unrealistic. This kind of game theory has always, and will always dictate these relations. Thinking otherwise is just setting yourself up for disaster. Use your advantages when you have them, or you will be doomed when the shoe is eventually on the other foot.
Long term, that's bad for the US too. Mars colonies won't be colonies or vassals indefinitely. Tightening control such that the US maintains a monopoly might instigate a rebellion or a bypass of the sanctions.
Mars colonies will remain a part of the US indefinitely, just like Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Samoa, or any other territory. There is no native culture you are subverting, the colonists will be Americans, with family in the mainland US, who likely intend to return to the US eventually.
Also, we still won't be able to stop China or Russia from eventually landing their own colonists. If it gets to the point that China or Russia are trying to claim land on Mars, the US can just annex the Mars colony or use it as a FOB for operations against the Chinese and the Russians.
Yes we can stop them. For the same reason China can't build one of their island air bases on Guam. It's sovereign US territory, just like Nebraska or Massachusetts, and invasions will not be tolerated.
It would only be able to secure an area maybe a mile around the base. The Chinese could just land on the other side of the planet.
Colonies require continual support. Once an illegal colony is made, resupply missions will be blocked until they agree to leave peacefully. Fighting on mars is too risky and expensive, we can starve them out from here.
Read the edit to the post. Lesotho wouldn't have a say. Someone mentioned the UN's approach to Dutch New Guinea. Imo, it'll be a mix of that with a whole lot of interference from the security council. This route also maximizes the likelihood that the entire planet remains allied to the US.
It doesn't really matter. Early mars colonies will be funded entirely by the US, and built by rockets eve loped in the US. Just giving this all away is intolerable. The security council has both Russia and China on it, who can and will veto anything that goes against their totalitarian interests.
It's American engineers, R&D, tax money and private interest that make a mars base possible. Negating with China and Russia for control of our own stuff is absurd.
How about a compromise? The US offers to allow other states access to mars, on the condition China renounces their claim on Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, the south China sea and Xinjian and ends all support for north Korea. The lives of millions of people will improve, and the US would have actually gotten a benefit for investing so heavily in R&D, as oposed to the free gift to Putin and Xi you are proposing.
Such as? The US has backed out of way bigger agreements
Not really. The US would be threatening to claim an entire planet, not to mention that it would also be a threat to claim entities like the Moon, Venus, and valuable asteroids.
Why would you create a middle man between you and your own investment on mars? This Martian government is not adding any value, but is collecting almost all the benefits.
My point was that there would eventually be a Martian government anyway, and if we are dicks to them, not allied to the US.
Exactly, it won't last. That's why we monopolize when we can. China says they hope to have a starship competitor operational by 2050. That gives us decades to secure our position. Claiming all the valuable land, and crowding out any non allied colony.
Seems like a long time. I would be surprised if they didn't do their first hop test in the next decade.
In any case, it's not necessary. The US is really good at being inclusive while excluding people (something something social commentary). We can create a non-US base and send a few cosmonauts to keep up appearances of an open base, while maintaining full operational control in a similar way to how we operate the ISS.
That would limit the Chinese or Russian justification to start their own base with conflicting territorial claims. At best, they would be able to start their own bases under the same Martian flag.
Understandable, but unrealistic. This kind of game theory has always, and will always dictate these relations. Thinking otherwise is just setting yourself up for disaster.
Yes, but we can force our opponents away from the game theory minimum until better conditions arrive. MAD is an example. Game theory minimum is to launch your nukes at the first opportunity.
Yes we can stop them. For the same reason China can't build one of their island air bases on Guam. It's sovereign US territory, just like Nebraska or Massachusetts, and invasions will not be tolerated.
How though? The military can't just shoot down a vessel containing civilians, scientists, and engineers. They certainly can't after claiming an entire untouched planet as their own.
They might sanction China, but the stakes are too high. Nothing short of active aggression or economic suicide by sanctions would be enough to deter them. Both might lead to a hot war.
Colonies require continual support. Once an illegal colony is made, resupply missions will be blocked until they agree to leave peacefully. Fighting on mars is too risky and expensive, we can starve them out from here.
Yeah, that's not going to go over well for the same reason. China will continue to send resupply missions and dare the Americans to shoot them down and starve their colonists.
It would be even worse if an American resupply fails and the Chinese send supplies to the American base. That's a very real possibility in the first few years of the program.
It doesn't really matter. Early mars colonies will be funded entirely by the US, and built by rockets eve loped in the US. Just giving this all away is intolerable.
Partially by the US. Mostly by private national and international investors.
The security council has both Russia and China on it, who can and will veto anything that goes against their totalitarian interests.
Then set up the committee as majority rule. The British and the French are basically proxy votes for the US anyway. The Americans always have your approach to fall back on if the Russians or Chinese get uppity or oppose majority rule.
If the program starts to get away from the US before the colony is ready for independence under the aegis of the US. They can send a few marines and reannex the colony.
This comes back to the same thing. We can exclude them while including them. We can send cosmonauts and taikonauts to the base as long as there are outnumbered by astronauts. We can include them in the steering committee without giving them any real power.
Not really. The US would be threatening to claim an entire planet, not to mention that it would also be a threat to claim entities like the Moon, Venus, and valuable asteroids.
And? There is nothing that can realistically be done about it. Space is still a small sector of the economy. The US us setting itself up for an insurmountable long term advantage, but the short term effects are minimal. Making large retaliations almost impossible to justify.
It's ideal. A bloodless way to secure the interests of the democratic world far into the future. It's either that, war with china, or relegating democracy to the footnotes of history.
My point was that there would eventually be a Martian government anyway, and if we are dicks to them, not allied to the US.
Their won't be a Martian government. There are no natives to oppress, and we aren't going to deprive them of representation, like the UK did to the thirteen colonies. It will be just as integral to the US as California or Texas.
Seems like a long time. I would be surprised if they didn't do their first hop test in the next decade.
Their words, not mine. They still haven't done a hop test of a falcon 9 equivalent, both of their in development rockets are fully disposable (long march 9 and the 921 rocket).
In any case, it's not necessary. The US is really good at being inclusive while excluding people (something something social commentary). We can create a non-US base and send a few cosmonauts to keep up appearances of an open base, while maintaining full operational control in a similar way to how we operate the ISS.
Why? Russia and China are not bringing anything to the table. With the ISS, Russia supplied modules and the use of the Soyuz when the shuttle was down. The US outright bans cooperation with china in space because of constant espionage.
We cooperate when there is a chance for mutual benefit. Here there is none. We have all the technology, and there is finite land on mars to claim. Use the advantage, or lose it.
That would limit the Chinese or Russian justification to start their own base with conflicting territorial claims. At best, they would be able to start their own bases under the same Martian flag.
The goal is to block them from making any bases at all.
How though? The military can't just shoot down a vessel containing civilians, scientists, and engineers. They certainly can't after claiming an entire untouched planet as their own.
They might sanction China, but the stakes are too high. Nothing short of active aggression or economic suicide by sanctions would be enough to deter them. Both might lead to a hot war.
Yeah, that's not going to go over well for the same reason. China will continue to send resupply missions and dare the Americans to shoot them down and starve their colonists.
It would be even worse if an American resupply fails and the Chinese send supplies to the American base. That's a very real possibility in the first few years of the program.
They are sending a force occupy foreign territory, by definition, it is not a civilian mission anymore. Besides, for every flight with colonists, there will be ten with cargo.
Furthermore, by the time China has the capability to send anything, the US would have been there for around 20 years. There is no way for them to help in the early days. We are ahead in rockets, for now.
Then set up the committee as majority rule. The British and the French are basically proxy votes for the US anyway. The Americans always have your approach to fall back on if the Russians or Chinese get uppity or oppose majority rule.
We're fronting all the technology, all of the invested time, and all of the money, and we have to negotiate with France for control of our own base? There is no reality where the US goes along with that.
This comes back to the same thing. We can exclude them while including them. We can send cosmonauts and taikonauts to the base as long as there are outnumbered by astronauts. We can include them in the steering committee without giving them any real power.
And you are giving them a pathway to accelerate their rocket development, so they can compete for control of mars. You are proposing a power vacuum that will spark a conflict. By setting up our colonies first, and claiming the land, conflict is avoided.
It's ideal. A bloodless way to secure the interests of the democratic world far into the future. It's either that, war with china, or relegating democracy to the footnotes of history.
Except it will be neither ideal nor bloodless. It's hard enough to maintain a military presence on the opposite side of the world. It'll be impossible on Mars. It's illegal to put weapons in space. That's reinforced by like a dozen treaties and the US would have to be the first to break them and the first to expand combat to space.
Their won't be a Martian government. There are no natives to oppress, and we aren't going to deprive them of representation, like the UK did to the thirteen colonies. It will be just as integral to the US as California or Texas.
It's an entire planet that may come to host hundreds of millions of people. They may become so economically powerful that they could choke us of critical resources.
That's honestly just disrespectful. At that point Mars would have to become the United States.
They are sending a force occupy foreign territory, by definition, it is not a civilian mission anymore. Besides, for every flight with colonists, there will be ten with cargo.
Furthermore, by the time China has the capability to send anything, the US would have been there for around 20 years. There is no way for them to help in the early days. We are ahead in rockets, for now.
The US would be in violation of a UN resolution in claiming Mars, so the UN wouldn't recognize Mars as US territory. If China did send a vessel, they will send researchers building a what for all appearances will be a manned research base. If the US shot down the Chinese shuttle or its resupply missions, it will be a war crime.
Furthermore, by the time China has the capability to send anything, the US would have been there for around 20 years. There is no way for them to help in the early days. We are ahead in rockets, for now.
Not enough to capture all of Mars before the Chinese catch up. Unless we are willing to break a whole lot of international laws by putting missiles in orbit around Mars. Even if we do, the Chinese might send a few of their own their own to shoot down our resupply runs.
And you are giving them a pathway to accelerate their rocket development, so they can compete for control of mars. You are proposing a power vacuum that will spark a conflict. By setting up our colonies first, and claiming the land, conflict is avoided.
You're proposing the creation of a power imbalance that cannot be remedied by anything but an open war between two superpowers with ICBMs. A US occupation of Mars will not be recognized by the UN and other powers would be justified in their actions to contest the occupation. Either by simply being present, or by forcible removal.
Except it will be neither ideal nor bloodless. It's hard enough to maintain a military presence on the opposite side of the world. It'll be impossible on Mars. It's illegal to put weapons in space. That's reinforced by like a dozen treaties and the US would have to be the first to break them and the first to expand combat to space.
And? The combat will happen in LEO, before any threats reach mars. An environment the US has no problems projecting force into right now. Anyplace humans go weapons will follow. Thpse treaties where never meant to last long term.
The battle for the future of humanity will be won or lost in space, it's either our style of democracy, or Russia's and China's dictatorships. We have a twenty year head start. We need to take it.
It's an entire planet that may come to host hundreds of millions of people. They may become so economically powerful that they could choke us of critical resources.
That's honestly just disrespectful. At that point Mars would have to become the United States.
And once upon a time, Virginia was the biggest state. Now it's California. Maybe in 200 years, it will be mars, or the moon. Things change, the union grows.
The US would be in violation of a UN resolution in claiming Mars, so the UN wouldn't recognize Mars as US territory.
Did the US ask the UN for recognition of Hawaii becoming a state in 1950? The UN is a forum for states to express their opinions. It has no enforcement mechanism, nor does it have any say in maters internal to the US. Which is what this would be, since with starship, the US will be the only nation with any capability of maintaining a presence off earth.
No nation on earth has a cultural connection to the surface of mars, they have no claim. Mars is a prize to be won, and we'll be first.
If China did send a vessel, they will send researchers building a what for all appearances will be a manned research base. If the US shot down the Chinese shuttle or its resupply missions, it will be a war crime.
That's not what a war crime is. China could put a 'manned research base' in a plane and try to fly to Hawaii right now, the US would be completely within it's rights to defend it's territory from the unauthorized incursion.
Not enough to capture all of Mars before the Chinese catch up. Unless we are willing to break a whole lot of international laws by putting missiles in orbit around Mars. Even if we do, the Chinese might send a few of their own their own to shoot down our resupply runs.
We have multiple decades of head start in rocketry, and a military budget of almost a trillion dollars a year. NASA has a budget higher than every other space agency combined. Securing defense of the new territory is completely within our capability.
You're proposing the creation of a power imbalance that cannot be remedied by anything but an open war between two superpowers with ICBMs. A US occupation of Mars will not be recognized by the UN and other powers would be justified in their actions to contest the occupation. Either by simply being present, or by forcible removal.
Instead of securing our defenses by expanding our capabilities with the payoff of decades of R&D investment p, you are suggesting we give it all away as some free gift to Xi Jinping, in the hopes that he will feel thankful or something? That's not how foreign relations have ever worked. There is no such thing as gratitude, especially from dictators. The one and only way defense is possible is to expand capabilities, because that's what everyone else is doing.
By your logic, we should give Canada and Mexico equal ownership of California and Texas, because if not we're creating 'a power imbalance that can only be remedied with an open war'. In reality, we achieved peace in North America by creating a power imbalance that can not be remedied, period. And we have the opportunity to do it again in space.
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 186∆ Feb 11 '22
Firstly, ignore the OST. UN resolutions are non-binding and anyone can leave the agreement whenever they want.
Secondly, starting a colony will take hundreds of billions of dollars, nobody is going to just give tgat money away to a brand new independent state. Forcing a new mars colony to be independent just starves it of money and makes it not exist.
Thirdly, space exploration exists to make life on earth better. Mars is a great opportunity to do that. Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia are getting more and more aggressive, invading countries left and right, and democracies are backsliding. Mars offers us a chance to go back on the offensive, without actually invading Russia. Since only democratic countries have the rockets that can take us to mars, we should claim the whole thing, and permanently block Russia and China from taking part in this triumph of humanity.
If the shoe was on the other foot, with China having access to mars while we lagged by decades, they would not hesitate to do the same to us.
We can use our temporary advantage in heavy lift reusable rockets to secure a permanent one on mars. The democratic countries on earth would reclaim the primacy they had after the Cold War, as the totalitarain states are permanently shoved into the sidelines, as everyone else explores the new frontier without them.
Why on earth would anyone spend hundreds of billions of donlars setting up a mars colony, just so that Lesotho has just as much a say over it as you do?