It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Russia beat us?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I personally think that russia has a chance to pull it of
especially when Bush plans the Mars mission for 2033
But there are many "if"s
if Putin stays on top
if money isn't a problem
well they have the tech to do it sothere is no if here
but if there has to be an effort , like that of the
energia/buran project, to make it on time than russia
has no chance ( however that isn't very likely )............




posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
as do the europeans. they planned a landing between 2030 and 2035.
www.esa.int...



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
THIS IS GREAT! THE SPACE RACE IS BACK ON! What will we discover? Where will we go? This is great great great!



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
THIS IS GREAT! THE SPACE RACE IS BACK ON! What will we discover? Where will we go? This is great great great!


It is indeed great.

As I mentioned a couple of times.

Races and wars are the period in which humans advance the most.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Yep I agree, not about wars, not really into all that, but technology race can't be too bad... of course they'll make new types of weapons "just in case" I hope I can go to space before I die.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
Yep I agree, not about wars


If you look at WW1 and WW2 you will see that they brought the most tech advancements.

Also Cold War really brought in alot of advancements.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
You reach a morale dilemma when you start to wonder what 100 million lives buys us technologically.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
You reach a morale dilemma when you start to wonder what 100 million lives buys us technologically.


Where did you get the 100 million from?

If that is the WW1&2 causilty cost well then all I got to say is everything has its price.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I agree. 100 million death is horrifiying.

But thats okay, people don't care, because thats in the past. They didn't have to endure it.

it's only a 100 million...



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I'm not talking past. I'm talking future.

I mean, would it be sensible for 100 million lives plus to be lost, in order to gain, say, superluminal speed? Quantum computing? A full, working base on mars?
Clean, near limitless energy? When you say yes, think about a billion lives. Is that too much?

For a fair bit of my life, I really wanted a major war, just because of what it could create. I've hated myself for it, but is it reasonable to sacifice that many people in a war to achieve such new heights?



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
If the world lost that many people, and we advanced well beyond where we are now, it'd be worth it.

But, we would have to be certain that we could ascertain new technologies that would benefit mankind.



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
I'm not talking past. I'm talking future.

I mean, would it be sensible for 100 million lives plus to be lost, in order to gain, say, superluminal speed? Quantum computing? A full, working base on mars?
Clean, near limitless energy? When you say yes, think about a billion lives. Is that too much?

For a fair bit of my life, I really wanted a major war, just because of what it could create. I've hated myself for it, but is it reasonable to sacifice that many people in a war to achieve such new heights?


100 million is a big number but would you want humans get stuck in one place?

With cancer, aids, etc?

To make the world better and humans more intelligent I think there is no price.

I understand some of you will now hate me or maybe ignore me but that is my opinion and I think its right.

Sorry but I am not one of your tipical peace freak.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Also in 100 million die to advance the world.

Then 100 million will survive because if the advancements.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by Viendin
I'm not talking past. I'm talking future.

I mean, would it be sensible for 100 million lives plus to be lost, in order to gain, say, superluminal speed? Quantum computing? A full, working base on mars?
Clean, near limitless energy? When you say yes, think about a billion lives. Is that too much?

For a fair bit of my life, I really wanted a major war, just because of what it could create. I've hated myself for it, but is it reasonable to sacifice that many people in a war to achieve such new heights?


100 million is a big number but would you want humans get stuck in one place?

With cancer, aids, etc?

To make the world better and humans more intelligent I think there is no price.

I understand some of you will now hate me or maybe ignore me but that is my opinion and I think its right.

Sorry but I am not one of your tipical peace freak.

Out,
Russian


Russian, I totally agree with your methodology. No cost is too great for human achievement.

[Edited on 18-1-2004 by TheConservative]



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheConservative


Russian, I totally agree with your methodology. No cost is too great for human achievement.



Thank you TheConservative.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
That is all well and good.

I believe in the same thing, but what I'm getting at here isn't whether a war had/would have a 'good' effect on humanity, I'm asking whether, in a hypothetical situation, we would be right to choose to murder 100 million people, no war, just kill them, if it was a 100% assured that a new technology found by the practice would save that many and more in the future. If yes to that, then 1 billion.

I'm asking if someone came up to you and showed you undeniable proof that by killing this many people, we would get this much advancement, so they have to put you and your family and friends, basically your neighbourhood, to death, would you agree?



posted on Jan, 18 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin


I'm asking if someone came up to you and showed you undeniable proof that by killing this many people, we would get this much advancement, so they have to put you and your family and friends, basically your neighbourhood, to death, would you agree?


If am asked to die then no.

But if I just die for some reason.

Or they kill me then its a different question.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   
wars are to ensure better future and no cost is too big for the future of our race(humans ) and intelligen life in the universe no war no peace ......I'm with you russian (you ARE a real russian)



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   


No cost is too great for human achievement.


Unless it's YOU, or YOUR loved one right? as long as it someone else I am sure you don't care, as long is its not directly affectining you, whats wrong with a few 100 million deaths...

Wars are manufactured for the most part and could be easily avoided.

Population Control? Now thats just sick.

And Russian you call yourself a Christian, yet you are saying a 100 million deaths, is an okay thing as long as we get some advaced technology out of it?

WWJD?

Well, I wouldn't know. If I told someone God was speaking to me they'd label me crazy anyways, just my 2 shekels!



posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Hmmm. I think there is a price too great for achievment. And remember, we aren't stagnant now, we're steadly advancing in our technology.

A technological race is a really good thing. It causes tech to advance 10 times as quickly as it did before the race. Granted durring these races against other nations, lives are lost (namely spies and sometimes the scientists), but no where on the lines of war.

If we lose 100 million lives in the name of technological advance, we will never know what those 100 million lives could have contributed. What if one of those is in a situation like Einstein was, but never gets out of the future Germany-like state? Technology would take a nose dive compared to what it could have been.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join