OT: Galactic sterilisation

Fyron · #1 January 6th, 2004, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JurijD:

quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
May be they are waiting that our specie don't produce anymore the Saddam/Hitler type anymore to consider us as sentient ?

Your surely mean Bush/Blair right?

That is ridiculous, and partisan politics at its finest. Waging one small scale war (relative to the size/power of the country waging it) is NOTHING compared to what Saddam and Hitler did. What they did is not good, but certainly there is no valid basis of comparison with Saddam or Hitler.

spoon · #2 January 6th, 2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JurijD:
...these events are frequent enough to sterilise entire regions of the galaxy in short enough time scales to really make it improbable for advanced lifeforms to develop often. ... so I guess we're pretty lucky

Why do I get the sinking sensation that a black-hole has just formed nearby?

JurijD · #3 January 6th, 2004, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Waging one small scale war (relative to the size/power of the country waging it) is NOTHING compared to what Saddam and Hitler did. What they did is not good, but certainly there is no valid basis of comparison with Saddam or Hitler.

I beg to differ. Are 50.000 Iraqi lives less a value compared to 6.000.000 jews or 50.000 Kurds?
Either one is commited to peace or one isn't. How many people a stupid leader (like Hitler or Bush or Saddam) kills really isn't up to him/her but is decided by other influences at the time.

Sinapus · #4 January 6th, 2004, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JurijD:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Waging one small scale war (relative to the size/power of the country waging it) is NOTHING compared to what Saddam and Hitler did. What they did is not good, but certainly there is no valid basis of comparison with Saddam or Hitler.

I beg to differ. Are 50.000 Iraqi lives less a value compared to 6.000.000 jews or 50.000 Kurds?
Either one is commited to peace or one isn't. How many people a stupid leader (like Hitler or Bush or Saddam) kills really isn't up to him/her but is decided by other influences at the time.

So we should give France back to the Germans with profuse apologies and reparations for that day/night strategic bombing campaign?

I mean they were rude to use an army to take it over, but to your logic we had no right to use an army to take it back and instead should have "committed to peace" and simply used stern language to reprove Hitler for his deeds...

Fyron · #5 January 6th, 2004, 07:56 PM

JurijD... the loss of life in this war is nothing compared to the amount of blood on Saddam's hands, or to the amount of blood that would have been added in the future. Stern words with Saddam have failed for 8 years. Stern words with Hitler failed. Appeasement to tyrants is proven to be a BAD (strike that, horrendous) idea, by the events leading up to WWII and the war itself. We should learn from history so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Regardless of whether the war was "right" or not, you can not argue with the fact that with Saddam out of power, Iraq will become a better place. War is sometimes a necessary evil so that greater peace may be possible. You also can not argue with the fact that every nation that the US has knocked down and then rebuilt has become a rather successful, peaceful nation. Japan? Germany? Our worst enemies in WWII, yet allies and trading partners nowadays? It is only when nations are "rebuilt" by the UN that they have failed (not in all cases, but in some). Or when the Soviets or European colonial powers got involved... East Germany? Nearly every nation in Africa? Many in southern Asia? India? Well, India is (slowly) progressing, but it is still on the whole a very impoverished nation. Now, why does the US do this? Is it because we are nice and want to help people? Probably not. More likely it is because it is more profitable (and much safer) to build them up as friends and trade with them than it is to subjugate them. I'll take US imperialism over European imperialism any day. Iraq will (hopefully) be no exception.

JurijD · #6 January 6th, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oleg:
Even if these calculationa are correct, you underestimate the effect of 100 LY. Simple calculation reveals 10^30 attenuation factor. At worst it will be like radiation 1000 km away from the bomb. Extensive hydrogen bomb tests in 50s and 60s proved that there is nothing to fear

Besides, the time duration odf star collapes is surely much longer than H-bomb explosion and the _intensity_ of the radiation will be very small indeed.

You are so wrong Oleg... As I said they calculated that the intensity of the radiation over a couple hundred light years will be enough to kill us. I didn't underestimate the distances and neither did they. You on the other hand seem to have underestimated the ammount of gamma radiation that is released when all the outer material of a star if transormed into pure energy...

And u obviously didn't do those simple calculations you mentioned either. Lets assume this:

1. at a distance of 10km from the center of an explosion of an H-bomb the radiation IS LETHAL (we can all agree to that).

2. Lets say that the density of radiation comming from that H-bomb explosion at 10km distance is J1 = P/S1 (J1 being the density, S1 the surface area of a sphere at 1km and P the power output of the bomb)

3. At a distance of 100 Light years from the H-bomb the Density of radiation would therefore be J2=P/S2 where S2 is the surface of the radiation sphere at (9,4608*10^14 km = 100 light years)

As J2*S2=J1*S1, J2=J1*S1/S2, J2=J1*R1^2/R2^2
R1=10km
R2=9,4608*10^14 km

J2 is about 10^28th smaller than J1. that means that if we had an explosion 10^27 biggeer than that H-bomb we postulated could kill us at 10km, our dosage at 100 light years would be something like 10% of the dosage we get standing 10km from an H-bomb explosion.

To put it another way... if a back hole goes off somewhere in the distance of 100 light years we get the same ammout of radiation as if we were standing 30km from the center of a H-bomb explosion. (do the math yourself if you want).

And we musn't forget that these explosions don't stop in a few hours or days but can Last up to several decades or even more... The cumulative effect of that kind of radiation on the biosphere over so long would be devastating to say the least. And I was calculating for 100 light years... the systems at less than 50 or so would get totally fried anyway.

JurijD · #7 January 6th, 2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sinapus:
So we should give France back to the Germans with profuse apologies and reparations for that day/night strategic bombing campaign?

I mean they were rude to use an army to take it over, but to your logic we had no right to use an army to take it back and instead should have "committed to peace" and simply used stern language to reprove Hitler for his deeds...

No France belongs to the French ... but an appology for the hundreds of thousands of women and children that were killed by the fire bombs in Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin etc. would be appropriate much the same way as the german administration apologized for bombing London and killing all those civilians.

But you prolly didn't learn about this side of teh conflict Sinapus... In war there are no bad guys and good guys, there are only soldiers each fighting for what they thing is a just cause... and whoever wins gets to decide who's cause was realy just.