Hacker News Reader

How many of the 90m people who died in the world wars would have gone on to have amazing scientific careers? I can name a few. The idea that war is the best way to fund science is reprehensible.

And now to your last paragraph: "Proper commercialization" ... The he US represents 5% of humanity. All this argument just expresses hubris and the will to use weapons to enforce it. China and India are no Europe. They will play by their own rules. And that implies hot war.

Talking to each other and collaboration is the way of a civilized humanity. A pre-emptive creation of a military branch is not.

The downsides are millions of dead people. There is never a "net positive" situation here.

Si vis pacem, para bellum [1] or "If you want peace, prepare for war".

Yes, there are many downsides to war, those millions of dead people you mention amongst them. The thing is, just because you have decided the downsides of war - millions of dead etc - do not weigh up to the potential upsides does not mean your neighbour thinks the same. Eventually you'll get a neighbour who sees you as ripe for the picking, unprepared for war as you are. Some people might die, sure, you being one of them, but in this neighbour's eye the trade-off is worth it.

Humans are a belligerent species. Just wishing for this not to be the case does not make it so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem%2C_para_bellum

On the one hand millions vastly underestimates the possible death toll.

On the other hand kinetic bombardment is much better than than nuclear exchanges for the people left alive and makes nuclear weapons pretty close to obsolete.

The long term effects... Yes. Short term ... No benefits I guess.

Ok but then if one country doesn’t do this then another will.

It’s like nuclear weapons.

You cannot reverse or stop technology from progressing and you can’t stop governments from using that technology to build weapons.

How many wars did it take for humans to adopt a different “steady state”? And even now it’s not a real steady state.

Maybe we have more lessons (I.e mistakes) to learn from in space where billions die. Hopefully not. Hopefully we let the 20th century continue to instruct us.

I keep hoping the world leaders will "become adults" and find a way to stop fighting/killing each other.

Meanwhile world leaders spend well over $1 trillion a year on their militaries. What else could we do with that much money?

If anything, armed conflict in space will likely play out with autonomous and remotely controlled weaponry and might as well be death-less.

There’s absolutely no reason to launch humans to space for the purpose of operating space-based machinery.

There is no purpose in death-less war. War is about killing humans beings till the other side accepts your conditions.

The current us space force has the sole purpose of supporting ground wars. And when they start battling in space in a hundred year, they will nuke planets or throw rocks on them.

> The other upside, is that if the US achieves space superiority (which it already has)

Why do you think the US has space superiority? Currently the US has no capability to send humans into space, we use the Russian Soyuz program for this.

I'd rather take 100 years for tech to develop slowly than have it next year for the price of war.

> The US will be able to enforce space trade law, customs law, private property in space will be made possible. This will enable companies like SpaceX to have a proper legal framework within which to operate.

Even if you don’t believe current President is incompetent, don’t rule out a future one you might hate. If such a force existed, you can be sure it will be used for evil and for extracting favors for private entities eventually. These things are never done for the good of the regular people. SpaceX doesn’t have a lawful society to operate in already?