galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

Don't misrepresent their narrative. They never said it was a special military operation or anything short of a war. They were very clear that they were decorating war on Hamas and anything short of a complete Hamas surrender was inadequate. They have not decorated from this.

Why is it that in your world NASA and the military are in no way linked? I've worked in defense procurement. Literally every time you mention defense procurement the core technologies were developed through NASA contracts and proof of concepts.

The reason I'm not sending you proof is because you aren't worth the time. These things are a matter of public record. You are so far off base that there is literally nothing I can send you that will pull your head out of the sand.

Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.

https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Miller_RANGE_Kickoff_2014.pdf

That's not to mention the solar technologies developed by NASA to power the things.

The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.

I'm referencing modern insulation, not spray foam. Additionally, NASA and it's prior organization was founded to develop aerospace technologies like spray foam. It literally counts as well.

The CO2 saved through the technologies required at scale will be worth a lot more CO2.

I'm glad you mentioned the military technologies because it is still relevant as we pivot to counter China in space. NASA is a significant part of that not only in industrial scale but also technologies critical to intelligence.

The insulation tech developed by the original NASA program is used in every household in the western world. The current electrification effort wouldn't be close to possible without the original Apollo and Mercury programs and the advancements required to go to the moon and Mars in the current effort will enable not only the development of an industrial base to support the rapid roll out of green improvements but make it more economical for the market.

It's a win win for anyone regardless of left right politics in the end. Not only the above, in the current political climate, what programs are you suggesting would do the same? Are they funded? Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.

Do you disagree concerning what would motivate you or the average person in the world? I'm answering based on the latter.

Unironically yes, I do believe that. Space exploration is a worthy endeavor in and of itself and takes up a fraction of the budget.

That's actually the point. Nobody agrees that potato=ottoman but if enough people agree on a meaning it starts to become the meaning or at least a partial meaning. Maybe the point is moot with you but I get the feeling you wouldn't understand the joke.

That's called a private plane these days and it costs the equivalent.

If enough people agree, yes.

It's unpopular outside of this platform. It's unpopular for a reason. Conspiracies do well here as well.

I think the MIC holds less pull than people think. Lobbying also doesn't work like most people think. It's more like targeted PR.

Idiots like them suddenly have a reason to get involved in your life for all the reasons above. Suddenly you are in discussions regarding tobacco and other drugs costing everyone money. You don't exercise? That means you are less of a citizen. This is very much why this would not be a good federal program.

Star Trek is post scarcity. It is more evolved than your politics.

Oppressive was the word you were looking for.

Is it really that inconceivable to you that a blockaid had a military purpose? Were all the blockaids in history considered genocide?

You cannot prove a negative and it is really hard to prove intent. You both disagree on the intent. All he has to do is show military purpose. Your burden of proof is much higher.

Time is a progression. I hope we've gotten smarter but we still do often fall for the same tricks.

(Abstract narrative that everyone can agree with without agreeing what tricks we're all falling victim to.)

The most likely scenario is an action that causes the majority of the military to rebel such as what happened in Syria. That's partially why the military swears an oath to the Constitution and not the standing government.

For that to happen you need an inciting incident that is at least perceived to be against the Constitution by the majority of the military including a significant portion of the top brass.

We almost got there with all the January 6th shenanigans but the inciting incident involved the military sitting down and not listening to the Executive branch's unethical orders.

Not everyone wants to be responsible for every aspect of their lives. Can I assume you don't want to participate in your own food production or waste disposal? Specialization of labor is an important component in this which most respectable leftist texts will at least attempt to answer, even if they cannot solve it without centralization of economic planning.