Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 01 2014, @12:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the who-will-blink-first dept.

Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has lashed out again, this time at newly announced US ban on high-tech exports to Russia suggesting that "after analyzing the sanctions against our space industry, I propose the US delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline." Rogozin does actually have a point, although his threats carry much less weight than he may hope. Russia is due to get a $457.9 million payment for its services soon and few believe that Russia would actually give it up.

Furthermore, as Jeffrey Kluger noted at Time Magazine, Russia may not want to push the United States into the hands of SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, two private American companies that hope to be able to send passengers to the station soon. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have already made successful unmanned resupply runs to the ISS and both are also working on upgrading their cargo vehicles to carry people. SpaceX is currently in the lead and expects to launch US astronauts, employed by SpaceX itself, into orbit by 2016. NASA is building its own heavy-lift rocket for carrying astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit, but it won't be ready for anything but test flights until after 2020. "That schedule, of course, could be accelerated considerably if Washington gave NASA the green light and the cash," says Kluger. "America's manned space program went from a standing start in 1961 to the surface of the moon in 1969-eight years from Al Shepard to Tranquility Base. The Soviet Union got us moving then. Perhaps Russia will do the same now."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday May 01 2014, @01:51AM

    by Tork (3914) on Thursday May 01 2014, @01:51AM (#38319)
    Do you really think we're really anywhere near nuclear wars with Russia right now?
    Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:03AM (#38322)

    Yep. It's unlikely, but if Russia ever invades the whole of Ukraine then there's a chance NATO armies will start fighting the Russian army, at which point bets are off. Two big ifs, but still, this is the first time in twenty three years there's been aggressive troop posturing in the West-East borderlands.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:54AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:54AM (#38334) Homepage

      Not to mention that Russia announced that they will use the Samson Option* [] if they are attacked.

      * Heard from an unconfirmed but credible-sounding source that the Samson Option is not indiscriminately launching Nukes everywhere, but using them against an aggressor only if they are losing a conventional war. The Samson Option is most often attributed to Israel, which may explain why Russia is now becoming more comfortable with bellicose rhetoric given that the United States and allies have set recent precedents for belligerence in the Middle-east

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:29AM

        by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:29AM (#38341)

        I don't think it matters really.

        No single country at the moment is living anywhere near sustainability. We only survive at the moment since their are resources we can obtain cheaper than normal through the abuse of other populations.

        If America shut down the borders tomorrow, we would be so deeply screwed.

        The coming wars are entirely inevitable and will be fought for control over ever scarcer resources for the purposes of energy production, farm products, and specific materials needed by industry to provide the technology we are currently using.

        It's inevitable due to the entrenched interests that really run government preventing any kind of technological solutions to our problem of sustainability. We could have switched over to something other than oil quite some time ago. No, it's not solar, but nuclear.

        All of the ecologically and economically viable solutions we can bring to bear, including nuclear, are prevented from becoming a reality for us and attaining the efficiency we need to support an American population that may top 500 million by 2050.

        I'd like to see just how civilized we will remain when we can no longer feed ourselves, tend to our own infrastructure, and the Bread and Circuses started to break down and we aren't so entertained in the sweltering heat and bitter cold (need energy for AC/Heat).

        There will be a time soon, and hopefully you and I will both be dead, when the children of the future we created will bitterly fight amongst themselves for the scraps that we take for granted now.

        At least until we fuck it up on a really spectacular level and kill 5 billion people within a few years and take some of the stress off the supplies. Some country will figure that out, and as terrible as it will be, will pull the trigger since the scientists will tell them the truth that India being emptied of a few billion, and China losing 80% of its population could give us a few more centuries of breathing room for technology to magically save the day. Even though the tech is here to day, and just enormously inconvenient for entrenched interests and economic systems.

        Add the predictions from the climate change people and I think war is pretty much a guarantee in the future.

        50/50 it will be nuclear and really prevent us from rising again to this level for a few thousand more years. Assuming life on the planet will still be supported at all.

        The real question is where and when will the leaders of the world pull the trigger to give benefit to those specific beneficiaries of war, and obtain more decisive control over markets that traditional corruption cannot provide to them.

        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday May 01 2014, @04:18AM

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday May 01 2014, @04:18AM (#38354) Homepage

          That's a thick load of horseshit. No wars are necessary. Pro-war people on any side are traitors and should be fed to the fire.

          Now that it's official that the United States are an oligarchy, we should focus on removing those who don't act in the best interests of the people common.

          Unfortunately, those people have a lot of pull -- which is why, as per The Art of War, you give them a way out, because an enemy that has the most to lose will inflict the most damage. And that they've lost touch with reality is obvious.

          • (Score: 1) by mrbluze on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:18AM

            by mrbluze (49) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:18AM (#38379) Journal

            Good words, but you won't read them in the mainstream press at the moment which suggests that wars, while brutal, keep us safe and rich. Just how debt makes us rich and slavery makes us free, and other absurdities. I hope we shake off these warmongers soon.

            Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
          • (Score: 2) by quadrox on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:24AM

            by quadrox (315) on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:24AM (#38410)

            He didn't say necessary, he said inevitable. There are some people/governments/financial stakeholder who can't leave well enough alone and must have more (control and money) at any cost. Eventually they will conflict so much that they will drag us all into a war, and unfortunately I don't see any sane way to stop this development.

    • (Score: 2) by Skarjak on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:49AM

      by Skarjak (730) on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:49AM (#38347)

      And that is precisely why NATO armies will not fight Russia.

    • (Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 02 2014, @11:17AM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday May 02 2014, @11:17AM (#38842)

      Why on Earth would Russia invade the whole of Ukraine?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:44AM

    by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday May 01 2014, @02:44AM (#38330)

    > Do you really think we're really anywhere near nuclear wars with Russia right now?

    You'll know the whitehouse is thinking about it when the primetime news starts calling Putin a "madman."

  • (Score: 1) by Boronx on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:30AM

    by Boronx (262) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:30AM (#38382)

    Because of the speed with which it would develop, we are always near nuclear war with Russia.

  • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday May 01 2014, @10:25AM

    by Geezer (511) on Thursday May 01 2014, @10:25AM (#38425)


    Putin has Obama et al pegged for the incompetent pussies they are. This gives him leverage, which he has every intention of using in his mission to re-constitute the USSR as a super-nationalistic state-capitalist monolith.

    The danger is when the bumblers in Washington and the Hague feel like they need to save their images by "standing up" to Putin.

    Regardless of whatever action the West may or may not take, escalation in a certainty. Neither side will be willing to "lose face".

    Pride doth indeed goeth before a fall.

    • (Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:20PM

      by NeoNormal (2516) on Thursday May 01 2014, @03:20PM (#38525)

      > Pride doth indeed goeth before a fall.

      Putin is the one demonstrating an excess of pride at the moment, IMO.

      The Sochi Olympics ceremonies were filled with "look at us and what we've done" moments. I'm not saying I don't have respect for the positives that Russia has contributed to the world, but they don't need to yell "look at me, look at me".