I am posting this in Great Debates, because I believe this should be considered an issue of critical importance. And heck, perhaps we can debate it here.
What level of strategic and military importance is a base on the moon?
I believe a base on the moon is of enormous strategic and military importance. If I were the leader of a wannabe super power such as China or Russia, then I would set aside 20 Billion Dollars and establish a base on the moon. Then I would secretly work to make this base capable of mining and releasing from the Moon’s gravity large pieces of moon rock. Perhaps, I could find a way to justify this action as a “mining operation”, but I would also then be in a very significant military high ground atop the gravity well between the Earth and the moon.
Dropping big rocks on military locations on Earth can be as powerful as nuclear weapons, yet without radiation danger, making it a very clean weapon.
I don’t know if $20 Billion is enough to do it, but what value would you place on being the only country on Earth capable of dropping a virtually infinite number of “clean nuclear warheads” anywhere on Earth? If you consider an arsenal of genuine Nuclear warheads which you could never ever actually use of value, then an arsenal of the equivalent moon rocks that are actually useable should have enormous value.
We might compile a list of countries that could possibly put a base on the moon if they set their sights on it.
I did a quick check of Iran and their total military budget in 2005 was around 6.4 Billion. I bet the Saudi’s could do it with a budget of 31 Billion dollars. Saudi Defense Budget
You can drop rocks from orbit much more cheaply and effectively. See Brilliant Pebbles. The amount of equipment you’d have to get to the moon to do the same thing would be ridiculous.
And $20 billion dollars? It cost more than that in 1969 dollars to put a dozen men on the moon for less than a week each. A permanent base would be orders of magnitude more expensive.
Would Russia, China or the US ever really drop a rock on a country without things being so bad they’d nuke 'em anyway? If one of the nuclear powers saw a rock headed their way, couldn’t they retaliate with nukes before the rock hit?
Launching a rock from the moon and having it hit the earth with any accuracy seems like quite a feat. Didn’t we try to control Skylab’s reentry? Parts of it ended up all over western Australia.
Strategically, I see a moon base as having more of a prestige value, as well as whatever science we learn getting people to survive out there. I can’t see much military advantage except it will force the big players to spend a lot of money. That’s part of the game too though.
I believe quite the opposite. It is of no importance whatsoever. What the heck good is a base on the Moon? What do you get from it? Control of the solar system’s supply of rock and dust?
Try “trillion.”
How, precisely, would such a plan - an industrial enterprise greater in scope and cost than everything else in the world combined - be kept a secret? And wouldn’t your Moon base be rather easy to destroy with nuclear weapons?
It would be quite a lot easier to just get big rocks off the Earth and rocket THEM into space, anyway.
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that no future accounts of geopolitical conflict between currently existing nations will include the phrase: “Then, they attacked from the Moon.”
I think it’s worth considering the possibility that, if any country actually does muster the financial ability, national drive, and technical skill to colonize the Moon and construct a gigantic mass driver to menace Earth, maybe they are the people who ought to be in charge anyway.
Ok…I seem to be defending my side of this debate all by my lonesome.
A few different points have come up here:
[ol]
[li]How much would it cost for a country like say…China or Saudi Arabia to establish a permanent colony on the moon, and then build launch mechanism and mining operation on the Moon? I suggest 20 Billion, we had a vote for 1 Trillion, and another vote for “greater in scope and cost than everything else in the world combined.” I think that last estimate/guess is a bit high.[/li]
Anyways, I have two comments about cost: 1) I don’t think it will cost as much as everyone is saying… 2) If the strategic or perhaps even psychological advantage of a base on the moon is high enough, who cares what it costs. If Saudi Arabia could leap frog to become considered a world super power capable of dropping an infinite number of multimegaton rocks on any location on Earth…they might just buy that for a Trillion dollars.
[li]if any country actually does muster the financial ability, national drive, and technical skill to colonize the Moon and construct a gigantic mass driver to menace Earth, maybe they are the people who ought to be in charge anyway. I think this argument was a joke. Just because a country proves itself more technically able, doesn’t mean they are nice guys we’d like to pledge allegiance too.[/li][li]What is the military and strategic value of a moon base? The value is roughly the same as having an infinite number of Intercontinental ballistic missiles- with the added bonus of having no radiation danger if they were ever actually used.[/li][li]A moon base would be vulnerable to attack with Nuclear weapons from Earth. All things are vulnerable to attack with Nuclear weapons. The point of an advantageous military position is that you could destroy a heck of a lot more of the enemy before they destroy your position. A well designed moon base could do unimaginable damage if threatened. Part of the point of such a strong strategic position is that it would never be threatened.[/li][li]It would be hard to hit targets on Earth with moon launched rocks I don’t think it would be that hard. This is just a little physics problem.[/li][li]Couldn’t a nuclear power retaliate with Nukes before the rocks hit? Sure they could. But part of the purpose is not to actually have to use your infinite supply of rocks in a war. It is simply to put your country in a position of power. Staring up a huge gravity well with 1000 nuclear weapons while 4000 equivalently powerful boulders lay perched above you…is an uncomfortable negotiating position. If Iran were smart, it would start climbing the cliffs to get itself on the Moon before the USA. Forget nuclear weapons, go park on the Moon.[/li][li]the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Thank you BrainGlutton. Treaty Shmeaty.[/li][/ol]
Sure, but (1) you have to get a staggering amount of material from Earth to the moon before you can throw your first moon rock, whereas to throw a rock from Earth orbit, you just have to get that rock into orbit, (2) a rock thrown from orbit is just as good as one thrown from the moon, in terms of KE.
Defend that last sentence. The only moon program that ever existed, Apollo, cost $20 billion in 1969 dollars, $135 billion in 2005 dollars. That was to send a dozen men to the moon for less than a week each. You’d have to send hundreds of tons of material to the moon to set up a permanent base, as well as routine supply missions. I think a trillion is way low for a moonbase. Maybe $20 trillion.
[quote=ready29003]
2) If the strategic or perhaps even psychological advantage of a base on the moon is high enough, who cares what it costs. If Saudi Arabia could leap frog to become considered a world super power capable of dropping an infinite number of multimegaton rocks on any location on Earth…they might just buy that for a Trillion dollars.
But who’s got that hanging around? The strategic & psychological advantage of owning a 100 ft yacht is extremely high to me, but I simply don’t have the money to pay for one, even if I sell everything I own, borrow everything I can, sell my children to the circus, etc. We’re talking money that just doesn’t exist within most countries.
I’m trying to figure out if Stranger on a Train just hasn’t seen this thread yet, or is still in apoplexy from reading it…
[QUOTE=ready29003]
[li]if any country actually does muster the financial ability, national drive, and technical skill to colonize the Moon and construct a gigantic mass driver to menace Earth, maybe they are the people who ought to be in charge anyway. I think this argument was a joke. Just because a country proves itself more technically able, doesn’t mean they are nice guys we’d like to pledge allegiance too.[/li][/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, it was kind of a joke. Seriously, I think the Chinese could likely construct a moonbase if they really wanted to. But they couldn’t do it quickly, or in secret; in fact it would surely be the least secret feat of engineering in history, even including the Great Wall, because it would require launching an assload of rockets to the Moon.
So we’d have plenty of time to put up our own moonbase in response, were we so inclined. And while building a moonbase with a weapon powerful enough to menace the Earth would probably be crazy expensive, I daresay that building a moonbase with weapons powerful enough to destroy another moonbase would be significantly less expensive. So instead of a single doomsday weapon to rule them all and bind them, the result would just be another arms race on the Moon. Which makes the whole enterprise seem kind of pointless from the get-go.
Although if one does need to have an arms race, I must say that the Moon is a greatly preferable location.
