[HN Gopher] Carl Sagan, nuking the moon, and not nuking the moon
___________________________________________________________________
Carl Sagan, nuking the moon, and not nuking the moon
Author : freediver
Score : 84 points
Date : 2024-04-23 04:54 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (eukaryotewritesblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (eukaryotewritesblog.com)
| sethammons wrote:
| Obviously much smarter people than me were coming up with the
| reasons to not nuke the moon. I'm not convinced. Learning how the
| nuke acts in a vacuum is interesting science. Seeing it from
| Earth is something of a power play. Affecting the moon's natural
| radiation and potentially destroying some undiscovered life seems
| really unlikely to me. But again, I'm about the furthest thing
| from an expert. I'm shocked we've not nuked it "just because,"
| like the whales, you got to nuke somethin' (Simpson's reference;
| no, I don't support nuking whales, though, I'm pretty sure we
| have, and I think that is much worse than nuking the moon).
| Jerrrry wrote:
| The smartest people on the planet wanted to nuke the moon; it
| was a great idea.
|
| It wouldn't make the classic mushroom cloud - it would be a
| spectacular sphere of luminescence; and by far the most
| powerful display of power to had ever been accomplished by man.
|
| In fact, von Neumann, citing his infamous Chaos Theory, wanted
| to preemptively strike the USSR.
|
| It's the stuff we didn't do we don't want to come to light the
| most.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Indeed, it was less than half a decade later that Operation
| Fishbowl _[0]_ commenced, a series of high-altitude nuclear
| tests, and they were pretty awe-some displays.
|
| _0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl_
| retrac wrote:
| It would affect the Moon's natural radiation. It would vaporize
| plutonium and other isotopes and this would be attracted by the
| Moon's gravity and eventually settle as a powder all over the
| Moon. (We did it to the Earth already. You can't find anywhere
| on the planet without detectable plutonium in the air or
| water.) This is maybe now less of a concern, now that we have
| samples returned for background comparison.
|
| Blowing up the Moon would still be a very compelling scientific
| experiment. I can't think of a cheaper or easier way to get
| spectroscopy of a sample from below the surface. And aside from
| the fallout (literal and political) there's not much downside.
|
| Wikipedia has an article about the proposal:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119
| arethuza wrote:
| _" the flash of explosive light would have been faintly
| visible to people on Earth with their naked eye"_
|
| That makes it sound like one of the reasons for cancelling it
| would have been that it really wouldn't have been that
| impressive.
| eszed wrote:
| If you picked the right spot at the right time of the
| month, could you get a mushroom cloud in "profile"? That
| would look pretty cool, though maybe still not large enough
| to see with the naked eye. I don't have a good intuition of
| the scales involved.
|
| [Edit: Or, wait: a mushroom cloud depends on atmosphere,
| doesn't it? So... What would a blast-created cloud of dust
| look like in a vacuum? Just a cloud? Yeah, not so
| impressive a visual.]
| thfuran wrote:
| >This is maybe now less of a concern, now that we have
| samples returned for background comparison.
|
| As I understand it, the remaining Apollo samples are
| basically considered contaminated by earth now.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| On a galactic scale, I wonder what the average time is between a
| species evolving intelligence, mastering technology, then using
| that technology to wipe themselves out of existence?
|
| That's the most likely answer to the question, 'where are all the
| aliens?'
| Jerrrry wrote:
| It is one of the leading Late filters; that excellence in the
| species cannot compensate for the inefficiencies in extracting
| energy to continue existing; leading to environmental/social
| problems, inevitably leading to either environmental collapse,
| preventing space colonialism, or social collapse.
|
| Nuclear energy is a popular crux, but not needed per se.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzpYxedIe0
| snapcaster wrote:
| I'm not convinced it's a Fermi paradox solution. I'm not saying
| civilizations don't sometimes destroy themselves but
|
| a). the one civilization we know of didn't do it yet and
|
| b). doesn't this require something inherent to life for this to
| explain the fermi paradox? it seems like this just moves the
| question from "where are all the aliens" to "why does every
| civilization regardless of environment/planet/etc. ALWAYS
| destroy themselves" which doesn't seem like an easier question
| to answer?
| sethammons wrote:
| we've seen many, many cases of civilizations not making it.
| In the case of the Mayan Empire, it is looking like they
| killed off their civilization via climate change -- weather
| models show that the increased agriculture and removal of the
| surrounding jungle would have dropped annual rainfall,
| leading to the drop in water levels that we know happened in
| the cinotes (where they got all their water), leading to the
| collapse of the civilization (lost knowledge and culture). By
| the time Cortez arrived, nobody knew how to build nor
| maintain their megalithic structures.
|
| Now, total extinction of a civilization meaning all of a
| civilized species, maybe we saw that with neanderthals and
| other early hominids.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Yes, and if we do end this civilization it will be much
| harder to bootstrap the next one. The easily accessible
| coal and oil are gone.
| snapcaster wrote:
| True, I guess what I meant is that we didn't blow ourselves
| up during the Cold War. For something to be a Fermi Paradox
| solution it has to explain the _complete_ lack of life we
| see. Something being hard or requiring luck isn't enough
| due to the vastness of space. It would still occur
| countless times even if rare
| bluish29 wrote:
| > I guess what I meant is that we didn't blow ourselves
| up during the Cold War
|
| By being just lucky in many times. I imagine a scenario
| where one mistake happened and people took the wrong
| decision in one moment. It is not like if you repeated
| the cold war 1000 times you will end up fine in most of
| them. Lets remember that submarine in Cuban crisis, if
| this Soviet officer did not give his authentication we
| wouldn't get into that point. If you repeat the scenario
| with 1000 officers from this era, I wouldn't like our
| chances.
| snapcaster wrote:
| But the fermi paradox isn't about explaining why one
| specific civilization isn't present. It's about the
| _complete_ lack of alien life we observe. In the vast
| cosmos, there isn't any civilizations that have "got
| lucky" I don't see how this explanation addresses the
| core point
| bee_rider wrote:
| A suffers from survivorship bias, right? The civilization in
| which we exist can't have destroyed itself yet if we are to
| have made that observation.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Sure, but compared to what? I don't know what you would
| call the bias of "imaginging bad stuff happening in the
| future, and for some reason the bad stuff is inevitable
| regardless of planet, lifeform, etc."
| MeImCounting wrote:
| I am totally unconvinced by this whole "technology is a great
| filter" argument. First of all I have my doubts that, even at
| the height of the cold war, nuclear war would've extinctic all
| of humanity and nowadays with much less ordinance definitely
| not.
|
| Equally climate change is very unlikely to extinct all humans
| and dont even get me started on all the other "extinction
| risks" such as rogue AI or bioweapon because they are merely
| sci-fi and again would almost certainly not get _everyone_.
|
| We definitely dont have a convincing solution to the fermi
| paradox and if we did it would certainly not be so trite and
| silly of an idea as "technology kills"
| georgeecollins wrote:
| It doesn't have to kill everyone, just destroy the
| technological society and that would solve Fermi's paradox.
| Think about the things our technological society consumes,
| particularly petroleum. There's no way there is enough of it
| to last a thousand years (a blip on a cosmological time
| scale). We have no way of feeding our current population
| without fossil fuels for fertilizer. Maybe that ends in a
| technological transition to something else, or a social
| transition to something sustainable. Maybe. There aren't a
| lot of data points.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| I was hoping someone would bring up the technological
| aspect of a collapse of modern society and then regrowth.
| There are two major issues with humans post-collapse being
| able to create a technological society and these are lack
| of fossil fuels and surface deposits of metals being used
| up. Both of these work together to make an industrial
| evolution type event very difficult and perhaps impossible.
|
| I would wager that there is a different type of
| technological path requiring less fossil fuels and less
| surface metals. I dont have any data to support this belief
| obviously but I do believe that given enough time a human
| society could develop technology to enable space
| colonization without the jumpstart of an industrial
| revolution. This would look like slow generational
| iteration as opposed to explosive _revolution_ and
| therefore would be more sustainable IMO.
| kortilla wrote:
| Metals wouldn't be a problem. The metals we already mined
| will be all over the place in the form of abandoned junk
| from before the collapse
| eszed wrote:
| Iron is arguably the most important, and also degrades -
| past, as I understand it, the point at which it can be
| recovered by low-tech processes. The longer it takes to
| bootstrap a second industrial revolution the harder it
| would become.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Yeah this is the issue with metals and likely the largest
| barrier to a post collapse society. Likely ironworking
| would end up looking like pre-industrial japan where iron
| was _very_ _extremely_ valuable and of relatively low
| quality compared to the west due to the problems with
| smelting it from iron sands.
|
| This is why I propose long term technological advancement
| without a second industrial revolution.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Surely any post-collapse society could just mine the
| cities for metals. And presumably with a much reduced
| population there would be plenty of arable land for
| growing oil bearing crops obviating the need for most
| fossil fuels.
| ramblenode wrote:
| It's disputed whether even modern ethanol production is
| energy-positive. But trying to start an entire biofuels
| production chain from scratch would certainly not be net
| positive, as you would need to already have mechanized
| agriculture and a petrochemical industry to get that
| efficiency.
|
| Coal liquefaction would probably be superior to biofuels,
| as it seems we will give up using it before it is
| depleted.
| vkou wrote:
| Green fertiliser can be produced at ~3x the cost of
| petroleum-based fertilizers.
|
| Nobody does it because it's uneconomical as long as oil is
| cheap.
|
| Climate change will ruin food production, not global
| fertilizer shortages.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| I agree that civilizations (including humans) are unlikely to
| completely wipe themselves out, but it is not at all certain
| that we could recover to our present technology after a
| cataclysmic event.
|
| Once we mine out all easily accessible fossil fuels, we'll
| cross a certain point of no return. After that point, a 19th
| century type industrial revolution will no longer be (easily)
| possible. Let's say a truly cataclysmic war happens and we
| just lose access to modern technology. Would we be able to
| regain it at some point? Could we rebuild a modern
| civilization without having access to the most energy dense
| and convenient fuel known to us even today?
|
| Sure, we wouldn't go extinct, but if we are no longer able to
| travel beyond our own planet, we may as well have filtered
| ourselves out from the galactic stage.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I do believe there
| is a technological path requiring less fossil fuels and
| less easily accessible surface metals that would allow
| humans to achieve high technology and do the whole space
| colonization thing without an industrial revolution. It
| would take an order of magnitude or two longer and would be
| iterative and generational as opposed to explosive and
| revolutionary and might be more sustainable for it.
| Obviously I have no data to support this but its my
| intuition that its possible and perhaps even common for
| other life in the galaxy
| masswerk wrote:
| While I also think that this is unrelated to the Fermi
| paradox, the global threat and real impact of a nuclear
| exchange wouldn't be direct impact, but the ecological crisis
| of a nuclear winter.
| rurp wrote:
| A full scale nuclear war and the resulting fallout would be
| unimagineably devastating. Whether that kills 100% of humans
| or only 99.99% doesn't really matter. The natural world we
| rely on would be obliterated along with us. There would be no
| remaining governments or modern technology. Rebuilding an
| advanced society in a post apocalyptic wasteland would take
| an incredibly long time, if it's even possible.
|
| Even then, the question would be "Should we?". If our current
| society ends by violently destroying virtually all life on
| the planet it will have been the biggest failure of a culture
| in history by a huge margin. Any survivors might very well
| develop some incredibly strong prohibitions against unchecked
| technological change.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| As usual with the filters, the problem always is that the
| filter has to be so significant that it's essentially
| guaranteed to happen. Else the galaxy should still be full of
| aliens. We seem to keep scraping by with close calls, so it
| doesn't seem all that guaranteed that a technological
| civilization wipes itself out before it can establish itself
| among the stars.
| kortilla wrote:
| But none of our technology can really let us spread at this
| stage. We're barely detectable from nearby solar systems.
|
| It's very possible that the technology required to travel
| between solar systems is where the filter occurs and we're in
| a narrow window of having enough technology to look around at
| nearby planets before we wipe ourselves out.
| krisoft wrote:
| Give it time. Let's check back on this once our ability to
| nuke ourselves is as old as the Great Pyramid of Giza was in
| Cleopatra's time.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| We've had several close calls in the last ~80 years. I have
| no idea what the actual probabilities of inciting WWII and
| causing a nuclear winter were in the Korean war, Cuban
| Missile Crisis, Able Archer exercise, and various computer
| errors and false alarms that occurred, but if you're rolling
| the dice on existing every 10 years, the chances of taking
| over the galaxy in a million years are remote.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think you meant WWIII, but it does bring up another
| interesting possibility--WWII could be seen as the release
| of pressure which had been building, in some sense
| inevitable. If we were only slightly less belligerent as a
| species, we might have been able to put it off until nukes
| were invented, and what a mess that would have been. If we
| were only slightly more belligerent, we could have blown
| ourselves up in the Cold War. Of course, belligerence isn't
| a tunable parameter that you can tweak without changing all
| of history, but it is funny to think that we just happened
| to land right in the sweet spot.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Billions of forms of life on this earth over billions of years
| and we are the only ones to make cities and send junk into
| space. I'm not sure why we have this fallacy expect other alien
| life to look anything like humanity.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| On the other hand, there were billions of forms of life on
| this earth, and the first and only one to develop advanced
| technology took over the entire planet in the blink of an
| eye.
|
| Why would we not expect the apex species on other planets to
| likewise dominate their ecosystems?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Bacteria took over the planet. We are merely a host. We
| aren't even long term habitants of all the continents much
| less the ocean. Meanwhile bacteria have colonized even the
| air currents on earth.
| feoren wrote:
| Technology is evil and evil _kills everyone_ OMG cut to credits
| of B-movie sci-fi flick.
|
| No. That's trite and silly. There's a much, much more likely
| answer to the Fermi Paradox -- so likely it's obvious. So
| obvious it's boring. So boring that _everyone ignores it_. I
| don 't understand why. It's so blaringly obvious that the
| answer to the Fermi Paradox is:
|
| Intelligent life is unbelievably, inconceivably, staggeringly
| unlikely. Quadrillions of universes lived and died without any
| life emerging -- at least any that could create a civilization.
| It has literally never, ever happened before, because the odds
| of it happening are one in 10^billions. It's nearly completely
| impossible. Which is why uncountable eternities with
| uncountable cycles of uncountable universes have passed with no
| life ever emerging ... except, except just this once.
|
| Just this once, it happened. And what are the odds that, given
| life occurred on one planet, that it would be on _that_ planet
| that its lifeforms looked around and asked "what are the odds
| of life? Shouldn't life be everywhere? It's everywhere on this
| planet!" What are the odds that it would be _us_ lifeforms that
| life happened to? Well, 100%. So it looks easy. But it 's not.
|
| See? Boring. Life is staggeringly close to impossible. It will
| take another 10^10000000 universes being born and dying before
| it ever happens again. There is absolutely nowhere else in our
| entire universe, as big as it is, where intelligent life
| happened.
|
| But you'll continue to ignore that answer, because deep scary
| biblical lessons about how the AI plague is consuming the
| universe and the Mass Effect reapers are going to come one day
| because we're making noise in the Dark Forest ... well, those
| just make better Sci-Fi books.
|
| And yet if you shuffle a deck of cards, that particular order
| of cards will never again be seen in the universe, or hundreds
| of other universes full of card-shufflers. It is staggeringly
| close to _impossible_ that you could have possibly gotten that
| order of cards. Are you really _so sure_ that life didn 't
| require more particulars to be exactly right than one specific
| order of a 52-card deck? It's so blindingly obvious that
| everyone just refuses to see it.
| cwillu wrote:
| Meh, the boring answer is that it's probably common, but
| interstellar detection and signalling is very hard, and
| interstellar travel is impossible with the materials
| available in a single star system.
| darth_aardvark wrote:
| > everyone just refuses to see it.
|
| You are not the only person to ever think that life might be
| super rare in the universe. This is not a unique or even a
| rare opinion. People can speculate on other reasons for its
| rarity while still knowing it's likely to just be a naturally
| rare event. And there's no way you (you personally, and I
| guess humanity as a whole) can know it's as rare as 1 in
| 10^1000000 universes either, so your hypothesis is as
| evidence free as other hypotheses.
| rurp wrote:
| I would imagine it's a pretty short timespan, relatively
| speaking. Technology can progress exponentially in a way that
| biology does not. Once a society gets to the point where they
| can create existential risks faster than they can manage them,
| in an accelerating fashion, things are likely to collapse in
| pretty short order.
|
| Our own society has created a number of serious risks for
| ourselves that our evolved minds aren't great at mitigating in
| just the last century. Now think about how tech is accelerating
| and what might be developed in the next 1000 years. We're
| either going to figure out a new structure for managing
| existential risks or die trying.
| Vagantem wrote:
| Related animated video from Kurzgesagt - "What if We Nuke the
| Moon?"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEfPBt9dU60
| riffic wrote:
| like the Mr. Show sketch: "America can, should, must, and will
| blow up the moon."
| jkern wrote:
| We're earthlings. Let's blow up earth things
| sprabbage wrote:
| "He'll do the job, no questions asked."
|
| Classic.
| zck wrote:
| This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJ3LIA5LmA
| tzs wrote:
| Note that by "nuking the moon" they just mean exploding a nuclear
| bomb on the moon mainly to show your enemies that you can and
| perhaps learn some interesting thing about the moon by watching
| the physical effects.
|
| There was someone who wanted to go a bit farther than just a bomb
| or two [1]. He wanted to completely destroy the moon.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Abian
| arethuza wrote:
| _" The proposed nuclear destruction of the Moon has been
| rejected by astronomers on several grounds"_
|
| That made me laugh.
|
| I wonder if this is where Neal Stephenson got the idea for
| _Seveneves_ which has the opening line
|
| _" The moon blew up with no warning and with no apparent
| reason."_
| ikari_pl wrote:
| spoiler: we never learn the reason
|
| (it's not important to the story)
| MeImCounting wrote:
| I think it is important! It is an unspeakable unknowable
| dread hanging over the entire story. Its brought up later
| in the book and remains a very scary, very foreboding
| mystery. It implies either an unfathomably powerful and
| malicious force or an unfathomably powerful and uncaring
| force, both of which are terrifying.
| mtillman wrote:
| Along those lines, Chairface from Tick and Tim Robbin's
| classic "would you miss it?" defense from Austin powers.
| throwup238 wrote:
| I appreciated the section afterwards just as much.
|
| For a man who gained infamy for wanting to blow up the moon,
| his publications are on relatively boring topics in advanced
| math.
| aaronharnly wrote:
| I like that "the heating of Earth's atmosphere by a hail of
| falling lunar debris would be destructive to all life" is
| only the second of three cited reasons for the proposal's
| rejection.
| saalweachter wrote:
| I think structurally it should have been third.
|
| As it's currently structured there are three objections.
| 1. We couldn't do it. 2. It would have disastrous
| side effects. 3. It wouldn't fix the problem you're
| trying to solve, and it would in fact make it worse.
|
| Objections 2&3 should be swapped, "all life on Earth would
| be vaporized" should really be issue #3.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| I would also like to print out:
|
| > And if it helps, he made it Over fifty years later and
| nobody thinks about nuking the moon very often anymore. Good
| job, Sagan.
|
| Mission failed, I am now thinking about nuking. A lot. Makes
| me wish I was a senior DoE officer in the 50s when you could
| nuke stuff to see what happened when stuff got nuked.
| woopsn wrote:
| > to avoid the debris reassembling into a satellite would
| require an amount of energy larger than the Moon gravitational
| binding energy, estimated to be 1.2 x 10^29 J.[2][3][4] This
| equals a bit less than 600 billion 50-megaton nuclear bombs,
| such as the Tsar Bomba,[5][4][2][6] roughly equivalent to the
| full energy output by the Sun in six minutes
|
| That's 33.33 quadrillion GWh. Or about two trillion times the
| annual energy consumption of Earth.
|
| If we somehow harnessed windfall energy on that scale, hmmm
| what to do, what to do... let's blow up the moon!
|
| There is no way to store or transport the energy though, it
| corresponds to hundreds of millions of tons of mass fused every
| second. Instead you would have to somehow beam or guide the
| full power of the sun towards the moon for several minutes.
| Pretty cool light show, for those who dare to look up... but
| don't miss!
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> Instead you would have to somehow beam or guide the full
| power of the sun towards the moon for several minutes._
|
| So what you're saying is... we need to build a Death Star.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| Nah, a _sunbeam_. (Courtesy of E.E. "Doc" Smith, _Second
| Stage Lensmen_ , First serialized in _Astounding_ ," Nov
| 1941-Feb 1942.)
|
| Smith was the "trope-maker" for much of modern space-opera
| & SF. And as his stories went on, the scope of combat and
| forces involved just kept getting bigger. The Death Star is
| barely a capital ship by the standards of later _Lensmen_
| books, where a task force will regularly involve hundreds
| of immense ships, plantary masses worth of antimatter, and
| squadrons of armed and mobile planets. ( "Starkiller Base"
| eat your heart out.) By the very end, exotic-matter planets
| were being used as _ammunition_.
| ck2 wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
|
| Radiation and high energy particles left in orbit destroyed one
| third of all satellites at the time after the next few months
| as they passed through that cloud.
|
| DOH
| henriquecm8 wrote:
| If he wanted to remove the moon from earth's orbit, he
| should've suggested that we mine the whole moon for resources.
| jchanimal wrote:
| I can't help but think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves
| about the aftermath of the splitting of the moon.
| SamBam wrote:
| Or _Life As We Knew It_ for a good YA novel, post-apocalyptic
| survival after a huge asteroid nudges the moon to a different
| orbit and destroys the climate on earth.
| ihaveajob wrote:
| My god, I saw this comment and thought it'd be fun to pick up
| something by Neal Stephenson. After all, I loved Cryptonomicon
| back in college. But it's 880 pages! As a slow reader, this is
| sadly not something I'll ever get to.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| You've been misled by the publisher. Seveneves has about 600
| pages. After that, the pages are filled with some kind of fan
| fiction sort-a related, but pretty dumb, novella (confusingly
| named "Part Three").
|
| Now, seriously. While the first two parts are great, the
| third is awful. You can actually skip the part 3, it is
| completely superfluous (and again, dumb), the story works
| without it better.
| askvictor wrote:
| I found the same thing with "Fall, or Dodge in Hell" - the
| first part was great, the second awful. I'm wondering if
| Stephenson just can't handle multi-act stories.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Worth pointing out square/cube factors here. You can't have an
| ant the size of an elephant because while an animals strength
| goes up as its length squared its weight goes up with its
| length cubed. And a piece of rock the size of the moon doesn't
| shatter into seven pieces the way a piece of rock a meter
| across would. It splashes.
| mncharity wrote:
| Yeah, planets are puddles.
|
| It's also easy to forget the brown-dwarf-hot body inside the
| Moon (and the star-hot one beneath our feet). Thanks to the
| rock insulators between us and them, and our universal heat
| sink. A disassembled Moon exposing mantle material... even
| with T^4 blackbody energy scaling, a bolide rain a year later
| very won't be a problem for humans. Comparing lunar mantle
| with Sun, say 6x cooler, 390x closer, and say <10x angular
| smaller - 390^2 beats 6^4, leaving what, a new 100x "Sun"?
| bombcar wrote:
| Been there - I even have the shirt.
|
| https://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm
| wormius wrote:
| "Tonight we can, will and must blow up the moon." "Earth First:
| We're earthlings, we should blow up earth things. No to blowing
| up the moon!"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTJ3LIA5LmA
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Personally, I'm in favor of nuking the Moon. The Moon is moving
| away from the Earth at a steady rate. I consider this an act of
| secession.
|
| Not only would nuking the Moon teach it a lesson, it might also
| keep it in our orbit. All we have to do is nuke the far side of
| it enough times to stop the outward movement. If we do it too
| much, it's an easy fix-- just nuke the near side.
|
| Anyone who opposes this idea is _for_ a moonless Earth, and all
| the chaos that would bring. I call them anti-tiders. They 're the
| most despicable people on the planet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-23 23:01 UTC)