• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Will Gingrich found the UFP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gingrich opened up the possibility of the moon becoming the 51st state [by 2020], something he believes could happen once a permanent settlement reaches a population of 13,000 Americans.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technol...mises-build-moon-colony-2020-u-211103078.html

Ummm . . . not quite what I had in mind. Nor Neal Amstrong, I think. Claiming a whole planet? Well, at least a moon.

"We came in peace for all mankind" is now, "We came in peace for ourselves."

Maybe we could "make" him President of the Moon and arrange a one-way trip there for him. I believe that this is an action that Democrats, Independents, and even a majority of Republicans could agree on. Also, if we can believe Chester Gould, there are some cute moon maidens up there that Newt would *frankly* enjoy getting to know better.....
 
Doesn't apply to the moon...and the US isn't a party to the Moon Treaty


The Outer Space Treaty does include the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

One of the relevant sections

The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, claiming that they are the Common heritage of mankind.[2] Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

The thing that gets me is that this would be yet another example of America willingly trying to defy an international agreement.
 
Doesn't apply to the moon...and the US isn't a party to the Moon Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty does include the moon.
We would have to give (iirc) one years notice of withdrawing from the treaty, then it would no longer apply to the United States.

The thing that gets me is that this would be yet another example of America trying to defy a multinational agreement.
Treaties come and go, no big deal. If Humanity is to expand off this planet into space, that "common heritage of mankind" thing would have to go eventually anyway. It stands in the way of business ventures in space.

We will get off this planet as a species in large numbers when someone figure how to make money in the process. Selling private property building lots on the moon's surface would be a excellent initial step. Especially if a (hopefully non-governmental) transportation system was in place.

A large number of the retired elderly might enjoy spending their golden years in one-sixth gravity.

If anything made of extraterrestial materials is the common property of mankind, where would be the incentive to build products from such materials? How would you make a profit?

:)
 
^I say we would get off this planet a lot sooner if we had a Global Space Agency. So instead of seperate agencies working on similar capabilites we have one. Much more cost effective.
 
If we found oil up there, I'm sure there would be no moon left to colonize. Heck, if we could find oil anywhere in space I bet the space program would jump to number one priority.

Forget intelligent life, we should be looking for fossil fuel.
 
See, the UFP is an enlightened organzation where all peoples work together toward the betterment of all.

It's clearly not a concept that lends itself to any republican foundation. Let alone any philosophy that Newt Gingrich has articulated.
 
:lol: I really hope this isn't a serious news article. Because if it is, it only further reduces my already meager respect for Newt Gingrich. :guffaw:

I think it's hilarious that he say's it'll be by the end of his SECOND term, as if he truly believes he won't get his sorry butt kicked either by Rommnie or by Obama.
 
Doesn't apply to the moon...and the US isn't a party to the Moon Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty does include the moon.
We would have to give (iirc) one years notice of withdrawing from the treaty, then it would no longer apply to the United States.

The thing that gets me is that this would be yet another example of America trying to defy a multinational agreement.
Treaties come and go, no big deal.

This point I disagree with, primarily because Americans (and I'm speaking as one) tend to dismiss treaties without really thinking, "What if WE'RE on the receiving end of something bad going down? Where's our protection then?" Say we do find a way to make a profit up there -- but in the event that some other power gets there before us or someone outmaneuvers us, then man, America's really going to wish that treaty had stayed in place. Same with any and every country out there. And such large sources of revenue tend to impact economies on an almost unimaginable scale. Suddenly humanity isn't as connected anymore, and we're back to the same vicious cycle of corporate and territorial competition that's divided nations once again, the same cycle that fosters exploitation and manipulation by gigantic entities, whether by government or by multinational conglomerates.

Establish an actual, coherent, beneficial global community first and then the treaty is meaningless, sure. But to dismiss it right now is just downright questionable.
 
Suddenly humanity isn't as connected anymore, and we're back to the same vicious cycle of corporate and territorial competition that's divided nations once again, the same cycle that fosters exploitation and manipulation by gigantic entities, whether by government or by multinational conglomerates.

And...when were we so connected, pray tell?
 
Well, at least in the Western World, which is bound to each other by various treaties and organisations there has been peace for more than 60 years.
 
I seriously busted out laughing while sitting in an airport lounge reading OP's post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top