Liosse de Velishaf
Banned
I hope so.
I wonder about micro-nations, though. In a world where a company can have a space program, do we really need nations of the size we have now to achieve things?
The history of the next century(is this plausible?)
- Thread starter phantom000
- Start date
- Status
I hope so.
I wonder about micro-nations, though. In a world where a company can have a space program, do we really need nations of the size we have now to achieve things?
No, I wasn't joking. The trend toward smaller has already started. Isn't Scotland scheduled to vote on independence at some time? The federation of Somaliland and Somalia broke up more than twenty years ago. The Soviet empire broke into some pieces about twenty years ago, and there are signs that more pieces may break off. The British Empire broke up decades ago, and so on. Just last year Sudan split in two. There have been a few conquests in the last few decades, but those aren't all that secure, Tibet for example.
So what were you thinking?
mirandashell
Banned
Empires ebb and flow, it's the nature of the beast. As they retreat smaller nation-states emerge, which then seem to turn on each other when the local pressure for land/resources gets too high, and the whole process starts again. We're currently in the dismantling phase of several once-major empires, so the larger states splitting themselves into historical and popularly self-identifying nations shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Nor should it be a surprise when recombination happens.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
The Western Roman Empire converted itself into a theocracy. The British Empire became a Commonwealth. Neither's completely gone away.
And all the killing that's still going on in Kashmir is the direct result of the decisions made surrounding Indian independence.
And all the killing that's still going on in Kashmir is the direct result of the decisions made surrounding Indian independence.
True, war has been roughly constant through history. On the other hand, small countries don't have such large wars as big countries, but that just a matter of scale. In the last quarter century there have been plenty of little wars, but there have been no (or maybe just fewer) major wars. Which way would maximize the profits of the manufacturers of weapons?
Yes, there are opportunities for stories on every part of the arc. Maybe I should help the dismantlement by knocking a chunk off some empire and become a king?
I would contend that the Western Roman Empire dissolved, and one might consider Henri Pirenne's thesis that Western Europe has been trying to rebuild Charlemagne's empire since that broke up.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 9
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 6,326
- Reaction score
- 856
If more smaller countries became the norm in the developed world, I imagine there would be many more alliances and trade groups, but probably a lot more fluid power bases than today.
Large countries like China, Russia, USA would still remain powerful for their resources and population, but the governments and economic models could be drastically different.
Past postulations also put Brazil on a trajectory for superpower status, but economic realities have prevented that. Still, I see opportunity for near-future SF to explore the emergence of South America as a new force.
And to the original post, if H3 that critical, wouldn't tritium decay be more efficient? Anyone want to attempt the math on how much Helium would be needed for a fusion boom?
Large countries like China, Russia, USA would still remain powerful for their resources and population, but the governments and economic models could be drastically different.
Past postulations also put Brazil on a trajectory for superpower status, but economic realities have prevented that. Still, I see opportunity for near-future SF to explore the emergence of South America as a new force.
And to the original post, if H3 that critical, wouldn't tritium decay be more efficient? Anyone want to attempt the math on how much Helium would be needed for a fusion boom?
One of the attractions of Helium 3 on the Moon is there's a lot more than 100 years' worth.
Yes. Here's a thread on it, why it's a "clean" fusion fuel, and discussion of mining the Moon for it (except I made a horrible mistake in that thread, helium 3 is NOT tritium, HYDROGEN 3 is tritium).
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118770
Yes, and this is where the author must write something that seems "plausuble" by a large part of the book buying public. It would also be nice for us hard SF fans if it were as scientifically correct as it could reasonably be at the time of its writing, but we're in the minority.
Yes, you're right, though this might be a relatively minor detail in the story.
The thing about "regular" hydrogen nuclear fusion is it releases high-energy neutrons, which strike the containing vessel, splitting its atoms and making it radioactive. The Helium 3 fusion reaction (with either another He3 atom or something else, I forget) releases protons, which can be deflected with electric and magnetic fields, and not cause the problems that fast neutrons do.
I'm less knowledgable on the geopolitical aspects of the idea as others here, but that looks like the less plausible part of the idea.
Empires tend to grow with technological and economical advantage. If there is parity or superceding technology is developed beyond the boundaries of the empire, empires tend to stagnate and fall apart.
The important part is "as it could reasonably be at the time of its writing." Over the last few months I read several of H. G. Wells prophetic novels, and they were horrible. The description of the nuclear war in 1950's was downright strange. But when one considers that he wrote it about a year after the idea of a runaway nuclear reaction was first dreamed up it became more interesting.
What seems plausible now may become silly in a decade, and what seems silly now may become scientific truth in a few years. Less detail is better in works set in the future, especially if they are set far off, unless one is using parallel worlds.
I haven't the faintest idea about any of the science behind this idea, but in political terms I think any major space development activity in the next 100 years will come from corporations rather than governments.
The freight run to the ISS is already starting to be outsourced, and there are at least two venture capital startups seriously looking into asteroid mining at the moment. Not to mention the spaceplane prototype development, which is also commercially funded.
http://www.spacex.com/
http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...-drive-21st-century-space-industry-130204.htm
The smaller our countries get (and I agree this is definitely happening even now), the less money they have to throw at this sort of thing. Meanwhile the big tech corporations quietly get bigger and bigger as they swallow up the smaller fish in takeovers and mergers.
Ten years ago, who would have thought Apple, Google, Oracle or Amazon would ever be doing the things they're doing now?
The freight run to the ISS is already starting to be outsourced, and there are at least two venture capital startups seriously looking into asteroid mining at the moment. Not to mention the spaceplane prototype development, which is also commercially funded.
http://www.spacex.com/
http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...-drive-21st-century-space-industry-130204.htm
The smaller our countries get (and I agree this is definitely happening even now), the less money they have to throw at this sort of thing. Meanwhile the big tech corporations quietly get bigger and bigger as they swallow up the smaller fish in takeovers and mergers.
Ten years ago, who would have thought Apple, Google, Oracle or Amazon would ever be doing the things they're doing now?
- Status