Comment by ISL | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ISL | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think one can readily argue (and I'm a physicist, so I really love outward-looking telescopes) that reconnaissance satellites will tend to make the world a more-peaceful place.

Uncertainty can lead humans to make decisions to handle a worst-case scenario that isn't actually taking place. High-quality imaging makes it difficult for nation-states to bluff or to understate the scale of decay/disaster and allows for finer-grained control of military escalation.

We are seeing the next evolution of these effects as ordinary citizens can now get access to imaging systems that were once the realm of the Keyholes. They are journalists and free press in the sky. The internment camps of Xinjiang can't be hidden: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alison_killing/satellit...

We must, of course, be wary of the societal effects of these imaging systems. If only some have access to orbital imaging, the asymmetry in power can be substantial and the norms for privacy can erode.

I do not disagree with this. I wanted to point out an order of magnitude difference between science, and politics (of fear?).

We built nuclear power plants not because we needed electricity, but because we needed plutonium for the bomb. We went to the moon in part because "it is hard", but mainly as a way to stick it to the Russkies. We built space telescopes to spy on the "opponent". Yes, that did indeed kept the world in a balance for quite some time, amazingly, but imagine if we, collectively, were just a tad smarter and instead of this, directed our efforts to science.

You could extend the argument to intra-national competition. What if instead of competing with each other, we were all aligned towards common goals. Unfortunately and sadly, such is human nature that we are hardly motivated by much else than one-upping each other.

I think you basically identified the root cause of the issue. We are, unfortunately, only slightly evolved chimpanzees; We would gladly form groups to fight another group when bananas grow sparse.

Had we evolved from bonobos, things might have been different.

This is true. Instead of competing against each other, we -I mean all nations and individuals - should do something to support efforts so that humans can some day escape this planet. Earth is not habitable forever.

I struggle to imagine what could happen to earth to make it less suitable to support human life than any other known planet.

There are many very likely scenarios making this planet unhabitable: asteroid, black hole coming near solar system and moving planet distances, gamma ray burst, any deviation in sun's radiation. All these are clearly possible and likely to happen in the long run.

An asteroid strike would make things difficult.

Also, often times science instruments do sit on those satellites, they just aren't as cool as Hubble.

I worked on a satellite that was outward facing above a Navy satellite.

We wouldn't have got in space w/o the military subsidy, and I think it'll take society a long time to pay off that debt/slough off the infrastructure, but we're starting to make progress.

Indeed, Ike proceeded with the U-2 to disprove the Bomber Gap, and ratchet down the tensions and military industrial complex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap#Disproval_of_gap

reconnaissance satellites will tend to make the world a more-peaceful place.

There is absolutely no evidence of this. The example you cite has not seen any concrete action taken, China is left to act with impunity.

On the contrary, along with imaging military installations of rival states, they are probably mostly used to surveil targets for the ever-expanding global assassination and missile strike program run by the United States. A recent example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima...

I think spending some of that money on science (even earth-facing science) would have a far better return in peace dividend, and might actually make the rest of the world view the US as it apparently still sees itself (as the benevolent overseer of world peace).

You won't get much agreement around these parts, where American war imperialism is treated with indifference or, usually, servitude - but I just wanted to say that I see your point and agree with you completely.

The peace that could've been made by spending the funds for a single Keystone on, instead, schools and water plants and hospitals - in the country's the Keystone would be observing... but instead, imperialist war-mongers justify these toys with ever-broader threats of violence and terror.

We should be dropping books, not bombs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com