Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The solar system isn't big enough for two intelligent species -- eventually one is going to have to take out the other. With another plant to expand to, there will be plenty of elbow room for Earth's (or Mars') huddled masses.

Never mind that we don't have the tech today to do it; the mere existence of a close habitable planet would be motivation enough. Don't underestimate the creative energy of a human mind bent on destruction.

Besides, we don't necessarily have to go to Mars or send a bazillion nukes their way ... if we're patient all we have to do is alter the trajectories of a handful of choice asteroids, then sit back and let time, gravity, and nuclear winter do its work.

 

[Derren]

Nuclear weapons don't cost $2.5bn each.

And neither does a nuclear tipped Atlas V. The majority of those 2.5 billion is the rover. Not needed.
The 2001 Mars Odyssey only cost 300 million dollar. 80 million of that is data analysis which is not needed for a weapon.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/maryssey.htm

Program Cost: $297 million total for 2001 Mars Odyssey: $165 million spacecraft development and science instruments, $53 million launch, $79 million mission operations and science processing

So for a interplanetary weapon we would look at about 250 million - 300 million (depending on the weapon cost). So that Iraq war which bankrupted the US, not the world, would have paid for more than 300 such missiles.
How much did the nuclear arms race between the US and UDSSR cost? A lot more than 10 years Iraq. And against a interplanetary threat the earth would likely band together more and so the cost can be spread around which allows for even more missiles.

 

[Morrus]

So that Iraq war which bankrupted the US, not the world, would have paid for more than 300 such missiles.

Not to get into modern politics but I can assure you that my country, which is not the US, was bankrupted by the war. And Mars is a lot further away than Iraq.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

And neither does a nuclear tipped Atlas V. The majority of those 2.5 billion is the rover.

Point of order: the majority of the development cost in space programs is the R&D and the cost of the single (or two) prototypes that are used as the operational unit. Essentially every space project is a one-off, which makes them prohibitively expensive.

Settle on a good, basic design that can be repeated and the production price rapidly falls, and that 2.5B in RDTE spread over a thousand or ten thousand units becomes a relatively small contribution to overall cost.

 

[Derren]

Not to get into modern politics but I can assure you that my country, which is not the US, was bankrupted by the war. And Mars is a lot further away than Iraq.

The point is that the US alone spends 700 billion $ each year on defense. Even when only a fraction of that goes into those missiles + other countries chipping in that is still a lot of missiles which can be build at 300 million a piece.
Give it a few years and one has the 1000 missiles easily.

Before the SALT treaty the USA had 1000 ICBMs. The UDSSR had 1600. Coincidentally, the early USA ICBMs were Titans, the same rockets used for spaceflight.

So I don't really see what is the problem with the whole planet having a stockpile of thousands of interplanetary missiles.

 

[Morrus]

The point is that the US alone spends 700 billion $ each year on defense. Even when only a fraction of that goes into those missiles + other countries chipping in that is still a lot of missiles which can be build at 300 million a piece.
Give it a few years and one has the 1000 missiles easily.

"The point"? That's not the point you're replying to. That's a totally different point.

If you think that we can send thousands of missiles to Mars at hundreds of millions of dollars apiece (and we don't have the launch facilities or the fuel to send thousands of anything, and we'll, like, totally stop spending money on current defense of course, because we'll all magically happily unite, but we'll conveniently ignore that) then fine. We can't, but OK. I'm not going to continue this "yes we can", "no we can't", "yes we can", "no we can't" exhange forever.

 

[Derren]

"The point"? That's not the point you're replying to. That's a totally different point.

If you think that we can send thousands of missiles to Mars at hundreds of millions of dollars apiece (and we don't have the launch facilities or the fuel to send thousands of anything, and we'll, like, totally stop spending money on current defense of course, because we'll all magically happily unite, but we'll conveniently ignore that) then fine. We can't, but OK. I'm not going to continue this "yes we can", "no we can't", "yes we can", "no we can't" exhange forever.

ICBMs are not cheap either and yet thousands were build with the intention of throwing them at enemies. Fuel is readily available (liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen and kerosene) to fuel thousands of interplanetary missiles. Launch facilities have to be constructed but when one can make thousands of ICBM bunkers one can certainly make thousands of atlas V launch facilities.

But I agree its probably best that you stop arguing about this as long as you can't offer anything except hyperboles (spending all defense money on those missiles) and faulty numbers (2.5 billion for a rocket which can reach mars) despite being corrected multiple times.

 

[Morrus]

But I agree its probably best that you stop arguing about this as long as you can't offer anything except hyperboles (spending all defense money on those missiles) and faulty numbers (2.5 billion for a rocket which can reach mars) despite being corrected multiple times.

Derren, disagreeing is one thing. That's fine; that's what discussion forums are for. We both utterly disagree as to the resources required. There's no reason to get snotty about it or start misrepresenting each other's positions to score points. Let's stay friendly, eh?

 

[Nagol]

We do - the premise says they have the same tech level as us. So we can't attack each other. We can send, like a couple of people for $6bn, and that would take a year to get there, but a couple of people can't exactly wage war on a planet of billions. So we probably send a few people, and they send a few people, but we don't have the ablity to do any more than that.

There's certainly no trade good worth the billions it would take to transport it.

So you trade things that don't have that cost attached: information, knowledge, and entertainment. Cost is a limited to the radio channels you are willing to clog and electricity.

 

[Morrus]

So you trade things that don't have that cost attached: information, knowledge, and entertainment. Cost is a limited to the radio channels you are willing to clog and electricity.

Sure, OK. We have no disagreement there, just a definition thing. I put that under 'communication' but I have no objection to putting it under 'trade'. Just a word.