Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (887980)	9/15/2015 2:44:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

But, there are a lot of reasons why nukes wouldn't be a great idea. Radioactive fallout would be a big one. But the biggest one is the same one that argues against terraforming it at all. Which is the likelihood of there being native life on Mars. Why would we want to terraform Mars? What purpose would it serve?

To: combjelly who wrote (887980)	9/16/2015 1:14:16 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

CJ, Eric claimed that Mars terraforming advocates haven't taken into account the erosion of the Martian atmosphere by solar winds and implied that was somehow insurmountable. Neither of those is true. They aren't? How do we know? That's the point I'm trying to make. Bunch of theorists coming up with ideas and putting them through scenarios that we can't even be sure are accurate models of the Martian atmosphere. What happens, for example, if you nuke the CO2 deposits in Mars and something goes wrong? Whoopsy-daisy, we'll try again with another planet? That's why Elon Musk's comments need to be taken in context. He was making them on Steven Colbert's TV show, which is meant for entertainment. I don't think he was being that serious. Tenchusatsu