The stupidity of the alien cold war scenario

[Gullible Jones]

I just realized why the stuff on this page, relating to hostilities between spacefaring species, has been bugging me.

1. We should be ready to nuke other spacefaring species.

Why?

2. Because they might be ready to nuke us.

Why?

3. Because they're afraid we might get it into our heads to nuke them, because they might nuke us, because we might nuke them, because they might...

Yes, aside from the absurdity of being prepared for all out fucking xenocide at the drop of a hat, it's a load of circular reasoning, with not so much as a single mention of anything concrete to fight over.

Oh wait, actually there is!

They won't come to get our resources or our knowledge or our women or even because they're just mean and want power over us. They'll come to destroy us to insure their survival, even if we're no apparent threat, because species death is just too much to risk, however remote the risk...

We've got to destroy them because they might destroy us because we might destroy them because they might destroy us... etc. Even if it is a realistic scenario, how fucking stupid is it? I mean, even the Cold War involved a conflict of ideologies!

I rather hope no starfaring race gets its appendages on an electronic copy of this book, because it could be used as a justification for xenocide if anything ever could...

[Stark]

Well, having cooked up the idea, it automatically provides a motive for everyone to kill us.

Of course, there isn't anyone else, so it's academic.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It isn't a realistic scenario. The same results could be achieved by manning the high orbitals with some automated anti-missile satellites and letting the species in question plummet back to medieval tech levels. If you're advanced enough to exterminate someone, you're also advanced enough to defeat their military and then dump a bunch of space mines in orbit of their planet and leave.

[Gullible Jones]

The deal is that, given the known laws of physics, you (supposedly) can't defeat RKVs, mostly because of how damn hard they would be spot with a telescope. Supposedly nobody would bother with space fleets because they wouldn't have to. Not that this makes the proposition any more reasonable, of course.

Of course, there isn't anyone else, so it's academic.

True enough. My annoyance is with the kind of thinking involved, which is quite paranoid and frankly worrisome. If you can rationalize preemptive xenocide, you can rationalize pretty much anything.

Which, I guess, explains the current state of the world pretty well.

[Junghalli]

When you eliminate the "be afraid" rhetoric, the essential thrust of the argument seems to be that it may be a bad idea to advertise our existence to species we know nothing about. Which is actually not a bad point if you ask me. How an alien species would react to us is a complete unknown; under those circumstances caution is prudent.

The "letting a potential competitor continue to exist" argument is the thinking of a paranoid sociopath, but that doesn't necessarily mean there won't be intelligent species out there that think like this. It's a possibility that's only prudent to consider.

That said, the silence from space is deafening, so I'm not too worried.

It isn't a realistic scenario. The same results could be achieved by manning the high orbitals with some automated anti-missile satellites and letting the species in question plummet back to medieval tech levels. If you're advanced enough to exterminate someone, you're also advanced enough to defeat their military and then dump a bunch of space mines in orbit of their planet and leave.

Yeah, but why bother? Just smashing an RKKS into the other species' homeworld is easier. Maintaining a containment system like that indefinitely would be a pain in the ass, just wiping out the other species is much more straightforward and is ultimately safer; there's no peace quite so secure as a Carthaginian one. Doing that only makes sense if we assume the victorious species has something like our morality and would want to avoid committing genocide if it could, which is an unwarranted assumption.

[Junghalli]

True enough. My annoyance is with the kind of thinking involved, which is quite paranoid and frankly worrisome. If you can rationalize preemptive xenocide, you can rationalize pretty much anything.

The point is that if we can come up with these kinds of arguments, other intelligent species might also. Some of them might not have anything like our morality to stop them from thinking they're a good basis for policy. To us pre-emptive genocide of less advanced species on the basis that they just might be a threat someday is horrendously immoral, but there's no reason to think other intelligent species would have anything like our morality.

It may be a paranoid and evil idea, but it's not what we think about the idea that we have to worry about; it's what the aliens might think of it.

[Junghalli]

Ghetto edit to post 1: that should be "may not be a good idea".

[Junghalli]

Oh for fuck's sake!

I got it right the first time and then I misread it somehow. I hate this no edit!

[Twoyboy]

I'm sorry, I have nothing to add, but this is fucking hilarious:

They'll come to destroy us to insure their survival,

Insure? Just take out a policy guys, no need for genocide...

[brianeyci]

It's been bugging you because you don't like the idea of genocide. But it's not circular reasoning. It's saying better to be safe than sorry, and that's entirely reasonable. You should read some science fiction about first contact between two species in Amazing Stories or Asimov. As recently as last year there was a story like this, a scout ship meets another scout ship from another species and neither can let the other one go until one takes a chance, a completely illogical chance.

Consider that humans routinely render species extinct, right now. You can pat yourself on the back all you want, but if we ever make contact with aliens either they will consider us as ants or we will consider them as ants and exploitation will begin. The idea that we will meet a species at exactly the same level of development as us and be able to communicate with them is absurd.

It may be that emotions and not logic must dictate our first contact if we ever have it. If it is logical to genocide or first strike, then what stops us from attacking is not logic but love of life, compassion, and the inability to live with ourselves if we go through with it. The very essence of being human. This should not really bother you, because first contact is a complete unknown. It is entirely possible that in order to live with ourselves, we will do something illogical and trust alien beings. This doesn't bother me at all -- it's part of being human.

[Junghalli]

Yeah, the thing is, it may sound horrible but if your only concern is long-term species survival the safest thing to do with more primitive intelligent species you find is to wipe them out. Primitive aliens may become advanced ones someday, and advanced species are, by definition, potential threats. The less species exist that are capable of destroying your civilization, the safer you are.

Of course, by human standards this is sociopathic thinking, but, as I already said, there's no reason to think other intelligent species would necessarily have anything like our morality. We just have to hope they do, and plan for what might happen if they don't.

Consider that humans routinely render species extinct, right now. You can pat yourself on the back all you want, but if we ever make contact with aliens either they will consider us as ants or we will consider them as ants and exploitation will begin. The idea that we will meet a species at exactly the same level of development as us and be able to communicate with them is absurd.

Well, it is possible that tech tends to plateau after a while. It's entirely possible that when a species reaches a certain degree of scientific and technological advancement there are simply no fundamental new technologies to be invented, and it all becomes a matter of refinement and scaling up. I don't think we can take the "angels and apes" argument as a foregone conclusion yet.

[Winston Blake]

An arms buildup makes sense even without any intended xenocide. When we're sitting at the table organising a happy family federation with our new betentacled friends, it'd be in our favour to be the ones who could wipe them out. If we so chose.

It's better to have military superiority, rather than depending on someone else's mercy. If we build a vast military, then we can decide whether or not an alien race is a threat. If we don't, then we may have no options.

Of course, this assumes that there isn't some existing 'Day the Earth Stood Still' organisation of galactic police who may destroy us for being too aggressive. Given that no-one appears to be out there, future human civilisation may even take on this role.

[Darth Smiley]

You really can't assume the existence of galactic police force.
Assuming we DO have evidence of an alien civilization, there is no reason to fear that there is a police force of extreme power that will wipe us out for being too aggressive, any more than there is to believe and invisible omnipotent being that will wipe us out in a giant flood for being 'sinful'.

Assuming we do have evidence of an alien civilization, it would be prudent to at least start really working on

A) space habitats and off-world colonies, as a basic safety measure (this is a good idea anyway)
B) build bigger, better telescopes and other sensors to keep a very close eye on the civilization

Attempting to open relations with the alien civilization (by radio only - starships/probes look too much like projectiles, even if we do have the capabilities) may be a good idea. After all, they are going to find us eventually, unless we wish to create a zero-emissions policy immediately and hope they don't have the technology to detect us yet.

[Darth Ruinus]

I pretty much liked this part,

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.
If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.


2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.
No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.


3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.

Im not sure how it works in the real world (barring the fact that we dont see anyone else out there, and they may or may not exist) but its pretty cool plot wise.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Of course, by human standards this is sociopathic thinking, but, as I already said, there's no reason to think other intelligent species would necessarily have anything like our morality. We just have to hope they do, and plan for what might happen if they don't.

I think that's the crux of the argument, and what makes the whole hypothetical situation so perverse. They might have exactly the same morality as us, they might be morally better than us, but if we can't talk to them it's always possible that they're going to blow us away just to be sure, so you can make a case for doing exactly the same thing first. And I don't think the fact that this is utterly sociopathic would stop humans from doing it if they thought it was necessary, they might know they were wiping out an intelligent species but all they would actually see was a set of buttons to press and a message on a computer screen.

However, my problem with this argument has always been the matter of space habitats. Planets are big targets and if you had the technology and the inclination you could theoretically just blast every earth-sized planet you could see, just to be extra-special sure you'd got everything that could one day be a threat, but asteroids? A lot harder to spot, a lot harder to hit. Another idea that reassures me when thinking about this kind of thing is that if you can't stop an interstellar missile in flight you can't shoot down a starship, either. It's quite a nice image, really, all these planets full of paranoid cold warriors pouring their resources into blasting every shadow while the space nomads who have opted out just sail from system to system. [/i]

[Mr. T]

Maybe I'm naive but why wouldn't be able to just destroy any alien missiles that enter our star system or knock them off there path so they don't hit us? I realise they'd be moving fast but given the vastness of space wouldn't we have hundreds of thousands of years to detect any incoming missiles?

[TimothyC]

Maybe I'm naive but why wouldn't be able to just destroy any alien missiles that enter our star system or knock them off there path so they don't hit us? I realise they'd be moving fast but given the vastness of space wouldn't we have hundreds of thousands of years to detect any incoming missiles?

Not if they come in at a high fraction of c. If that's the case they we have a much smaller period where we can even see them before they hit, and an even smaller intercept period.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Maybe I'm naive but why wouldn't be able to just destroy any alien missiles that enter our star system or knock them off there path so they don't hit us? I realise they'd be moving fast but given the vastness of space wouldn't we have hundreds of thousands of years to detect any incoming missiles?

No. If it were moving at a significant fraction of C (Very easy to do, with even a 10G acceleration from outside the solar system), then by the time the light from our sensors could hit it, and bounce back, our reaction time would be Severely limited, to say the least.

There are solutions, to a degree, as Valdemar once said, such as mass "clouds" in likely vectors/mines, using asteroids, or similar stuff, but frankly, the chances are that you're utterly fucked, since the offence merely requires a large rock in space and an ion rocket (or solar sails).

[Gullible Jones]

Of course, by human standards this is sociopathic thinking, but, as I already said, there's no reason to think other intelligent species would necessarily have anything like our morality. We just have to hope they do, and plan for what might happen if they don't.

I think that's the crux of the argument, and what makes the whole hypothetical situation so perverse. They might have exactly the same morality as us, they might be morally better than us, but if we can't talk to them it's always possible that they're going to blow us away just to be sure, so you can make a case for doing exactly the same thing first. And I don't think the fact that this is utterly sociopathic would stop humans from doing it if they thought it was necessary, they might know they were wiping out an intelligent species but all they would actually see was a set of buttons to press and a message on a computer screen.

Humans have already carried out genocide on a smaller scale. That shit is still going on; and often from a dozen meters with an assault rifle, rather than thirty lightyears with an RKV, with only blind ideological conviction to goad the killers on.

In the unlikely event that there's other life in this galaxy at our technological level, we might face bigger threats from extraterrestrials than from our own actions, but it's still dangerous and shortsighted to assume that humans will, by nature, abstain from anything nasty. Historically, our supposed sense of morality has not shown itself very often. I guess you could say that we'd have to watch ourselves as well as our neighbors.

However, my problem with this argument has always been the matter of space habitats. Planets are big targets and if you had the technology and the inclination you could theoretically just blast every earth-sized planet you could see, just to be extra-special sure you'd got everything that could one day be a threat, but asteroids? A lot harder to spot, a lot harder to hit. Another idea that reassures me when thinking about this kind of thing is that if you can't stop an interstellar missile in flight you can't shoot down a starship, either. It's quite a nice image, really, all these planets full of paranoid cold warriors pouring their resources into blasting every shadow while the space nomads who have opted out just sail from system to system. [/i]

So I'm not the only one who thought of spaceborn colonies as a solution... Nice.

I do wonder what RKVs might be able to do to a star, though. Could a nova (or something similar) be triggered that way? If that's the case, having colonies way the hell out in the solar system's boondocks could be prudent.

[Ford Prefect]

Maybe I'm naive but why wouldn't be able to just destroy any alien missiles that enter our star system or knock them off there path so they don't hit us? I realise they'd be moving fast but given the vastness of space wouldn't we have hundreds of thousands of years to detect any incoming missiles?

Imagine, if you will, that the incoming projectile is actually almost moving neck and neck with photons. Sure, you can see them on telescope. They'll be shedding hard rads. The problem here is that our hypothetical .98 cee r-bomb is moving fast enough that by the time we see it, it's close enough that it really doesn't matter.

Relatavistic weapons are actually very stealthy, in the sense a bullet spiraling towards your head is stealthy.

[Surlethe]

Imagine, if you will, that the incoming projectile is actually almost moving neck and neck with photons. Sure, you can see them on telescope. They'll be shedding hard rads. The problem here is that our hypothetical .98 cee r-bomb is moving fast enough that by the time we see it, it's close enough that it really doesn't matter.

Relatavistic weapons are actually very stealthy, in the sense a bullet spiraling towards your head is stealthy.

If I'm not forgetting any relativistic caveats, when you've got a 0.98c r-bomb heading from 10 light years out, by the time you see its launch it will already be halfway through the Oort cloud and closing fast. The real questions are not whether the r-bomb will be detectable to the victims, but whether it's feasibile enough to be used as a weapon. Pertinently, will it attenuate in interstellar space and the heliopause? Is it possible to aim it accurately enough to hit the target planet (from 10 ly away, you have a target window of 7.7e-9 degrees, or 2.5e-5 arcseconds)? And is it possible to correct for the gravitational tugs of nearby stars, the center of the galaxy, and deflection produced by the interstellar medium (all of which will be significant for the launchers far enough away)?

[Darth Wong]

Why does the enemy even need high-sublight projectiles anyway? This thing could be coming at a mere 30 km/s and we wouldn't see it until it was almost on top of us. We see celestial objects when they reflect or emit light. A dark object coming at us would be pretty much invisible to us until it's much too late, even if it's going nowhere near relativistic speed.

[Nephtys]

Imagine, if you will, that the incoming projectile is actually almost moving neck and neck with photons. Sure, you can see them on telescope. They'll be shedding hard rads. The problem here is that our hypothetical .98 cee r-bomb is moving fast enough that by the time we see it, it's close enough that it really doesn't matter.

Relatavistic weapons are actually very stealthy, in the sense a bullet spiraling towards your head is stealthy.

If I'm not forgetting any relativistic caveats, when you've got a 0.98c r-bomb heading from 10 light years out, by the time you see its launch it will already be halfway through the Oort cloud and closing fast. The real questions are not whether the r-bomb will be detectable to the victims, but whether it's feasibile enough to be used as a weapon. Pertinently, will it attenuate in interstellar space and the heliopause? Is it possible to aim it accurately enough to hit the target planet (from 10 ly away, you have a target window of 7.7e-9 degrees, or 2.5e-5 arcseconds)? And is it possible to correct for the gravitational tugs of nearby stars, the center of the galaxy, and deflection produced by the interstellar medium (all of which will be significant for the launchers far enough away)?

Any RKV is going to have some form of built in correction. Even if XYZ factor is affecting their trajectory, the fact that you have the energy generation capable of accelerating a projectile to whatever boggling fraction of c probably also suggests that you can have the projectile correct it's course slightly.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I'm going to go knock on my neighbor's door right now and stab him in the face when he opens. After all, there's a remote chance he'd do the same to me, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and wait to be murdered!

[Darth Ruinus]

I'm going to go knock on my neighbor's door right now and stab him in the face when he opens. After all, there's a remote chance he'd do the same to me, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and wait to be murdered!

I'm pretty sure that that scenario is different, since you know your neighbor, what he is capable off etc. etc.