From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Still WASTE HEAT?
Keywords: surveillance stealth detectors computers aesthetics
Organization: The Adhocracy of Enlightened Self Interest
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 11:28:41 EST

In article <BzByDF.7Cv@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> 
scooper@kepler.physics.uq.oz.au (Steven Cooper) writes:

>pksuk@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>
[lots of stuff deleted]
>Maybe the computers could handle the strategy as well ( unless there's something
>unique about red squishy computers - which I doubt ).

Nothing unique, except maybe the long experience we have in indoctrinating
them with loyalties and silly ideas.  If you're going to give control of
something as powerful as a 100g spacecraft to someone/something you have
GOT to be sure where their loyalties lie.  Heinlein in Friday speculated
that non-humans would have no motivation whatsoever to value human life.
I tend to agree.

>Maybe nanotechology will get this good. It sounds like a lot of
>trouble though.  If such technology existed surely it would also be
>possible to make a computer at least as smart as a person and just let
>the computer/spaceships fight the battles.  

See the above.

>>Now, if you wanted to, you have a scene just like Star Trek. You could
>>even have everyone fall out of their chairs!  :)
>
>Oh God! I think I'm gonna puke :()=@&$^%^ ,.* & .

I've got to hand it to you, Steve.  You think like ME!     :)

>I agree that a planet or system based civilization would be toasted
>in no time by such conflict, but surely you could follow and toast
>even a Macro-Life. 

The point is, that you could toast some of them, but getting them all
is MUY hard.  Just too much trouble.

>capable of meeting them wherever they happen to be camped. Wide
>dispersal of a Macro-Life would make it hard to take out in it's
>entirety, but so would a multi-system civilization.

I would agree they're the NEXT best thing.

>>The ships are capable of some impresive destruction and zooming around,
>>but doing this will make you a sitting duck (& a dead duck) in short
>>order.  And it would still take a long time to get anywhere.  But the

>With 100G and a decent exhaust velocity and mass ratio, you'd be able
>to blast around a system in no time. Stealth would be all but
>impossible under 100G but you'd arrive so fast that your victims would
>only be able to make short term preparations.

I thought that's why folks would set up defenses ahead of time.

>Aesthetics. It just muddies my brain because it is really so far
>beyond anything even remotely extrapolatable. I find it only
>marginally more satisfying than musing about hyperspace and similar
>fanciful plot devices.

It was all just an excercise.  Lots of folks write about combat at this
level, but very few people bother to think of all of the implications.
(Or develop plot devices like hyperspace.)  And I think that the 
images conjured by the likes of Niven and Roddenberry are neat in
a fanciful way, even if they are unjustified.

>>>>>I agree that stealth would be useful ( and possible ) on some
>>>>>occasions but what about the sentinels?
>>[deleted]
>>>>
>>>>Of course, an alert civilization will have ships out on patrol.
>>>>[deleted]  The situation will be very much like the
>>>>recent contest between US and Soviet snuclear submarines.
>>>
>>>I still disagree about stealth in a widely patrolled system being of much use.
>>>I'm only talking about fast ships with big radiators here.

>>Yes, but Steve, who guards the guardians?  /B)  If someone's going to
>>attack a system, she/he's not going to leave the sentinels alone.  And by
>>the same arguments you've just put forth, how do you protect your sentinels?
>
>You don't have to. See below.
>
>>[lots of stuff about detection systems and whopping big computers to
>>interpret all the data]

YES, you have to!  All the stuff you're talking about will be very, very
expensive in terms of time, effort, and coordination.  The fact that
your enemies can observe you from every angle outside your perimeter
gives them a huge advantage.  The fact that you have to exchange information
between hundreds of observation stations and at least one large computer
installation gives them another tremendous advantage.  What happens when
all this stuff gets blown up, and someone sends in stealthed spacecraft?

There is simply no way to get around stealth in space combat.  Space is
so BIG that you've just got to take advantage of that.

(And all of the above applies with 10g ships.)

>>>but if you tried to enter a patrolled system, you'd be spotted.
>>Maybe.  (See below.)
>DEFINITELY if you're under power.

Given the detection system you outlined, and no stealth, yes.  But you do
have to go to a LOT of trouble to do this.

>>AND every ship in-system?  Would there be ANY civilian ships?  Who
>>would keep the database updated?  And how?  And wouldn't transmitting
>>the information reveal locations?  (Not necessarily, I know, but look
>>at the tertiary implications.)
>
>I'm not suggesting it would be simple. Just possible with appropriate computer
>power and detectors. Keeping track of in system spacecraft would presumably 

Think about the advantages certain forms of stealth can give to both
attackers and defenders in this scenario.  (And be fair, Steve, you have
a tendency to try and apply stealth in the weakest possible way and
then conclude that it's worthless.  Be DEVIOUS!)

[from another article]
>>>>What?! Inter system warfare? What a silly concept. Let's assume our
>>>>assailants are silly for the purposes of the argument...
>>
>>Of course, Steve!  Space warfare is pointless!  (It's a fact!  :)
>
>We are agreed on this point at least.
>
>>>Since you've come from another system you will be moving relativistically
>>( unless you're unusually patient ).
>>
>>Space warfare will probably take generations.
>
>You'd have to really hate the Romans!

Yes, and it would be a POINTLESS kind of hate, yes?

>>You and those ice-cream licking sentinels!  Those check-writing, AI,
>>IR-telescope-looking, waterlogged sons of Baal are going to save
>>everything, right!?  WRONG!  I'm gonna BLOW THEM UP!  :)
>>
>>*maniacal laughter!*
[deleted]
>>But seriously now, wouldn't they be the first target?
>
>Yes, of course they would, but the mere act of destroying them would alert the
>owners of the sentinels that something was up. As such they would still have 
>served their purpose. 

And then everyone would be safe from all of the stealthed spacecraft
with equivalent detection systems and nuclear-tipped stealthed
missles.  I can just see it now.

A most enjoyable discussion, BTW.

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk



Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science