HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:07:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning):
>For comparison, how did previous empires, such as the British or
>Roman, deal with the communication lag? 

Some old empires had communication networks that weren't equalled
until the nineteenth century.  Two examples that come to mind are
the Persians, whose closely spaced couriers on good highways could
send official messages at about 300 miles per day, and the Incas,
whose *very* closely spaced network of *runners* could send official
messages at close to 350 miles per day.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

"The death of God left the angels in a strange position."
	--Internal documentation, programmer unknown
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tfish@world.std.com (Tex Fish)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:35:54 GMT

In article <1js764INN6q7@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen) writes:
>I think we should think in terms of scale.  A war between two planets
>may seem like a huge undertaking too impracticle to consider.  And, yes
>it would require many millions of ground troops.  However, it is not, in
>any way, different from a war between two countrys.  It is _just_ a
>matter of scale.  It would not require any special hardware that we do
>not have now, other than a intersteller and orbital travel mechanism.

	It seems to me that from a logistical point of view, it would be
much more reasonable to treat it as several wars: that way you wouldn't
have to figure out supply lines, etc across an entire country, and those
in charge wouldn't be too far from what they were doing.  I also think
that in a war between powers with effectively equal technology, a straight
ground war would be far too long and costly, no matter what the scale. 
Keep in mind: people would want this war to be won in a single lifetime,
at the very least.

>Everyone is very much in love with dropping or throwing rocks in space.
>Remember, though, that to drop that asteroid so that it can destroy a
>city, it must have enough kinetic energy to destroy a city and that
>energy has to come from somewhere.  It will not come from just falling
>into the Earth's gravity well.  Text's such as Lucifer's Hammer assume
>an object on an unrelated, but intercepting course.  That is not the
>same as "dropping a rock".  Now many may say that we will just "divert"
>a rock from the asteroid belt.  The energy required to do so will be
>simular to that expended by the rock reentry.  So, you are not
>accomplishing much.

	The reason I was talking about dropping rocks is that they
eliminate the problem with nukes of "collateral radiation."  It would
probably leave the agricultural lands bound to surround an urban center
still usable.  In terms of how I meant, I was thinking in terms of, yes,
diverting from the asteroid belt, and then accelerating with a megnetic
linear accelerator.


-- 
					-tfish@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are They?
Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Glad to be Sad
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:30:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.102943.5124@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes:
>Any idea what kind of engines the "Discovery" and "Alexei Leonov" of "2010 -
>Odyssey Two" were using? 
>
Hmmm, don't know about propellants, and I'm not sure I can remember what
Discovery's power source was -- only that in the book it was some kind
of pulsed nuclear explosion thing, which got changed for the film for
fear of analogy with the end of Kubrick's earlier Dr Strangelove (or How
I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb).  Leonov's power source is
muon-catalysed cold fusion -- replace the electrons with muons in your
hydrogen fuel, the atoms contract and become start fusing at a much
lower temperature.  Theoretically possible of course....

--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk | "Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for
        ___         |  some people it is a complete substitute for life."
        \X/         |     -- Andrew Brown, The Independent
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Anybody? Anybody? Class?
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:32:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)):
>>8) How feasible is David Brin's idea of using "refrigerator lasers" to cool
>>objects in space? 

>Freshman thermodynamics says it is imposable.

I don't see why.  Pumping heat from a relatively cool ship into the
sun shouldn't be more impossible than pumping heat from a cool
room into a hot outdoors, in principle.  In practice, I'd hate to
be the engineer on the job...
-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

   The inability of snakes to count is actually a refusal, on their part,
    to appreciate the Cardinal Number system. -- "Actual Facts"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tfish@world.std.com (Tex Fish)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Keywords: this newsreader is quite annoying.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:56:53 GMT

In article <1k1nvrINN6o9@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
>In article <kzm3jt_@rpi.edu> kasprj@rpi.edu writes:
>BTW, I don't even *think* about interstellar warfare w/o some sort of FTL
>drive. _Footfall_ nonwithstanding, I think STL interstellar warfare is just
>too damn difficult unless you are really desperate (say, you're home sun is
>about to go nova and your target system for refugees is inhabited by beings
>who don't want you to come in).
>]It will either be an almost-certain success, or an almost-certain failure.
>
>]------------------------------------------------------------------
>]     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
>] ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
>]/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
>]     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
>]      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 
>]
>]
>
>
>-- 
>Patrick Chester (Retiring from a crazy bout of .sig* envy :)
>"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?"
>/---------------------------------------------------------------\
>|     <*******Additional Quotes Under Construction*********>    |
>\---------------------------------------------------------------/
	Hmm...  as to FTL, I don't think travel would be necessary, though
at the very least communication.  See Envder's Game.

	
-- 
---->Tweety Fish		"I bought that chair, young lady,
---->tfish@world.std.com	 and you're gonna use it!"-MST 3K
---->These opinions are those of GO-FORCE and nobody else. Nyah..		

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: UUMEME Public Access Xenix
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:54:27 GMT
Keywords: this newsreader is quite annoying.

All these posts about invasion are fine & dandy, but so far all of 'em seem
to assume that both sides have equal technology. Seems to me, the invading force
had *danged well BETTER* have a serious edge, else all is fore-ordained. Now,
as far as invading a less-advanced world... your main problem will be supply line, sure...
However, if there's TOO great a gap in tech, you STILL might find yourself bamboozled, as since your supply line is incredibly long, and the locals may very
well not *have* such a thingie as radio, they might very well have no way to 
reply to a demand for surrender... in which case yer gonna be stuck in a long,
*very* costly ground war... and for a low-tech world, I can't really see it
being worth it. On the other hand, invading a high-tech world would be great,
as long as you're careful enuff to *sneak* into their system and guide massive
numbers of rocks over a period of say, years, in toward their mainworld. THEN,
you have a serious advantage. If you fail at this, then yer gonna get clobbered
no matter WHAT you do if the locals are anywhere near your tech level, since
they've a "home court advantage"... and (somewhat) shorter supply lines...

All in all, I can't see anything but a serious secret buildup and sneak attack
with a serious scattersmash being worth the incredible expenditure...

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Range of Energy Weapons in space?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:53:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.102701.147414@zeus.calpoly.edu> mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) states
>>
>>Passive detection of drive flames, for instance, would allow you to
>>pinpoint a ship anywhere in the solar system -- but that would only tell
>>you where they _were_ when that light was emitted.  Lightspeed delay
>>begins to become important.
>>
>>The range of a laser beam would be essentially infinite.  A laser beam
>>could still do damage (to a vulnerable target, naturally) across the
>>solar system -- but the problem if you have to land a hit, which is
>>nearly impossible when you've got huge lightspeed delays building up.
>>
>Don't they teach about difraction in freshman physics anymore?
>1) Lasers are not perfectly parallel.
>2)the beam spread is proportional to the aperture.
>3)The first minumum of defraction angle X is given by
>
>               sin X = 1.22 lamda/diamater
>
Can you say "adaptive optics?" I knew you could. Keeping beam
focus in an atmosphere is a severe problem due to things like
local nonuniformities and thermal lensing (if you keep the laser
on). Diffraction effects are simple to overcome compared to these
problems.

If you know how far away the object you want to hit is, you should
be able to put some optics in to fix this (or increase the reflectivity
of your output coupler so the average photon has to make a few extra passes
before it gets out) - collimation isn't the problem - you can get about
any degree of collimation needed. For really long distances, there are
other problems, however, and not just the light speed delay in targeting.
Space isn't really empty - you could probably get some serious attenuation
across a solar system due to the odd dust particle, etc. for instance.

(BTW, the diffraction limitations can also be overcome - obviously -
by increasing the aperture size. If we're talking some kind of planetary
defense system here, I see no reason you couldn't make an arbitrarily
large aperture. How far would a beam 20 km across projected from a modifed
moon spread due to diffraction? Say from an HF laser, just to give
you a wavelength region.)

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley Roberts

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:41:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <ig25.727829955@fg70>, ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
> One thing which always disturbed me in quite a number of SF future
> histories is the assumption that a technical society can be run
> successfully with some kind of aristocratic system.

Indeed.

> In that essay, Niven and Pournelle (mostly Pournelle) argue that 
> armies need a focus of loyality and that personal leaders are
> a very likely focus of such loyality.

Heinlein makes a similar (but not identical) point in ``Double Star'',
one of the better justifications for monarchy.  To be sure, that's a
constitutional monarchy, where the focus is on the monarch as head
of state, not head of government.

> a very likely focus of such loyality.  They quote Winston Churchill as
> an example during WWII for the British. They also argue that, since
> leaders are born to a position of power, it is likeley that they will
> be better educated to the task of leadership and therefore become better
> leaders than elected politicians.

And Heinlein debunks that quite nicely in ``Starship Troopers''.

> Another problem I see is that governing takes it out of people.
> Usually, people in top positions of power are not much good after a
> decade or so.  This is both because they tend to lose their working
> ability with time, and because from time to time fresh ideas are needed.

This is less obvious.  There have been rulers who've done quite well
for a longer period -- and others who've done quite poorly in a much
shorter time.  Either way, you do need some way to replace someone.

> Finally, provided we have a monarchy or equivalent, with a leader
> appointed for life or until normal retierement age (which has indeed
> been a very frequent occurence in our recent history, and still is
> today), where does the N/P aristocracy come in?  To me, assigning a
> "sector" to somebody like Rob Blaine's father, in which he obviously is
> supreme military commander ("done some good work pacifying his sector",
> quotation from Mote) sounds like a blueprint for rebellion to me.

It wasn't just ideology, of course; there's talk of a kinship link (the
discussions about how close Rod is to the throne).

I suspect that the answer Pournelle would give -- and I agree that it's
plausible, if not necessarily likely -- is that a modified hereditary
setup *can* work in a healthy, growing empire.  Note the stress of duty
and responsibility -- the (male) nobility, including the royal princes,
serve in the Navy, which is portrayed as a highly-competent
organization.  What would be the fate of a Crown Prince who was
cashiered from the Navy for incompetence?  I doubt he'd become emperor
in that society.

Note, though, that I specified a healthy empire.  Consider the decadent
ones portrayed in Foundation and in the Flandy novels.  Those
aristocrats are manifestly unfit to govern.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:26:13 GMT

In article <1jvpp8INNbol@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen) writes:
>There is a real tendency in science fiction to always think of planets
>as single entities, when our own planet does not bear this out.  If you
>invaded Earth, who would you tell to surrender?  It is safe to assume
>that other worlds will have hundreds, if not thousands, of governments.
>I can't see how 1/2 mil to 2 mil troops could hope to handle them all.
>You would have to take them one at a time and probably obliterate a few
>holdouts.

If the planet was not fighting as a single entity, I don't think it
would have much of a chance against an invading force, especially one with
superior technology.  Imagine if the Soviet Union were still a single
entity and decided to make peace with alien invaders.  There's not
much the rest of the world could do about it once the aliens had a
terrestrial base and lots of resources.  Any planet with hundreds or
thousands of governments which can't work together is going to be
crushed.

John
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO)
Subject: Re: 20000 decibel
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:04:02 GMT


Okay, I think a little clear up as to what db increase really means 
might be appropriate....

If you whisper carefully (ie. barely noticeable) you make sounds of about 
65 db.
An air-pressure drill (no idea what it's english name is, I'm sure there is 
one) is around 120.

3db is not a volume doubling. 3db is the least change of volume a human ear 
can sense. 

Volume doubling: can't remember. Will bring a few books tomorrow and give 
you a definite answer including the mathematics behind it, okay...

MAIL-mail: gunnarh@sofus.dhhalden.no    SNAIL-mail: Gunnar Horrigmo
           gunnarh@fenris.dhhalden.no               Oskleiva 17
                                                    N-1772 Norway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above posting may seem like insignificant rubbish at 
first glance, but if you read between the lines, you will be 
surprised to discover the annals of Burt Bacharach, world peace, 
Oxford Advanced Readers Dictionary, quantum physics made easy, and an 
easy-to-use step-by-step walkthrough on how to make a time travelling 
device that actually works.
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:43:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1jqijdINN8c7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau) writes:
>If you take the analogy of invading a planet to invading a hostile nation,
>I'd suppose you'd strike military targets from space, then when they're
>weak, send down an invading force.  But now think of the *SCALE* of
>such an operation!  We're talking millions upon millions of troops
>here!  Or if you had Star Trek technology I suppose you could
>stun everyone from orbit using your phasers.

My guess here is that the "throw rocks at them" approach used by Heinlein in 
_The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ would be one of the better ones. Find a local 
asteroid belt (better hope one is around :-), grab a few of the smaller 
chunks, and start lobbing them at anything that looks unpleasant. If you 
combine this with appropriate propaganda ("Surrender or we hit you with a 
BIG one!" a.k.a. _Lucifer's Hammer_), you should have the planetary 
population reduced to jello in less than a year.

Once you get enough troops down (you _did_ bring some along, right?), the 
situation becomes a standard occupation, which has occurred many times 
historically.

Any other ideas?
-----
Damien Neil   dpn2@po.cwru.edu    "Until somebody debugs reality, the best
Case Western Reserve University    I can do is a quick patch here and there."
CMPS/EEAP double majoring masochist               - Erik Green
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Interstellar War
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:08:44 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi) writes:

>    Sounds good, but after the war's over, or even before that, the probes
> are going to mutate, keep reproducing, and spread out, invading other star

Who says they'll mutate?  They'll only mutate if they're programmed to, 
or if there was a shortcoming in the design.

> systems (the probes has to be capable of interstellar flight correct?). 
> How do you prevent that?

The probes aren't necessarily capable of interstellar flight by 
themselves.  The original post said that "you send one von Neumann probe" 
. . . that doesn't mean that the von Neumann probe carries itself there.  
There's probably an apparatus to get it there, after which, the apparatus 
is non-reusable.


Erik Max Francis  -)(-  ..!apple!uuwest!max  -)(-  max@west.darkside.com   __
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1; San Jose, CA  95117  ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  /  \
Like strategic games of interstellar conquest? . . . Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt; all things that are, are lights. -)(-
From: tfish@world.std.com (Tex Fish)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:45:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1993Jan25.104546.4869@syma.sussex.ac.uk> mppc3@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Duncan White) writes:
>With only a few thrown rocks, the surrounding areas may be usable, you
>were talking of hitting ALL the strategic targets on a planet. This is
>going to cause an awful lot more disruption than you are assuming. For a
>start there is going to be a LOT of dust and so on blasted into the
>atmosphere (about 10^12 tons or so assuming the 1000*1km rocks somebody
>mentioned) which is going to take months or years to fully settle out
>and stop affecting weather patterns. You have heard the phrase 'nuclear
>winter'? After affects of a serious rock slinging bombardment are going
>to be much worse, though you'll only have fairly minor amounts of
>radioactive fallout to worry about (from all those reactors that got
>hit).

	That's true.  I hadn't actually thought of the dust.  BTW, though,
I wasn't talking about hitting all strategic targets.  Indeed, in my
original message I said that rocks should be dropped sparingly, if just
for the fact that they destroy a large center that presumably has great
strategic or economic value for the enemy (and therefore hopefully you,
when you win).  Does aynbody know what percent of the rocks in the
asteroid belt are made of ice?  Because that would solve the dust problem,
if one was to use water.


-- 
---->Tweety Fish		"I bought that chair, young lady,
---->tfish@world.std.com	 and you're gonna use it!"
---->GO-FORCE affiliate				-MST 3K
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:37:09 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:

>jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning):
>>For comparison, how did previous empires, such as the British or
>>Roman, deal with the communication lag? 

>Some old empires had communication networks that weren't equalled
>until the nineteenth century.  Two examples that come to mind are
>the Persians, whose closely spaced couriers on good highways could
>send official messages at about 300 miles per day, and the Incas,
>whose *very* closely spaced network of *runners* could send official
>messages at close to 350 miles per day.

The best example for long communication links was probably the Spanish
Empire.  They had communication links which were up to two years long.

The way to deal with this is fairly basic:  Give the people targets to
achive, instead of telling them every little step they have to take.
Recall them after a certain time, and adjust their pensions according to
their accomplishments.

As long as you have enough spies to make sure that the local government
can't falsify every record, you're pretty well set.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.