HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shihy@fraser.sfu.ca (Shih Yap)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:20:26 GMT
Expires: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 08:00:00 GMT

In article <rwallace.726765669@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>In <damiene.726727604@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles) writes:
>
>
>>Think about this as well.... a habitat costs cash to build - how
>>expensive is having a naturally habitable planet?
>
>It's free, but there's only one of them around.

So far! :)

Seriously, even if NATURALLY HABITABLE planets are "quite common" it
does not quarantee (sp?) that one exists in a particular solar system.
And even if the system possess M-class planets, terraforming is most
likely needed to make it more habitable and that costs money.

just my opinion.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.sci.planetary
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:37:27 GMT

	Hmmm. If I were trying  to  kill  an O'Neil-type  colony,
the  particular subsystem I'd  try  to scrag  is the heat-control
system. Cities  and their  associated  industries  tend to  produce
a fair bit of  heat, so there  should  sizable radiators  to target.
No idea  how long it takes  a city  to  baste itself, I'm afraid.

							James  Nicoll
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:39:35 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) states
>Surely the easiest and simplest method of wrecking a planet is to just
>throw enough hydrogen bombs

	I still think the easist way is to take a bussard ramjet out a
couple of light years, turn it arround and ram the star. Anyone feel
like doing the Lorenz transformation on a bussard ramjet accelerating at
10m/s^2 over a distance of say 10 light years? i don't have the back of
an envelope handy.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.

If you can't love the constitution, at least hate the government.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:50:42 GMT

jfe7w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher Elder):
>In poor countries with subsistence farming and low industry, children
>are early on a net asset, able to help in the fields and home.

I've seen this statement literally dozens of times.  Alt.folklore.science
is as good a place for it as any.  Beyond "everybody knows", is there any
evidence for it?  If arable land is in short supply and labor is not,
then it would be at least as plausible to argue that children are *not*
a net asset early on.

>Importantly, they are also the only form of "Social Security" parents
>will have in their old age.

Another proposition for which I'd like to see some evidence.  Should
we take it that in the third world older people with no living children
generally starve?  Or might they be able to call upon the community or
extended family for help?  Or perhaps even to make formal provisions
for their old age?  (This last is *not* a modern innovation.  It was
not uncommon for medieval peasants, for example, to purchase provision
in kind for their old age.)

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

   God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine  -- Edmund Spenser
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wreaking a habitat (was Re: Wrecking a Planet
Date: 12 Jan 1993 09:07:15 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Reply-To: ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

In article <1993Jan12.041012.3461@Princeton.EDU> jdunning@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning) writes:
[not about me]
>Why do you insist on making the planetary space-based defenses so
>expensive to build and maintain?  Any civilization capable of mounting
>significant orbital defenses is going to build them in orbit, not
>planetside.  Of course that means there would have to be one or more
>habitats nearby to build and maintain the weapons, which would then also
>become targets in any attack.

There is, of course, the problem of how localized your defence has to
be.  Defending about 1.2E14 m^2 of Earth's cross - section is going to
take defences quite different from defending a typical habitat with maybe
1E6 m^2 cross - section, which amounts to a point defence.

I don't see how you could detect a swarm of black, anti - radar coated
rocks moving fast enough to do heavy damage before they hit a planet.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: time travel with pulsars
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:53:00 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1697@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>In article <93001.201537SHOCKER@MIAMIU.BITNET>, SHOCKER@MIAMIU.BITNET writes:
 [Tipler's paper]
>Unfortunately for this scenario later calculations have shown that a sufficiently
>large cylinder cannot have formed in the age of the Universe, so no such situation
>can actually exist.
 
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

 That's not all that surprising, as the paper talked about an infinitely
long cylinder. Tipler *speculated* that a finite cylinder would have
similar properties "far" from the endpoints. Note that, if you only want
to send gamma rays back in time, you need a much smaller cylinder than if
you want to send a person back...
 Or am I missing something? In any case, could you point me to where these
calculations are? I'm quite curious...

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: (oddball question off the topic of...) Wrecking space colonies
Date: 11 Jan 93 09:44:39
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<1993Jan08.183846.101582@zeus.calpoly.edu>
	<1993Jan8.171024.22702@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<rwallace.726568161@unix1.tcd.ie> <C0ow34.7z7@techbook.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hatteras.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: szabo@techbook.com's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:30:36 GMT

In article <C0ow34.7z7@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

   depleted uranium crowbars, 10 g - 1,000 tonnes @ 40 km/s

I've wondered for some time -- what exactly *is* "depleted uranium"?
238U alone (no 235)?  Iron-poor U?  Old tired stuff?
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: johns@ssd.comm.mot.com (Mike Johns)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Motorola LMPS
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:10:24 GMT
Keywords: n

Would someone who knows give me some idea just what our "billion ton O'neil
Colony" is made of and how thick it has to be to hold together and keep the
locals alive.  I can't help but think that assuming a nuclear
device is necessary to damage it is a bit optimistic.  I would think that a
moderately speedy two thousand pound bomb with a hard nose would create a
detectable leak.  A cloud of the things could really ruin your afternoon.

Some of the ideas for defending these things seem to assume that they 
are weapons of a sort rather than a space habitat.  You can't waste infinite
resources on a commercial venture on the off chance that godless evil red
martians (TM) are going to take pot shots at it?

Mike Johns -- johns@ssd.comm.mot.com
-- 
Mike Johns test signature
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:38:10 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Reply-To: ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
Keywords: n

In article <1993Jan11.173953.772@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>Your run-of-the-mill planet is a LOT bigger than a habitat, able to
>absorb more damage, is bigger, and probably more heavily armed (more
>resources at same/greater tech level).

Ok, at the risk of repetition, let me try to get some formalism into
the discussion:

To avoid damage, you can

1) make sure the enemy does not even know where you are

2) dodge the weapons

3) mislead them

4) destroy the incoming weapons

5) destroy the weapons platform before the weapons are fired

6) take the hits and absorb the damage

7) take the hits, make sure that any hit is not going to do much damage
   by dispersing the targets.

Of course, you'd need detection capabilities for 4), 5) and probably
(depending on the nature of the weapon) for 2) and 3), your own
offensive capabilities for 4) and 5) ... Just imagine every type of
weapon and target, and try to fill in the points.

A planet and its biosphere are so big and fragile that 1), 2) and 6)
are not really an option, and the chances of a single hit coming
through are rather large, with unacceptable consequences.

The discussion so far has shown, to my mind, that it is nearly
impossible to make sure that any given structure survives an attack.
So, I'd say, go for a combination of 1), 2) and 3):  Put up a lot of
fake targets, disperse your population throughout your solar system and
the Oort cloud, and have them dodge on slow, random courses to avoid
anything ballistic thrown in...  you probably can't do much better than
that.
-- 
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.
From: damm@diku.dk (Kristian Damm Jensen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:00:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>Most folks I know really wouldn't care if a few cubic miles of the moon
>get peppered by gravel.  There is a LOT of turf that would count as a "miss".

Hm. Not if the "miss" is heavy or fast enough. Can you say "moonquake"? 
-- 
Kristian Damm Jensen (damm@diku.dk)
"Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it"
- Tom Lehrer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: curt@quest.UUCP (Curtis Gibson)
Subject: Re: Disappearing Frogs (Was Re: Global Sterilization)
Organization: Quest Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 19:46:48 GMT

>juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
>>pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>>What is happening with rainforests, &c, is not the destruction of the
>>ecosystem, but a replacement of one ecosystem with another.  The new ecosystem
>>is still complex enough to be self-sustaining, or the farmer who created it
>>would quickly go out of business.  

>Many of them do. Heard of soil erosion? Know how the Sahara got that way?

>>So the effective trauma, on a large scale, is limited.

>Nonsense. We haven't even begun to see the long term effects of what we've
>done. And we show no sign of slowing down. There's no one planning ecosystems,
>no one making certain that what is going on is viable or sustainable. We just
>bumble along, spreading poison and slashing and burning, without giving any
>thought to what the effects will be. Perhaps you're right and nature can just
>snap back without too much fuss. But there are precedents for thinking that 
>that is not the case.

Here is a I feel an important point the "Cut it down" side is ignoring.
Rainforests are giant sponges and wicks cycling millons of tons of water
a day into and out of the atmosphere.  The effect of a rainforest being
removed must be greater than the effect of a 2 or 3 degree higher temp
of a few tens of thousands sqr miles of the western Pacific, (El Nino).
Ask any glider pilot what the thermals are like over bare ground, a
plowed field, a grass land, a forest.  Rainforests moderate, control,
and buffer huge amounts of energy.  The cutters/burners are changing
the climate by changing the albadio (spell???) and the humidity cycle.
I don't know if the change is something we can stop and repair.  Or if
its something we even need to worry about.  I just don't want to take
the chance with something we don't understand.

Curtis S. Gibson  curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3925 alt.folklore.science:4554
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Disappearing Frogs (Was Re: Global Sterilization)
From: leb@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (BASEL, LESLIE)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 15:21 MST  
 <pete.726124773@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1993Jan4.182011.21932@colorado.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan4.182011.21932@colorado.edu>, juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes...
>In article <pete.726124773@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>>Goodness I never realised I was full of so much dogma.
>>
>>Okay, let's see if we can piece this together from lego bricks. I'll start
>>with a little gedanken ecosystem and you show me where the argument breaks
>>down.
>>
>>Alfalfa grows on gannet droppings. Beetles eat the alfalfa, and gannets eat the
>>beetles. The sun shines down and warms them and the night sky sucks the heat 
>>away. That temperature differential drives the whole system.
>>
>>Kill the alfalfa, and everything dies.
>>Kill the beetles, and everything dies.
>>Kill the gannets, and everything dies.
>>
>>Now, scaling this up,
>      ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> 
>Here is where the argument breaks down.  An analogical (and clearly
>fallacious) argument along the same lines could be made with a telephone
>network.  There is enough redundancy in both telephone networks and ecosystems,
>to compensate for all but *massive* trauma.
> 
>What is happening with rainforests, &c, is not the destruction of the
>ecosystem, but a replacement of one ecosystem with another.  The new ecosystem
>is still complex enough to be self-sustaining, or the farmer who created it
>would quickly go out of business.  So the effective trauma, on a large scale,
>is limited.

At this point your argument breaks down, greater than 95% of the nutrients
are in the forest not in the ground and the only way the farmer is able to
sustain his business is to expand and burn more forest.  Also the forest
seems to have covered somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the world's land 
mass, if it does all go away, wouldn't you consider that 'massive' trauma.
   These farmers are like the lumber folks in the Pac. NW, in order to 
survive they have to destroy their sources and are parasitic and not
symbiotic

Rodger Coghlan



Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Keywords: n
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:21:09 GMT

In <damiene.726727604@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles) writes:


>Think about this as well.... a habitat costs cash to build - how
>expensive is having a naturally habitable planet?

It's free, but there's only one of them around.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: bongo@DIALix.oz.au (John Bongiovanni)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: time travel with pulsars
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:39:55 +0800
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.dialix.oz.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #1

In <93001.201537SHOCKER@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SHOCKER@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:

> in 1974 under the title "Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global caus
>ality violation". Here Tipler shows that if one were to rotate a very large cyl
Read the short-short story of the same title in Larry Niven's collection
"Convergent Series".
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3915 alt.folklore.science:4543
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization (was Re: The Marching Morons)
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:01:52 +1200
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Organization: Equinox Networks
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Paul Dietz (dietz@cs.rochester.edu) wrote:

>The UN FAO projects we could feed about 50 billion people with
>existing agricultural technology.  Other estimates range higher (150
>billion is one I've seen).  Technological change can only increase the
>limit.  I suspect that the ultimate limits will be set only by the
>energy available to produce food.  Agriculture as now practiced is
>hideously inefficient, turning only a tiny fraction, less than 1%, of
>the sunlight hitting farmland into chemical energy of foodstuffs.

150 billion... Would you *want* to live in a world that full of people? Does
quality of life count for anything, or just quantity?

Just because we're capable of breeding ourselves and the rest of the world
to extinction doesn't mean we have to.

--
Geoff, Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 [4 Lines]
                               Voice: +64 (3) 3852101
        "Hi. You have just entered the fourth dimension. Small isn't it?"
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3944 alt.folklore.science:4571
From: stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:47:35 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <urf.726170271@sw2001> urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:

RE: 30 times as many people as there are today:

>*How* full do you think it would be? Cities 30 times denser populated
>than today; cities 30 times larger than today?

	Presumably they'd be a lot bigger than that - if current trends
toward concentration continue.

>Most of the land area today is in fact empty, so 30 times more cities
>would hardly be anything I'd call a problem at all. (OK, some of the
>empty places are no good, but most are perfectly possible.) Remember,
>if you make the cities dense enough, with a sharp limit between city
>and countryside, we'd have the natural environment within easy reach
>for those who want to go there sometimes and much of the ecosystem
>could be left untouched.

	The "ecosystem" is of course the main problem here.  I can't
imagine the environmental degradation 150 billion people would cause.  I
think even 10-15 billion will cause the world to look really fucked up.
Drawing "a sharp limit" between city and countryside hardly seems
plausible, considering that's not the way the world works now.

>I fully agree. But with 10+billion people on USENET, at least I will
>need a more intelligent newsreader.

And perhaps a bit more consideration of the consequences.
-- 

__________________________________________________________
Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
		A Famous Rock Star!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:11:44 GMT

In <1993Jan8.145316.588@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <rwallace.726452785@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>}In <1993Jan7.183727.26274@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>}
>}
>}>	Hmmm. If I were trying  to  kill  an O'Neil-type  colony,
>}>the  particular subsystem I'd  try  to scrag  is the heat-control
>}>system. Cities  and their  associated  industries  tend to  produce
>}>a fair bit of  heat, so there  should  sizable radiators  to target.
>}>No idea  how long it takes  a city  to  baste itself, I'm afraid.
>}
>}So you just paint the entire rather large surface area black. If that
>}isn't enough you build radiators. If an enemy damages them so what?
>}Everyone just turns off their lights and lives off tinned food until the
>}few small holes in the radiators are repaired (or maybe don't bother
>}:-)). The habitat's water storage tanks can absorb any heat generated in
>}the mean time.

>You have interesting infinite-capacity water storage tanks.

Who said anything about infinite capacity storage tanks? Just use them
as a temporary buffer while the radiators are damaged/overloaded. After
all, a battle is not going to last an infinite length of time.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking an O'Neill (Was: Re: Wrecking a Planet)
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:09:58 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <rwallace.726676932@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
]But even if the windows did shatter, it would be an expensive mess, but
]not fatal. Remember, to kill the population of a habitat, it is not
]sufficient to just put the habitat in vacuum. You must totally
]disintegrate it. This is because the population will get into sealed
]compartments during alert conditions. And totally disintegrating
]something weighing 1 billion tons whose structural shell is composed of
]the strongest materials available to 21st century engineering is no mean
]feat.

Just pump it full of nerve gas while overriding the safeties on the life
support. Then use thrusters to drop the colony on Earth's main military HQ,
but try to avoid hitting Sydney Australia.

Hit 'n' now to avoid an obnoxious sig thingie.

Subject: Patrick Chester            | This is your Ship:                       
Age: NOYB                           |                ,,,__________.           
Address: A place                    |          |--/****************\_           
Email:wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    |          |-<###################>        
Political Views: Somewhere in orbit |             ///  ~~~~{}~~~~~'''         
Blackmarks: Politically Incorrect   |            ///        [---              
(hobbies)   Anime/Star Trek Otaku   | <@@@@@@@@@@@@@>                         
            Technophile             |    (not much w/ this sort of text)       
            Netrekker (claypigeon)  |                                         
Recommendation: Ignore              | This is your Ship after fighting the Borg:
   (not worth shoot-on-sight orders)| <*****BOOOOOM*****>   Any questions?    
-- 
<***** INSERT LAWSUIT DEFLECTION TEXT*****> 

I speak (type actually) for myself only. Even if I did decide to 
speak for UT, no one would listen. 

Flame away, I don't bleedin' care...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science