Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Mote in God's Eye
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:19:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug18.172631.24063@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.231503.10858@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp 
>(Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug12.191346.13859@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>>My original claim was *not* that subduing
>>>*and changing* the Moties would be easier than killing them all.  It was,
>>>"It should be easier to destroy the Motie industrial, governmental, and
>>>military apparatus, than to destroy every Motie."

>>Which I'm saying is incorrect.  The easiest way to deal with the
>>Moties is a planet buster.  Remember Butcher Korsakov?  He didn't have
>>time to take a rebel planet the hard way, sterilized it.

>Have you read the book?  Admiral *Kutuzov* destroyed a planet with a 
>big fat *ten million* inhabitants.  A population the size of L.A.'s, in 
>other words.  With five ships.  This is no guarantee that destroying
>a planetary system with a population of billions and a technology 
>equal to the Empire's will be a piece of cake.

I never said it would be cake.  The point, however, remains the same.
It was easier to sterilize a planet with 10 million inhabitants than
to subdue it.  Can you give any reason to believe that the opposite
might apply to the moties?

>>>I tend to make 
>>>an analogy with Japan in WWII.  Surely the human and material costs of
>>>nuking them + surrender + occupation/reorganization were less than would
>>>have been incurred fighting for Japan inch by inch.

>>Of course, but there was a third alternative, assuming we had enough
>>nukes - nuke Japan until there were no Japanese.  Form our point of
>>view that would have been the easy, low cost solution.

>Unleash hundreds of nukes (then an untried technology) on a planet we're
>living on too?  Yeah, that'd be a *brilliant* idea.

Note, however, that these drawbacks to not apply in the Mote.

>>>>And what do we do if they let us land our troops and then start
>>>>chewing us up while we have troops on the ground and can no longer
>>>>blast the planet from orbit?  After all, that's what I would do in
>>>>their shoes.  

>>>OK, you play the Moties, I'll play the Empire.  I've done my 90% 
>>>destruction thing and you've indicated a willingness to surrender.  
>>>I've issued dire threats about mistreating our envoys.  You attack 
>>>them anyway, confident that I won't blast the planet when humans are on it.  
>>>Surprise: I do blast the planet.  Your side is too dead to complain.

>>Did yuou read what I said?  They don't attack the envoys, they attack
>>the troops.  And you conveniently deleted the paragraph where I made
>>the point that they would take them hostage, not kill them. 

>And you've "conveniently deleted" the paragraph where I described what
>unconditional surrender would mean for the Moties.  Since you are not
>really discussing what I'm talking about, and you seem to feel I'm doing
>the same, it's pointless to continue, isn't it?

I'm not sure I follow.  What does unconditional surrender mean?  Total
destruction of weapons?  How do you prove it?

>>So, in other words, you're not much more unwilling to commit genocide
>>than I am.  If the Moties won;t cooperate you will eliminate them.
>>It's just that you feel an obligation to give them a chance, correct?

>If you want to put it that way.  But I'm not applying any different logic
>than I would to WWII Japan or any other human enemy.  Suppose Japan had
>pretended to surrender, only to pounce on the first troops ashore.
>What would we have done?  Resumed fighting, and not stopped till we were
>damn sure they were really giving up.  OK, suppose they tricked us again--
>they start fighting again, although they're down to swords and bo sticks.  
>Naturally, we start up the guns again.  Is this a willingness to commit 
>genocide?  Only in the face of the supposition that the enemy will never
>truly surrender.

Not quite.  In Japan we would have hit them again and again and again
until they were finally too tired and beaten to fight.  I honestly do
not believe that we would have stood off and nuked them until they
were all dead even if they totally refused to surrender.

>>>>Well, first off, the Moties are not evil and I never said they were.
>>>>If you're going to argue with me please argue with ME, not phantasms.
>>>>Secondly, they are unalterably prolific, just as we will be in a few
>>>>hundred thousand years.  (See separate post.)  Thirdly, they are
>>>>technologically magic.  You may not believe in the Watchmakers, but
>>>>they are right there in the book.  If you eliminate them from your
>>>>pretend universe then you are no longer arguing about the book.

>>>Where did I say I was eliminating them?  I said only that I had trouble 
>>>accepting them.  

>>You eliminated the paragraph I was replying to.  I wonder why?  I
>>think the probable reason is that if you had left it in it would have
>>been tougher to disavow your words without admitting that you are
>>wrong.  

>Oh, I can argue this way too.  You eliminated the line of my reply which
>pointed out your own use of the straw man technique you accused me of
>using.  I wonder why?  Probably because you knew that I never said 
>anything about eliminating the Watchmakers from the discussion, so you
>would be revealed as indeed "arguing with phantasms."

Excuse me, but you deleted it, not me.  I left it in.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.