From: mabw0164@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Territorial Disputes
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:33:55 -0400
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Dec12.111320.19982@newstand.syr.edu>, pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
> In article <1992Dec10.134755.15272@cs.cornell.edu> 
> hunter@cs.cornell.edu (Scott B. Hunter) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Dec9.114933.14903@newstand.syr.edu> 
>>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>>
>>>There is a certain type of geometrical problem which comes up when one
>>>thinks about starfaring empires/federations settling border disputes.  
>>>I think that such problems will eventually lead enlightened civilizations
>>>to abandon the concept of 'territory' entirely.>
>>
>>[ stuff deleted which says, to REALLY oversimplify, that certain groups
>>can get "boxed in" ]
>>
>>>I would claim that this is a severe drawback to the whole concept of
>>>'territory' and that a truly enlightened interstellar civilization
>>>would abandon the concept entirely.  
>>>
>>>	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
>>
>>I'm not disputing that this is a problem, but how is this any
>>different than with planet-bound civilizations?  
> 
> On a planet, resources are limited enough that other factors will far
> outweigh that of simply having room.  (i.e. arable soil, access to seaports
> strategic mineral resources, &c...)
> 

How would this be different in a star-faring civilization? Homesystems 
might be depleted enough that expansion is necessary for maintenance of
supplies and raw materials. The pollution and destruction resulting from
the technological development needed to initiate star travel might make
expansion necessary just to offset these problems.

Also, assuming a homeworld at point A and a major colony at point B, it
might be necessary to maintain a minor colony at point C in order to 
resupply ships running between A and B, because the distance is to far
for an uninterrupted journey. C then becomes strategically important.

>>If anything, it just means that some empires (the ones not boxed in)
>>will have MORE incentive to renegotiate boundaries to their
>>disadvantage, since they can simply grow in the "other" direction.
>>This problem hasn't caused US (on Sol 3) to abandon the concept of
>>territory, and we have things even worse (not only are we only working
>>in 2D, but we don't have infinite space in which to work)!
> 
> Territory has ceased to be an issue, really, for the major powers on Sol 3.
> Our most pressing issues today are political, economic, societal, and
> technological.  Besides, as you point out, there's less room on Sol 3,
> so there is no opportunity for potentially infinite disparities in the power
> of one 'empire' over another.
> 

Don't kid yourself. Wars are still being fought for territory today and are
likely to be for some time to come. Because the major powers don't go at it
tooth and nail doesn't mean they've given up on territory; they just go at
it differently. All these little brushfire wars we've had since WWII were
going on for a reason. 

Control of territory is more easily and cheaply done by funding and supporting
one side or another of a country than in direct intervention. The primary
goal has been to undermine the other side's control over the territory 
presently under his umbrella of power. Direct confrontation is neither wanted
nor needed.

>>Maybe the problem is one of being "enlightened", but given the example
>>we have to work with, I think the concept of territory will be around
>>a bit longer than you do.
> 
> The kinds of civilizations I am talking about are rather far advanced.
> So we probably actually agree on how long "territory" will be around.
> 
> Besides, there are other problems which can arise when empires span
> lightyears.  For example, stars move.  Borders cannot be effectively closed.
> The communication problem has been noted in another post -- so empires
> won't be able to get past a certain size in any case.  
> 

The reasons empires come into existence are pretty fundamental, and distance
has rarely been a limiting problem. What has been a problem has been the 
age of the empire. After a certain period of time, it collapses from internal
problems attributed in part to the complacency of the population of the 
founding state.

Empires have been formed, and successfully, in areas and times where travel 
from the capital to its furthermost borders was measured in months, and the
mode of transportation was limited to foot, horse and sail. So distance is not
as big a problem as you might think. Responsible governors would do quite well.

> Lastly, the advantages of NOT settling down anywhere are enormous.
> 
> 	--Peter Kwangjun Suk

You'll have to elaborate on that last one.

Joe
01fortec@ac.dal.ca