HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:21:58 GMT

In article <rwallace.726800685@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:

	On  cooling

>>A cubic mile of rock would do better.  Ibid an ocean.  You are presenting
>>options by which, through their specific utilization, planets are better.
>
>A cubic mile of rock would not do at all, rock being a very poor
>conductor of heat. An ocean would do brilliantly, except that if you've
>got an ocean, that means you've got an atmosphere, which means you've
>got to put your weapons in orbit, which means they're going to be
>incredibly expensive to build and maintain, plus you can't use the ocean
>as a heat sink, you've got to haul up large radiators or heat absorbers
>(i.e. thousands of tons of water), which makes your weapons systems even
>more incredibly expensive than they already were.

	Where did the habitat get its cheap water, and  why is a planet
at the same tech level  too stupid  to  buy  from the same source?

	I can think of at least 2 bodies in  our solar  system with
fluids but not much atmosphere: Europa and Io. Granted,  Europa's
ocean has a thick covering  of ice,  and  Io mimics a warzone already.
Maybe Europa has thin spots in the crust or tunnels can be  blown
using Acme Home Atomics...

							James Nicoll


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Object Technology Products
Keywords: n


Personally, if I was going to "wreck" a planet or space colony,
I think I'd use some kind of tailored lethal virus. In the words
of Jello Biafra, "Eliminate the enemy/with no less value to property"

Craig
-- 
-- "You will have the tallest,    Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
--  darkest leading man in               Internet: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com --
--  Hollywood."                     IBM TR: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--   - Merian C. Cooper to Fay Wray               VNET: JLPICARD at AUSVM1 --
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:28:21 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <rwallace.726538304@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}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:
}>}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.
}

You said "any heat generated".  You did not qualify your statement.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Building a Planet (was: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons))
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:30:21 GMT
Organization: CUMC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: guru.med.cornell.edu
Keywords: Hey, my dad has a barn!

In article <rwallace.726800830@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
|> Slight observation here: you can build habitats. How do you propose
|> building a habitable planet?

Oh, joy!  A whole new SF related topic!

Positing enough mass available in the form of asteroids, you'll need to get them
into a proper orbit and mash 'em together.  This should create a significant amount
of heat, but you'll get a sphere or the proper mass in the proper orbit.

Wait a few billion years and there you have it.

There may be better ways, of course...time to tale about 'em!

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mppc3@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Duncan White)
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Organization: University of Sussex
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:29:02 GMT

Thomas Koenig (ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan11.173953.772@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
: 
: 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.
: 
   You missed out the best options:
  0) Make sure nobody wants to attack you.
  8) Surrender.
: 
: 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.

This discussion seems to assume that an attacker will be equally willing
to trash a space habitat and a planet. This is probably not true except
in a total annihilation type war, so you will probably need to defend
against radically different attack forms depending on what you are defending.
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Date: 7 Jan 1993 04:33:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan04.210113.2515@quest.UUCP>, curt@quest.UUCP (Curtis
Gibson) wrote:
[nasty way to wreck a planet involving a giant linear accelerator in a
system's Oort cloud deleted for brevity.]

How about this "low-budget" version? It's not quite as fast or unstoppable,
but it's probably easier. All you need is a fusion-powered spaceship (the
larger the engine, the better) with the capability to melt down cometary
ices, extract the deuterium from them (or just plain H2, depending), and
use the residue for reaction mass.

Land spaceship on comet in Oort cloud. Attach securely. Push comet into an
orbit that will intersect target. Move to next comet, and repeat.

Of course, they'd see the comet coming... but if you had enough ships
working away at the same time, they wouldn't be able to stop all of them.
"Enough" varies according to the capabilities of your opponent, of course.

If you want to be really nasty, build a Von Neumann version of the above...
but if you can do that, you probably have better ways to ruin planets.

Or, just take one, large comet. Install fusion-powered rockets (camoflauged
if necessary), and push it into an orbit that comes near the target planet,
but not near enough so that they'd worry. At the last possible moment, turn
the power back on and swerve into the planet... prefably in an ocean, for
tsunamis, massive dust clouds, etc.
 
> Curtis S. Gibson  curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu
--
                         This space intentionally left blank.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Wrecking space colonies
Keywords: n
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:29:34 GMT

In <1993Jan11.173953.772@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <rwallace.726765711@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>}distance, it will have to be fired from a battleship equipped with an
>}appropriately huge rail gun, plus power supply to match. Meanwhile your
>}(expensive) battleship is coming under return fire from the habitat,
>}which is bigger, probably more heavily armed, and able to absorb more
>}damage.

>Has it occurred to you that the very advantages you mention that your habitat has
>over a battleship are the ones that a planet has over your habitat?

>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).

Ah, but a planet with an atmosphere must put its defenses in orbit,
which makes them incredibly expensive compared to a habitat's (or indeed
a battleship's, if the battleship is built in space, with materials
mined in space ... in other words, built by a habitat, asteroid colony
or something similar). More importantly, a planet, unlike a habitat or
battleship, cannot dodge, and is therefore vulnerable to attack by
ballistic projectiles launched from extreme range (fusion bombs or
high-speed rocks), which drastically alters the balance of offense
versus defense.


--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:4058 alt.folklore.science:4593
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Global Sterilization
Date: 7 Jan 93 11:08:25 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller) writes:

>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 don't think, nor would I like, that simply scaling up 
our present conditions is what will happen.

I have been thinking about these things for some time,
and it is not obvious that a population some times 
larger than today must mean ruin of the world. I also
think that forcing forcing the population to decrease
won't be practical, so planning for a future where we
are at least 20 billion, and have a higher living
standard than today, is the best thing to do.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:31:25 GMT

In article <rwallace.726348286@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
}Sure, a 0.5-gigaton bomb (incidentally I got my calculations slightly
}wrong about the weight/yield ratio of bombs in my original message - a
}0.5-gigaton device will weigh about 10 tons) will probably totally
}destroy a space habitat if it gets a direct hit. (It will have to get a
}*direct* hit on a relatively small target, as opposed to being abl to do
}damage exploding anywhere in a planetary biosphere.) Even then, there
}will probably be survivors in sealed compartments who can be rescued
}later. But a population of say 10 billion will be scattered over *many*
}space habitats rather than all on a single planet, so even if many hits
}are scored, a lot of the population will still be safe.

Why bother with total destruction?  Have you considered the results of a
number of 5 inch holes drilled through it by very fast gravel?

}Most importantly however, is that a space habitat can move. Not with
}great agility, to be sure, but it means that a guided, powered missile
}is needed, not simply throwing bombs on a precalculated ballistic
}trajectory. 
Unless you are advocating near continuous random changes in acceleration,
it fits in much the same category as "planet" - except that the attack
could come from any location in the universe, as opposed to less than
half for a "moonbase".  There is something reassuring about being able to
have your back against a few thousand miles of protective rock...

}Also a bomb to hit a habitat
}will have to come within range of the habitat's own defensive armament,

So?  Tough to stop a rock...

}which can be of almost any desired size and power output, with the
}habitat's full power generating capacity available, and almost unlimited
}heat sink capacity, and the population on hand to maintain it. As

heat sink, yes.  But terribly vulnerable radiators.  So to zap it, dump silver
paint so that it coats the radiator.  And as for the "full power
generating capacity", if it is environmental, you couldn't accelerate
(read "move") and it could be closed down with black paint.  And if it
is internal, so could the planetary base.  

}opposed to trying to defend a planet; the defences have to be in orbit,
}which means they're separated from the population and industrial plants
}which are on the ground.

Only if you are trying to defend the planet, and not just the "special"
site.  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".

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: The Marching Morons (was Re: Cindy the Disco Queen)
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:44:15 GMT

In article <pete.725934863@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
|> A good case in point. China, the most populous nation on the planet, has 
|> contributed very little to the great twentieth century enlightenment that
|> we enjoy. Its population is for the most part healthy and well fed, literate
|> and numerate, able workers and warm and loving people. But they do little by 
|> way of science and art.
|> 
|> The popular explanation for this lack is that their government is totalitarian
|> and brutal, suppressing such things in order to maintain its control. However
|> there are many nations on the planet that have been subject to such oppression,
|> and they have shrugged it off. China shows no sign of doing so. Why? 
|> 
|> Could it be because the population of mainland China largely consists
|> largely of "morons"?  It will be interesting (in the Confucian sense) 
|> to observe the 1997 assimilation of Hong Kong into mainland Chinese
|> society ... we might imagine that, should they come to power, the HK
|> residents would find themselves faced with a predicament not at all
|> unlike that of Kornbluth's atavistic man.

Somehow, I doubt it.  There are a number of reasons for your observations, but I
bet that it has nothing to to with the Chinese being Kornbluthian morons.  From what
I know of Chinese culture and history, there is a conservative and insular society,
not given to much in the way of revolution and outward contact (remember, this is
the place that built the Great Wall to keep people out).  Simply put, they haven't
contributed much to the 20th Century World because they choose not to be particularly
involved.  (Tiananmen Square was an abberation from this point of view...it's not what
normally happens in China.).  It works for them...why should they go out of their
way?

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Nntp-Posting-User: @cornell.edu
Organization: CUMC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:09:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.142535.6129@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
|> Depends upon the size of the habitat.  Something the size of Mir or Freedom could be
|> taken out as you describe.  Something large -- on the order of an O'Neill colony --
|> the problem would be finding the leak(s).  Those scenes of explosive decompression we
|> see in SF films are for fairly small structures.

They always struck me as silly.  Any structure which is so poorly designed as to
blow up if you sneeze at it is _not_ where I'd want to live.

However, finding a lot of holes is something else.  To quote some otherwise
forgettable movie ad (I think for Deepstar Six), "How long can you hold
your breath?"

-- 
73 de David Weingart  KB2CWF    In the event I am captured or killed, the
phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu       Cornell University Medical College and the
phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu   Department of Academic Computing will disavow
phydeaux@src4src.linet.org      any knowledge of my opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Pulsars as time machines?
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 23:46:34 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Okay, Gavin Miller (shocker@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu) recently mentioned
that someone named John Gribbin had proposed that a neutron star might
work as a Tipler-style time machine. (That is, the Closed Timelike Curves
might occur in the neighborhood of a rapidly rotating neutron star.)
 The Tipler-style 'machine' requires a massive cylinder rotating so that
its surface is moving at more than .5c. A pulsar, not being cylindrical,
might need more speed (or might not work at all). But it must at least
have this minimum speed.
 Now, from what I gather, there are pulsars with radii close to that
of Earth's, and some revolve at millisecond rates. If so, this would give
them more than enough speed.
 My question is, *is* this so? What is an "average" radius and speed of
a pulsar? Can we measure the speeds and sizes of pulsars that aren't
aimed at us, and do any of those fall in the following neighborhood?
Anyone have any buddies on sci.space? (I'm loath to post this there-
they get enough traffic as it is, and most wouldn't care...)

       radius                       rate of revolution

       10 km                        ~40 microseconds
       100 km                       ~400 microseconds
       1000 km                      ~4 milliseconds
       10000 km                     ~40 milliseconds


 Now, assume for the moment that at least some pulsars would act as
natural time machines. Something in the right orbit around it could
move back in time. (Light could be bent to go slightly back in time,
perhaps.)
 What might we see if we looked at one? What sort of astronomical
observations would lead us to beleive that this might be going on?


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles)
Subject: Re: Wrecking a Planet (Was: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:12:46 GMT

rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:

>stop a smaller fraction of the bombs. This is one reason for living in a
>space habitat rather than on a planet; a space habitat is a *lot* easier
>to defend.

Lot easier to move out of the way, for one thing.....

Eccles

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: Disappearing Frogs (Was Re: Global Sterilization)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:46:51 GMT

juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:
>pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>>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.

I think the difference is downtime. If something drastic happens to a
critical link in the telephone network it probably won't be out of
service for more than a day before the link is replaced. If a critical
link in an ecosystem is destroyed then it may be millions of years
before the link is replaced.

And even if the telecommunications link is some satellite that can't be
replaced for a while, destruction of that link doesn't cause its users to
die. This is to say, disruptions do not propagate beyond a limited scope.
And who is to say that what we are doing to the various ecosystems is
not *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.  

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.

-- 
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au             UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete
                       I am a big pond in a small fish.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:4102 alt.folklore.science:4611
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Malthusians are mistaken
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:59:35 GMT
	<1iouasINN372@gap.caltech.edu> <1993Jan11.025506.17157@netcom.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dani@netcom.com's message of Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:55:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.025506.17157@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:

   carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU:
   >>>Check the literature, looking for the subject "demographic transition."
   >>
   >>I'll take that for a supercilious "don't know."
   >
   >I'll take that as a lazy "I'm not going to take the time to try to learn about
   >it, and will continue to wallow in my ignorance."

   But I have tried -- including reading about demographic transition -- without
   finding any references.  That's why I asked.  It seemed reasonable to infer
   that if you actually knew of a reference you'd have cited it.  Still does.

   >Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.

   Fair enough, we're outside your area of expertise.  Mine too.

Try "Darwin, Sex and Status" by Barkow p. 316-371 or most any
anthroplogy text.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:3936 alt.folklore.science:4565