Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Mote in God's Eye
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 23:15:03 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 <1992Aug12.191346.13859@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.171330.16928@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Am I correct that you are retracting your earlier claim that subduing
>>and changing the Moties is easier than killing them?

>No, I'm just clarifying it.  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.

>Nonetheless, it's not obvious to me either that the genocide is a low-cost
>low-risk operation, or that reorganization has a higher cost.  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.

>>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. 

So let's get this straight, in order to avoid exterminating the Moties
you are going to order your own troops down onto the planer with the
full intention of blowing them into radioactive dust if the Moties
don't play ball.  Correct?

>>>And a threat is a conditional: "If you do X, we do Y."  Credibility doesn't
>>>disappear if we don't do Y, only if we continue to not do Y when they do X.

>>So what do you do if they call your bluff?  

>I do whatever I said I'd do if they didn't behave.

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?

In that case, why not give them their chance when you first enter the system?

>I think you're making difficulties out of nothing.  Managing the surrender
>of an enemy you don't really trust is touchy, but in real situations 
>(e.g. Japan in WWII) we do find a way to make it happen.

For Japan in WWII we had enough troops to occupy the entire country.
Are you going to do that to the Motie homeworld?  Where are you going
to find the spacships to ferry them in?  Are you confident that when
they leave there won't be a single stow-away?

>>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.  

You basicly said that you didn't consider the Watchmakers to be such a
big problem because you had trouble accepting them.  Well, accept them
or not, but they are there.

>Actually "technologically magic" is *not* in the book, it's an interpretation.
>We see the Watchmakers accomplishing various prodigies; we get very little
>explanation and certainly no discussion of the limits of their powers.
>It would be perfectly consistent with the book if everything they do is
>just the application of textbook Motie science.  (For instance, their 
>revamping of the cargo hatch might just be SOP for Motie spaceships.)

Note, of course, that the Watchmakers were also able to maintain an
Alderson field, something that was definitely not SOP for Motie
spaceships, and the make an enhancement to it that was beyond the
Empire's technology as well.

Also, remember that the entire complement of Watchmakers on the ship
came from the two or three that the miner/prospecter brought with her
on board.  Are you saying that they had the whole of Motie technology packed
into their little heads?  I'll believe technological geniuses who
derive the stuff independently before I'll believe that.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science