Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Mote in God's Eye
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:26:31 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

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.

>>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.

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

>>>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?

>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.

I see no reason to believe the Moties are so suicidal.  Indeed, a passage 
in the book suggests that they are surprised at humans' occasional refusal 
to surrender facing impossible odds.

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

We did.  The Moties were offered the opportunity to join the Empire.  Their
representatives refused.  It seemed pretty clear that the only way to
change their aggressive posture toward the Empire was military action
(either immediate war, or a takeover after the Cycle collapses them for us).

>>>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."

But enough.  There are indications that the continuing discussion is
boring the net, and arguing about debating tactics rather than about _Mote_ 
bores me, too.