HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:40:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.072613.23656@Princeton.EDU> jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning) writes:
}In article <1jvpp8INNbol@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen) writes:
}>There is a real tendency in science fiction to always think of planets
}>as single entities, when our own planet does not bear this out.  If you
}>invaded Earth, who would you tell to surrender?  It is safe to assume
}>that other worlds will have hundreds, if not thousands, of governments.
}>I can't see how 1/2 mil to 2 mil troops could hope to handle them all.
}>You would have to take them one at a time and probably obliterate a few
}>holdouts.
}
}If the planet was not fighting as a single entity, I don't think it
}would have much of a chance against an invading force, especially one with
}superior technology.  Imagine if the Soviet Union were still a single
}entity and decided to make peace with alien invaders.  There's not
}much the rest of the world could do about it once the aliens had a
}terrestrial base and lots of resources.  Any planet with hundreds or
}thousands of governments which can't work together is going to be
}crushed.

Wrong.  Crush Panama and Columbia sneers.  Crush the US of A and
Japan marches on.  Think "decentralization".  Which do YOU think would
win - technological you or 1/10 of your weight in lo-tech bees?
note: You have to get ALL the bees.

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.science:4247 rec.arts.sf.written:18273
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:32:40 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

> Sun Tzu said something to the effect of the ultimate in conquest is when
> the conquered gives in to the conqueror without a battle.  Finding a way
> to bring a population to it knees on a planetwide basis sounds like a
> *big* job -- but what if you can convince them it is too risky to fight
> at all.

Air (or space) superiority is a great method for attrition, but I don't 
think it's ever in history convinced the other side to give up.  Look at 
the Gulf War:  we were bombing for a long, long time; the front lines 
were shelled into the ground, but they still weren't giving up 
sufficiently fast enough to make us happy.  (We _still_ had to move in, 
naturally.  It wasn't hard after all that, but we still had to put boys 
at risk.)

I think it would be much, much harder to get a planetary civilization to 
surrender.  I think it's also important here to keep in mind the 
nationality factor -- while an alien planet may not be divided into 
warring nations, there certainly would be principalities.  There wouldn't 
be a hive mind; each principality would react differently.  Some would 
surrender immediately, some would never -- ever -- surrender.

"To win one hundred battles is not the acme of skill.  To subdue the 
enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."  -- Sun Tzu


Erik Max Francis  -)(-  ..!apple!uuwest!max  -)(-  max@west.darkside.com   __
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1; San Jose, CA  95117  ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  /  \
Like strategic games of interstellar conquest? . . . Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt; all things that are, are lights. -)(-
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Fusion Output
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:32:45 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

gt1759c@prism.gatech.EDU (Don Morris) writes:

>In <1993Jan25.174731.28362@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> seanodon@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Aragorn) writes:

>>In article <Dave_Wetzel-250193121541@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com (David Wetzel) writes:
>>>Quick question:
>>>Would the "waste" products of Fusion be radioactive (theoretically)?

>>From what I understand, the by-products of nuclear fusion would not be
>>very radioactive.  However, the container where the fusion occurs would
>>be irradiated like you wouldn't believe.  And no, I'm not a nuclear
>>engineer, so this may not be completely accurate.

>It is true that the by-products of fusion (namely Helium 3, Helium 4, and
>leftover Deuterium and Tritium) are not _very_ radioactive (Tritium is in the
>first place).

Helium III and Helium IV are not radioactive at all, as a matter of
fact.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Nobody of Importance)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 23 Jan 1993 23:01:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: huey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1js764INN6q7@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen) writes:
]Anyway, this planet has been able to produce 60,000 nuclear weapons.
]Why worry about dropping rocks.  Just nuke strategic sites.  Screw up
]communications and infrastructure and occupy where you need to.  Ask the
]Germans and Japanese how this works on even a small scale.  Look what we
]did in Iraq against a much larger force.  And, in these cases nukes were
]not involved.  

Uh, I presume that you want to be able to use the planet after you take it
(use on site factories to build defenses, etc.) as opposed to waiting a few
years for radiation to die down a bit. Lot's of strategic targets on a high
population world.
 
]In closing, invading a planet would be little different from invading a
]country, just larger scale.
]
]
]-- 
]| Charles B. Owen                            Internet: mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu |
]| Western Illinois University                            Phone: 309-837-4292 |
]| 1002 E. Murray                                                             |
]| Macomb, IL  61455                                                          |

Subject: Patrick Chester            |Words to live by:
Age: NOYB                           |"Military action is important to the     
Address: A place                    |nation--it is the ground of death and     
Email:wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    |life, the path of survival and destruction
Political Views: Somewhere in orbit |so it is important to examine it."-Sun Tzu
Blackmarks: Politically Incorrect   |Famous Last Words:                        
(hobbies)   Anime Otaku/Trekker     |--If you cut me down, I will only become
            Technocentric           |more powerful...  
            Netrekker (claypigeon)  |--Shhh!! There it is again....           
            Whole bunch of -isms    |--Use the bazooka to open the door...
     Won't remove Sun Tzu quote to  |--I cut the red wire...
     make the Greens happy ;)       |--I have a *very* bad feeling about this
-- 
<***** INSERT LAWSUIT DEFLECTION TEXT*****> 

I speak (type actually) for myself only. Even if I did decide to 
speak for UT, no one would listen. 

Flame away, I don't bleedin' care...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are They?
Keywords: n
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:15:24 GMT


 I haven't refreshed my memory on 2001 in a long time, so I'm not sure
about _Discovery_'s power source, though it was almost certainly nuclear.
_Leonov_ was powered by a fusion reactor of some sort, which Clarke 
wisely refrained from describing in too much detail. It wasn't muon-
catalyzed fusion, though. That technology wasn't developed until 
sometime between 2010 and 2061.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Anybody? Anybody? Class?
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:46:32 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

dayne@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller) states
>Can anyone help with the following questions?
>
>4) In Dan Simmons' _Fall of Hyperion_, he makes reference to "coherent
>electron beams" ("CEBs", or "CEEBs", or something like that). Is this a
>weapon grounded in anything we have or are developing today?

	Well it would only work in a vacume, since electrons travaling
through matter give off their energy as photons when the hit something,
How do you make a cathode ray coherent?
>
>5) Again from Niven: What *is* the theoretical minimum tensile strength of
>scrith (Ringworld foundation material)?
Last time I calculated it it was on the order of the intermolecular
force. I.e. we ain't gona buld ringworlds for a long long time, if ever.

>
>6) More Niven yet: Is there any theoretical way in which to "temporarily
>neutralize the charge of the electron" in a manner similar to that of the
>Slaver disintegrator (and the proton as well, as in the Wunderland
>Treatymaker)? Maybe some aspect of superstring theory of which I am unaware?
>(Yes, that covers a *LOT* of territory.)
No. Unless someone has come up with a method of manipulating the 6
dementional vibrations of strings.... As far as i'm conserned charge
must be conserved.
>
>7) Lasers consist of coherent, parallel quanta of energy emission. How perfect
>is the parallelism? In other words, how much spread will occur over, say, one
>light year in a perfect vaccuum? Or perhaps more importantly, how much spread
>(and scatter) can be expected over a given distance (AU, light year, light 
>minute, solar radius, whatever) given the mean density of solar and/or inter-
>stellar medium?
it spreds by difraction. where the fist minimum is given by sin theta =
n * lamda / diameter. 
>
>8) How feasible is David Brin's idea of using "refrigerator lasers" to cool
>objects in space? Is the idea dependant upon high-temperature superconductors
>(of heat, not necessarily electricity)? Or would any highly-efficient heat pump
>work?
Freshman thermodynamics says it is imposable.
>
>Any help anyone could give me on these would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks-
>
>     -Dayne Miller
>        dayne@byron.u.washington.edu


Mark E. Horning, Physics 		Back off man, I'm a scientist.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu		Bill Murray, Ghostbusters	
mhorning@data.acs.calpoly.edu
		A penny saved is a congessional oversite.
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Technical incompetence of governments
Date: 23 Jan 93 12:23:45
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk's message of 23 Jan 93 13:15:49 GMT

In article <C1B66E.30E@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:

   .... They threw what was, for the time, a 
   scandalous amount of cash at the Ministry, while keeping the Vickers people
   starved of resources.  We all know what happened to R101.  R100, which ran 
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   perfectly, was quietly disposed of.

Actually, we don't -- my Dad has been after me to read Slide Rule for
*years* -- so how about filling us in?
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:23:31
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: max@west.darkside.com's message of 24 Jan 93 20:32:40 GMT

In article <6wewXB16w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:

   martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   > Sun Tzu said something to the effect of the ultimate in conquest is when
   > the conquered gives in to the conqueror without a battle.  Finding a way
   > to bring a population to it knees on a planetwide basis sounds like a
   > *big* job -- but what if you can convince them it is too risky to fight
   > at all.

   Air (or space) superiority is a great method for attrition, but I don't 
   think it's ever in history convinced the other side to give up.  Look at 
   the Gulf War:  we were bombing for a long, long time; the front lines 
   were shelled into the ground, but they still weren't giving up 
   sufficiently fast enough to make us happy.  (We _still_ had to move in, 
   naturally.  It wasn't hard after all that, but we still had to put boys 
   at risk.)

Actually, the 100-hour War was about as good an example as one could
find of a rout of a demoralized ground force; I don't think they'd have
stood as long as they did if it weren't for the fairly amazing tactics
Hussein's cadres used to keep people in the line.  All I can think of to
compare with it is Zama.

   I think it would be much, much harder to get a planetary civilization to 
   surrender.  I think it's also important here to keep in mind the 
   nationality factor -- while an alien planet may not be divided into 
   warring nations, there certainly would be principalities.  There wouldn't 
   be a hive mind; each principality would react differently.  Some would 
   surrender immediately, some would never -- ever -- surrender.

   "To win one hundred battles is not the acme of skill.  To subdue the 
   enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."  -- Sun Tzu

Yeah, what he said.  There's are stories that Genghiz Khan (Mongolian PC
freaks can correct my spelling if desired) subdued cities by acts of
such unimaginable ferocity applied to ambassadors, nearby villages etc,
that they didn't dare to fight.  What could do that to a whole planetary
population?  

Turning a big moon into a ring?
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 26 Jan 1993 06:46:01 GMT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (Berkeley Tentacle)
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <C1EznD.D45@world.std.com> tfish@world.std.com (Tex Fish) writes:
>Does aynbody know what percent of the rocks in the
>asteroid belt are made of ice?  Because that would solve the dust problem,
>if one was to use water.
    It does _reduce_ the dust - remember you're throwing the thing AT a
planetary crust, which is mostly rock waiting to be pulverized to dust - but
you've forgotten a detail. When these huge ice chunks come to a dead stop,
a fair part of their kinetic energy will be turned into heat, giving us lots
of water vapor. This could either aid greenhouse effects and warm the planet,
or provide cloud cover to raise the albedo and cool it; or perhaps both.
(Incidentally, I don't think you'll find many ice chunks in the asteroid
belt - definitely not if comets show tails by that close in. Look to the
Oort, or Saturn's rings.)
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist
-- 
"I'd love to hold you/ I'd love to kiss you/ I ain't got time for that now."
-Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
"Death needs Time for what it kills to grow in."
-William S. Burroughs, "Ah Pook is Here"
From: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com (David Wetzel)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Fusion Output
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:12:54 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dwetzel.mis.stratus.com

Quick question:
Would the "waste" products of Fusion be radioactive (theoretically)?

Thanks,
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: 20000 decibel
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:19:25 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

myers@cs.scarolina.edu (Daniel Myers) writes:

>The science in the old Batman shows was never of the best quality :)

No.

>This doesn't quite accurately impart the
>correct loudness however.  The scale being used is a logarithmic one,
>meaning that each point in the scale is 10 times louder than the last
>one (again, I may be off in the exact details).

One bel more is 10 times more. 10 decibel = 1 bel (surprise, surprise),
so 130 decibel is 10 times as loud as 120 decibel. 20000 is 10^1988
times as loud.

>I suspect that the
>pressure waves from a sustained 20000 decibel sound would tend to
>physically rip apart any objects within, oh maybe, a 10 foot radius, and
>possibly rupture eardrums and liquify brains for maybe 100 feet beyond
>that.

I suspect that a 20000 sound would atomize the Earth. No one has answered
my question: "how much energy would it take to evaporate the Earth?" but
I am sure that this amount of energy is totally insignificant compared to
that released by a 20000 decibel sound in even one second.

Klaus O K
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.written
From: paul@econ.yale.edu (Paul McGuire)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Organization: Economics Department, Yale University, New Haven, Ct.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:46:30 GMT

In article <dpn2.230.727838665@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>
>This is not quite correct; I distinctly remember reading somewhere (in 
>N-Space maybe?) that Niven and Pournelle did not mean to say in _Mote_ that 
>that particular society _would_ evolve, merely that it _could_. They used it 
>mostly because it seemed like a fun background for a plot.

I think authors use feudal societies either due to laziness or to a desire
for simplicity.  It cuts down greatly on the number of important or powerful
characters that need to be dealt with.  Want something?  Go talk to the king.
That's much tidier than stageing a media blitz and lobbying congress and
buying representatives and persuading power groups to support you....


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: UUMEME Public Access Xenix
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:01:51 GMT
Keywords: this newsreader is quite annoying.

All in all, it still looks like the BEST way to conquer is to find a way to
make the target economically or psychologically dependent on you... say, by
supplying something sufficiently vital/desirable that, when you cut off supply
(assuming they can't/won't make it themselves), that they'll agree to extending
you certain political powers... then, do it again. And again. After awhile, IF
done right, you have them in yopur pocket.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Fusion Output
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:25:24 GMT

Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com (David Wetzel) writes:

>Quick question:
>Would the "waste" products of Fusion be radioactive (theoretically)?

One of the problems with the experimental fusion apperati is that 
the high neutron flux keeps transmuting the chamber walls into 
other isotopes, some of them radioactive.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: kasprj@operators.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Technical incompetence of governments
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:06:12 GMT

In article <MARTINC.93Jan23122345@grover.cs.unc.edu>, martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
|> In article <C1B66E.30E@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
|> 
|>    .... They threw what was, for the time, a 
|>    scandalous amount of cash at the Ministry, while keeping the Vickers people
|>    starved of resources.  We all know what happened to R101.  R100, which ran 
|>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>    perfectly, was quietly disposed of.
|> 
|> Actually, we don't -- my Dad has been after me to read Slide Rule for
|> *years* -- so how about filling us in?
 
 The short summary: it crashed.

------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: markg@pdx820 (Mark Gonzales)
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:15:19 GMT

In article <ig25.727829955@fg70> ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
>One thing which always disturbed me in quite a number of SF future
>histories is the assumption that a technical society can be run
>successfully with some kind of aristocratic system.
>[...]

Lois McMaster Bujold's Barrayar series takes the opposite point of view
to N&P. Her Barrayar is a pre-technical Feudal aristocracy in the
necessary process of transitioning to a meritocracy with the
introduction of galactic technology. The aristos are attempting to
preserve what they see as good about their society during the
transition, but most aristos realize that meritocracy is necessary to
compete in the galactic economy.

>
>One key problem interfering with a society's success which has
>hereditary transfer of power ist that there is no easy way of getting
>rid of the duds, which education alone cannot do.  [...]

Some of the early books in the series deal with the problem of getting
rid of duds without giving a general public licence to kill aristocrats.
Barrayar's government is especially vulnerable to take over by a
Stalinesque strongman, thwarting such attempts forms one of the
continuing themes in the series.

Mark
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mapam@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr R A Khwaja)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re:Talking Apes
Date: 26 Jan 1993 16:17:45 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: feta.csv.warwick.ac.uk


I have been reading David Brin's The Uplift War and it reminded me
of a TV program I saw some years ago in which an orang-utan(?)
had been taught sign language. It used to ask for food and say it was bored
and stuff, I think. The program ended with the narrator
wondering whether the ape(?) would teach the sign language to her
children.
Does anybody know what happened to this project and how successful
it REALLY was?

Thanks in advance
               Rehan Khwaja (mapam@csv.warwick.ac.uk)