"...the ship boomed and shuddered. She had fired a missile salvo: the monster missiles which nothing smaller than a battleship could carry, which had their own hyperdrives and phase-in computers." (p. 175)
"When such speeds, masses, intensities met, robots took over. Missile raced at missile; computer matched wits with computer in the weird dance of phasing." (p. 176)
"The other missiles must have been avoided or parried, and by now were destroying themselves lest they become threats to navigation. Max Abrams would have called that rule a hopeful sign." (p. 178)
Abrams finds hope in self-destroying missiles! Would all that wealth and technology really be invested in destruction? Think how much it could accomplish if invested in life. There would be nothing material left to fight over and I do think that, in those circumstances, people would fight over ideas or beliefs either. Disagree and argue, yes. Fight, no. Imagine: one aberrant individual reading some history learns that there used to be jihads and crusades and tries to persuade his co-religionists to revive the practice... Meanwhile, no one is manufacturing any weapons...
Ranjit Singh, Ensign Flandry, Dragoika and four other gunners survive in the Sabik. Captain Einarsen is definitely dead. We do not know about Lieutenant Karamzin.
Ranjit tugs at his beard: the uncut hair of a Sikh.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have to disagree with your fourth paragraph. Humans, and possibly other races, are flawed and imperfect (Fallen), so I am not in the least surprised about them quarreling and fighting. It only needs ONE to start a war!
Given that, it will be NECESSARY to allocate wealth and resources for armed forces. In the Technic series the Empire has a right and duty to defend itself against Merseia and barbarians. In the real world Ukraine has a right to defend itself against Russia. And I strongly suspect China, seeing the US has a weak and incompetent bungler as President, will soon try attacking Taiwan.
Yes, people will disagree over ideas and beliefs. No, sometimes they will fight as well. The problem with that mention of jihads is how Islam's most important doctrinal sources approves of waging jihads in the name of Allah. That is why we see periodical waves of jihadism from Islam. And such fanaticism can be seen in varied secular ideologies as well.
Assuming some kind of tolerable world state, we have to expect such a regime to have a monopoly of force and coercion, including police and armed forces. Because that will be necessary for keeping the peace.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Any country that is attacked has a right to defend itself?
(I am focusing on that single point, not on the more general issues.)
Paul.
Sean: it doesn't take much ability to press the Big Red Button... 8-).
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, any country attacked by another has a right to defend itself. But, that might not always be possible. E.g., a small country like Andorra would be totally helpless if France decided to gobble it up, as Napoleon had done.
Mr. Stirling: Either to start a war or to use nuclear weapons! I have been wondering when a frustrated Putin might decide to use tactical nukes in Ukraine?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I expect this includes all countries attacked or invaded by the USB?
Paul.
USA
Conversely, if they didn't invest in those missiles, they'd be Merseian subordinates or dead...
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, if those countries made themselves enemies of the US or were used by enemies of America. Alternately, a failed nation could make itself a dangerous nuisance, and so might be occupied by the US. E.g., the chaos in Mexico, where its gov't does not actually control its territories bordering the US (the drug cartels are the real bosses there) has provoked suggestions the US should occupy the northern parts of Mexico.
Shades of Stirling's BLACK CHAMBER books!
Mr. Stirling: Exactly!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You mean it was right for the US to attack countries if those countries were enemies of the US or it was right for those countries to defend themselves?
Paul.
Sean,
I suspect a double standard here. It is wrong for one country to attack another but it is right for the US to intervene militarily in a country that it has identified as its enemy?
Paul.
Paul: the French can be absolute pains in the ass a lot of the time (see one E. Macron ) but it would be 'wrong' to attack them. Essentially because they're members of the family.
Russia, OTOH, isn't, so pure expedience should govern those decisions.
Mr Stirling
There is a book "Never at War: Why Democracies don't fight each other", in which the author documents the rarity of wars between democracies. He also states a possible reason for that reluctance, ie: citizens of democracies regard citizens of other democracies as part of their in group (their tribe) & regard the rulers of non-democracies as oppressors of potential members of the in group.
That is another way of putting your statement of why it would be wrong to attack the French.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Like it or not, expediency and ruthlessness are going to be necessary tools for RESPONSIBLE leaders, no matter how democratic they are. The FIRST duty of any statesman is the well being and survival of his country. If that means invading one or more countries, so be it.
I like what that Roman, Flavius Vegetius Renatus said in his book DE RE MILITARI: "If you want peace prepare for war."
Jim: And I don't believe that nonsense one bit! I can easily imagine France and the US fighting each other.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If... Like the attack on Iraq?
And every invaded country has a right to defend itself.
Paul.
A President who orders an invasion is either an aggressor or a responsible leader - depending on our point of view, of course.
Sean: "I can easily imagine France and the US fighting each other."
I can too. Just by the sparse record of wars between democracies it is much less likely as long as they both stay democracies.
I don't insist that wars between democracies are *impossible*, we just have a record that shows they are uncommon compared to wars in which at least one side is non-democratic.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, for the reasons given above--esp. the anger and frustration and anger many in the US now have for Mexico, a failed nation unable or unwilling to control the drug cartels or the hordes of illegals swarming thru it to INVADE the US.
I agree it can be DEBATABLE whether an invasion of an enemy of the US or a dangerously failed nation was wise or not, but I believe in the rightness of the principle.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Jim!
I still disagree because I have no doubt democracies can and will fight each other as centuries pass. There is nothing sacred about democracy, it's just a mode of gov't that sometimes work. And it does not mean people in democracies are better than those languishing in a despotism like China. Just luckier.
Ad astra! Sean
As centuries pass, we will either destroy ourselves, as we are doing now, or possibly learn to live in a better way.
Kaor, Paul!
First, for the sake of argument, I am going to assume the human race will survive. Second, I disagree because I don't believe in Utopian fantasies. Nothing I've seen in real history and how real people behaves convinces me your hopes are possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But history shows us that we have changed and can continue to change further.
Paul.
BTW, it is insufficient to assume that we will survive. We now have to work at it.
Post a Comment