Cabal forces have gained control of the whole Earth apart from a score of fortresses holding Dictator Carnarvon and his men. However, the Terrestrial navy still loyal to Carnarvon threatens to bombard.
This is absurd. What good can be accomplished by a bombardment? Clearly the Humanist revolution has failed. Surely Carnarvon should concede and order his Admiral to stand down? That is now the only way that he can do any good for humanity.
We understand that people are irrational but we would also like to see some lessons learned from the history of the twentieth century, especially when instruments of genocide are involved.
Poul Anderson sets up the premises of this story so that a single naval action will decide the future. The Psychotechnic Institute, although not the science of psychotechnics, is no more and the Humanists will follow the Institute into the dustbin of history but mankind will continue.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Power, like it or not, is what many people want. For either good or bad reasons/excuses. And if, in a situation as described here, bombardment, or the threat thereof, makes the rebels surrender to the Humanists, it makes perfect sense to threaten a bombardment. It might not even be necessary to bombard if Carnarvon's enemies surrender.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sense to threaten a bombardment? Even just to threaten? We part company. The Humanists started out wanting to make the world a better place. A world either bombarded or intimidated is not a better place.
Paul.
Once they're in a fight, lots of people are perfectly willing to die if they can take their enemy with them.
Kaor, Paul!
Paul: Then you don't understand human beings and politics. It ultimately comes down to "Do as I want or die." Force, or the threat thereof, is the base on which all States, bad or good, exists--and has to exist.
Mr. Stirling: We saw that in WW II, when Germany and Japan fought on long past the point where the rational thing to do was surrendering. It took Hitler's suicide and the Emperor's personal intervention before Germany and Japan finally gave up.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree with threatening nuclear bombardment so I don't understand human beings?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You don't seem to understand what drives people to do or threaten desperate things.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do understand but I disagree with threatening nuclear bombardment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It's also what I strongly suspect will happen.
Ad astra! Sean
And I disagree with it.
Kaor, Paul!
And your disagreement won't stop that from happening, if/when it happens.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, I do not think that my mere disagreement will prevent anything. Have we gone off the point here?
Paul.
Paul: actual nuclear bombardment convinced the Japanese (or a dominant faction of them) to give up in WW2.
Without that, we'd have had to invade, and total casualties would have been much higher. The Japanese Army actually -did- usually fight to the death -- one of their antitank weapons was a man in a slit trench, with an antitank mine on his knees and a rock in his hand.
And they were planning on using masses of women with bamboo spears and children with grenades under their clothes, too.
Imagine what -that- would have produced.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I read about things like that. The "optimistic" estimate was that an American invasion of Japan would result in 500,000 American deaths.
Japan, of course, would have been completely destroyed as a nation.
Ad astra! Sean
More generally, you usually end a conflict when one side becomes convinced the other can -and will- destroy them if they don't yield.
To be credible, a threat has to be genuine.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, esp. in existential struggles where a war becomes a life and death conflict fought to and beyond the bitter end. A more limited, "cabinet war" would be conflicts fought for limited ends or gains.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: true about cabinet wars. They generally didn't involve mass mobilization -- though there were exceptions, like the 7 Years War for Prussia (in which it lost over 20% of its total population).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that was because of the implacable hatred Empress Elizabeth had for Frederick II of Prussia. She wanted to destroy Frederick, not merely to defeat him.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment