See Battle In Space Revisited.
An alien ship launches:
"'...a self-guiding missile...'" (p. 124)
- with a fission warhead, then another, towards the Peregrine which:
intercepts the first incoming missile with one of its own;
grabs the second with a gravity beam and throws it back;
replies with a barrage;
dodges more incoming shells.
Instruments indicate that the Peregrine's responses are not fast or accurate enough and that she must soon be hit. Therefore, Joachim recalls the armed boats to the ship. Although the Peregrine's maneuvers necessarily slow down, the enemy also eases off. In fact, he is herding the Peregrine towards a nearby Sol-type star.
Just another of those battles in space that happen in sf and probably nowhere else.
25 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Recent real world events vindicates such a scenario--the brutal theocracy in Iran has been firing missiles at all its neighbors, not just Israel and US forces. With Israel and the US destroying most of them with interceptor missiles.
Compounding their stupidity the regime in Tehran even attacked the UK's base in Cyprus, forcing PM Starmer to stop waffling and support the war against the Ayatollahs.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have a very different perspective on all this but am not going to go into it.
Paul.
The Iran thing demonstrates that rules made for interactions among Western nations just don't apply to non-Western states/tribes/whatever because they don't attach any value to them.
With them, the most useful preparation for negotiations is a fist in the face. Before 1914, Western countries knew this and had two different sets of rules.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, and I have long wondered if it's possible for Western nations to have normal relations with Muslim countries. A quasi-totalitarian "religion" like Islam, with its belief in the ideal of a theocratic merging of Mosque and State under the rule of a caliph to spread Islam by jihad worldwide makes such relations difficult, to say the least. Mind you, it's possible to have normal with non-fanatical Muslim regimes, as long as they stay non-fanatical. The problem being how, every few generations/centuries, waves of jihadist fanaticism arises within Islam.
Which makes me think the only way to handle such a problem is doing what Trump is doing, destroying the current nexus of jihadism, in Iran. For 47 years the theocracy there have preached hatred of the US, as the single most powerful obstacle to their ambitions. And they have never negotiated in good faith with the US, using "diplomacy" to bamboozle fools like Obama and "Josip" (plus extorting billions from the US). Apparently Trump decided enough was enough and he was not going to play the Ayatollahs game.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Waves of jihadism arise because of foreign interventions in Muslim countries. A sure way not to eradicate jihadism but to create more jihadists is to bomb a Muslim country.
A British-American-backed coup restored the Shah to power in Iran. The Iranians overthrew him with clerical leadership, thus unfortunately leading to a theocracy.
You think that one man, Trump, is entitled to unleash death and destruction on Iran, starting with killing 165 schoolgirls? The war is offensive, not defensive, and is not authorized by the UN so it is illegal.
Paul.
Paul: they put the school next to -- and close to -- a military base, which makes them 100% responsible for the casualties.
Note that defeating Germany and Japan in WW2 required mass bombing campaigns -- LeMay's firestorm raid on Tokyo in early 1945 killed 100,000 people in a single night, more than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
War means fighting, fighting means killing -- and in a populated area, that means bystanders get killed as well.
There's no rule against killing civilians, only against specifically -targeting- civilians, the way Hamas did on October 7th.
Paul: and no, jihadism is specifically justified on an aggressive basis in the Koran, which together with established custom dictates that Muslims should rule everywhere.
But the attack shouldn't have happened anyway?
The Bible talks about stoning an adulterer. Religious communities move away from what their scriptures say.
The rule against targeting civilians is violated in the Middle East.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't care beans about Mossadegh. If overthrowing him was necessary to prevent Iran from falling under Soviet domination, then good!
Stirling replied re that school, the regime did not have to set it next to a military base, a legitimate target of war. The Ayatollahs are responsible for those tragic deaths.
No, the problem is the Muslim theology of war, jihadism, theocracy, which goes straight back to the Koran, Hadiths, and Sharia law, beginning with Mohammed himself. And that makes Islam a permanent threat, potential and actual, to everybody in the world who don't want to be Muslim. Or to those who want to renounce Islam.
Yes, because Trump was a US President who at long last took seriously the Ayatollahs rants about being at war with the US, and acted accordingly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The coup was not about keeping the Russians out but about keeping the oil.
Re that school: But it is an illegal war.
No, the fact is that, with the Koran as with the Bible, traditions change and communities can develop to a stage where they no longer obey commands to stone adulterers or to wage war. Muslims are as capable of living peacefully as anyone else. Conditions matter.
The Ayalollahs alone rant? To rant is not to attack but Trump has attacked illegally.
Paul.
Sean,
You don't care about coups overthrowing governments when it is your side that does it?
Paul.
Note that 'targeting' civilians is a sharply limited category. You have to have the -intention- of killing civilians for its own sake. If you blast through civilians to get to a military target... or use area-effect munitions... you're not targeting civilians. That's just collateral damage.
From SM Stirling:
Note that 'targeting' civilians is a sharply limited category. You have to have the -intention- of killing civilians for its own sake. If you blast through civilians to get to a military target... or use area-effect munitions... you're not targeting civilians. That's just collateral damage.
In Response to a comment by paulshackley2017@gmail.com
Yes and specific targeting of civilians has been reported recently.
Kaor, Paul!
Correct, because that was what the Soviets wanted in Iran, control of that oil.
Incorrect, Trump was acting within his powers as commander-in-chief, as defined by the US Constitution and Acts of Congress (such as the 1973 War Powers Resolution).
Wrong, what you said about the Koran. Everything I said about it, the Hadiths, Sharia law, etc., about the mandatory status of jihad, setting up a theocracy, the right and duty of Muslims to conquer/rule the world, etc., remains. All that changes is there are times fanaticism lessens. But the potential for waves of jihadism to erupt again remains. And there's nothing Muslims who are not fanatical can do about it, because it's black letter doctrine in their most sacred documents. Any Muslim who tried advocating abolishing such doctrines would be denounced as a heretic/apostate and face a real risk of death.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The American-British-led coup put the Shah in power. His people had to overthrow him and the world still lives with the consequences of that. Iran, like every other country, has to be free of the US and Russia.
Incorrect. Trump is empowered to launch wars of aggression? He now threatens "complete destruction and certain death." He wants to appoint the next Iranian leader. The Iranian people have to say who leads them. They cannot do that while being bombed and destroyed.
In international, not American, law, a war is legal only if it is defensive, not offensive, and if it is UN-authorized. Without international law, might makes right, as practiced by Putin and Trump.
Can we stop expressing ourselves with "Incorrect" and "Wrong"? There are better ways to discuss things.
However, while we are at it:
Wrong what you said about the Koran. Despite whatever is written in the Bible or the Koran, religious traditions change. Many people now live peacefully without stoning adulterers, without practicing any of the other horrible executions prescribed in the Bible, without burning heretics and without waging crusades or jihads.
Fanaticism lessens when imperial powers are not intervening in Muslim countries. In the present world system, the potential for violence to re-erupt certainly remains, of course. Bombing Iran will not eradicate jihadism but will unleash new waves of it. ISIS came out of the invasion of Iraq.
Paul.
Any entrenched war machine needs a permanent external enemy. Therefore, although supposed attempts to eradicate jihadism have the reverse effect of intensifying it, this outcome - the longer term intensification of jihadism - is surely welcome.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, and the Ayatollahs who overthrew the Shah in 1979 did not care at all about Mossadegh. The mistake the Shah made in the course of his Seven Year Plans was trying to modernize Iran too fast, too rapidly, and too radically, esp. in the last two of these Plans.
Rejected, only American law binds the US. The only "international" law that matters to a sovereign nation like the US are whatever treaties and conventions were ratified by the US Senate.
I don't agree with what you said about "tradition" re Islam. The fact still remain that Koranic doctrine, law, "tradition" about jihad, the ideal of merging and mosque and state into a theocracy, the right and duty of Muslims to conquer/rule the world, etc., has not changed. And is advocated by Muslim fanatics everywhere. It's good some Muslims are not like that, but they cannot speak for all Muslims, nor do they have a good theological position for opposing jihadism and Sharia supremacism.
Disagree, nations attacked/threatened by jihads have every right to fight back in self defense against such attacks. No imperial powers were threatening Mohammed when that "prophet" founded Islam in 610. He set himself up as a warlord and conqueror after 620, justifying that as being a revelation from Allah commanding him to wage war against his enemies. And that "revelation" was the basis for the jihads of the so called "rightly guided" caliphs, the Ummayads, the Abbasids, Fatimids, Ottoman caliphs, and all other Muslim conquerors of the past 14 centuries.
Your views are catastrophic, boiling down to saying we should not defend ourselves against Muslim conquest, aggression, threats, bullying, harassment.
Btw, two Muslim sympathizers of ISIS in NYC tried to bomb the official residence of the mayor, despite Mamdani claiming to be a Muslim.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree but we are not trying to agree.
Paul.
I do not claim that the Ayatollahs cared about Mossadegh.
The Shah did not just make mistakes. He ruled despotically with secret police, was hated and overthrown.
Rejected. Without international law, might makes right. The US does participate in the UN.
Trump is entitled to wreak all this destruction whereas Putin isn't? Of course not.
The fact remains that traditions change and many Muslims do not wage jihad. Muslim fanatics exist for the reasons I said. There will be many more as a result of the present war.
Of course nations attacked have a right to fight back! My views are not catastrophic. I have not said that aggression should not be resisted.
Of course some ISIS sympathizers planted a bomb - such things will continue to happen as long as people are turned into fanatics. ISIS exists because of the invasion of Iraq.
The US is bullied and harassed by hostile regimes? The way to respond to this is not by destruction of cities and slaughter of their populations.
Kaor,. Paul!
I stand by what I said about Islam, Iran, the Shah, etc. If anything the Ayatollahs are far more despotic than the Shah.
Refused, what you said about Muslims and their "tradition." All you are doing is hoping, which is not good enough.
ISIS exists because of Islam.
Refused, the only law binding on the US is what I've said above. Nor do I care beans about that empty futile joke called the UN.
Refused, what you said about the Iran war. As Stirling said, quoting another writer: "violence is always the ultimately decisive means of political action."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I stand by what I said. It is pointless asking which was worse: Shah or Ayatollahs. The Shah was dreadful. That was why he was overthrown.
Refused. I am not just hoping! Many Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding. I know a lot of them.
Refused what I said about the Iran War? What does that mean? The Iranian people suffer under American and Israeli bombardment and how many of them will become jihadists as a result? Meanwhile, the regime stands and inflicts massive damage on US military installations and on Tel Aviv. I hope that the US has learned the folly of invading. Trump is causing a lot of harm and damage but is not achieving his various stated aims.
Paul.
Post a Comment