• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

Bagpuss

Legend
War isn't an option. Do you know how much it would cost just to send one teeny bomb to Mars? Billions. Billions to blow up a random Martian fruit stand, if we're lucky.

You wouldn't send a bomb direct from Earth. You would work on tethering asteroids "purely for mining operations", and then once you have that technology sorted you just throw rocks at them, it would be cheaper in the long run.

Also you wouldn't involve people it's expensive putting people in space you would use robots to drop the rocks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jonesy

A Wicked Kendragon
You wouldn't send a bomb direct from Earth. You would work on tethering asteroids "purely for mining operations", and then once you have that technology sorted you just throw rocks at them, it would be cheaper in the long run.

Also you wouldn't involve people it's expensive putting people in space you would use robots to drop the rocks.
How does that make any more sense? The scenario is two planets with roughly similar levels of technology. Any scenario where you start lobbing mass at your opponent is going to turn into a contest to see which side reaches stone age first, or which side can dig a deeper hole to hide in forever.
 

Bagpuss

Legend
How does that make any more sense? The scenario is two planets with roughly similar levels of technology.

Right because countries with similar levels of technology have never gone to war, in history.

Also do we have to assume they have similar mind sets? Political structures? Paranoia?
 

jonesy

A Wicked Kendragon
I meant sense from a self-preservation point of view.

Planet to planet warfare is very different from nation to nation war. You can't attack by surprise. You can't hide any of your operations. You can't send landing parties without expecting most or all of them to the get shot to pieces.

The whole throw rocks at them approach might have worked in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, but in that story Moon had a significant gravity well strength advantage. Mars + two small moons vs Earth + one large moon is a fairly symmetric situation that leads to a war neither can expect to win without signicant losses. Is ending up in the stone age an acceptable price for victory?
 


dark2112

First Post
Only if there is anything to trade which I think is rather unlikely because of differences and distance.



If they have money...

Once upon a time, there was this road, and it took about a year to go from one end to the other with your caravan. And people were still willing to leave behind their friends, their families, to travel this road. This year to travel this road, it could even be longer, depending on whether or not you ran into bandits who would kill and rob you, or into hostile kingdoms that had radically different cultures than anything you could even have conceived.

Why did they travel this road? Why, simply to get the byproduct of some insect catching dinner. Silk was a pretty big deal back then. Trade of anything we could find on earth would be prohibitively expensive, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't send caravans to get those luxury goods that just simply don't exist on Earth, and you can't tell me that with an entire planet that's just as full of life as Earth is that we wouldn't find something. And money? That's a fairly modern concept, humanity did quite well (and still does, in many areas) simply bartering for what they want.

I agree with the sentiment that we wouldn't have been chatting it up with 'martians' back in the twenties, but we wouldn't have exactly been ignorant as to their presence. The debate about the canals of Mars was pretty fresh in the early 1900s, and more powerful telescopes were being made at around the same time radio was getting into the scene. We would have probably seen their equivalent of London before we heard their first radio broadcasts, or at least before we were able to identify their radio broadcasts as something indicating intelligent life.

The thing I wonder, primarily, is what effect would the discovery that an alien species was able to listen in to our radio (and later television) broadcasts have on our society. Would we have even commercialized television for the masses, or would it have been kept as some sort of military-only technology? Would the knowledge of the likelihood of alien life nearby changed WWII? If not, would the rampant paranoia after the war brought around military preparations for a potential invasion, or would we have overcome that and learned to communicate? Would we be watching Martian Box Office's version of Game of Thrones on the Interstellar TV Network? Would Sean Bean find a market where he could play a character that didn't die?

People always like to cite the psychological issues of a manned mission to Mars as this giant, game ending barrier. Yes, it's a problem, but then again, so was a three month journey on a wooden boat in 1492 to a land that no one was even sure existed. They couldn't even supply themselves well enough to prevent simple diseases from ravaging their health. We can do much better.

The human spirit is pretty strong, and if there's sufficient motivation, we'll find a way to put up with all kinds of hardships to get what we want, and I'm pretty sure there would be a lot of people interested in traveling to Mars to learn, trade, and explore. Personally, I'd be interested in traveling to Mars now, even knowing it's a one way trip, and so would many other people. Imagine if there was a society that could keep us in breathable atmosphere, catch supply packets sent over in advance to feed us, and top up the gas tanks so we could come back?
 

Derren

Hero
Once upon a time, there was this road, and it took about a year to go from one end to the other with your caravan.

No trader traveled on the whole silk road. Goods were transferred from one outpost on the road to the next where someone else would buy it and continue to the next outpost. And emissaries and pilgrims whos destination was on the other end had plenty of time and could rest along the way.
People always like to cite the psychological issues of a manned mission to Mars as this giant, game ending barrier. Yes, it's a problem, but then again, so was a three month journey on a wooden boat in 1492 to a land that no one was even sure existed.

People of that time were very certain that India existed (thats what they were looking for)
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
People always like to cite the psychological issues of a manned mission to Mars as this giant, game ending barrier. Yes, it's a problem, but then again, so was a three month journey on a wooden boat in 1492 to a land that no one was even sure existed.

Well, let us remember a few things when making that comparison:

1) The Niña had a complement of 24. The two missions to Mars being talked about much these days have crews of 2 and 4. For social animals like humans, this is a major difference. And while Columbus' ships were small, they still had notably more room than a Dragon capsule - you could walk around on deck, if nothing else.

2) A 3 month trip on a small boat isn't fun. The Mars missions under discussion are more like 8 months one-way.

This is not to say it is impossible, but merely to be realistic about what we are asking.
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
I meant sense from a self-preservation point of view.

Planet to planet warfare is very different from nation to nation war. You can't attack by surprise. You can't hide any of your operations. You can't send landing parties without expecting most or all of them to the get shot to pieces.

The whole throw rocks at them approach might have worked in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, but in that story Moon had a significant gravity well strength advantage. Mars + two small moons vs Earth + one large moon is a fairly symmetric situation that leads to a war neither can expect to win without signicant losses. Is ending up in the stone age an acceptable price for victory?

Response is to "You can't attack by surprise."

I was under the impression that detection of ballistics was not a sure thing. Would a stealthed rock on an odd approach be easy or hard to detect?

Thx!

TomB
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Another thing is a question of fragility of certain infrastructures. Anything space based that is not dispersed seems to be easy pickings. A few nukes against the right planet based targets might cause debilitating damage.

I'm thinking the main issue would be stability of relations. A lot of this might depend on details: Is communication possible? Are there any scarce resources that both sides want? Does either side have a feature that disturbs the other side at a basic level? On the flip side, is there a common threat that the side can cooperate to overcome? Are there very clear trading opportunities?

Thx!

TomB
 

Remove ads

Top