Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Jdvn1]

But it is realistic that this would be one of the first questions we ask us.

I completely disagree. I still think no one has satisfactorily explained why we would attack them - it's not cost-efficient and it doesn't provide us with any benefit.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think that would be an issue as we likely couldn't use their buildings anyway and their biosphere would be as hostile to use as the real mars.

No it wouldn't - it's earth like.

 

[Derren]

I completely disagree. I still think no one has satisfactorily explained why we would attack them - it's not cost-efficient and it doesn't provide us with any benefit.

1. They could do it.
As they possess the same technology as we do they could attack us. If not now, then in the future. So as defense we either have to destroy them first or, more likely, need to build up a MAD scenario so they can't attack us without getting killed themselves.

2. We would have absolutely no idea how they think. The most crazy human psycho would be more understandable than an alien.

No it wouldn't - it's earth like.

Earth like does not mean supporting human life. Their physiology might differ so much that we couldn't even enter their buildings. And just because there is a flora & fauna on the planet doesn't mean that we are compatible with that. Its even unlikely that we can breath the air even when it includes oxygen. Water we could use. The rest is hostile.
Just look at the movie Avatar. That planet certainly was earth like and yet all the plants, animals and even the atmosphere was a obstacle and not helpful at all.

 

[Morrus]

1. They could do it.
As they possess the same technology as we do they could attack us. If not now, then in the future. So as defense we either have to destroy them first or, more likely, need to build up a MAD scenario so they can't attack us without getting killed themselves.

2. We would have absolutely no idea how they think. The most crazy human psycho would be more understandable than an alien.




Earth like does not mean supporting human life. Their physiology might differ so much that we couldn't even enter their buildings. And just because there is a flora & fauna on the planet doesn't mean that we are compatible with that. Its even unlikely that we can breath the air even when it includes oxygen. Water we could use. The rest is hostile.
Just look at the movie Avatar. That planet certainly was earth like and yet all the plants, animals and even the atmosphere was a obstacle and not helpful at all.

If we can't breathe the air, it's not earth-like. It's earth-unlike.

Avatar has no part in this debate.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Imo it wold be the opposite. Without the cold war space technology would be decades behind. After all it started out as a proxy conflict for prestige. When that incentive isn't there, why bother?
But I agree with your conclusion that the technological development would be different. Yet the general situation of having the same level of (space) technology as now could still happen. Just not 2013 but maybe 1987.

Yes and no. Most of the space tech we had at the end of the Apollo program was little better than what we had when the Mercury project started. And then we spent a lot of time trying to improve it while the voters lost interest. So, as they said at the beginning: No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

The plan, before the Race to the Moon, was a slow one-step-at-a-time program with something happening to keep interest up all the time. Getting into orbit. Building a space station. Going to the Moon. Colonizing the Moon. Going to Mars. It would have taken us longer (10 years?) to get to the Moon, but by then we'd have had all the things we needed to get to Mars in place. It 'just' would have required building a Mars rocket, with better tech than we had shortly after reaching the Moon in real life.

All of which may, or may not, be applicable to the current discussion.

 

[Derren]

Yes and no. Most of the space tech we had at the end of the Apollo program was little better than what we had when the Mercury project started. And then we spent a lot of time trying to improve it while the voters lost interest. So, as they said at the beginning: No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

The plan, before the Race to the Moon, was a slow one-step-at-a-time program with something happening to keep interest up all the time. Getting into orbit. Building a space station. Going to the Moon. Colonizing the Moon. Going to Mars. It would have taken us longer (10 years?) to get to the Moon, but by then we'd have had all the things we needed to get to Mars in place. It 'just' would have required building a Mars rocket, with better tech than we had shortly after reaching the Moon in real life.

All of which may, or may not, be applicable to the current discussion.

If you mean sending humans to mars then no. There are some challenges a manned mission to mars faces which are negligible when going to the moon like psychological stress, muscle degeneration and radiation, or pose much less of a problem like having a return vehicle.

If you want to send someone to mars suicide style with a high risk of death during transit and no chance for return (and no means to survive on mars either), we can do that already. But for anything more constructive a lot more research is needed than for a manned moon landing.

 

[Umbran]

1. They could do it.

Yes, well, we already saw how humanity approaches that question, now haven't we? "They could to it," is insufficient. The Soviets could have done it. But they didn't, and we didn't launch a preemptive strike, either. The same logic applies.

2. We would have absolutely no idea how they think.

By the posits we have so far, we have significant expectation of being able to know how they think decades before either end has the capability to visit destruction - radio contact comes decades before interplanetary rocketry.

Earth like does not mean supporting human life.

"Earth like" in this context generally means having a solid, rocky surface, liquid water available (which implies an atmosphere, though it's content may be open to discussion), and a mass such that humans can manage to live there is some measure of health. I assert that if we cannot live largely unprotected on each others' worlds, there's really no reason to fight. At least, not before we both have technology to mine asteroids.

Their physiology might differ so much that we couldn't even enter their buildings.

Well, that's nothing - we can always put up new buildings - we usually do when we move into new territory, you know.

And just because there is a flora & fauna on the planet doesn't mean that we are compatible with that. Its even unlikely that we can breath the air even when it includes oxygen.

You are correct that the wrong balance of gases would be problematic. It isn't enough to have Oxygen, Nitrogen, and CO2, but we need them in right concentrations to keep breathing (and presumably, so would they). And we are unlikely to match their biology - we can't eat each others' food, and so on.

That planet certainly was earth like and yet all the plants, animals and even the atmosphere was a obstacle and not helpful at all.

Yes. To the point where, if not for "unobtanium", humans wouldn't have bothered with the planet at all. So, if it is so hostile, why blow them up? The fact that they *could* blow you up isn't itself a threat, unless they have *reason* to.

 

[Janx]

This made me think that some of this already happens on an international level. There's a language barrier that slows the effect (an interplanetary language barrier would be interesting...) but this is isn't entirely dissimilar from a opposite-sides-of-the-world scenario.

Thanks.

I was trying to come up with different angles from what had already been suggested at that point in the thread.

Exchanging culture, science, and ideas can be done over radio waves.

While building a defense network can be construed as Hostile, it is less hostile than sending a fleet of attack rockets to Mars. In effect, because it's so freaking far away, the Martians could easily have a "who cares about that" attitude as they build their own Space Defense network.

It's a mostly harmless activity since you're not planning on being the aggressor (it's always the other guy), and it gives you a platform for staging your assault plan when you decide to do a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Dropping rocks is cost effective on a per-rock basis, but you need a lot of them to do the job.

That depends on the size of the rock. The dinosaur-killer wasn't that big in asteroid terms. Deorbit about six of them from the asteroid belt on to Mars and you'll do the trick.

I completely disagree. I still think no one has satisfactorily explained why we would attack them - it's not cost-efficient and it doesn't provide us with any benefit.

Two expanding civilizations that use the same resources in a limited resource environment will inevitably come into conflict unless both choose to limit their expansion to available resources. And why do that when you can take it from the other guy -- especially when they're just a bunch of alien bugs?

The two civilizations may find an equilibrium if equally matched ... but if it becomes a battle for the survival of the species, whose side are you going to be on?

 

[Derren]

Yes, well, we already saw how humanity approaches that question, now haven't we? "They could to it," is insufficient. The Soviets could have done it. But they didn't, and we didn't launch a preemptive strike, either. The same logic applies.

But we did build up the capabilities to do it, just in case. The same logic applies.

By the posits we have so far, we have significant expectation of being able to know how they think decades before either end has the capability to visit destruction - radio contact comes decades before interplanetary rocketry.

The problem is that they are still alien. They think completely different than any human which makes understanding them very hard. We don't even know if they have the same needs, emotions or even senses. How could anyone understand such completely different beings just with radio contact?

Well, that's nothing - we can always put up new buildings - we usually do when we move into new territory, you know.

So no reason to not flatten them in a theoretical attack. Together with everything else we humans can't use which happens to be everything except the water.