Imagine there was another Earthlike planet in our system

[Jemal]

Since when do we need a reason except "they are there and could hurt us"?

Since we developed communication and higher thinking, and realized that working together tends to get you further than killing each other. That's not to say that many humans aren't still blood-thirsty brutes, but there are those who realize that co-operation is usually the winning strategy.

 

[Jemal]

On that note, however, despite my belief that violence isn't the best way, it's sometimes necessary, and I do enjoy a good wargame scenario, so..

We do currently have the technology to theoretically deflect asteroids given a couple years warning. Accounting for 50+ years of realization that such a thing could be neccessary given an interplanetary war and the drive that comes with that, It's not exactly far-fetched to think that we would have asteroid-deflection plans and early detection systems already in place, not to mention a deterence factor of our own - If both planets are aiming huge asteroids at each other, you get the interplanetary equivalent of MAD.

 

[Derren]

co-operation is usually the winning strategy.

Only between equals (in military power).

 

[Jemal]

If we're assuming they're not our equals then the entire discussion is moot. If they're far enough beyond us for co-operation to not be worth their time, we have no defense. If they're far enough behind, the inverse is true.
For any meaningful discussion we must assume at least similar power/technology/skill.

EDIT:
Otherwise it's like discussing a boxing match between Mike Tyson and the Incredible Hulk. Sure, Tyson can give and take a beating, but when you're out of your league, you're OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE, and baring incredible and unforseen events, Hulk Smash.

 

[Derren]

If we're assuming they're not our equals then the entire discussion is moot. If they're far enough beyond us for co-operation to not be worth their time, we have no defense. If they're far enough behind, the inverse is true.
For any meaningful discussion we must assume at least similar power/technology/skill.

Equals in military power.
Even when they are technologically equals to us, but are completely peaceful and possess no real weapons they are toast as we humans operate under "Might makes right / survival of the fittest". And as we would assume they also do, we certainly would build weapons against them, no matter what their real intentions were.

Only when it is clear that both are on equal terms when it comes to the military so that there is a MAD scenario or it becomes too costly/uncertain to overcome the others defenses then cooperation starts.

 

[Jemal]

That's essentially what I said "if we're assuming they're not our equals the entire discussion is moot". A race that can't fight back is obviously not our military equal..

Also a completely pacifistic intelligent race with no means of fighting is rather unrealistic. Survival of the fittest is evolution, not human psychology. The entire concept of a species that is unfamiliar with conflict seems absurd to me. You don't get to be the dominant species of an entire planet like that.
The only ways they could NOT be approximately as prepared for war as us (given similar technological advancement) is if A) Their planet did not undergo natural selection, or B) They evolved far beyond it.

The first is highly unlikely, the second would more than likely have lead to highly advanced reasoning and science without the strife and conflict that usually get in the way. It would also have required that ALL of the races on their planet were conflict-free, meaning they wouldn't even recognize what conflict is. Otherwise, any race so advanced would have made at least a cursory study of the other life forms around it and come to the realization that just because THEY are enlightened and non-violent doesn't mean everybody is.

EVEN THEN, They would have had decades to study us and realize how warlike we were, before we would even have been capable of launching an attack on them. By simple reverse engineering they could figure out how to wage war in return.


On another note, two powers do not need to be EQUAL to make co-operation relevant, the lesser just has to be capable of making the alternative more costly than beneficial. That's the entire basis behind Guerilla warfare.

EDIT: TBC. Gotta hit the hay.

 

[Umbran]

Since when do we need a reason except "they are there and could hurt us"?

Since pretty much forever, actually.

If you go back and review your history, I think you'll find that, behind the rhetoric, every war has socioeconomic drivers behind it. The history of human wars is not loaded with examples of, "Get them before they get us!" That was part of the rhetoric of the Cold War, but then, interestingly, we failed to get them.

 

[Umbran]

Also a completely pacifistic intelligent race with no means of fighting is rather unrealistic. Survival of the fittest is evolution, not human psychology. The entire concept of a species that is unfamiliar with conflict seems absurd to me. You don't get to be the dominant species of an entire planet like that.

Beware of evolutionary psychology. It works on the basis of plausible arguments, rather than testable hypotheses, and that's the place where our preconceived notions get in the way. The one here is that humans are the "dominant species". That's based in an old, outmoded view of evolution (the "evolutionary ladder", with humans at the top), which itself is based on the notion that humans are somehow special and distinct among living creatures.

"Survival of the fittest," applied purely to physical conflict misses much of the point of evolution. "Fittest" does not mean, "most capable of fighting back". It acutely means, "best adapted to its conditions". Grass doesn't reach up and throttle cattle, beating it into a bloody pulp so that it doesn't get eaten. The grass that it "fittest" maybe has a chemical defense that makes it unpalatable. But really, most of the grass is fittest because it has the ability to simply grow back after the cattle have passed by, a completely passive approach to survival that has led there to being a whole lot more grass than there are cows! Plankton and krill don't "fight" when the baleen whales come by, either. Most of the living stuff on our planet is completely incapable of "fighting" in the human sense of the word.

On another note, two powers do not need to be EQUAL to make co-operation relevant, the lesser just has to be capable of making the alternative more costly than beneficial. That's the entire basis behind Guerilla warfare.

This, at least, is correct.

 

[RangerWickett]

...Well, you know, something has to make all those stars go supernova, right?

I feel a story in the making. Two races have first contact. Within 3 years they've exchanged massive bulks of their popular cultures, and everyone on both planets want to know: who would win in a fight -- Chuck Norris, or g'43ab!xlitz? Massive public pressure leads to the first mainstream interstellar action film. (There was that one indie film ironically reimagining E.T., but they could even afford to shoot on real space ships.)

 

[Umbran]

I feel a story in the making. Two races have first contact. Within 3 years they've exchanged massive bulks of their popular cultures, and everyone on both planets want to know: who would win in a fight -- Chuck Norris, or g'43ab!xlitz? Massive public pressure leads to the first mainstream interstellar action film.

And, in standard Hollywood/comic book fashion, the fight turns up a draw, and the two heroes have to come together to fight some mutual threat.