 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Speculation: What if war could destroy the galaxy?
What if war could destroy the galaxy?
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
Posted By:  Xmlf May 02, 2001 - 07:19 am |       | Most often in science fiction, militaries fight like they do with traditional technology before humanity had nuclear weapons --- two machines or ships fire at one another until one is destroyed.
To get more firepower, you add more ships until you have a large enough invasion force to conquer the other side.
Why would future militaries fight like that if they had advance technology?
For example, a powerful enough particle accelerator could generate a black hole that would wipe out all life in a solar system. A black hole that passes through our solar system, even if it passes by Pluto and never comes anywhere near Earth, would still change the orbits of all the planets, killing all life here on Earth.
Why send ships to invade a planet when you could just create a black hole that kills all the inhabitants? It's easier and cheaper to kill with "nuclear weapons" or "black hole weapons" than with a large invasion force.
In fact, that's why we have nuclear weapons. It's cheap!
In this scenario, let's say two military alliances engage in an arms race to build black hole weapons until each had an arsenal sufficient to destroy the entire galaxy if ... let's say ... 10,000 black hole weapons were ignited.
Can future war destroy the galaxy?
First a note: Please don't post duplicate (or virtually duplicate) topics in multiple forums.
Their cost isn't why we have nuclear weapons (and a ballistic missile is NOT cheap...all missiles are expensive). We have them because they are powerful and (assuming you're the only one firing them and you don't go nuts with it) don't put your troops/people at risk.
I don't know if a black hole weapon would be theoretically possible. I believe our "best guess" is that black holes are collapsed stars. Therefore, it seems unlikely that you could artificially create one, particularly one that you could "direct" at an enemy. And if you could collapse a star to create a black hole, you could just collapse the target system's star instead.
I think one flaw in your scenario is that it appears to be based on the assumption that the goal of war is genocide, or even far more than that. If you were fighting a war to conquer someone, it suggests there is something you expect to gain (power, territory, wealth, etc.) If the weapon vaporizes the target system, what have you conquered? Dust?
The cold war nuclear race was about deterrence (the aptly named MAD approach to detante: Mutually Assured Destruction), not conquest.
For an "arms race" meltdown or even accident to destroy the galaxy, I think you would have to have something that expanded. Perhaps that disrupts space time and grows out of control.
| Posted By: Xmlf May 03, 2001 - 06:08 am | | There are many reasons why we have nuclear weapons. The often stated reason is cost. The Soviets outnumbered us in troops and tanks in Europe so the most cost-effective way to deter aggression was nukes.
Of course in reality with the military-industrial complex, NATO had more firepower on the field and in the end, the reason why $4 trillion was spent in the US to build a nuclear arsenal was just plain business (what defense contractor would pass up that money?)
In the beginning of an arms race, the goal is the usual one --- to achieve more firepower than the enemy. That was the case too with nuclear weapons in the beginning. With nuclear weapons however, we and the Soviets ended up possessing enough weapons to annihilate all of Earth until deterrence was the only real use for nuclear weapons.
That too can be the scenario with a black hole weapon arms race. At first, one military alliance builds them to devastate a key solar system cheaply. Then the other side learns to make their own black hole weapon and holds it up as deterrence for activating such a deadly weapon.
An out-of-control arms race could end up with sufficient black hole weapons on both sides to annihilate all known life forms in the galaxy. Now both military alliances are trapped, lesser powers learn how to build their own black hole weapons and everyone awaits Galactic Armaggeddon.
That's what we have with the nuclear arms race.
| Posted By: Xmlf May 03, 2001 - 06:59 am | | Another reason why one galactic military would use a black hole weapon is because of previous failure to invade a solar system with ships.
It happens all the time in movies and other science fiction stories --- an Earth invasion fails.
What if a military decided just to create a black hole to kill the inhabitants of a solar system juts to get the job done?
Here on Earth, the debated points raise a question about nuclear proliferation.
If India and Pakistan get into a nuclear arms race, how many weapons would they build and how would that affect Earth? What if 30 years from now, both sides had 700 nuclear missiles each, poised to launch at one another.
The problem of nuclear proliferation does not have to involve us at all to be of interest.
| Posted By: Bmat May 03, 2001 - 07:46 am | | The reason to build greater weapons in the present world would seem to be, as stated above, deterring attack by the enemy. An exception is those countries that are trying to take over other countries. The Earth can only be destroyed once, so what is the point of spending money on weapons that can destroy it many times over?
I'm trying to think of a time that a black hole would be reasonable to use as a weapon. I suppose if total destruction of inhabitants of the system were considered necessary, or, needless to say, if the system posed a threat to one's own system physically. Otherwise I'd think the object would be to either attach the inhabitants as slaves or to take over the resources of the system.
Instead of a black hole weapon I'd rather see time and money spent on FTL drive or non-weaponry research, with the exception of defense preparedness.
| Posted By: Gablety May 06, 2001 - 12:03 pm | | Or a black hole energy source.
| Posted By: Bmat May 06, 2001 - 12:59 pm | | Isn't "black hole energy source" oxymoronic? I thought black holes by definition absorbed all energy.
| Posted By: Gablety May 06, 2001 - 09:07 pm | | Of course Not! I know I'm changing the subject of the thread, and it happens all the time, but let me explain.
In normal space, there are virtual particle/antiparticle pairs all over tyhe place. One is positive, the other negative. they pop into existence and out in a weensy fraction of a second; they barely exist, and don't change anything at all.
But near a black hole, the negative one can fall in, if it's too close. Then, since it's negative, it negates so much of the black hole's mass. Then the positive one flies away, carrying that same amount of energy. Harnessed properly, it could make a "black hole energy source".
This is called "evaporation," and the scientific community used to not like it since it's so weird; everyone says what you did. Even the concept of negative energy is so whakky most people don't even want to look at it.
| Posted By: Bmat May 07, 2001 - 10:52 am | | Thanks, Gablety, that is all news to me! 
What if war could destroy the galaxy :
Space Odyssey 2010 gave a response some considered food for thought .
Who can deny war brings about destruction anyway ? It merely takes the "proud to be brass" attitude .
| Posted By: Bmat May 20, 2001 - 01:58 pm | | I've forgotten the response made in 2010. I wonder if someone would remind me?
The moment the people on Earth were ready to blow the planet up by starting a nuclear war ,
some incomprehensible power - through an agent which appears as a Monolith of perfect mathematical proportions but mysterious in dimensions -
turned Jupiter - Ju + Pater = Son of Father - into a nova and finally a second sun in our solar system .
Called Lucifer = Light Bearer/Promethius
so that people were scared and stopped their petty games with nuclear "toys" .
When the final transformation was taking place , a message was reaching Earth :
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS
TREAT THEM IN PEACE .
| Posted By: Bmat May 24, 2001 - 04:26 am | | Thank you, LightBrigade! I'd totally forgotten that, it must be time to see the movie again.
THIS MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
