How powerful could a hard sci-fi civilization be?

[Borgholio]

Why must the HSF civ be reduced to using a physical gun barrel? Assuming they use a coilgun or some similar technology, why not just create a series of accelerator rings that will launch the projectile at the target? They would have to be connected to prevent them from moving when they actually push against the projectile, but it doesn't have to be a solid metal barrel. That would cut down a great deal on the cost, complexity, amount of materials needed, and friction issues.

[Sea Skimmer]

It doesn't matter if you want to call it a gun barrel or not. Remember such a weapon has recoil, massive amounts of recoil. Whatever system links the accelerator rings has to be sufficiently strong enough to hold together under that recoil and rigid enough not to bend in the process or under other forces. Given given its length the differential effects of gravity and even solar wind could become an alignment issue, considering the requirement for utter precision. Odds of doing this without a solid barrel, and a huge amount of external bracing, seem very slim.

[Stark]

How they shoot projectiles is probably less important than the mass required.

Say your time to target is 100,000 years. You're not going to attack one target and wait 200,000 years for damage assessment; you'll attack all (according to hard wankers even probable targets that might exist in 100,000 years. We're talking billions of targets and quite possibly trillions of projectiles.

Each projectile and the firing platform requires resources, and the hilariously wanked hard guys need to slowboat it all. If the targets have defenses, sensors etc a sustained bombardment may be required.

Since its 100,000 to deliver a shot, maybe they're better off investing 60,000 in moving to shorten the feedback time. They can even build up the amount of space dirt as they travel, And being on the move might make them less vulnerable to counterattack.

Of course by the time the first shots have hit, the soft guys have probably ascended to godhood, developed time travel, turned the near galaxies into suburbs and accidentally bulldozed the hard system or a highway, so it may be moot.

[Connor MacLeod]

I also kinda doubt the RELATVISTIC GALACTIC DOOMSDAY STRIKE will actually even be able to strike all targets simultaenously. And to pull this off you pretty much have to strike every single target you aim at in a relatively short frame of time (short enough that there's no chance of response or countermeasure) - at best this massively complicates the task, and at worst it makes it even easier for the FTL civilization to counter it because the element of surprise is gone.

One of the problems with this whole LAUNCH MASS RELATIVISTIC ATTACK ON ALL OTHER RACES is that it's basically a MAD type situation or assholish 'pREEMPTIVE STRIKE' efforts. Your 'non-FTL' (what is usually called 'HARD', even though the abilities being discussed make it as hard as a lump of clay) civilization has to expend stupendous amounts of time, matter and energy (resources which could be put to better use in other ways, I might add) simply to achieve the possibility that they MIGHT achieve victory against the side with FTL (or if they've already been defeated, launch a doomsday retaliatory strike which MIGHT succeed.) It relies on the attack to remain on course throughout the duration of its attack (distance is a huge issue here.. what if you have a Lensman like situation where the galaxies are nearby but still seperated by a not-inconsiderable distance? That could add god knows how many millenia to the timescales for the STL civilization to deal with.) and the complete, utter inactivity/obliviousness of the FTL side (or SUPER NINJA STEALTH ASTEROIDS.) either of which seems a risky thing to rely upon.

What's more ,if these attacks DON'T work and if it is done as a preemptive measure, you've just declared war on the chunks of the galaxy you may or may not have failed to wipe out. And if they're fairly powerful (and have FTL) it's likely they're not going to pull punches.

It's also a bit confusing that its assumed the FTL side is somehow not going to be able to use all its funky magictech to render the SUPER HARD SCI FI defenses irrelevant. What happens if (for example) Star Wars simply decides to get serious after HARD SCI FI CIVILZATION manages to pull off its doomsday strike attack but fails to completely obliterate the SW galaxy? Build a shit-ton of corvette sized bombs with hyperdrives and loaded up with explosive and hyper it into the HARDSCIFI system at will - there's no way they're going to be able to counter such an attack, period, and any FTL civilization could pull off any such attack much shorter.

Or if they decide to be merciful you just use a shit ton of smaller FTL capable warheads (or just use such FTL platforms as disposable munitions carriers.) and use it to destroy/cripple the hard sci if universes infrastructure and industry (or probable such.)

So again, I'll reiterate that WAR TO THE DEATH between FTL and non FTL seems to be about the most retarded way to go about this unless the goal of the STL side is to commit suicide in the most glorious(retarded) fashion possible. Diplomatic and economic 'warfare' such as it is seems like a much safer approach, and one tht actually takes advantage of their purported hypotheticla advantages.

As a final note of absurdity: this even begs the question of how you can have a FTL and non FTL civilziation even interact. If we have thse super uber duper GOD COMPUTERS and super competent science gods on the non FTL HARD SCIFI side who know all this shit that the FTL civilization clearly doesn't... why didn't they figure out FTL exists? I mean if one side has it it means it must be plausible and exist, yet the hard sci fi SOMEHOW failed to divine that it could be done?

[Stark]

The picture of a hard civ expanding as it eats planets for mass to futilely shoot at real scifi in a vain orgy of paranoid fear is a great one. After a while the growth of the slow guys would eventually reduce the range!

[the atom]

The only assumption I question here is the idea that any of these HARD SF DOOM MISSILES will hit anything at all. Launching an RKKV at a Federation world would would end in the projectile being casually detected several light-years out, followed by it being destroyed by the nearest ship. It's path would then be determined based on it's trajectories, and pretty soon the hard sf civ has a small fleet knocking on it's door decades to centuries before they're even aware their attack failed.

[Stark]

That could never happen because super computers.

[Connor MacLeod]

The most annoying thing about this thread (to me at least) is that it takes something that has the potential to have an interesting discussion and then breaks it down into what I've grown to loathe about vs debates. The dick waving. When I was younger I loved all that tribal 'my sci fi universe is better than yours' dick waving - culminating in the ICS era in fact - but in the end I've kinda realized it was pretty pointless and silly (and ended up needlessly antagonizing people who didn't need to be antagonized.)

In terms of this thread, the dickwaving seems to manifest in 'try to find a way 'hard' sci fi can measure up' by 'beating' a 'soft' sci fi civilization despite the 'soft' sci fi civs 'advantages'. Not only is there that 'shifting the goalposts' feeling, but there's also that 'gimmick' approach to debates (like whenever someone brings up Trek and time travel, or SW and the Death STar. It's not so much a legitimate discussion of capabilities, its looking for an 'instant win' button of the comic book variety.)

On top of that, any time it becomes 'hard' vs 'soft' sci fi I get that feeling like one side is trying to 'prove' its better than another. I mean fuck, its implicit in the whole 'hard' vs 'soft' sci fi terminology itslef. 'soft' is bad, and 'hard' is good. and the harder it is, the better it is. Except that for me, alot of the 'hard' stuff tends to feel negative and restrictive, because the more 'realistic' you get, the more you find out that alot of those sci fi things you want simply are either unrealistic, impractical, or downright stupid (SPACE FIGHTERS for example.)

Besides, if it somehow MATTERED that the 'hard' civilization had to beat the 'soft' one (I still snicker when I use those terms) then there's lots of indirect ways the 'hard' civ could go about it. Use their supposedly super duper computer godtech/god ais to hack or otherwise fuck up the soft civilizations computer systems with some sort of uber-virus. Or just use some very sophisticated biological warfare or something. I'm sure with the God computers and their super duper capabilities they could rig some means of doing that, and then use trade/diplomacy/travel in various ways to distribute these attacks (heck, fast FTL travel would be an asset in that regard.)

Sure, it's nowhere near as flashy or brute force as RELATVISTIC DOOM ROCKS but it would be more effecitve (and if they are as super competent as assumed, I bet they can engineer plausible deniability into it somehow. After all, the soft civ is so complacent and stupid and doesnt know what the fuck its doing...) And what's more, there'd be scope for some discussion about how one universe or another might interact, both in cooperative ways and in conflict (maybe you have some groups of the hard sci fi civ who are curious and want to learn/explore this new and unprecdented approach, whilst another group may fear/hate what it means or what it might do to their society, hence the attack.)

[Stark]

I think the time scales are a major problem to interaction; FTL Man can deliver pizzas to Singularity Substrate every afternoon, but it would take generations for the Immortal Mind to come visit (and wouldn't want to anyway because its an inhuman horror beyond imagining).

The more interesting idea, I think, is that by being OMG SO HARD AND STRONG MY THAT'S A BIG ONE they are required to be amazingly violent and paranoid maniacs unable to interact with galactic society. They're the survivalist in the cul-de-sac who kills neighbourhood cats; they're insane, because their weakness means they have to be cunning to survive and they're too terrified to do anything but KILL EVERYONE WITH UNSTOPPABLE RKVS THAT WIN ALL VS EVER. Imagine normal scifi guys trying to interact with these individuals.

[lPeregrine]

In terms of this thread, the dickwaving seems to manifest in 'try to find a way 'hard' sci fi can measure up' by 'beating' a 'soft' sci fi civilization despite the 'soft' sci fi civs 'advantages'.

Then what exactly is the point of this thread? I agree that the conflict would never happen since there's nothing any of the common "soft" universes would gain by invading an entire galaxy (or more) scale civilization, but the entire premise of the thread is that there IS a military conflict. I really don't see the point in joining a discussion with that starting premise and then complaining that the conversation followed along those lines.

Not only is there that 'shifting the goalposts' feeling, but there's also that 'gimmick' approach to debates (like whenever someone brings up Trek and time travel, or SW and the Death STar. It's not so much a legitimate discussion of capabilities, its looking for an 'instant win' button of the comic book variety.)

Except it's not a gimmick. When you live in a universe where the laws of physics from our universe apply it's actually a sensible strategy. The defender's advantage in a space battle against another STL invader is overpowering, instead of spending mass on fuel to get across interstellar distances they can spend it on missiles/heat sinks/etc, and in a battle between a planet and a "realistic" space battleship the planet wins. And when you have to use WMD-level firepower against a planet anyway, you might as well go straight to the RKV approach.

And of course in a world in which relativistic planet killers are common you want to have some of your own to ensure a MAD stalemate with your neighbors. It's just like real-world nuclear weapons, nobody sane wants to use them, but everyone wants to have them.

Besides, if it somehow MATTERED that the 'hard' civilization had to beat the 'soft' one (I still snicker when I use those terms) then there's lots of indirect ways the 'hard' civ could go about it. Use their supposedly super duper computer godtech/god ais to hack or otherwise fuck up the soft civilizations computer systems with some sort of uber-virus. Or just use some very sophisticated biological warfare or something. I'm sure with the God computers and their super duper capabilities they could rig some means of doing that, and then use trade/diplomacy/travel in various ways to distribute these attacks (heck, fast FTL travel would be an asset in that regard.)

TBH stuff like "hack their computer" is the gimmick. You can't quantify it in any meaningful way, so it's just a case of "but my security is awesome", "but my virus is even more awesome" until someone gives up and moves on to a more interesting subject.

[Darth Tedious]

How realistic is this DOOM ROCK ATTACK idea? Really?
Not whether it's viable or not, but the idea that a 'realistic' civilisation would build it.
Has this HSF civ ever met another civ (or any alien life of any kind) before?
If they have settled thousands of galaxies and never come across another intelligent species, they'd have to be PRETTY FUCKING PARANOID to consider it worth building "just in case".

Regarding the matter of time being on the side of the FTL civ, it isn't the amount of time that counts. It's the fact that the STL civ is practically frozen in time relative to a civ that can travel at millions of times c.
A good analogy is a human and a Redwood. Redwoods can live for 400 years, and are very patient, 10 years is a short time to a Redwood and a long time for a human.
But humans have the twin advantages of mobility and chainsaws.

[Vendetta]

How realistic is this DOOM ROCK ATTACK idea? Really?
Not whether it's viable or not, but the idea that a 'realistic' civilisation would build it.
Has this HSF civ ever met another civ (or any alien life of any kind) before?
If they have settled thousands of galaxies and never come across another intelligent species, they'd have to be PRETTY FUCKING PARANOID to consider it worth building "just in case".

Like what many people consider "Hard" SF, not.

No more so than, for instance, turning a planet into computational substrate using nanotechnology. Remember that when people say "nanotechnology" and they're not talking about designed chemical reactions they've actually just said "wizards", because nanotechnology as SF usually uses it is no more realistic or possible given our current understanding of the laws of physics than is faster than light travel.

[lPeregrine]

How realistic is this DOOM ROCK ATTACK idea? Really?
Not whether it's viable or not, but the idea that a 'realistic' civilisation would build it.
Has this HSF civ ever met another civ (or any alien life of any kind) before?
If they have settled thousands of galaxies and never come across another intelligent species, they'd have to be PRETTY FUCKING PARANOID to consider it worth building "just in case".

Who said anything about building it to deal with an unknown enemy? Do we build nuclear weapons in the real world because we're afraid of alien invaders, or because we want to deter our very known enemies from attacking us? A civilization could very well be unified enough that they'd join together in opposing an outside invader without being so trusting that individual planets would leave themselves defenseless against their neighbors.

In fact, this is even more true of a "hard" civilization with no FTL than it would be for something like Star Wars, since the time delays limit how close you can really be to more distant systems, and there's always the chance that the peace treaty you thought you had was broken following a revolution ten thousand years ago that put a pro-war government into power with a desire to avenge some long-forgotten offense you committed against their ancestors. The only way to deal with that kind of thing is to assume that you could be attacked at any moment, and prepare appropriately.

[Vendetta]

*How much mass are these thrusters going to expend every time the gun is aimed?

None. You can't "Aim" a weapon like that because any attempt to move it causes shear forces to tear it apart. Super-railguns firing death asteroids at relativistic velocities are no more possible within the laws of physics than are solid dyson spheres.

And if you build it pointing exactly at what you need to fire it at then shear forces still tear it apart because it's so large that the gravity of your star and solar system act unevenly on it along its length and distort it (meaning it explodes when fired) or simply cause it to snap because the material limits of any actual material have been exceeded.

Extreme high end "Hard" SF is wizards.

[Darth Tedious]

Do we
build nuclear weapons in the real
world because we're afraid of alien
invaders, or because we want to deter
our very known enemies from attacking us? A civilization could very
well be unified enough that they'd
join together in opposing an outside
invader without being so trusting that
individual planets would leave
themselves defenseless against their neighbors.

We build nuclear weapons as a direct historical result of WW2 and the subsequent/consequent arms race.
If this HSF civ went into space as a unified effort in the first place, it must have suffered some very severe schisms through its history to have had severe enough internal conflicts to justify MAD.

A massive problem with suggesting Death Rocks as an internal means of MAD is that is isn't mutual at all.
With no FTL sensor capability, any planet which is fired upon has no way to aim and launch a counterattack. If one planet decides to launch a Death Rock Strike against their neighbour, they can do so with complete impunity. It will take years for news of the attack to reach other systems, who could also be shot by then, and they could send fleets of ships to clean up the remaining resistance.
Basically, if any system in this hypothetical SUPER PARANOID STL EMPIRE decides to launch the weapon that the whole SPACE UN thought it was common sense for everyone to have, anyone within range of them is pretty well boned.
If I were a planetary leader in that empire, I'd send a really urgent complaint to the SPACE UN, and hope they do something about it in the next 10,000 years or so when they get the message.
I'd also be really hoping the guy next door didn't shoot his Death Rocks at me 3 and 1/2 years ago...

[lPeregrine]

We build nuclear weapons as a direct historical result of WW2 and the subsequent/consequent arms race.
If this HSF civ went into space as a unified effort in the first place, it must have suffered some very severe schisms through its history to have had severe enough internal conflicts to justify MAD.

Not really. Like I said, just look at the communication delays. A planet would have a solid connection with other planets/stations/etc in the system (and probably form a unified entity) and decent connections with systems a few light years away where a single person can send messages and get replies before they die, trade can conceivably happen, etc. However, as the distances get longer those ties all get weaker, to the point that planets on opposite sides of the galaxy probably wouldn't share much more beyond a general sense of being part of the same galaxy-spanning 'humanity'.

As a result of those weaker ties, it's not unreasonable to think that trust won't be 100%. And when it's pretty much impossible to fight a conventional space battle across interstellar distances it becomes a lot more appealing to just send an RKV attack. And if it's possible that even one planet, somewhere in the galaxy, would launch that attack if they think you can't fight back it becomes important to ensure that you CAN retaliate.

A massive problem with suggesting Death Rocks as an internal means of MAD is that is isn't mutual at all.
With no FTL sensor capability, any planet which is fired upon has no way to aim and launch a counterattack. If one planet decides to launch a Death Rock Strike against their neighbour, they can do so with complete impunity. It will take years for news of the attack to reach other systems, who could also be shot by then, and they could send fleets of ships to clean up the remaining resistance.

You don't need FTL, you just need enough advance warning of the incoming attack (and since it's STL you will have at least some warning) to launch your own strike back at them. You're dead, but you can ensure that the people that launched the attack are also dead.

Of course it doesn't come to that, since it's a MAD scenario. When everyone can build RKVs (and any interesting engine is an RKV) you don't dare use them because the result is going to be a swarm of RKVs coming right back at you. Just like with nuclear weapons, once every side has them it becomes a deterrent, not a weapon you actually use.

[Darth Tedious]

If the Death Rocks are moving at 99% of c, will you be able to detect them in time to aim your giant guns and fire back?
Dude, you've been consistently claiming that a race who DOES have FTL sensors couldn't detect them until they were within a few light-seconds. You can't have it both ways.

[Stark]

It's more likely everyone would have trillions of guns aimed at every conceivable target and an automated system to fire them. Sounds safe to me! Populations being mobile and not on planets would make them essentially immune to RKVs anyway. Is just a creed for very scared people.

[lPeregrine]

If the Death Rocks are moving at 99% of c, will you be able to detect them in time to aim your giant guns and fire back?
Dude, you've been consistently claiming that a race who DOES have FTL sensors couldn't detect them until they were within a few light-seconds. You can't have it both ways.

Guns aren't necessary. You only need a few seconds of warning if your retaliation is in the form of a stockpile of missiles in deep space (or even in another system) and all you need to do is transmit the firing command. The gun approach is just one that has potential uses for transportation, since you can fling a spacecraft instead of an RKV.

[Darth Tedious]

You only need a few seconds warning, and you can detect them within a few light-seconds of impact?
That's cutting it rather fine...

[Stark]

Aren't you afraid? RKVs could wipe out all life on Earth LITERALLY ANY SECOND! If you were driven by terror and cowardice, it'd probably be pretty easy to set up an self-expanding network of fearguns to ... avenge yourself or whatever nonsense. But I just think that if attacking a real science fiction civilisation they'll probably be so ineffective they'd have to eat mass in an expanding circle of the galaxy, and by the time the first lot hit might be some notable percentage of galactic mass.

A giant fear tumour created by the paranoid to achieve nothing. It's brilliant. And SO HARD OMG. That the targets will have probably thousands of years warning and never sustain any meaningful damage in exchange for this reorganisation of the galaxy just adds to the entertainment. Afterward, the system could even be co-opted as some kind of kindergarten playground!

[Connor MacLeod]

Then what exactly is the point of this thread? I agree that the conflict would never happen since there's nothing any of the common "soft" universes would gain by invading an entire galaxy (or more) scale civilization, but the entire premise of the thread is that there IS a military conflict. I really don't see the point in joining a discussion with that starting premise and then complaining that the conversation followed along those lines.

Well I would presume to discuss.. something something mature, enlightened blah blah or something or other, but in reality it seems to just be another bland vs debate except one side of the debate has what amounts to God Mode on, and the debate will onyl resolve when we discover the rigth combination of 'HARD' sci finess which will allow it to triumph over the filthy 'soft' sci fi universe. I mean why else would we have 4-5 pages of people trying to brute force their way to victory or something? I certainly have no better answer.

And the reason I'm joining the discussion is to point out all the problems in that discussion. Is there something wrong with criticism, because I'm pretty sure I've done my part for contributing to the 'how to win a military conflict' bit anyhow, so why you're fixated on the criticism is beyond me. There's nothing about 'HARD' sci fi that is sacred.

Except it's not a gimmick. When you live in a universe where the laws of physics from our universe apply it's actually a sensible strategy. The defender's advantage in a space battle against another STL invader is overpowering, instead of spending mass on fuel to get across interstellar distances they can spend it on missiles/heat sinks/etc, and in a battle between a planet and a "realistic" space battleship the planet wins. And when you have to use WMD-level firepower against a planet anyway, you might as well go straight to the RKV approach.

Being a race of genocidal sociopaths is sensible? Since when? Particularily when this has greater odds of pushing the OTHER side to being a genocidal dickhead than actually achieving victory? and especially when that other side is probably going to be far more faster and effective at wiping oyu out because they have all the magic wizards on their side?

And of course in a world in which relativistic planet killers are common you want to have some of your own to ensure a MAD stalemate with your neighbors. It's just like real-world nuclear weapons, nobody sane wants to use them, but everyone wants to have them.

We're now envisioning a 'hard' sci fi setting where chunks of mass get routinely flung around at percentages of the speed of light? For what reason?


Moreover I'm not sure the nuclear analogy quite works when you're dealing with supposedly sociopathic, genocidal, STL civilizations flinging around doom rocks willy nilly. I mean for one thing the reasons noone wants to use nukes in the modern world is because retaliation is going to be swift and certain, not years or decades down the road at some unforseeable point in time (assuming anyone survives your massive doom-rock alpha strike.)

TBH stuff like "hack their computer" is the gimmick. You can't quantify it in any meaningful way, so it's just a case of "but my security is awesome", "but my virus is even more awesome" until someone gives up and moves on to a more interesting subject.

But its far more plausible than 'I'm going to hurl massive doomsday rocks at huge percentages of the speed of light at every frigging planet in the galaxy that MIGHT have a potential enemy and it might wipe them out in a matter of a few millenia', and also far more likely to succeed.

I'll also note that insofar as Star Wars goes, there's still the matter of Force powers (particularily how it pertains to precog) and things like planetary shields. For one thing to ensure you manage to wipe out every star wars planet you're going to have to account for (or for that matter predict the existence of) planet-encompassing defense shields and then hurl a big enough rock fast enough to overpower them (because otherwise, the worst case is you just knock the planet out of orbit.)

So now the requirement is ONLY some hundreds of billions or trillions of mass-scattering doomsday asteroids that may achieve their objectives if they manage to stay on course and intact for the full duration of their countless-millenia long journey and strike every target near-simulteansouly enough to deny any possible response time... blah blah blah.

In other words, the viability of the MACHO brute force tactic is not improving.

[Darth Tedious]

BTW, if the HSF civ is now going to be launching missiles as MAD (LOL goalpost shifting) it has even less chance of being any possible use against anyone with FTL magitech.

[Agent Sorchus]

If the Death Rocks are moving at 99% of c, will you be able to detect them in time to aim your giant guns and fire back?
Dude, you've been consistently claiming that a race who DOES have FTL sensors couldn't detect them until they were within a few light-seconds. You can't have it both ways.

Hahahahaha. This is why Hard sci-fi is laughed at. Basically you can't get to 99%C on an R-bomb since there is drag, from interstellar media, light, and of course "close" encounters with gravity effects and magnetic fields that either slow down a craft or makes it less accurate. Let alone all the problems your massive coil-gun has.

Highest velocity I remember for any sort of engine was 92% C, buuuuut that still had a mass fraction of fuel 22parts fuel to 1 part payload using antimatter fuel. There is a pesky little aspect of relativistic weapons, in that delivered payload is of far greater importance to your boom compared to velocity. Ie if you have enough Antimatter to build the 92%C craft you would be better from a BOom department building a bigger 10%C craft with a 1.5fuel to payload fraction.

Bussard Ramjets and most similar Fusion designs max out at 12%C, IIRC.

If you are honestly going to ignore material science enough to get your coilgun and dyson spheres to power it you might as well go for the holly grail of hard to reach Hard science fiction technology and grab an Alcubierre drive. But of course you would never think of actual science that allows FTL in your hard-on sci-fi, despite it's 'validity'. Man the hard sci-fi crowd is hilarious in how they define what is HARD SCI-FI!

[Stark]

That's why I think it's neat to imagine the system eating progressively more solar systems to fuel the construction and preparation of these weapons. For it to be worth it at all it has to be 'credible' and against a large soft scifi civ that means an astounding number of weapons. The most enduring legacy of the civilisation might be simply these weapons making space slightly more annoying to live in, and not their supercomputers or mega projects or whatever. And then one day they're fire them and butcher trillions of people at low level of development while not harming the actual target at all.

And since there will probably be thousands of years warning (even as they pass the spreading edge of the soft civ to reach the original targets) at absolute worst they have time to simply move their population. Putting aside the likelihood that more than 30,000 years is probably long enough for many soft civs to become literally beings of pure energy.