Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vote Planet Heinlein
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Matt Hickman
Mar 9, 2013, 12:07:07 PM3/9/13
to
Uwingu is a private group funding space education and research. One of the things they are doing to raise money is compiling a list of potential planet names for use by scientists in the future. You pay $4.99 to nominate a planet and $0.99 to vote for one.
Currently "Heinlein" is the top vote getter, with just under 100 votes. You could be the one to put Heinlein over 100 votes and make it the first one to do so.
Check it out:
http://www.uwingu.com/vote-on-planet-names
Matt Hickman
The native Fraki, known to science by a pseudo-Latin
name and called 'Those confounded slugs!' by the People,
live in telepathic symbiosis with lemur-like creatures
possessed of delicate, many-boned hands--'telepathy' is
a conclusion; it is believed that the slow, monstrous,
dominant creature supply the brains and the lemuroids
the manipulation.
- Robert A. Heinlein _Citizen of the Galaxy_
Currently "Heinlein" is the top vote getter, with just under 100 votes. You could be the one to put Heinlein over 100 votes and make it the first one to do so.
Check it out:
http://www.uwingu.com/vote-on-planet-names
Matt Hickman
The native Fraki, known to science by a pseudo-Latin
name and called 'Those confounded slugs!' by the People,
live in telepathic symbiosis with lemur-like creatures
possessed of delicate, many-boned hands--'telepathy' is
a conclusion; it is believed that the slow, monstrous,
dominant creature supply the brains and the lemuroids
the manipulation.
- Robert A. Heinlein _Citizen of the Galaxy_
lal_truckee
Mar 9, 2013, 4:00:55 PM3/9/13
to
On 3/9/13 9:07 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>
> The native Fraki, known to science by a pseudo-Latin
> name and called 'Those confounded slugs!' by the People,
> live in telepathic symbiosis with lemur-like creatures
> possessed of delicate, many-boned hands--'telepathy' is
> a conclusion; it is believed that the slow, monstrous,
> dominant creature supply the brains and the lemuroids
> the manipulation.
> - Robert A. Heinlein_Citizen of the Galaxy_
I didn't catch this the first 50 time through, but aren't these the
>
> The native Fraki, known to science by a pseudo-Latin
> name and called 'Those confounded slugs!' by the People,
> live in telepathic symbiosis with lemur-like creatures
> possessed of delicate, many-boned hands--'telepathy' is
> a conclusion; it is believed that the slow, monstrous,
> dominant creature supply the brains and the lemuroids
> the manipulation.
> - Robert A. Heinlein_Citizen of the Galaxy_
Puppet Masters as benign? How do the People know the "lemurs" don't
think on their own if freed? If they even suspect such is there a moral
issue in trading with the slugs?
Matt Hickman
Mar 9, 2013, 9:26:00 PM3/9/13
to
--
Matt Hickman
We can't go around shooting every round shouldered man
in Iowa; it would cause talk.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_The Puppet Masters_ c 1951
Matt Hickman
Mar 9, 2013, 9:34:59 PM3/9/13
to
On Saturday, March 9, 2013 8:26:00 PM UTC-6, Matt Hickman wrote:
>
> Exactly so.
>
that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
--
Matt Hickman
Young lady, you have the morals of snapping turtle and
the crust of a bakery pie. (Henry Kiku to Betty)
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_The Star Beast_ c. 1954
>
> Exactly so.
>
that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
--
Matt Hickman
Young lady, you have the morals of snapping turtle and
the crust of a bakery pie. (Henry Kiku to Betty)
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_The Star Beast_ c. 1954
lal_truckee
Mar 10, 2013, 12:22:00 AM3/10/13
to
On 3/9/13 6:34 PM, Matt Hickman wrote:
> that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
Yet The Puppet Masters concludes "Death and Destruction!" as Sam and the
> that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
gang head out to kill slugs and rescue Lemurs. I'm a bit surprised
Heinlein reused the biology but changed the description to mutually
profitable symbiosis. Kind of puts the Old Man's comments to Sam, after
being taken by a slug, about "symbiosis" being the best he's ever felt.
But as to the third question IMO the People would trade with them. After
all, they trade with the Nine Worlds.
lal_truckee
Mar 10, 2013, 12:31:56 AM3/10/13
to
On 3/9/13 9:22 PM, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 3/9/13 6:34 PM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>> that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even
>> legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human
>> morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
>
> Yet The Puppet Masters concludes "Death and Destruction!" as Sam and the
> gang head out to kill slugs and rescue Lemurs. I'm a bit surprised
> Heinlein reused the biology but changed the description to mutually
> profitable symbiosis. Kind of puts the Old Man's comments to Sam, after
> being taken by a slug, about "symbiosis" being the best he's ever felt.
"New light." The words "new light" should have been in there someplace.
> On 3/9/13 6:34 PM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>> that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even
>> legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human
>> morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
>
> Yet The Puppet Masters concludes "Death and Destruction!" as Sam and the
> gang head out to kill slugs and rescue Lemurs. I'm a bit surprised
> Heinlein reused the biology but changed the description to mutually
> profitable symbiosis. Kind of puts the Old Man's comments to Sam, after
> being taken by a slug, about "symbiosis" being the best he's ever felt.
As in "puts the Old Man's comments in a new light." Usenet makes my
fingers fat and brain numb. Geez.
Matt Hickman
Mar 10, 2013, 10:55:16 AM3/10/13
to
People tend to fall into three psychological types, all differently
motivated. There is the type motivated by economic factors, money...
and there is the type motivated by 'face,' or pride. This type is
a spender, fighter, boaster, lover, sportsman, gambler; he has the will
to power and an itch for glory. And then there is the professional type,
which claims to follow a code of ethics rather than simply seeking
money or glory--priests and ministers, teachers, scientists, medical
men, some artists and writers. The idea is that such a man believes
that he is devoting his live to some purpose that is more important
than his individual self.
Then in _Starship Troopers_, the theme is reversed.
In _Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom. Then in _Farnham's Freehold_ the U.S. is devastated by nuclear warfare and the third world comes to enslave the nation.
--
Matt Hickman
You apes--No, not 'apes'; you don't rate that much. You pitiful mob
of sickly monkeys...you sunken-chested, slack-bellied, drooling refugees
from apron strings. In my life I never saw such a disgraceful huddle of
momma's spoiled little darlings... I had a better set of wooden
soldiers when I was six. (Sergeant Zim)
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Starship Troopers_ (c 1959)
lal_truckee
Mar 10, 2013, 11:43:04 AM3/10/13
to
On 3/10/13 7:55 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
> In_Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom.
Can you support "repopulated by the third world?"
An isolated reference to "Manhattan crater" can as easily be ascribed to
accident. I don't recall a more extensive historical back story.
(_Farnham's Freehold_ is a whole other parable.)
> In_Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom.
Can you support "repopulated by the third world?"
An isolated reference to "Manhattan crater" can as easily be ascribed to
accident. I don't recall a more extensive historical back story.
(_Farnham's Freehold_ is a whole other parable.)
Matt Hickman
Mar 10, 2013, 12:30:45 PM3/10/13
to
What you see in a Heinlein novel is the tip of the iceberg. Besides the mathematical calculations he did for orbits, he constructs entire future histories for his novels. You see them in throw-away lines like this from _Starship Troopers_ : "...under Cherenkov drive she cranks Mike 400 or better--say Sol to Capella, forty-six light-years, in under six weeks." I have no doubt that Heinlein had envisioned an extensive set of specs for the Cherenkov drive and a history of when and how it was developed. But all we saw of it in the novel, was that one line.
One of the joys of reading Heinlein is reading between the lines and trying to reverse engineer the world he envisioned and its history. Heinlein is famous for the casual, matter of fact way that he writes. He is familiar with the worlds he writes about because he does the homework, he builds the world with its technology and history. The famous future history timeline is just one example of this. And I doubt that he limited this exercise to just those stories.
--
Matt Hickman
He doesn't care about history, he just wants to go to the Moon.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
"The Man Who Sold the Moon" c.1949
Chris Zakes
Mar 10, 2013, 1:07:06 PM3/10/13
to
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:22:00 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>On 3/9/13 6:34 PM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>> that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
>
>Yet The Puppet Masters concludes "Death and Destruction!" as Sam and the
>gang head out to kill slugs and rescue Lemurs.
Minor quibble: Sam & Co. are heading off to kill slugs and rescue the
caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>On 3/9/13 6:34 PM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>> that is, to the first question. As far as the others, are they even legitimate questions of morality? In that any attempt to impose human morality on aliens (other than self-defense) is rank imperialism?
>
>Yet The Puppet Masters concludes "Death and Destruction!" as Sam and the
>gang head out to kill slugs and rescue Lemurs.
"elves" of Titan, not lemurs.
Major quibble: We *know* the slugs in "Puppet Masters" are aggressive
and expansionist. Is there any evidence that the slug-like critters in
"Citizen of the Galaxy" operate the same way? Their interaction with
the lemurs may be closer to that of humans and, say, horses in the
19th century.
Presumably, if they operated like the slugs in PM then they would have
already taken over several Free Trader ships and have been a major
problem across the galaxy (or elses their planet would be just a
radioactive cinder.)
-Chirs Zakes
Texas
--
You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like they
were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving
*really* slowly.
Chris Zakes
Mar 10, 2013, 1:19:36 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 07:55:16 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Matt Hickman <hem...@gmail.com> to write:
(snip)
>In _Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world.
Maybe, but that seems inprobable. Quite a few Heinlein stories deal
with survivable nuclear war--"Puppet Masters" mentions parts of
Washington that had been destroyed and rebuilt; there's the "Wet
Firecracker War" in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; the "Six Weeks
War" in "Door into Summer" etc. Yet all of those stories have viable
global economies with the countries we know today still
up-and-running.
With the exception of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
*don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
Canticle for Leibowitz".
-Chris Zakes
laser caused Matt Hickman <hem...@gmail.com> to write:
(snip)
>In _Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world.
with survivable nuclear war--"Puppet Masters" mentions parts of
Washington that had been destroyed and rebuilt; there's the "Wet
Firecracker War" in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; the "Six Weeks
War" in "Door into Summer" etc. Yet all of those stories have viable
global economies with the countries we know today still
up-and-running.
With the exception of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
*don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
Canticle for Leibowitz".
-Chris Zakes
Chris Zakes
Mar 10, 2013, 1:39:03 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
The discoverer is Professor Jesse Evelyn Ramsbotham, which doesn't
*sound* terribly Brazilian. And after stepping through the first
man-sized gate into what he *thinks* is the Carboniferous Period
(remembe that he was trying to build a time machine)... "Ten minutes
later he was arreested for waving a firearm around in Rio de Janiero's
civic botanical gardens. A lack of the Portugese language increased
both his difficulties and the length of time he spent in a tropical
pokey,but three days laterthrough the help of the North American
consul he was on his way home."
The US and Canada may have become a single country, but it's pretty
clear that Ramsbotham wasn't from Brazil.
>On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:43:04 AM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
>> On 3/10/13 7:55 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>>
>> > In_Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you support "repopulated by the third world?"
>>
>>
>>
>> An isolated reference to "Manhattan crater" can as easily be ascribed to
>>
>> accident. I don't recall a more extensive historical back story.
>>
>>
>>
>> (_Farnham's Freehold_ is a whole other parable.)
>
>Sure, the religion that the Walker family practices is, on the face of it, third world. That teleportation was discovered in Brazil points to a shift in technological innovation away from the US and Europe.
I think you're mis-remembering.
>> On 3/10/13 7:55 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>>
>> > In_Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you support "repopulated by the third world?"
>>
>>
>>
>> An isolated reference to "Manhattan crater" can as easily be ascribed to
>>
>> accident. I don't recall a more extensive historical back story.
>>
>>
>>
>> (_Farnham's Freehold_ is a whole other parable.)
>
>Sure, the religion that the Walker family practices is, on the face of it, third world. That teleportation was discovered in Brazil points to a shift in technological innovation away from the US and Europe.
The discoverer is Professor Jesse Evelyn Ramsbotham, which doesn't
*sound* terribly Brazilian. And after stepping through the first
man-sized gate into what he *thinks* is the Carboniferous Period
(remembe that he was trying to build a time machine)... "Ten minutes
later he was arreested for waving a firearm around in Rio de Janiero's
civic botanical gardens. A lack of the Portugese language increased
both his difficulties and the length of time he spent in a tropical
pokey,but three days laterthrough the help of the North American
consul he was on his way home."
The US and Canada may have become a single country, but it's pretty
clear that Ramsbotham wasn't from Brazil.
lal_truckee
Mar 10, 2013, 5:17:45 PM3/10/13
to
On 3/10/13 9:30 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
> Sure, the religion that the Walker family practices is, on the face of it, third world.
Interesting take. When I read TitS I view the Walker religion as pure
> Sure, the religion that the Walker family practices is, on the face of it, third world.
New Wave, obviously developed on the California coast somewhere. Most
definitely NOT third world.
lal_truckee
Mar 10, 2013, 5:25:54 PM3/10/13
to
On 3/10/13 10:07 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> Major quibble: We*know* the slugs in "Puppet Masters" are aggressive
expansionist slugs were destroyed leaving just their origin world, with
the expansionism beat out of the gene-pool, in the hinterlands to be
rediscovered by the People. The People don't show much interest in Fraki
history, so they might not even know about an expansionist slug era.
Since they don't have language they conveniently can't spill their history.
>
> Major quibble: We*know* the slugs in "Puppet Masters" are aggressive
> and expansionist. Is there any evidence that the slug-like critters in
> "Citizen of the Galaxy" operate the same way?
CotG is set in a (unspecified?) distant future. Postulate the
> "Citizen of the Galaxy" operate the same way?
expansionist slugs were destroyed leaving just their origin world, with
the expansionism beat out of the gene-pool, in the hinterlands to be
rediscovered by the People. The People don't show much interest in Fraki
history, so they might not even know about an expansionist slug era.
Since they don't have language they conveniently can't spill their history.
Chris Zakes
Mar 10, 2013, 7:48:19 PM3/10/13
to
"The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
previous century."
Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
Chris Zakes
Mar 10, 2013, 7:57:03 PM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:25:54 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
<shrug> If the slugs are no longer expansionist or aggressive, then
they're not a problem, are they? They can be treated like any other
intelligent species.
On the other hand, remember that slugs are shown to be able to control
apes, dogs, cats and elephants; they're not limited to humans. Thus
the lack of a language says to me that the lemurs *aren't* intelligent
on their own, even if these are the same slugs.
-Chris Zakes
they're not a problem, are they? They can be treated like any other
intelligent species.
On the other hand, remember that slugs are shown to be able to control
apes, dogs, cats and elephants; they're not limited to humans. Thus
the lack of a language says to me that the lemurs *aren't* intelligent
on their own, even if these are the same slugs.
-Chris Zakes
Michael Black
Mar 10, 2013, 7:58:14 PM3/10/13
to
faith (not that I know anything about that religion), it definitely was
unique enough that it wsan't necessarily coming from anywhere. I think
there may have been even aspects of the Society of Friends in it, and the
fact that I see more than one religion in there does suggest a more "made
up" religion.
Michael
lal_truckee
Mar 10, 2013, 8:40:58 PM3/10/13
to
On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Time for a reread.
>
> "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
> grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
> proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
> previous century."
>
> Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
> Time for a reread.
>
> "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
> grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
> proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
> previous century."
>
> Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
But the peace lamp etc does sound so very California. (That's not
negative BTW. I like the experiment that is California, and live there.)
And I've been to Persia/Iran.
Second wave? You think Heinlein was counting Zoroaster as first? He was
the first important monotheist, and "swept" out of Persia.
Robert A. Woodward
Mar 11, 2013, 1:21:57 AM3/11/13
to
In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
Asia.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> > Time for a reread.
> >
> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
> > previous century."
> >
> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>
> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>
I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> > Time for a reread.
> >
> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
> > previous century."
> >
> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>
> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>
are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
Asia.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Chris Zakes
Mar 11, 2013, 9:19:55 AM3/11/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:40:58 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
Zoroaster was a long time ago, somewhere between 6000 and 600 BC. *My*
impression is that Evangelical Monism is a more recent (from the point
of view of the story) development. Michael Black suggests Bahai--which
started in the mid-1800s--as a possible first wave. That may be
plausible, depending on when the "previous century" was for that
story. On the other paw, googling "Bahai peace lamp" doesn't give any
likely results.
So maybe Heinlein made it all up, ormaybe he based it *very* loosely
on Bahai.
impression is that Evangelical Monism is a more recent (from the point
of view of the story) development. Michael Black suggests Bahai--which
started in the mid-1800s--as a possible first wave. That may be
plausible, depending on when the "previous century" was for that
story. On the other paw, googling "Bahai peace lamp" doesn't give any
likely results.
So maybe Heinlein made it all up, ormaybe he based it *very* loosely
on Bahai.
Chris Zakes
Mar 11, 2013, 9:24:28 AM3/11/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> > Time for a reread.
>> >
>> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>> > previous century."
>> >
>> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>>
>> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>>
>
>I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
>are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
>Asia.
Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> > Time for a reread.
>> >
>> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>> > previous century."
>> >
>> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>>
>> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>>
>
>I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
>are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
>Asia.
converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
to Evangelical Monism?
Yisroel Markov
Mar 11, 2013, 3:09:33 PM3/11/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:40:58 -0700, lal_truckee
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> said:
>On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> Time for a reread.
>>
>> "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>> grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>> proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>> previous century."
"Having *been*"? That seems to imply some degree of coercion.
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> said:
>On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> Time for a reread.
>>
>> "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>> grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>> proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>> previous century."
>> Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>
>Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>
>But the peace lamp etc does sound so very California. (That's not
>negative BTW. I like the experiment that is California, and live there.)
>
>And I've been to Persia/Iran.
>Second wave? You think Heinlein was counting Zoroaster as first? He was
>the first important monotheist, and "swept" out of Persia.
of Moses?
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Michael Black
Mar 11, 2013, 4:16:20 PM3/11/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>
>> In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>> Time for a reread.
>>>>
>>>> "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>>>> grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>>>> proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>>>> previous century."
>>>>
>>>> Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>>>
>>> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>>>
>>
>> I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
>> are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
>> Asia.
>
> Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
> converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
> to Evangelical Monism?
>
No.
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>
>> In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>> Time for a reread.
>>>>
>>>> "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>>>> grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>>>> proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>>>> previous century."
>>>>
>>>> Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>>>
>>> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>>>
>>
>> I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
>> are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
>> Asia.
>
> Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
> converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
> to Evangelical Monism?
>
But, of the people who adopted Buddhism, did their children just take it
as gospel, continuing on like a family with deep roots in a religion? Or
is it a one generation thing?
I don't know. I have read the books about Buddhism coming to North
America, but it seems more an individual decision, someone choosing the
philosophy and living it, rather than passing it on to their children.
That may just be that the kids hadn't arrived to take it on, or it may
mean that North American Buddhism vectors differently. It's less about
"going to church" so the kids may not have been dragged along, unlike
religions with a deep root in the family.
Contrast that with the Muslim faith, there's now a fairly long history of
it among black people in North America, at least. That certainly seems to
be something the kids carry on, something the whole family takes on, yet
isn't "traditional" in North America like Catholicism and Protestantism.
Michael
lal_truckee
Mar 11, 2013, 4:33:49 PM3/11/13
to
On 3/11/13 12:09 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:40:58 -0700, lal_truckee
> <lal_t...@yahoo.com> said:
> ...
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:40:58 -0700, lal_truckee
> <lal_t...@yahoo.com> said:
>> Second wave? You think Heinlein was counting Zoroaster as first? He was
>> the first important monotheist, and "swept" out of Persia.
>
> Are you accepting the adepts' dating of Zoroaster, or rejecting that
> of Moses?
In my opinion Moses (Judaism) is not monotheist; Yahway is god of
>> the first important monotheist, and "swept" out of Persia.
>
> Are you accepting the adepts' dating of Zoroaster, or rejecting that
> of Moses?
Israel; other peoples had their own gods. Otherwise it makes no sense to
be "chosen."
(I realize I probably differ with every theologian extant.)
There are few strict monotheist religions: certainly not Christians.
Matt Hickman
Mar 11, 2013, 11:46:19 PM3/11/13
to
A couple of other indicators. WWIII is mentioned in 5th paragraph of chapter two. And then it goes on to say, "The hydrogen, germ and nerve gas horrors that followed..." Indications of massive population loss.
Then there is Jock calling Rod a 'cholo.' Cholo means something different now than it did in 1954 or in the 16th century. I think cholo, in this context, meant someone who had just come over the border, a new comer to Los Angeles (or, in this case the former continental US). It certainly does not mean Rod was a Hispanic low-rider. Rod was black. I also see his personality written as being that of a traditional dignified and stoic African prince.
I might also bring up the Peiping Peace Treaty where 'remnants of the former Australian population' were moved to New Zealand. Also an indication of massive population loss, this time for a traditional US ally - possibly in WWIII and its aftermath. And something that would not have happened without the US being completely out of the picture as a world power.
--
Matt Hickman
It wasn't a war--not even a "Police Action." We were "Military
Advisers." But a Military Adviser who has been dead four days
in that heat smells the same way a corpse does in a real war.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_Glory Road_ 1963
Robert A. Woodward
Mar 12, 2013, 1:16:31 AM3/12/13
to
In article <7hmrj8hmu25egbugp...@4ax.com>,
when they converted to Monism.
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>
> >In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> > Time for a reread.
> >> >
> >> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
> >> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
> >> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
> >> > previous century."
> >> >
> >> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
> >>
> >> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
> >>
> >
> >I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
> >are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
> >Asia.
>
> Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
> converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
> to Evangelical Monism?
>
My point is that we don't know where Rod's grandfathers were living
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>
> >In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> > Time for a reread.
> >> >
> >> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
> >> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
> >> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
> >> > previous century."
> >> >
> >> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
> >>
> >> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
> >>
> >
> >I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
> >are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
> >Asia.
>
> Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
> converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
> to Evangelical Monism?
>
when they converted to Monism.
Chris Zakes
Mar 12, 2013, 9:02:42 AM3/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:33:49 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
then what is it?
then what is it?
Chris Zakes
Mar 12, 2013, 10:12:38 AM3/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:16:31 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
could have lived pretty much anywhere else. In a world where Zulus and
kids from the Grand Canyon suburb of New York can go to the same high
school, moving is probably a lot less hassle than it is today.
caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>In article <7hmrj8hmu25egbugp...@4ax.com>,
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>>
>> >In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> > lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> >> > Time for a reread.
>> >> >
>> >> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>> >> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>> >> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>> >> > previous century."
>> >> >
>> >> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>> >>
>> >> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
>> >are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
>> >Asia.
>>
>> Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
>> converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
>> to Evangelical Monism?
>>
>
>My point is that we don't know where Rod's grandfathers were living
>when they converted to Monism.
Ah, now I see. Presumably they *weren't* living in Persia, but they
>In article <7hmrj8hmu25egbugp...@4ax.com>,
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:21:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> to write:
>>
>> >In article <khj93t$hue$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> > lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/10/13 4:48 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> >> > Time for a reread.
>> >> >
>> >> > "The family was evangelical Monist by inheritance, each of Rod's
>> >> > grandfathers having been converted in the second great wave of
>> >> > proseletyzing that swept out of Persia in the last decade of the
>> >> > previous century."
>> >> >
>> >> > Persia is modern-day Iran, not somewhere in California.
>> >>
>> >> Oops. The text wins again. Dam this sloppy memory.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I will point out, politely, that there are Buddhists in the USA who
>> >are neither immigrants from Asia nor descendants of immigrants from
>> >Asia.
>>
>> Granted, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are modern Americans who
>> converted to Buddhism any different from Rod's ancestors who converted
>> to Evangelical Monism?
>>
>
>My point is that we don't know where Rod's grandfathers were living
>when they converted to Monism.
could have lived pretty much anywhere else. In a world where Zulus and
kids from the Grand Canyon suburb of New York can go to the same high
school, moving is probably a lot less hassle than it is today.
Chris Zakes
Mar 12, 2013, 10:33:38 AM3/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:46:19 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
Liberty, "twin to the one that had stood for a century where now was
Bedloe Crater." That implies WWIII happened in the 1980s, so the
second wave of Evangelical Monism would be either in the 1990s or the
2090s. I'd guess the 2090s, to give enough time to rebuild and
repopulate and we're now in the mid-2100s.
>Then there is Jock calling Rod a 'cholo.' Cholo means something different now than it did in 1954 or in the 16th century. I think cholo, in this context, meant someone who had just come over the border, a new comer to Los Angeles (or, in this case the former continental US). It certainly does not mean Rod was a Hispanic low-rider. Rod was black. I also see his personality written as being that of a traditional dignified and stoic African prince.
Well... I'm still not convinced that Rod was black. Heinlein's comment
about having a black hero in "Tunnel" could, to my mind, just as
easily refer to Caroline.
And I'm not sure "dignified and stoic" are accurate descriptors of
Rod, either.
>I might also bring up the Peiping Peace Treaty where 'remnants of the former Australian population' were moved to New Zealand. Also an indication of massive population loss, this time for a traditional US ally - possibly in WWIII and its aftermath. And something that would not have happened without the US being completely out of the picture as a world power.
Hm. Good point. Either the US was completely out of the picture, or
they were so busy with internal reconstruction (and, possibly, a
postwar neo-isolationism) that they weren't paying much attention to
what was happening on the other side of the world.
In either case, things have settled down and rebuilt to the point that
the Australasian Republic is on good enouogh terms with North America
to run their emigration routes through Emigrants' Gap in New Jersey.
laser caused Matt Hickman <hem...@gmail.com> to write:
>On Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:39:03 PM UTC-5, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused Matt Hickman <hem...@gmail.com> to write:
>>
>> >On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:43:04 AM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
>>
>> >> On 3/10/13 7:55 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>>
>> >> > In_Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom.
>> >>
>> >> Can you support "repopulated by the third world?"
>> >> An isolated reference to "Manhattan crater" can as easily be ascribed to
>> >> accident. I don't recall a more extensive historical back story.
>>
>> >> (_Farnham's Freehold_ is a whole other parable.)
>>
>> >Sure, the religion that the Walker family practices is, on the face of it, third world. That teleportation was discovered in Brazil points to a shift in technological innovation away from the US and Europe.
>>
>> I think you're mis-remembering.
>>
>> The discoverer is Professor Jesse Evelyn Ramsbotham, which doesn't
>> *sound* terribly Brazilian. And after stepping through the first
>> man-sized gate into what he *thinks* is the Carboniferous Period
>> (remember that he was trying to build a time machine)... "Ten minutes
>On Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:39:03 PM UTC-5, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused Matt Hickman <hem...@gmail.com> to write:
>>
>> >On Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:43:04 AM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
>>
>> >> On 3/10/13 7:55 AM, Matt Hickman wrote:
>>
>> >> > In_Tunnel in the Sky_, the U.S. had been devastated by nuclear warfare (evince the Manhattan crater) and repopulated by the third world. And this is treated matter-of-factly and not as a threat to freedom.
>> >>
>> >> Can you support "repopulated by the third world?"
>> >> An isolated reference to "Manhattan crater" can as easily be ascribed to
>> >> accident. I don't recall a more extensive historical back story.
>>
>> >> (_Farnham's Freehold_ is a whole other parable.)
>>
>> >Sure, the religion that the Walker family practices is, on the face of it, third world. That teleportation was discovered in Brazil points to a shift in technological innovation away from the US and Europe.
>>
>> I think you're mis-remembering.
>>
>> The discoverer is Professor Jesse Evelyn Ramsbotham, which doesn't
>> *sound* terribly Brazilian. And after stepping through the first
>> man-sized gate into what he *thinks* is the Carboniferous Period
>> later he was arreested for waving a firearm around in Rio de Janiero's
>> civic botanical gardens. A lack of the Portugese language increased
>> both his difficulties and the length of time he spent in a tropical
>> pokey,but three days later through the help of the North American
>> civic botanical gardens. A lack of the Portugese language increased
>> both his difficulties and the length of time he spent in a tropical
>> consul he was on his way home."
>>
>> The US and Canada may have become a single country, but it's pretty
>> clear that Ramsbotham wasn't from Brazil.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>>
>> --
>
>Okay, agreed.
>
>A couple of other indicators. WWIII is mentioned in 5th paragraph of chapter two. And then it goes on to say, "The hydrogen, germ and nerve gas horrors that followed..." Indications of massive population loss.
One more detail on the timing. Heinlein mentions the replica Statue of
>>
>> The US and Canada may have become a single country, but it's pretty
>> clear that Ramsbotham wasn't from Brazil.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>>
>> --
>
>Okay, agreed.
>
>A couple of other indicators. WWIII is mentioned in 5th paragraph of chapter two. And then it goes on to say, "The hydrogen, germ and nerve gas horrors that followed..." Indications of massive population loss.
Liberty, "twin to the one that had stood for a century where now was
Bedloe Crater." That implies WWIII happened in the 1980s, so the
second wave of Evangelical Monism would be either in the 1990s or the
2090s. I'd guess the 2090s, to give enough time to rebuild and
repopulate and we're now in the mid-2100s.
>Then there is Jock calling Rod a 'cholo.' Cholo means something different now than it did in 1954 or in the 16th century. I think cholo, in this context, meant someone who had just come over the border, a new comer to Los Angeles (or, in this case the former continental US). It certainly does not mean Rod was a Hispanic low-rider. Rod was black. I also see his personality written as being that of a traditional dignified and stoic African prince.
about having a black hero in "Tunnel" could, to my mind, just as
easily refer to Caroline.
And I'm not sure "dignified and stoic" are accurate descriptors of
Rod, either.
>I might also bring up the Peiping Peace Treaty where 'remnants of the former Australian population' were moved to New Zealand. Also an indication of massive population loss, this time for a traditional US ally - possibly in WWIII and its aftermath. And something that would not have happened without the US being completely out of the picture as a world power.
they were so busy with internal reconstruction (and, possibly, a
postwar neo-isolationism) that they weren't paying much attention to
what was happening on the other side of the world.
In either case, things have settled down and rebuilt to the point that
the Australasian Republic is on good enouogh terms with North America
to run their emigration routes through Emigrants' Gap in New Jersey.
lal_truckee
Mar 12, 2013, 11:19:15 AM3/12/13
to
On 3/12/13 6:02 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> ??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
> then what is it?
At least three gods so named - and untold numbers of angels/demons, and
> ??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
> then what is it?
for Catholics, football stadiums worth of saints; all of them gods of
various sorts.
And all accompanied by hordes of theologians and preachers and
missionaries busy trying to reconcile the whole with monotheism, while
at the same time looking down their collective noses at Hindus.
MajorOz
Mar 12, 2013, 6:35:45 PM3/12/13
to
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:19:15 AM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 3/12/13 6:02 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>
>
> > ??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
>
> > then what is it?
>
>
>
> At least three gods so named - and untold numbers of angels/demons, and
>
> for Catholics, football stadiums worth of saints; all of them gods of
>
> various sorts.
You need more study time on the subject.
> On 3/12/13 6:02 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>
>
> > ??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
>
> > then what is it?
>
>
>
> At least three gods so named - and untold numbers of angels/demons, and
>
> for Catholics, football stadiums worth of saints; all of them gods of
>
> various sorts.
lal_truckee
Mar 12, 2013, 7:03:52 PM3/12/13
to
On 3/12/13 3:35 PM, MajorOz wrote:
> You need more study time on the subject.
I prefer to spend my time on important subjects, like brewing coffee at
> You need more study time on the subject.
altitude.
Chris Zakes
Mar 12, 2013, 9:06:23 PM3/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:19:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
<sigh> You're displaying a woeful ignorance of the subject. Yes, the
Trinity three-gods-in-one is a little weird, but angels, demons and
saints are *not* gods, and you're not going to find any Christian
saying they are.
Trinity three-gods-in-one is a little weird, but angels, demons and
saints are *not* gods, and you're not going to find any Christian
saying they are.
Yisroel Markov
Mar 13, 2013, 9:18:06 AM3/13/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:06:23 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
said:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:19:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
>>On 3/12/13 6:02 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> ??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
>>> then what is it?
>>
>>At least three gods so named - and untold numbers of angels/demons, and
>>for Catholics, football stadiums worth of saints; all of them gods of
>>various sorts.
>>
>>And all accompanied by hordes of theologians and preachers and
>>missionaries busy trying to reconcile the whole with monotheism, while
>>at the same time looking down their collective noses at Hindus.
>
><sigh> You're displaying a woeful ignorance of the subject. Yes, the
>Trinity three-gods-in-one is a little weird, but angels, demons and
>saints are *not* gods, and you're not going to find any Christian
>saying they are.
Incidentally, IMHO the reluctance of the ancient Jewish tradition to
declare other people's gods false to their faces (internally there
were many such declarations) is a sign of tolerance, rather than any
ideological mushiness on the subject.
Compare the internal "All the gods of the nations are idols" (Psalms
96:5, and prophets too numerous to mention) with the diplomatic "You
keep whatever your god Kemosh gives you, and we will keep whatever the
Lord our God gives us" (Judges 11:24)
said:
>On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:19:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
>>On 3/12/13 6:02 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> ??? If Christianity isn't monotheist (i.e. "believing in one god")
>>> then what is it?
>>
>>At least three gods so named - and untold numbers of angels/demons, and
>>for Catholics, football stadiums worth of saints; all of them gods of
>>various sorts.
>>
>>And all accompanied by hordes of theologians and preachers and
>>missionaries busy trying to reconcile the whole with monotheism, while
>>at the same time looking down their collective noses at Hindus.
>
><sigh> You're displaying a woeful ignorance of the subject. Yes, the
>Trinity three-gods-in-one is a little weird, but angels, demons and
>saints are *not* gods, and you're not going to find any Christian
>saying they are.
declare other people's gods false to their faces (internally there
were many such declarations) is a sign of tolerance, rather than any
ideological mushiness on the subject.
Compare the internal "All the gods of the nations are idols" (Psalms
96:5, and prophets too numerous to mention) with the diplomatic "You
keep whatever your god Kemosh gives you, and we will keep whatever the
Lord our God gives us" (Judges 11:24)
lal_truckee
Mar 13, 2013, 11:07:18 AM3/13/13
to
On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
Chris Zakes
Mar 14, 2013, 8:08:36 AM3/14/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
*intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
*intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
lal_truckee
Mar 14, 2013, 10:49:19 AM3/14/13
to
On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
>> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>>
>> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>
> Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
> *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
> an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
> for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
Now you're kidding, right?
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
>> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>>
>> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>
> Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
> *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
> an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
> for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods, who
talk directly with another immortal, supernatural entity who is a god.
Sir: you quibble. They're all gods; maybe minor gods, but still gods.
You're playing with the clear meaning of the word "god."
But maybe you're a believer? This is beginning to feel more like a
doctrinal conversation than of a SF future meaning of monotheism discussion.
Yisroel Markov
Mar 14, 2013, 11:46:45 AM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:49:19 -0700, lal_truckee
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> said:
>On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>>
>>> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>>>
>>> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>>
>> Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
>> *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
>> an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
>> for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
>
>Now you're kidding, right?
>You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods,
Doesn't any soul fit this description? Would you say, then, that any
<lal_t...@yahoo.com> said:
>On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>>
>>> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>>>
>>> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>>
>> Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
>> *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
>> an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
>> for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
>
>Now you're kidding, right?
>You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods,
religion that believes in immortality of the soul is perforce a
polytheistic one?
>who
>talk directly with another immortal, supernatural entity who is a god.
>Sir: you quibble. They're all gods; maybe minor gods, but still gods.
>You're playing with the clear meaning of the word "god."
>
>But maybe you're a believer? This is beginning to feel more like a
>doctrinal conversation than of a SF future meaning of monotheism discussion.
lal_truckee
Mar 14, 2013, 12:03:42 PM3/14/13
to
On 3/14/13 8:46 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> Would you say, then, that any
> religion that believes in immortality of the soul is perforce a
> polytheistic one?
Supernatural, immortal, separate.
> Would you say, then, that any
> religion that believes in immortality of the soul is perforce a
> polytheistic one?
Fits the definition.
Yes.
Yisroel Markov
Mar 14, 2013, 2:52:39 PM3/14/13
to
impossible or besides the point. To me, that speaks to a problem with
your definition. Shouldn't it include substantial power?
Chris Zakes
Mar 14, 2013, 9:20:30 PM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:49:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
Christian definitions--that you can't become a saint without dying
first. Yes, the soul is supposed to live forever, but as Yisroel said,
if you're going by that notion, then we're *all* immortal.
>who
>talk directly with another immortal, supernatural entity who is a god.
>Sir: you quibble. They're all gods; maybe minor gods, but still gods.
>You're playing with the clear meaning of the word "god."
Okay, I think it's pretty clear that we're not using the same
definition of "god." What's your definition, so we can maybe get onto
the same page.
>But maybe you're a believer? This is beginning to feel more like a
>doctrinal conversation than of a SF future meaning of monotheism discussion.
No, I was raised a Catholic, so I know the patter, but I gave upon
them when I was a teenager.
caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>>
>>> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>>>
>>> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>>
>> Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
>> *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
>> an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
>> for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
>
>Now you're kidding, right?
>You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods,
Immortal means "not subject to death." I'm pretty sure--at least by
>On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>>
>>> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>>>
>>> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>>
>> Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
>> *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
>> an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
>> for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
>
>Now you're kidding, right?
>You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods,
Christian definitions--that you can't become a saint without dying
first. Yes, the soul is supposed to live forever, but as Yisroel said,
if you're going by that notion, then we're *all* immortal.
>who
>talk directly with another immortal, supernatural entity who is a god.
>Sir: you quibble. They're all gods; maybe minor gods, but still gods.
>You're playing with the clear meaning of the word "god."
definition of "god." What's your definition, so we can maybe get onto
the same page.
>But maybe you're a believer? This is beginning to feel more like a
>doctrinal conversation than of a SF future meaning of monotheism discussion.
them when I was a teenager.
MajorOz
Mar 14, 2013, 9:42:37 PM3/14/13
to
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:49:19 AM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>
> > caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
> >
>
> >> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>
> >>
>
> >> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>
> >
>
> > Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
>
> > *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
>
> > an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
>
> > for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
>
>
>
> Now you're kidding, right?
>
> You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods, who
>
> talk directly with another immortal, supernatural entity who is a god.
>
> Sir: you quibble. They're all gods; maybe minor gods, but still gods.
>
> You're playing with the clear meaning of the word "god."
>
>
>
> But maybe you're a believer?
One need not be a believer -- often it's best not to -- to be a scholar.
> On 3/14/13 5:08 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:07:18 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>
> > caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>
> >
>
> >> On 3/12/13 6:06 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> angels, demons and saints are*not* gods
>
> >>
>
> >> Quibble. Supernatural beings (some) people pray to.
>
> >
>
> > Still displaying your ignorance. People pray to the saints to
>
> > *intercede* for them with God, on the assumption that they will have
>
> > an inside track. Sort of like asking the boss's secretary to ask him
>
> > for something, rather than going directly to the boss.
>
>
>
> Now you're kidding, right?
>
> You've got entities who are immortal, supernatural, but not gods, who
>
> talk directly with another immortal, supernatural entity who is a god.
>
> Sir: you quibble. They're all gods; maybe minor gods, but still gods.
>
> You're playing with the clear meaning of the word "god."
>
>
>
> But maybe you're a believer?
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your persistence in its display.
Study up.........
Bill Higgins
Mar 15, 2013, 3:12:27 PM3/15/13
to
time you spend posting ill-informed remarks on subjects you consider
unimportant is also available to be saved.
--
Bill Higgins | I made a proposal that those of us
Fermilab | around when people still used "!" paths
Internet: | should form "F!rst F@ndom."
hig...@fnal.gov | --Evelyn C. Leeper
Nollaig MacKenzie
Mar 16, 2013, 6:14:56 PM3/16/13
to
On 2013.03.15 01:20:30,
the amazing <dont...@gmail.com> declared:
[considerable depth of references omitted]
> Okay, I think it's pretty clear that we're not using the same
> definition of "god." What's your definition, so we can maybe get onto
> the same page.
x is a god <=> x is worthy of worship
Cheers, N.
--
Nollaig MacKenzie
http://www.yorku.ca/nollaig
Puppet_Sock
Mar 22, 2013, 1:36:03 PM3/22/13
to
On Mar 10, 1:19 pm, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> With the exception of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
> *don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
> Canticle for Leibowitz".
[snip]
A friend of a friend works in military scenario analysis.
They occasionaly do "war gaming" on a scale I'd love to
be able to participate in. I gather, from third hand
descriptions, it's pretty detailed and life like. They
do things like scenarios of this power block invading
that power block, etc. Fictional news stories, vids of
tanks rolling through battles in destroyed cities, etc.
One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
hair on a cat's back.
[snips]
story was that an ancient Egyptian tomb was opened. And
after much difficult study, the marks on the wall were
translated as "beer is not what it used to be."
[snip]
> With the exception of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
> *don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
> Canticle for Leibowitz".
[snip]
A friend of a friend works in military scenario analysis.
They occasionaly do "war gaming" on a scale I'd love to
be able to participate in. I gather, from third hand
descriptions, it's pretty detailed and life like. They
do things like scenarios of this power block invading
that power block, etc. Fictional news stories, vids of
tanks rolling through battles in destroyed cities, etc.
One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
hair on a cat's back.
[snips]
> You can find complaints as far back as Socrates about how things aren't like they
> were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
> Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving
> *really* slowly.
Heh. In a book about brewing beer I read a while ago, the
> were in "the good old days" and how the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
> Either Hell is a lot farther away than we thought, or that handbasket is moving
> *really* slowly.
story was that an ancient Egyptian tomb was opened. And
after much difficult study, the marks on the wall were
translated as "beer is not what it used to be."
lal_truckee
Mar 22, 2013, 5:21:20 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/13 10:36 AM, Puppet_Sock wrote:
> One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
> even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
> nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
> fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
> or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
> to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
> nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
> two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
> hair on a cat's back.
That of course is the point of the patrolling missile submarines,
> One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
> even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
> nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
> fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
> or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
> to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
> nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
> two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
> hair on a cat's back.
hardened missile silos, and airborne bomber squadrons; to remove the
fear of loosing capability forcing early decision all-in exchanges. Been
a primary component of both sides since the 1950s (and a primary reasons
Russia opposes anti missile defenses.)
It also sounds like this military game is aimed at 12 year olds. Which
makes sense - when I wrote for military consumption the dam things kept
coming back with "target audience reads at the fifth grade level" and
instructions to take the big words out. Seriously. Officers.
Chris Zakes
Mar 22, 2013, 5:56:35 PM3/22/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:36:03 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> to write:
>On Mar 10, 1:19�pm, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> With the exception �of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
>> *don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
>> Canticle for Leibowitz".
>[snip]
>
>A friend of a friend works in military scenario analysis.
>They occasionaly do "war gaming" on a scale I'd love to
>be able to participate in. I gather, from third hand
>descriptions, it's pretty detailed and life like. They
>do things like scenarios of this power block invading
>that power block, etc. Fictional news stories, vids of
>tanks rolling through battles in destroyed cities, etc.
>
>One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
>even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
>nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
>fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
>or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
>to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
>nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
>two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
>hair on a cat's back.
I think a lot would depend on who and how. If Russia or China lobbed
laser caused Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> to write:
>On Mar 10, 1:19�pm, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> With the exception �of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
>> *don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
>> Canticle for Leibowitz".
>[snip]
>
>A friend of a friend works in military scenario analysis.
>They occasionaly do "war gaming" on a scale I'd love to
>be able to participate in. I gather, from third hand
>descriptions, it's pretty detailed and life like. They
>do things like scenarios of this power block invading
>that power block, etc. Fictional news stories, vids of
>tanks rolling through battles in destroyed cities, etc.
>
>One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
>even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
>nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
>fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
>or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
>to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
>nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
>two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
>hair on a cat's back.
one at us (or vice-versa) then yes, the results would not be pretty.
But if India or Pakistan lobbed one at the other guy, then a more
likely scenario would be either just those two countries being
destroyed, or else whoever shot the first one receiving simultaneous
calls from the US, Russia and China saying "Stop at once, or be
obliterated."
Heinlein *does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
destruction wasn't total--one war where the missiles were going
through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
lal_truckee
Mar 22, 2013, 6:38:51 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/13 2:56 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> Heinlein*does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
missiles. Although high winds in Montana at max stress altitude might
take out a percentage of launches, plus opponent's equivalencies. Still,
Montana != polar. I wonder what Heinlein was thinking?
"Wet Firecracker" reminds me that there was much speculation as to the
reliability of Soviet ICBMs back in the day - many estimates had it as
dismal, just like their economy. This I can see Heinlein picking up on.
(I've somehow never read an Apocalyptic War story where all or most
missiles on both sides were duds, a likely scenario. There's a lot to go
wrong.)
> Heinlein*does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
> destruction wasn't total--one war where the missiles were going
> through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
> make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
> it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
> missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
The "polar weather" explanation seems a stretch - these are not cruise
> through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
> make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
> it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
> missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
missiles. Although high winds in Montana at max stress altitude might
take out a percentage of launches, plus opponent's equivalencies. Still,
Montana != polar. I wonder what Heinlein was thinking?
"Wet Firecracker" reminds me that there was much speculation as to the
reliability of Soviet ICBMs back in the day - many estimates had it as
dismal, just like their economy. This I can see Heinlein picking up on.
(I've somehow never read an Apocalyptic War story where all or most
missiles on both sides were duds, a likely scenario. There's a lot to go
wrong.)
MajorOz
Mar 22, 2013, 9:08:24 PM3/22/13
to
On Friday, March 22, 2013 5:38:51 PM UTC-5, lal_truckee wrote:
> On 3/22/13 2:56 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>
>
> > Heinlein*does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
>
> > destruction wasn't total--one war where the missiles were going
>
> > through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
>
> > make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
>
> > it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
>
> > missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
>
>
>
> The "polar weather" explanation seems a stretch - these are not cruise
>
> missiles. Although high winds in Montana at max stress altitude might
>
> take out a percentage of launches, plus opponent's equivalencies. Still,
>
> Montana != polar. I wonder what Heinlein was thinking?
Don't recall the pub date, but, although ballistic missiles are unaffected by weather (recall 200 of them around Cheyenne -- if wind had an effect, they would be useless), RAH might have had in mind the FIRST intercontinental missile, which was NOT ballistic, but the air-breathing SNARK.
> On 3/22/13 2:56 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>
>
> > Heinlein*does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
>
> > destruction wasn't total--one war where the missiles were going
>
> > through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
>
> > make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
>
> > it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
>
> > missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
>
>
>
> The "polar weather" explanation seems a stretch - these are not cruise
>
> missiles. Although high winds in Montana at max stress altitude might
>
> take out a percentage of launches, plus opponent's equivalencies. Still,
>
> Montana != polar. I wonder what Heinlein was thinking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snark_%28missile%29
Given its guidance system, weather might have a significant effect on its accuracy.
oz, old Mace and Matador guidance mech (and, later, MM puke)
lal_truckee
Mar 22, 2013, 9:38:40 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/13 6:08 PM, MajorOz wrote:
> Don't recall the pub date, but, although ballistic missiles are unaffected by weather (recall 200 of them around Cheyenne -- if wind had an effect, they would be useless),
I calculated ascent trajectories for several satellite launches using
> Don't recall the pub date, but, although ballistic missiles are unaffected by weather (recall 200 of them around Cheyenne -- if wind had an effect, they would be useless),
Titan-3 ICBMs as base vehicle, during my stint with Lockheed five
decades ago. Crosswinds impinging at max stress altitudes could take
down the bird. Lots of the calculational effort was to assure avoidance
of just such unpleasant results.
It was an unusual situation to threaten the bird, and the Titan-3s as
launch vehicles were being stretched to the limit. As an ICBM in a
sub-orbital ballistic launch mode, the vehicle would have been under
less stress and presumably less threatened by wind. I never calculated a
ballistic launch; we were in the orbital business.
Chris Zakes
Mar 23, 2013, 10:58:05 AM3/23/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:38:51 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>On 3/22/13 2:56 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> Heinlein*does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
>> destruction wasn't total--one war where the missiles were going
>> through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
>> make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
>> it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
>> missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
>
>The "polar weather" explanation seems a stretch - these are not cruise
>missiles. Although high winds in Montana at max stress altitude might
>take out a percentage of launches, plus opponent's equivalencies. Still,
>Montana != polar. I wonder what Heinlein was thinking?
Okay, I did a bit of digging on this. The bit about the polar weather
caused lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> to write:
>On 3/22/13 2:56 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> Heinlein*does* give reasons in some of his stories why the
>> destruction wasn't total--one war where the missiles were going
>> through the worst polar weather in a century, so most of them didn't
>> make it, another where it's called the "Wet Firecracker War" implying
>> it stopped almost as soon as it started, possibly due to really good
>> missile defense, possibly due to diplomacy.
>
>The "polar weather" explanation seems a stretch - these are not cruise
>missiles. Although high winds in Montana at max stress altitude might
>take out a percentage of launches, plus opponent's equivalencies. Still,
>Montana != polar. I wonder what Heinlein was thinking?
is from "Year of the Jackpot":
"Of course the fact that both sides had thrown their ICBMs over the
pole through the most freakish arctic weather since Peary invented the
place had a lot to do with it, he supposed. It was amazing that any of
the Russian paratroop transports had gotten through at all."
He mentions a total of 40 cities destroyed in the missile barrage "and
then *whoosh!* neither side fit to fight".
This story was written in 1952, when ICBMs were still on the drawing
board, so perhaps Heinlein was figuring suborbital missiles like a
glorified V-2 or the Snark that Major Oz mentioned. Perhaps the arctic
weather included severe solar radiation that mucked up the inflight
electronics, causing some missiles to miss their targets, or fail to
detonate. Or, considering the comment about the paratroop transports,
maybe most of the missiles worked, but the followup invasion failed
spectacularly.
>"Wet Firecracker" reminds me that there was much speculation as to the
>reliability of Soviet ICBMs back in the day - many estimates had it as
>dismal, just like their economy. This I can see Heinlein picking up on.
discussing possible defenses against the Lunar rock-throwing:
"Four great Peace Powers, and some smaller ones, had antimissile
defenses; those of North America were supposed to be best. But was
subject where even F. N. might not know. All attack weapons were held
by Peace Forces but defense weapons were each nation's own pidgin and
could be secret. Guesses ranged from India, believed to have no
missile interceptors, to North America, believed to be able to do a
good job. She had done fairly well in stopping intercontinental
H-missiles in Wet Firecracker War past century."
So in that scenario, lots of missiles were launched but few or none
got through, due to a very good antimissile defense system.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
--
Well, if you're going to have a circus, you've got to have elephants.
-Jubal Harshaw in "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein
Michael Black
Mar 23, 2013, 5:34:03 PM3/23/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Puppet_Sock wrote:
> On Mar 10, 1:19 pm, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> With the exception of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
>> *don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
>> Canticle for Leibowitz".
> [snip]
>
> A friend of a friend works in military scenario analysis.
> They occasionaly do "war gaming" on a scale I'd love to
> be able to participate in. I gather, from third hand
> descriptions, it's pretty detailed and life like. They
> do things like scenarios of this power block invading
> that power block, etc. Fictional news stories, vids of
> tanks rolling through battles in destroyed cities, etc.
>
> One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
> even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
> nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
> fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
> or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
> to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
> nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
> two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
> hair on a cat's back.
>
I wonder if that changes with time. Nuclear weapons are now so out of the
> On Mar 10, 1:19 pm, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> With the exception of "Farnham's Freehold" his post-war scenarios
>> *don't* assume total destruction along the lines of "Mad Max" or "A
>> Canticle for Leibowitz".
> [snip]
>
> A friend of a friend works in military scenario analysis.
> They occasionaly do "war gaming" on a scale I'd love to
> be able to participate in. I gather, from third hand
> descriptions, it's pretty detailed and life like. They
> do things like scenarios of this power block invading
> that power block, etc. Fictional news stories, vids of
> tanks rolling through battles in destroyed cities, etc.
>
> One result that seemed to come out was: If anybody uses
> even one nuke, everybody immediately uses bunches of
> nukes. Usually all they have. The issue is one of a
> fear that the opposition will destroy unused nukes,
> or the capability to launch them. So I always tended
> to skip over fairly lightly when RAH mentioned "small"
> nuclear wars. I don't really believe that only one or
> two cities could be nuked. One up, all up, like the
> hair on a cat's back.
>
limelight that I wonder if a different scenario has arisen. If nothing
else, there are now more countries with nuclear weapons, but except for
the traditional handful, their arsenals may be relatively small, which
would denote a different strategy.
For that matter, Heinlein wrote most of his books early, so they may
reflect a world with nuclear weapons but not the masses the two
superpowers ended up with. But maybe not, he foresaw nuclear stockpiles,
just not in the hands of individual countries.
Michael
0 new messages