[Because My Tears Are Delicious To You] Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova

[James Nicoll]

Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

[D B Davis]

Post by James Nicoll
Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

incel? You've got to be kidding me? (No, they kid me not.) Apparently
incelesque "logic" is relatively common with some strains of murderous
psychopathy.
"The Screwfly Solution" (Raccoona AKA Alice Sheldon AKA Tiptree)
showcases Alice's own "brand" of misogyny. Sheldon's warped, but there's
something about her twisted writing that attracts me like a moth to a
flame. Others who can't stand the Sheldon heat need to get out of her
kitchen. ROTFL.
IIRC Silverberg writes about how "Tip" had three typewriters set up
in her study. One typewriter for "Tip," another for "Raccoona," and the
third for "Alice." The typewriters enabled "Tip" to get-into-character
in order to create characters, so to speak.

✍

Thank you,

[b***@dontspam.silent.com]

Post by James Nicoll
Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

There is a talk by Michael Ovenden on his "non-consensus science"
theory that a Saturn-sized planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded.

https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/citraudio/items/1.0135218

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by b***@dontspam.silent.com

Post by James Nicoll
Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

There is a talk by Michael Ovenden on his "non-consensus science"
theory that a Saturn-sized planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/citraudio/items/1.0135218

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius–Bode_law
refers to the 18th century prediction of a planet
between Mars and Jupiter so that planets would
scale nicely (less important in modern astrophysics),
the satisfaction of discovering Ceres in the indicated
space, and re-evaluation when lots more bodies were
found there, declared "minor planets" or "asteroids".

I presume that almost immediately, those asteroids -
there are others - were treated as either the equivalent
of a missing planet, prevented from coming together by
Jupiter's gravity, or the /wreckage/ of a missing planet.
It's certainly been used a number of times in science
fiction, not necessarily the best stuff. List time?

I know that a fifth planet had been destroyed in the
setting of W. E. Johns's 1950s _Kings of Space_ by
their own super-weapon, leaving convenient asteroids.
This mainly comes out in the sequels.

In a Doctor Who story, __Image of the Fendahl_,
the fifth planet had been destroyed by the Time Lords
because of the Fendahl.

It would be available to H. G. Wells, for instance
in _The War of the Worlds_, but I don't think it
came up that time. We assumed that the invaders
had originated on Mars.

A past celestial war was described in C. S. Lewis's
_Out of the Silent Planet_, but it might be "limited"
to blighting Mars and blockading Earth.

I think a fifth planet may have copped it in
the prequel parts of the Lensmen series, but
I dunno. Atlantis is involved, and the lost
fifth planet is basically Atlantis in space;
if you set aside Aquaman and Namor in comics,
who each rule a modern Atlantis undersea but
inhabited by unconcerned mermen, the only basic
"fact" of Atlantis is that it went splat overnight;
it's a fable of cosmic insecurity; geological,
anyway.

Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Carnegie
It would be available to H. G. Wells, for instance
in _The War of the Worlds_, but I don't think it
came up that time. We assumed that the invaders
had originated on Mars.

In H. G. Wells' original, Earth astronomers observed flashes and plumes
on Mars that corresponded with the launches of Martian canisters.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by b***@dontspam.silent.com

Post by James Nicoll
Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

There is a talk by Michael Ovenden on his "non-consensus science"
theory that a Saturn-sized planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/citraudio/items/1.0135218

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius–Bode_law
refers to the 18th century prediction of a planet
between Mars and Jupiter so that planets would
scale nicely (less important in modern astrophysics),
the satisfaction of discovering Ceres in the indicated
space, and re-evaluation when lots more bodies were
found there, declared "minor planets" or "asteroids".
I presume that almost immediately, those asteroids -
there are others - were treated as either the equivalent
of a missing planet, prevented from coming together by
Jupiter's gravity, or the /wreckage/ of a missing planet.
It's certainly been used a number of times in science
fiction, not necessarily the best stuff. List time?

Background in Stranger in a Strange land, largely because of how it became no longer a planet.
iirc made an appearance in some other Heinlein, might be in Space Cadet where they investigate a missing ship in the asteroid belt.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.

Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves.

iirc they were actually sent on a rescue mission for a missing spaceship and found that it had made the discovery before events caught up with it...

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

That's the "Giants" series, including his breakthrough first book
_Inherit The Stars_. In retrospect, I think it was also his best.

One of the Winstons concerned the missing planet as well.

[1***@compuserve.com]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

That's the "Giants" series, including his breakthrough first book
_Inherit The Stars_. In retrospect, I think it was also his best.

I agree that the trilogy is among his best. _Inherit The Stars_ is flawed by the lame reveal at the end that I'd sussed a hundred pages earlier. My favorite is _Giant's Star_, if only for the giant space battle with massed fleets of imaginary spaceships fed directly into the bad guys' computer, that don't actually exist at all.

JimboCat

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

That's the "Giants" series, including his breakthrough first book
_Inherit The Stars_. In retrospect, I think it was also his best.

I agree that the trilogy is among his best. _Inherit The Stars_ is
flawed by the lame reveal at the end that I'd sussed a hundred pages
earlier. My favorite is _Giant's Star_, if only for the giant space
battle with massed fleets of imaginary spaceships fed directly into the
bad guys' computer, that don't actually exist at all.
JimboCat

I never saw that twist coming. Of course I was, um, 16 probably.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I can claim to be any more savy now.

I thought the other two books were good, but not as awesome.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Greg Goss
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

That's the "Giants" series, including his breakthrough first book
_Inherit The Stars_. In retrospect, I think it was also his best.

I agree that the trilogy is among his best. _Inherit The Stars_ is
flawed by the lame reveal at the end that I'd sussed a hundred pages
earlier. My favorite is _Giant's Star_, if only for the giant space
battle with massed fleets of imaginary spaceships fed directly into the
bad guys' computer, that don't actually exist at all.
JimboCat

I never saw that twist coming. Of course I was, um, 16 probably.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I can claim to be any more savy now.
I thought the other two books were good, but not as awesome.

I enjoyed the trilogy when it first came out. I've always been fond of _The Genesis Machine_ and
_The Two Faces of Tomorrow_, the later being due for a re-read....

[James Nicoll]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

That's the "Giants" series, including his breakthrough first book
_Inherit The Stars_. In retrospect, I think it was also his best.

I agree that the trilogy is among his best. _Inherit The Stars_ is
flawed by the lame reveal at the end that I'd sussed a hundred pages
earlier. My favorite is _Giant's Star_, if only for the giant space
battle with massed fleets of imaginary spaceships fed directly into the
bad guys' computer, that don't actually exist at all.
JimboCat

I never saw that twist coming. Of course I was, um, 16 probably.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I can claim to be any more savy now.
I thought the other two books were good, but not as awesome.

There are some later additions to the series that are must-miss.

[Sjouke Burry]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.

Also in the Perry rhodan series,about 200.000 years in the past,
The planet was called Zeut i think, google.....

CREST-Datei - Perry Rhodan - Zeut
www.crest-datei.de/index.php?Thema=pr&Rubrik=welten...zeut
Translate this page
Ehemals der 5. Planet des Sol-Systems, von den Takerern Taimon genannt.
Er wurde im Haluter-Krieg zerstört, ungefähr im Jahr 50.068 v.Chr. Die
dabei ...

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Heinlein's "Space Cadet"s were on a research mission that discovered
that the people of the missing planet did it to themselves. I think
that it's mentioned in passing in several other of his juvies.
Hogan's work is pretty jumbled in my memory, but at least one of them
featured such an explosion scattering debris across the solar system.
I have the impression that the moon was moved to its current position
by the disaster, though you have the Velikovsky-defeating
responsibliity of circularizing the orbit after capture.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

Points for both the Heinlein references, and Hogan.
In what seems to be the relevant part of Wikipedia's
article on Velikovsky, I don't see this planet
mentioned, but planets keep popping out of gas giants
and falling into the Sun, so it's hard to keep track.
And he is named in the article on "Phaeton".

[Greg Goss]

Post by Robert Carnegie

[velikovskianism reference]

Points for both the Heinlein references, and Hogan.
In what seems to be the relevant part of Wikipedia's
article on Velikovsky, I don't see this planet
mentioned, but planets keep popping out of gas giants
and falling into the Sun, so it's hard to keep track.
And he is named in the article on "Phaeton".

He claimed that Venus originated in Jupiter and was circularized
later.

The "good" phaeton article seems to have aged off the web when I went
looking for it a couple of weeks ago.

[Default User]

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust. I'm
not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have been, but
. . . considerable, let's say.

Williamson seems to have been cognizant of the fact that the mass of
the asteroid belt is pretty small. A quick web search says 4% of the
mass of Earth's Moon.

One of Asimov's Black Widowers stories featured Professor Moriarty
being responsible for the destruction, which is what Dynamics of the
Asteroid was really about.


Brian

[James Nicoll]

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust. I'm
not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have been, but
. . . considerable, let's say.
Williamson seems to have been cognizant of the fact that the mass of
the asteroid belt is pretty small. A quick web search says 4% of the
mass of Earth's Moon.

Weird coincidence: an upcoming tor piece mentions the SeeTee stories.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust. I'm
not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have been, but
. . . considerable, let's say.
Williamson seems to have been cognizant of the fact that the mass of
the asteroid belt is pretty small. A quick web search says 4% of the
mass of Earth's Moon.
One of Asimov's Black Widowers stories featured Professor Moriarty
being responsible for the destruction, which is what Dynamics of the
Asteroid was really about.

I remember that one - except that it wasn't Moriarty
of Victorian London, but, presumably, Ytrairom of Nodnol,
an equally Lex Luthor type living on planet five who
invented and used the Solar Decimator, and whose existence
but presumably not the method was detected by Moriarty.
All of this being fiction about fiction about fiction...

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust. I'm
not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have been, but
. . . considerable, let's say.

I once calculated that turning a 200 pound mass into "pure energy" would
be the equivalent of a two GIGAton nuclear explosion. You're talking
about something so, so many orders of magnitude larger that I think
"astronomical" is at least a few orders too small.

[Default User]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust.
I'm not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have
been, but . . . considerable, let's say.

I once calculated that turning a 200 pound mass into "pure energy"
would be the equivalent of a two GIGAton nuclear explosion. You're
talking about something so, so many orders of magnitude larger that I
think "astronomical" is at least a few orders too small.

Yeah, that was my opinion. I don't think the "SeeTee drift" would have
been left in place. There were even some intact bits of alien tech that
eventually turned up.


Brian

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Default User

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust.
I'm not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have
been, but . . . considerable, let's say.

I once calculated that turning a 200 pound mass into "pure energy"
would be the equivalent of a two GIGAton nuclear explosion. You're
talking about something so, so many orders of magnitude larger that I
think "astronomical" is at least a few orders too small.

Yeah, that was my opinion. I don't think the "SeeTee drift" would have
been left in place. There were even some intact bits of alien tech that
eventually turned up.

I'm guessing that there wouldn't be a _Solar System_. My suspicion is
that we're talking greater than supernova levels of power.

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 18:47:58 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust.
I'm not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have
been, but . . . considerable, let's say.

I once calculated that turning a 200 pound mass into "pure energy"
would be the equivalent of a two GIGAton nuclear explosion. You're
talking about something so, so many orders of magnitude larger that I
think "astronomical" is at least a few orders too small.

Yeah, that was my opinion. I don't think the "SeeTee drift" would have
been left in place. There were even some intact bits of alien tech that
eventually turned up.

I'm guessing that there wouldn't be a _Solar System_. My suspicion is
that we're talking greater than supernova levels of power.

A "foe", the unit of energy release used to discuss supernovas, is 200
times the amount of energy that would be released if the mass of the
Earth were turned entirely into energy. The energy release of a type
I supernova is about 1 foe, a type II is about 100 foe, a hypernova
may goe 10,000 foe or more.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 18:47:58 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust.
I'm not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have
been, but . . . considerable, let's say.

I once calculated that turning a 200 pound mass into "pure energy"
would be the equivalent of a two GIGAton nuclear explosion. You're
talking about something so, so many orders of magnitude larger that I
think "astronomical" is at least a few orders too small.

Yeah, that was my opinion. I don't think the "SeeTee drift" would have
been left in place. There were even some intact bits of alien tech that
eventually turned up.

I'm guessing that there wouldn't be a _Solar System_. My suspicion is
that we're talking greater than supernova levels of power.

A "foe", the unit of energy release used to discuss supernovas, is 200
times the amount of energy that would be released if the mass of the
Earth were turned entirely into energy. The energy release of a type
I supernova is about 1 foe, a type II is about 100 foe, a hypernova
may goe 10,000 foe or more.

Okay then, we'd have the singed remains of a solar system.

[Default User]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke
A "foe", the unit of energy release used to discuss supernovas, is
200 times the amount of energy that would be released if the mass
of the Earth were turned entirely into energy. The energy release
of a type I supernova is about 1 foe, a type II is about 100 foe, a
hypernova may goe 10,000 foe or more.

Okay then, we'd have the singed remains of a solar system.

I don't recall what the masses of the two planets were in the stories,
or if that information was provided. That would obviously be a critical
component.


Brian

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Default User

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke
A "foe", the unit of energy release used to discuss supernovas, is
200 times the amount of energy that would be released if the mass
of the Earth were turned entirely into energy. The energy release
of a type I supernova is about 1 foe, a type II is about 100 foe, a
hypernova may goe 10,000 foe or more.

Okay then, we'd have the singed remains of a solar system.

I don't recall what the masses of the two planets were in the stories,
or if that information was provided. That would obviously be a critical
component.

And how long ago it happened. Current theories (as best as I know) are
that the planetary orbits "wander" over billions of years. From what I
understand one of the best computer models shows that Jupiter and Saturn
spiraled in much closer to the sun before some gravitational interaction
moved them both out to their current orbits; and we had to have had
three ice giants originally and one got slingshot out of the solar
system around the same time that Uranus and Neptune switched places in
orbital order.

[Default User]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by J. Clarke
A "foe", the unit of energy release used to discuss supernovas,
is 200 times the amount of energy that would be released if the
mass of the Earth were turned entirely into energy. The energy
release of a type I supernova is about 1 foe, a type II is
about 100 foe, a hypernova may goe 10,000 foe or more.

Okay then, we'd have the singed remains of a solar system.

I don't recall what the masses of the two planets were in the
stories, or if that information was provided. That would obviously
be a critical component.

And how long ago it happened. Current theories (as best as I know)
are that the planetary orbits "wander" over billions of years. From
what I understand one of the best computer models shows that Jupiter
and Saturn spiraled in much closer to the sun before some
gravitational interaction moved them both out to their current
orbits; and we had to have had three ice giants originally and one
got slingshot out of the solar system around the same time that
Uranus and Neptune switched places in orbital order.

I did a bit of online searching and found a scan of the original
Astounding story, "Opposites -- React!" as by Will Stewart. In there,
it only says that the "Invader" planet came into our system 87,000
years ago and collided with the "trans-Martian" planet. The fragments
formed the asteroid belt. It seems like, at least originally,
Williamson did not consider the resulting annihilation. In the story
the Invaders survive but their seetee ships then are destroyed in
attempting to enter the atmospheres of the planets.

I don't know if the fix-up novel reads the same. Maybe I just imagined
the other parts, or as an Astrophyisics student at the time I just
extrapolated that part.


Brian

[Johnny1A]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Default User

Post by Robert Carnegie
Anyway, the lost planet wasn't new in the 1970s,
and it isn't now.

Coming in a few months late, but Jack Wiliamson's "SeeTee" stories
featured a rogue planet from outside the Solar System colliding with
the former fifth planet. As the interloper was antimatter
(contraterrene->CT->SeeTee) most of the two bodies were annhilated
leaving behind a jumble of matter and antimatter bodies and dust.
I'm not sure what the energy release of that explosion would have
been, but . . . considerable, let's say.

I once calculated that turning a 200 pound mass into "pure energy"
would be the equivalent of a two GIGAton nuclear explosion. You're
talking about something so, so many orders of magnitude larger that I
think "astronomical" is at least a few orders too small.

Yeah, that was my opinion. I don't think the "SeeTee drift" would have
been left in place. There were even some intact bits of alien tech that
eventually turned up.

I'm guessing that there wouldn't be a _Solar System_. My suspicion is
that we're talking greater than supernova levels of power.

Not literally, but incomprehensible, yeah. Probably only a tiny subfraction of the combined mass of Planet Five and Intruder would react, though. The initial reaction would, I suspect, shatter/vaporize most of the mass of both bodies and push them outward, away from each other, and as soon as contact stops, so does the reaction.

But the radiation emission alone would be...words fail.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Default User
One of Asimov's Black Widowers stories featured Professor Moriarty
being responsible for the destruction, which is what Dynamics of the
Asteroid was really about.

While that certainly is a notion that sort of suggests itself, there seems to be a
basic problem with it. Either Moriarty is not what he seems, or one has to explain
why the ancient Greeks and others did not include the fifth planet as one of the
basic visible bodies in the sky.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Default User
One of Asimov's Black Widowers stories featured Professor Moriarty
being responsible for the destruction, which is what Dynamics of the
Asteroid was really about.

While that certainly is a notion that sort of suggests itself, there seems to be a
basic problem with it. Either Moriarty is not what he seems, or one has to explain
why the ancient Greeks and others did not include the fifth planet as one of the
basic visible bodies in the sky.
John Savard

He got it wrong. Moriarity only figured out why the "fifth planet"
broke up, with the implication that knowing that could eventually lead
to knowing how to duplicate it.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Default User
One of Asimov's Black Widowers stories featured Professor Moriarty
being responsible for the destruction, which is what Dynamics of the
Asteroid was really about.

While that certainly is a notion that sort of suggests itself, there seems to be a
basic problem with it. Either Moriarty is not what he seems, or one has to explain
why the ancient Greeks and others did not include the fifth planet as one of the
basic visible bodies in the sky.
John Savard

He got it wrong. Moriarity only figured out why the "fifth planet"
broke up, with the implication that knowing that could eventually lead
to knowing how to duplicate it.

I don't think very much of that interpretation of "The Dynamics of an
Asteroid" (the actual title as related in chapter 1 of _The Valley of
Fear_). My reading is more prosaic; I believe that the Professor
invented statistics and used an arbitrary asteroid as an example of its
use (I don't know if late Victorian astronomy was up to the task, but
you can use variations of the magnitude of an asteroid to determine its
rotation period and the orientation of the spin axis).

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by David Johnston

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Default User
One of Asimov's Black Widowers stories featured Professor Moriarty
being responsible for the destruction, which is what Dynamics of the
Asteroid was really about.

While that certainly is a notion that sort of suggests itself, there seems to be a
basic problem with it. Either Moriarty is not what he seems, or one has to explain
why the ancient Greeks and others did not include the fifth planet as one of the
basic visible bodies in the sky.
John Savard

He got it wrong. Moriarity only figured out why the "fifth planet"
broke up, with the implication that knowing that could eventually lead
to knowing how to duplicate it.

I don't think very much of that interpretation of "The Dynamics of an
Asteroid" (the actual title as related in chapter 1 of _The Valley of
Fear_). My reading is more prosaic; I believe that the Professor
invented statistics and used an arbitrary asteroid as an example of its
use (I don't know if late Victorian astronomy was up to the task, but
you can use variations of the magnitude of an asteroid to determine its
rotation period and the orientation of the spin axis).

Elegant, but surely a planet blowing up is more dynamic??

In pastiche novel _The Seven-Per-Cent Solution_,
I think the asteroid isn't addressed but Professor Moriarty
disclaims any special knowledge of the Binomial Theorem,
for which Holmes gave him credit. In this novel, Holmes
is now an insane cocaine addict, hence the title, and
Moriarty is not a criminal mastermind but Holmes's
mathematics teacher, and resented for that reason.

In fact, of course, Moriarty's original creator was just using references that readers would recognise but not
understand, to present the message that Moriarty is a
dangerously clever criminal.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by b***@dontspam.silent.com

Post by James Nicoll
Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

There is a talk by Michael Ovenden on his "non-consensus science"
theory that a Saturn-sized planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/citraudio/items/1.0135218

Oh, here's an article all about that planet.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeton_%28hypothetical_planet%29>
"Hypothetical" seem generous.

And a link to a list of its appearances in sci-fi.
NO PEEKING before posting what you remember.

[Quadibloc]

Post by b***@dontspam.silent.com
There is a talk by Michael Ovenden on his "non-consensus science"
theory that a Saturn-sized planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/citraudio/items/1.0135218

What's unusual in his theory is that the planet was about the size of Saturn.
Maybe the violence of the explosion also explains why Mars is so small.

As noted, ever since Bode's Law, which was formulated even before the first
asteroids were discovered - and which prompted the search for them - the idea
that there was once one bigger planet in that slot, just like in all the others,
and some disaster broke it up, was a *natural* one.

The idea that, instead, Jupiter's gravity prevented a planet from being formed
there (and explains why Mars isn't bigger than the Earth, and, for that matter,
why Earth isn't bigger than Venus) may have been also around a long time, but it
only became the mainstream explanation much later, when we gained a more
sophisticated understanding of how the Solar System formed.

After all, it wasn't _that_ long ago that the theory that a passing star dragged
material out of the Sun, making our system one of a *very few* with planets, was
considered a serious contender. Back in the 1930s, say, it was still around.

John Savard

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by b***@dontspam.silent.com
There is a talk by Michael Ovenden on his "non-consensus science"
theory that a Saturn-sized planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/citraudio/items/1.0135218

What's unusual in his theory is that the planet was about the size of Saturn.
Maybe the violence of the explosion also explains why Mars is so small.
As noted, ever since Bode's Law, which was formulated even before the first
asteroids were discovered - and which prompted the search for them - the idea
that there was once one bigger planet in that slot, just like in all the others,
and some disaster broke it up, was a *natural* one.

Kepler expressed this idea as "Inter Jovem et Martem planetam
interposui", which RAH later used as a chapter title in _The Rolling
Stones_.

Post by Quadibloc
The idea that, instead, Jupiter's gravity prevented a planet from being formed
there (and explains why Mars isn't bigger than the Earth, and, for that matter,
why Earth isn't bigger than Venus)

Well, that last bit certainly qualifies as "non-consensus" science.

Post by Quadibloc
After all, it wasn't _that_ long ago that the theory that a passing star dragged
material out of the Sun, making our system one of a *very few* with planets, was
considered a serious contender. Back in the 1930s, say, it was still around.

And used by Doc Smith as part of the cosmology of the Lensmen series,
put into the mouth of Kimball Kinnison in Chapter 5 of _Gray Lensman_.
(Supported by Wacky Williamson, a science fiction writer)

[Quadibloc]

Post by James Nicoll
Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, June 1977 edited by Ben Bova
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/nothing-without-a-woman-or-a-girl

I can't comment too much without reading the actual issue instead of your column.

But while the point in the essay "Tunnel Visionaries" is certainly valid, I can
quite understand why such issues are hardly ever discussed.

For one thing, the people doing the discussing feel themselves competent to deal
with the rockets and the rivets. For another, once we actually *have* the
ability to build... a space station, or a generation ship to Alpha Centauri...
then discussing how to organize its crew or inhabitants will be a practical
exercise instead of a fantasy.

The first story you mention, Eyes of Amber, has a premise that seems odd to me
at first glance. If, on Titan, there is political intrigue leading to people
getting killed, then obviously the moral imperative is to put a stop to such
goings-on and turn Titan into a thoroughly peaceful and thoroughly democratic
realm.

Assuming there's some sort of non-interference rule in place, then the idea of
pruriently mining Titan for high drama ought to be a non-starter. Not
particularly for moral reasons: if you're going to stand idly by and let
innocent alien intelligent beings be murdered, televising the proceedings is but
adding insult to injury.

Instead, the rationale would be the following:

Given that one other intelligent race has been found, the possibility that yet
others exist, including some that are far more advanced than Earth's humans,
suggests itself.

If a non-interference principle is considered the normal Galactic way of doing
things, they may not have shown themselves to humans.

Now then: if political intrigue on Titan is being used as a source of
entertainment on Earth, what does this indicate about the motivations of Earth
in not interfering in politics on Titan?

In other words, instead of worrying about moral ideals, which as far as anyone
knows, aren't being _enforced_, shouldn't they be worried about Earth's
*reputation* in the Galaxy at this point?

Of course, to be fair, stories written by *men* with far larger plot holes are
easy to find.

John Savard

[[e-mail]]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:00:16 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

(snip to the crash)

I skipped ahead too quickly and didn't notice whose post I was reading. Then I got to the following and knew instantly it was you.

"If, on Titan, there is political intrigue leading to people
getting killed, then obviously the moral imperative is to put a stop to such
goings-on and turn Titan into a thoroughly peaceful and thoroughly democratic
realm."

Using U. N. troops, presumably.

We've seen how well that works here on Earth. You refuse to learn, don't you? Afghanistan isn't a long enough supply train goal for you, now you advocate interplanetary military action in furtherance of your delusion that everyone *wants* a "perfectly peaceful, perfectly democratic realm".

As YOU define it.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

Post by ***@bid.nes
now you advocate interplanetary military action in furtherance of your delusion
that everyone *wants* a "perfectly peaceful, perfectly democratic realm".

I think most of the people in Afghanistan would have preferred not to have the
Taliban bothering them and forcing them to observe Islam more strictly than they
had been doing heretofore without their prompting.

This does not preclude the possibility of the United States waging war against
the Taliban in Afghanistan by such means as to cause the civilian population to
view the Taliban as the lesser evil. While _that_ particular dismal possibility
*apparently* didn't come to pass, all sorts of other failures are indeed
possible. So your contention that the American intervention in Afghanistan was a
failure is certainly not implausible on its face.

While a credible argument can be made that the United States did not need to
embark on its second war against Iraq, however, it seems to me that one could
hardly expect the United States not to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 and the
Taliban's refusal to hand bin Laden over.

As to the fictional situation in the story in question, I doubt that the moral
quandary of people who liked the oppression they were suffering, because it left
them more free to follow their traditional way of life, or anything similar, was
present.

Perhaps I need to re-iterate that just because a country has human rights
violations that would make it morally imperative to overthrow the existing
regime *if we could*, it's entirely possible that we *couldn't* do so in any
reasonable way. For example, both China and Russia, unfortunately, have nuclear
weapons.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:54:56 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by ***@bid.nes
now you advocate interplanetary military action in furtherance of your delusion
that everyone *wants* a "perfectly peaceful, perfectly democratic realm".

I think most of the people in Afghanistan would have preferred not to have the
Taliban bothering them and forcing them to observe Islam more strictly than they
had been doing heretofore without their prompting.
This does not preclude the possibility of the United States waging war against
the Taliban in Afghanistan by such means as to cause the civilian population to
view the Taliban as the lesser evil. While _that_ particular dismal possibility
*apparently* didn't come to pass, all sorts of other failures are indeed
possible. So your contention that the American intervention in Afghanistan was a
failure is certainly not implausible on its face.
While a credible argument can be made that the United States did not need to
embark on its second war against Iraq, however, it seems to me that one could
hardly expect the United States not to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 and the
Taliban's refusal to hand bin Laden over.
As to the fictional situation in the story in question, I doubt that the moral
quandary of people who liked the oppression they were suffering, because it left
them more free to follow their traditional way of life, or anything similar, was
present.
Perhaps I need to re-iterate that just because a country has human rights
violations that would make it morally imperative to overthrow the existing
regime *if we could*, it's entirely possible that we *couldn't* do so in any
reasonable way. For example, both China and Russia, unfortunately, have nuclear
weapons.

You say "if we could". I don't see you putting yourself at risk.
You're always big on some American dieing for your cause.

What leads you to believe that "most of the people in Afghanistan
would have preferred not to have the Taliban bothering them and
forcing them to observe Islam more strictly than they had been doing
heretofore without their prompting"? Do you have poll results or
something?

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
What leads you to believe that "most of the people in Afghanistan
would have preferred not to have the Taliban bothering them and
forcing them to observe Islam more strictly than they had been doing
heretofore without their prompting"? Do you have poll results or
something?

I remember news reports of people in Iran being unhappy when the new regime of
the Ayatollah banned satellite dishes. And there were reports from Afghanistan
of people being murdered in Taliban attacks for watching soccer games which
indicated that watching soccer games had been a popular activity there when
people felt it was safe to do it.

It's human nature that people don't like to be bossed around, and they fail to
live up to the strict standards to which their culture or religion may demand.

Everybody prefers freedom to having a gun put to their head.

That's why I think I'm on safe ground without "poll results".

This does not mean, though, that the people of Afghanistan want a wholesale
importation of Western standards and culture either. That is one extreme, even
if it would be implemented with more of a velvet glove than the other extreme
from the Taliban.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 04:51:09 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
What leads you to believe that "most of the people in Afghanistan
would have preferred not to have the Taliban bothering them and
forcing them to observe Islam more strictly than they had been doing
heretofore without their prompting"? Do you have poll results or
something?

I remember news reports of people in Iran being unhappy when the new regime of
the Ayatollah banned satellite dishes. And there were reports from Afghanistan
of people being murdered in Taliban attacks for watching soccer games which
indicated that watching soccer games had been a popular activity there when
people felt it was safe to do it.

There are people who will be unhappy under any circumstance. Was this
ten people or a million people?

Post by Quadibloc
It's human nature that people don't like to be bossed around, and they fail to
live up to the strict standards to which their culture or religion may demand.

If people so hate being bossed around why do they go out of their way
to put bosses in place?

Post by Quadibloc
Everybody prefers freedom to having a gun put to their head.

Speak for yourself Quadi. That someone else might feel differently is
something that you seem incapable of grasping.

Post by Quadibloc
That's why I think I'm on safe ground without "poll results".

You go on thinking that.

Post by Quadibloc
This does not mean, though, that the people of Afghanistan want a wholesale
importation of Western standards and culture either. That is one extreme, even
if it would be implemented with more of a velvet glove than the other extreme
from the Taliban.

What leads you to believe that the Taliban is an "extreme"?

[[e-mail]]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by ***@bid.nes
now you advocate interplanetary military action in furtherance of your
delusion that everyone *wants* a "perfectly peaceful, perfectly
democratic realm".

I think

As has been said, no you don't.

Post by Robert Carnegie
most of the people in Afghanistan would have preferred not to have
the Taliban bothering them and forcing them to observe Islam more
strictly than they had been doing heretofore without their prompting.

The Taliban is a strictly local phenomenon, a culturally-typical response to outsiders trying to tell the locals how to live.

Post by Robert Carnegie
This does not preclude the possibility of the United States waging war
against the Taliban in Afghanistan by such means as to cause the civilian
population to view the Taliban as the lesser evil. While _that_
particular dismal possibility *apparently* didn't come to pass, all sorts
of other failures are indeed possible. So your contention that the
American intervention in Afghanistan was a failure is certainly not
implausible on its face.

You still don't get it. But then, you don't want to.

Post by Robert Carnegie
While a credible argument can be made that the United States did not need to
embark on its second war against Iraq, however, it seems to me that one could
hardly expect the United States not to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 and the
Taliban's refusal to hand bin Laden over.

Irrelevant.

Post by Robert Carnegie
As to the fictional situation in the story in question, I doubt that the
moral quandary of people who liked the oppression they were suffering,
because it left them more free to follow their traditional way of life,
or anything similar, was present.

This is the point right here. THEIR WAY OF LIFE is not and is not going to be compatible with what we like to call Western values.

Post by Robert Carnegie
Perhaps I need to re-iterate that just because a country has human rights
violations that would make it morally imperative to overthrow the existing
regime *if we could*, it's entirely possible that we *couldn't* do so in any
reasonable way. For example, both China and Russia, unfortunately, have
nuclear weapons.

Fuck me. You're even more of a "forcibly export Democracy" evangelist than any American Warhawk.

They DO NOT WANT Western-style Democracy. The very concept of equals having a voice in the destiny of the group is completely alien to their way of thinking. Trying to impose it DOES NOT WORK any better than trying to impose Communism did, and for the same fucking reason.

Try to get this through your head. *Your morals are not theirs.*

You can claim yours are superior to theirs but when you step over the line of imposing yours on them, you step directly into hypocrisy.

You have NO RIGHT to try to impose yours on anyone else.

NONE.

Since they are not going to change, the only sensible option is to leave them the hell alone to fester in their own hellhole (by YOUR STANDARDS). If they decide ON THEIR OWN that it's time to embrace our values (assuming the West still has something resembling the vague value set it has now), THEN we can reopen diplomatic relations, look into trade and all that.

Until then, the cultures are simply too different to coexist.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by ***@bid.nes
This is the point right here. THEIR WAY OF LIFE is not and is not going to be compatible with what we like to call Western values.
Until then, the cultures are simply too different to coexist.

Uh, what exactly do you mean by coexisting?

[Quadibloc]

Post by Juho Julkunen

Post by ***@bid.nes
Until then, the cultures are simply too different to coexist.

Uh, what exactly do you mean by coexisting?

Since he believes that the United States ought not to have interfered with
Afghanistan, I think we can be confident he does *not* mean "coexist" in a sense
that would lead to a recommendation that the United States turn Afghanistan into
an inlet through the use of thermonuclear energy.

That leaves a sense in which coexistence implies a certain degree of interaction
between the two societies in question - as long as that is avoided, mutual
simultaneous existence is possible without issues.

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Juho Julkunen

Post by ***@bid.nes
Until then, the cultures are simply too different to coexist.

Uh, what exactly do you mean by coexisting?

Since he believes that the United States ought not to have interfered with
Afghanistan, I think we can be confident he does *not* mean "coexist" in a sense
that would lead to a recommendation that the United States turn Afghanistan into
an inlet through the use of thermonuclear energy.

Just noting that here we're seeing a demonstration of the (non) depth of
John Savard's knowledge of the world

An inlet of *what*, exactly? John is unaware of even the most basic
geography of the area. Afghanistan is landlocked.

pt

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Juho Julkunen

Post by ***@bid.nes
Until then, the cultures are simply too different to coexist.

Uh, what exactly do you mean by coexisting?

Since he believes that the United States ought not to have interfered with
Afghanistan, I think we can be confident he does *not* mean "coexist" in a sense
that would lead to a recommendation that the United States turn Afghanistan into
an inlet through the use of thermonuclear energy.

Just noting that here we're seeing a demonstration of the (non) depth of
John Savard's knowledge of the world
An inlet of *what*, exactly? John is unaware of even the most basic
geography of the area. Afghanistan is landlocked.

Maybe he just assumes Iran and/or Pakistan would be thrown in as a
package deal.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:45:32 +0200, Juho Julkunen
[snip]

Post by Juho Julkunen

Post by Peter Trei
An inlet of *what*, exactly? John is unaware of even the most basic
geography of the area. Afghanistan is landlocked.

Ah, but then there is that thermonuclear energy. Applying enough
of it to Afghanistan and the area south of Aghanistan could result in
a new inlet of the Arabian Sea.

Post by Juho Julkunen
Maybe he just assumes Iran and/or Pakistan would be thrown in as a
package deal.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Quadibloc]

Post by Peter Trei
An inlet of *what*, exactly? John is unaware of even the most basic
geography of the area. Afghanistan is landlocked.

Oops. OK, a lake. Should have dragged out an atlas to check.

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Peter Trei
An inlet of *what*, exactly? John is unaware of even the most basic
geography of the area. Afghanistan is landlocked.

Oops. OK, a lake. Should have dragged out an atlas to check.

No. Before opining on the area, you should have *known* this. This lack of
the most basic knowledge is one of the reasons your opinions are disregarded.

pt

[Kevrob]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Peter Trei
An inlet of *what*, exactly? John is unaware of even the most basic
geography of the area. Afghanistan is landlocked.

Oops. OK, a lake. Should have dragged out an atlas to check.

No. Before opining on the area, you should have *known* this. This lack of
the most basic knowledge is one of the reasons your opinions are disregarded.

Tacitus said:

" ...where they make a desert, they call it peace."

Much of that country, but by no means all, is desert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Afghanistan

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Quadibloc]

Post by ***@bid.nes
The Taliban is a strictly local phenomenon, a culturally-typical response to
outsiders trying to tell the locals how to live.

Yes, but those outsiders came from Russia, not the United States.

After the Russians were driven out, though, the Taliban showed their true
colors.

Yes, the Afghan people doubtless do not wish to have their lives micro-managed
by feminists from Iceland, or to have their culture subjected to the full fury
of Coca-Colonization.

It may even be that democracy _is_ an alien concept to them. However, that they
would at least prefer kinder, gentler mullahs to those currently in the Taliban
seems to me so obvious as to require little justification.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 04:57:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by ***@bid.nes
The Taliban is a strictly local phenomenon, a culturally-typical response to
outsiders trying to tell the locals how to live.

Yes, but those outsiders came from Russia, not the United States.
After the Russians were driven out, though, the Taliban showed their true
colors.
Yes, the Afghan people doubtless do not wish to have their lives micro-managed
by feminists from Iceland, or to have their culture subjected to the full fury
of Coca-Colonization.
It may even be that democracy _is_ an alien concept to them. However, that they
would at least prefer kinder, gentler mullahs to those currently in the Taliban
seems to me so obvious as to require little justification.

So with how many Afghans have you discussed this matter? I suspect
that this is a lesson you will never learn, but that you have an
opinion does not make that opinion truth.

[Quadibloc]

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by Quadibloc
While a credible argument can be made that the United States did not need to
embark on its second war against Iraq, however, it seems to me that one could
hardly expect the United States not to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 and the
Taliban's refusal to hand bin Laden over.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to some questions, but not to others.

Post by ***@bid.nes
Try to get this through your head. *Your morals are not theirs.*
You can claim yours are superior to theirs but when you step over the line
of imposing yours on them, you step directly into hypocrisy.
You have NO RIGHT to try to impose yours on anyone else.
NONE.

Nope. After September 11, 2001, the United States had a perfect right to do
whatever it had to do to Afghanistan to bring bin Laden to justice.

Non-interference, after all, is based on reciprocity.

In any case, since the Taliban are imposing themselves on the people of
Afghanistan, hypocrisy is not an accurate claim.

John Savard