The Samantha Carter Option.... Theory Or Remotely Possible In Outsider?

[Bamax]

If you ever watched Stargate SG1 then you know Samantha Carter is a miracle worker who blew up a star to destroy an enemy space fleet before jumping to hyperspace



Is doing that even remotely possible in Outsider or not?

Arioch is probably like... if it was it would been done.

IRL making a star go nova takes thousands of years... it is not something you can just roll up one day and easily trigger.

[D-503]

If you ever watched Stargate SG1 then you know Samantha Carter is a miracle worker who blew up a star to destroy an enemy space fleet before jumping to hyperspace

IF it would be possible to "blow up" a star, i guess it would be more devastating if it happened right before the fleet´s jump. What i got from the insider pages a gravity well is necessary to "arrive"; -> No well, no "hello world" (again).

(Edit: Makes no sense imo. Annihilating a good jumppoint for just a couple divisions is literally overkill.)

IRL making a star go nova takes thousands of years... it is not something you can just roll up one day and easily trigger.

Artificial Ka-Boom by jumping a Magnetar right into a star core? No?

[Bamax]

If you ever watched Stargate SG1 then you know Samantha Carter is a miracle worker who blew up a star to destroy an enemy space fleet before jumping to hyperspace

IF it would be possible to "blow up" a star, i guess it would be more devastating if it happened right before the fleet´s jump. What i got from the insider pages a gravity well is necessary to "arrive"; -> No well, no "hello world" (again).

(Edit: Makes no sense imo. Annihilating a good jumppoint for just a couple divisions is literally overkill.)

IRL making a star go nova takes thousands of years... it is not something you can just roll up one day and easily trigger.

Artificial Ka-Boom by jumping a Magnetar right into a star core? No?

I was referring to how Samantha Carter used it. How I was thinking to use it is far more.... genocidal.

Namely find out the location of the Umiak homeworld, send a special strike force team you do not expect to return but will be hailed as heroes, and wipeout the entire home Umiak solar system.

Maybe, just maybe, they might consider surrendering then.

[Arioch]

There's no easy way to blow up a star. The only way I can think of is to somehow stop fusion in the core to trigger a core-collapse supernova... but if you could do that, you must have magic technology that would probably make short work of your enemy.

However, triggering a supernova is a very inefficient way to commit genocide. Making a planet's surface unlivable is something we can do even with today's weaponry... and it's extremely easy in 2160 with the kinds of warheads available. If you have access to the target system, you can simply attack the target planet rather than trying to destroy the whole system. The problem, of course, is that with the nature of jump drive, you don't have access to most inhabited systems, and those you do have access to have already been evacuated or destroyed. Even if the Loroi knew where the Umiak homeworld was, they'd have no way to get there.

(Not that taking out the Umiak homeworld would be all that impactful... it's a relatively minor planet in a very large empire.)

[D-503]

send a special strike force team you do not expect to return but will be hailed as heroes,

That´s sick imo.
Live, at least "our" lives should be valued above all else.
To me, that would either be the (absolute) last resort, or, a group of, say, terminal ill or so volunteers.

and wipeout the entire home Umiak solar system.

Maybe, just maybe, they might consider surrendering then.

No. That would just infuriate them even more.
At least that´s what i would be.

I was referring to how Samantha Carter used it. How I was thinking to use it is far more.... genocidal.

Hm. Why not build robot ships (ICBMs = Intergalactical Cruise Bomb Machines )? Vast numbers (even made by vast numbers of robots), and flood their empire with them, world after world (island-hopping style)?
Like the Umiak tactic to release a flurry of torpedos before attacking - thousands of unmanned jumpships releasing millions of torpedos/"ICBMs"?

[QuakeIV]

Inducing a solar flare might be considerably more viable than destroying the star.

I think sci fi weapons at some point enter arbitrary number territory where aside from being more powerful than what we have now, it could kindof go either way as to whether they can do any given thing (aside from relative magnitude like if you cant blow up a mountain you certainly cannot blow up the whole planet).

[D-503]

send a special strike force team you do not expect to return but will be hailed as heroes,

That´s sick imo.
Life, at least "our" lives should be valued above all else.
To me, that would either be the (absolute) last resort, or, a group of, say, terminal ill or so volunteers.

and wipeout the entire home Umiak solar system.

Maybe, just maybe, they might consider surrendering then.

No. That would just infuriate them even more.
At least that´s what i would be.

I was referring to how Samantha Carter used it. How I was thinking to use it is far more.... genocidal.

Hm. Why not build robot ships (ICBMs = Intergalactical Cruise Bomb Machines )? Vast numbers (even made by vast numbers of robots), and flood their empire with them, world after world (island-hopping style)?
Like the Umiak tactic to release a flurry of torpedos before attacking - thousands of unmanned jumpships releasing millions of torpedos/"ICBMs"?

[SaintofM]

I would ask WHY? I am sure its possible with enough tech, but a sun exploding (going super nova) would mean a galaxy of resources would go up with it. Its one thing if you sacrifice a city or two (nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII to end it faster), bombarding a planet till civilization has been reduced to the stone age, or even killing a planet. You still have other planets, moons, asteroids, comets and more that could have something harvested for minerals, water, gases, while habitable ones could eventually house people and food production (or new plant and animal life that could be used for food production in farming space stations).

[QuakeIV]

If its a question of survival you might blow it up to deny access to more important parts of your empire to the enemy.

[wolf329]

I think if you have the ability to affect the physical mass of the star it would be more useful to open a "wormhole" inside its convection zone, and point the other end of the wormhole at whatever you want to obliterate, like a cosmic-sized plasma hose.

[Curlysan]

send a special strike force team you do not expect to return but will be hailed as heroes,

That´s sick imo.
Live, at least "our" lives should be valued above all else.
To me, that would either be the (absolute) last resort, or, a group of, say, terminal ill or so volunteers.

*** In order for a species to survive an existential threat(extinction) some individuals of the threatened species must value species survival over their own. The survivors can ponder moralities. No survivors = no moral quandary.

and wipeout the entire home Umiak solar system.

Maybe, just maybe, they might consider surrendering then.

No. That would just infuriate them even more.
At least that´s what i would be.
*** Only Arioch knows for certain what the Umiak response to such an event would be. Do they even feel rage or fury? They certainly seem to do something that approximates psychological manipulation/warfare, but otherwise their tactics seem fairly straightforward. They have a logistical advantage and they're exploiting it.

I was referring to how Samantha Carter used it. How I was thinking to use it is far more.... genocidal.

Hm. Why not build robot ships (ICBMs = Intergalactical Cruise Bomb Machines )? Vast numbers (even made by vast numbers of robots), and flood their empire with them, world after world (island-hopping style)?
Like the Umiak tactic to release a flurry of torpedos before attacking - thousands of unmanned jumpships releasing millions of torpedos/"ICBMs"?

*** If a species could build sufficient number of robotic ships with enough technology to be scorched planet threat; why wouldn't they have done so already? "Umiak get uppity; Umiak get wiped out of existence by vast armada of Loroi planet killers. The End." -Boring story.

[D-503]

The survivors can ponder moralities. No survivors = no moral quandary.

That´s utmost sick.
What you (perjoratively) call "moralities" is not "negotiable" at all, or "to ponder".
If you are at that point, you already f***** up beyond salvation.
Or how did "kamikaze" work out for imperial japan?

This sick way of thinking leads directly into doom for all.

Life is not negotiable; that´s a lesson from history.

[Curlysan]

The survivors can ponder moralities. No survivors = no moral quandary.

That´s utmost sick.
What you (perjoratively) call "moralities" is not "negotiable" at all, or "to ponder".
If you are at that point, you already f***** up beyond salvation.
Or how did "kamikaze" work out for imperial japan?

This sick way of thinking leads directly into doom for all.

Life is not negotiable; that´s a lesson from history.

OK. I'll take that as a sign that we may not be discussing the same things here. You posited a response to an existential threat. That is an absolute survival/extinction question? Now you say life is not negotiable. Is that an intractable position, no leeway? How does that work with two space-faring species at war? If survival outweighing morality is a repugnant solution to your question; How would you resolve your own scenario?

[QuakeIV]

When fighting hive minded bug aliens, it likely will not be possible to maintain the same niceties and house rules of war we enjoy here on earth.

[D-503]

"niceties".
"house rules".
"morality".

We´re talking about humanism and dignity.
And they weren´t just "granted".
That was fought for. With unbearable sacrifices.

And you just want that to be thrown out of the window.

No. That would be a devastating message to everybody.
How do you want to keep morale and humanism up? After that? Even IF you survive?

You´ll be STRIPPING humanity of all things human, and throw humanity back into the darkest ages. For centuries or even forever, because it is NOT sure that we can evolve the same way again.



And how would i "resolve _my_ _own_ _scenario_"??
Easy: By not let getting it to such a checkmate.

Wot? Cheap answer? Not what you want to hear?
OF COURSE. It´s a very cheap answer for a very cheap question.
And it is a cheap question, because you pretend there is NO other solution.
But there are always alternatives, and when there aren´t, "kamikaze" won´t change a thing except what´s noted in the history books later.
And i can tell you that besides some few crackheads everybody despises inhuman actions like kamikaze or nazi extermination camps or nuking civilians.

[QuakeIV]

No, you could absolutely wind up in a 'win or die' situation, and trying to be nice about it can in fact be a burden to winning. That hasn't really happened in human society in a long time, but its more likely to happen in a conflict with aliens than amongst humans because they are not guaranteed to have a relatable mindset that is interested in playing by reasonable rules.

[Curlysan]

No, you could absolutely wind up in a 'win or die' situation, and trying to be nice about it can in fact be a burden to winning. That hasn't really happened in human society in a long time, but its more likely to happen in a conflict with aliens than amongst humans because they are not guaranteed to have a relatable mindset that is interested in playing by reasonable rules.

^This. Trying to reference interstellar war between two star faring species through the lens of human tribal/cultural/societal or internecine conventions is bound to run aground on the hard truth that at scales that such technological societies are capable of; the doses of kinetic disagreement, be they meteor, fusion or antimatter driven are going to be a lot closer to extinction level events. Not disagreements over fishing rights or who lives on which side of a river valley.

[Demarquis]

Besides, it isn't as if human societies don't resort to genocide when it was convenient for them. That said, between equally matched opponents, it's a two way street. If one side can exterminate the other, then they can do likewise. The principles of "Mutually Assured Destruction" come into play.

[QuakeIV]

Well, at this point its kindof like saying 'boy i better be careful not to start a knife fight' after the other guy already pulled out a knife, because thats already started happening.

[Bamax]

Obligatory... because it was a race against time at first to avoid destruction or losing the war... only later did it become a way to end the war without as much loss in life to their own forces as there would have been in a fullscale invasion.

Point is, sometimes it's less about survival and more about ending a costly war ASAP.

When your enemy realizes you can literally wipe them off the map and they cannot stop you, that tends to make them surrender and allows you to not have to risk throwing a bunch of force at it that can be defeated or countered. Because that's costly, and resources to spend on any war are finite.