How to destroy a Planet, or 100% of the life forms on it

  • #1
frostysh
63
3
I know, this question probably have asked many times, but I unable to post in that closed threads, so...

We have a Planet, (let's say of size of the Earth, and that have a population of the Intelligent Creature - IC, on level of evolution and progress something near a mankind current level, so wee need to take into account the defensive possibilities of the particular population of IC, such as a very deep placed underground shelters, etc), We have a small Space Fleet (it is not the armada but it is not a recon squadron too).
And in some crazy reason we have order to destroy this particular Planet in the worst case, or to exterminate the any existing life forms on this planet, this is including bacteria, etc.

What kind of weapon we better need to use to "sterilize" this Planet?
  1. Biological
  2. Microrobots (Nano-organic stuff)
  3. Radiation
  4. Kinetic weapon / Climate (I mean use disruption in this planet surface to provoke ground shakes, volcano, water fluids etc)
  5. A combination
  6. Other variants
What kind of weapon we better need to use to destroy (shred to the small pieces and split over the Star-System) this Planet?
  1. Matter/Antimatter
  2. Somekind of Gravity weapon (like a Black Hole)
  3. Ray/Beam like stuff
  4. Kinetic (Meteor/Neutron Star like)
  5. A combination
  6. Other variants
What a more likely defensive measures of the Planet' IC population will be in the first case
  1. Consolidation, uniting into a single allience
  2. Separating, and trying to negotiation
  3. Attack by Nuclear Weapon, Matter/Antimatter, etc
  4. Trying to escaping to another nearest Planet that have suitable conditions
  5. A combination
  6. Other variants
Thanx for the answers :) .
 
  • Like
Likes AidenFlamel

Answers and Replies

  • #3
Noisy Rhysling
999
344
Target the extremeophiles. You'll get the "normal" critters easily.
 
  • #4
rootone
3,393
946
If you could devise a means to rob the offending planet of angular momentum, it's orbit will decay until it is eventually consumed by the host star.
Should be OK in a Sci-Fi scenario, you can achieve this by stategically placing artificial micro black holes near to it.
 
  • Like
Likes AidenFlamel
  • #5
Bandersnatch
Science Advisor
3,326
2,629
We have a small Space Fleet (it is not the armada but it is not a recon squadron too).
So you've got a bunch ships that presumably can accelerate to a large fraction of the speed of light. Why not just use one as a kinetic impactor? Accelerate it fast enough, and even a small ship will do. As an added bonus, the target won't see the danger until just before it hits.
 
  • #6
Noisy Rhysling
999
344
So you've got a bunch ships that presumably can accelerate to a large fraction of the speed of light. Why not just use one as a kinetic impactor? Accelerate it fast enough, and even a small ship will do. As an added bonus, the target won't see the danger until just before it hits.
Hit hard enough and the crust will ripple in an amazing fashion.
 
  • #7
frostysh
63
3
  • XZ923 - I have read it, I have took some thing into account, I will post it further. And the resource' outlook is awful.
  • Noisy Rhysling - No, the IC of the mankind level of the technological progress is well protected against "doomsday casualties" (such as full-scale Nuclear Armageddon, etc), yeah, perhaps destroying even the bacteria it is too much... :), your avatar remembering to me the 'Equilibrium' movie, despite I have not watched it.
  • ChrisVer - despite of your humor was fun, in particularly. There is no sense in applying such terms in this particular model, it is the same as trying to paint points in Thermodynamics that representing molecules of something. Intelligent Creature is enough, don't matter what 'ethnicity', 'color', 'religion' etc, of the particular groups of IC.
  • rootone - interesting, but it is depends how many time it will take, and how many energy is need for that, in addition a small fleet cannot "spread out energy", it have only weapons that focusing energy into a small volume of the Space-Time.
  • Algr - :) , but I am not understanding what is means "Expelled, staring Ben Stein".
  • Bandersnatch - This is a not just a bucket of the ships, this is a well organized, well trained, military purpose group that have created for a recon-like missions etc, they have pro-military equipment that designed along with a pilots to be ready for the any orders and troubles :P . Ships is not designed to act as a projectiles, or rockets, or bombs, and especially it is true for their pilots! And what next, the fast small projectile will just make a hole in the Planet, but wee need to destroy it. Besides even in Sci-Fi, is not enough to have a speed of light to reach a long distance stuff, we need to have something like "wormhole" - pew, 1 sec in your time, 1 sec far from your time, and you on the other side of Galaxy :)
From what I have read, I still not have decided what a method will be most efficient.

Extermination of the IC population: Well kinetic methods will work bad in this case - the IC will try to escape on the nearest planet, and/or will make a very durable shelters, that cannot be located or destroyed so easily. Or they just moves onto space-orbit around the Planet. And there we have a problem, if the order will be "exterminate" only IC, our forces must use something that will not make a huge harm to entire Planet. Biological agents, such as viruses will be ineffective in this case, coz' they can easily be countered by IC technologies.
Probably a combined Nano-Cyber Organism will reach higher success in this case, but still we have a huge probability of the total failure.

Any other variants?

Destroying the entire Planet: In this case, we cannot place a lot of small "Black Holes" to change the orbit of the particular Planet, it is impossible for the small fleet. Perhaps the attack that have direct target a Nucleus of the Planet will have more success.

But what a kind of attack will be most efficient?
 
  • #8
Algr
721
281
  • Algr - :) , but I am not understanding what is means "Expelled, staring Ben Stein".
"Expelled" is a movie that espouses creationism. HG Wells once invited speculation on what three books would you use to create a new civilization. My joke is that with those three "books" would cause nuclear war and destroy life on the planet.
 
  • #9
frostysh
63
3
"Expelled" is a movie that espouses creationism. HG Wells once invited speculation on what three books would you use to create a new civilization. My joke is that with those three "books" would cause nuclear war and destroy life on the planet.
Fun joke, thanx. But I have not watched this particular movie.
Anyway, I am curious, what amount of energy is necessary to make sufficient damage to the metallic like nucleus of the Planet of the size of Earth?
 
  • #10
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
Well, my first line was a joke, the kinetic methods was my answer.

the IC will try to escape on the nearest planet
this is not what was given as input. Humanity is not in the stage to escape on any near planet.
Also the scenario of them escaping can be dealt with easily by shooting them down as they try to escape.
Durable shelters is not something that can be made after the disaster, it's something you have to have beforehand. The thing is that no matter what, the human power at the moment is unable to deal with natural disasters. Just the eruption of a few volcanoes can send the current human civilization back to the dark-ages... combine it with a lot of additional, controllable by you, natural disasters and you can easily send humans to extinction... now for the rest of life, chemical weapons are the best way... So meteors are also going to ensure the great victory (if they achieved a victory in the past, they can also do it again)- just don't rely on just one...

I disagree with the black holes, because your point is to eradicate the life off a planet and not erase the planet itself. A black hole will eventually destroy the whole planet so you gain nothing. Using a black hole is as an extreme method as using nuclear weapons in a war (not worth-it). It's the reason why I didn't say "send the moon to crash into earth".
 
  • #11
DrClaude
Mentor
8,021
4,747
Thread closed pending moderation.

Edit: the thread will be reopened. Please keep replies on-topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
frostysh
63
3
At last topic reopened, hooray ^^. Well, I know that ma' topic is more likely Sci-Fi than Astronomy, but still :)
Well, my first line was a joke, the kinetic methods was my answer.
this is not what was given as input. Humanity is not in the stage to escape on any near planet.
Also the scenario of them escaping can be dealt with easily by shooting them down as they try to escape.
Durable shelters is not something that can be made after the disaster, it's something you have to have beforehand. The thing is that no matter what, the human power at the moment is unable to deal with natural disasters. Just the eruption of a few volcanoes can send the current human civilization back to the dark-ages... combine it with a lot of additional, controllable by you, natural disasters and you can easily send humans to extinction... now for the rest of life, chemical weapons are the best way... So meteors are also going to ensure the great victory (if they achieved a victory in the past, they can also do it again)- just don't rely on just one...
I disagree with the black holes, because your point is to eradicate the life off a planet and not erase the planet itself. A black hole will eventually destroy the whole planet so you gain nothing. Using a black hole is as an extreme method as using nuclear weapons in a war (not worth-it). It's the reason why I didn't say "send the moon to crash into earth".
ChrisVer - of course not, and actually I am talking not excactly about humanity, just imaginable IC population on the imaginable Planet, the level of technical/cultural evolution of this population of IC is something near mankind. But if we going to talk about mankind -

1) Mankind is almost totally protected against any kinds of the Biological Warfare. If we going to look into past for little bit, we can easily realize it, the greatest powers on that ever exist on the Earth - United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War, developed very successful technologies and strategies against Biological Threats. For an example in the US its called Nuclear Biological Chemical aka NBC, the simple military autonomous shelter is fully protected against any know Biological threats.

2) Same with Chemical threats.

3) If about shelter don't posted in the "New York Times", this is not means that this shelters does not exist. If ever have watched "Dr. Strangelove ..." by mr Kubrick, you can imagine how technologies has been improved from that times.

4) And I think that the program of escaping to the Planet Mars, in case of "Doomsday" existing too.

5) Civilization cannot be brought to the Dark Ages due mentioned by you obstacles, any utopia will be destroyed by guys that will survive in the shelter, they will be organized in the same government systems as you faced today. As for myself I placing my bets on United States, Soviet Union and China People Republic, along with the Kingdom of Great Britain - they are most powerful. So they obviously have a strategies and plans in case of such obstacles. Any small attaching fleet will count such possibilities.

6) The questions was not "How to bring dark ages", but how to eliminate imaginary IC population on the particular imaginary Planet.

7) And also question was how to eliminate the particular Planet - the small so-called "Black Hole" (of the Energy of the large Mountain) shoots directly into the nucleus of the Planet can make a devastating damage, the question only how many Energy it will require, and how long destruction process will be. In addition this can change the orbit of the Planet, and if the Planet is close to the Star, in can fall there. But I think it will take to long time.
 
  • #13
RogueOne
131
57
Assuming the lifeforms are similar to the ones that we know of, you could destroy all life on the planet by removing all of the carbon from the atmosphere. Eventually, the cycle of life would stop because you have broken the circuit that creates the cycle of life. This may only be comprehensible to people who actually understand the carbonate-silicate cycle. Draining the carbon from the atmosphere and constantly relocating it to a different system will cause all life on that planet to eventually stop.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
DrStupid
2,167
501
Mankind is almost totally protected against any kinds of the Biological Warfare.

Definitely not! Just imagine some kind of HIV with the virulence of influenza. Mankind would be doomed years before somebody realizes that we have a problem. Even natural pathogens like swine influenza show how unprotected we are against pandemic events. Not to imagine what could be done with advanced genetic engineering and the required level of unscrupulousness.

Civilization cannot be brought to the Dark Ages due mentioned by you obstacles, any utopia will be destroyed by guys that will survive in the shelter, they will be organized in the same government systems as you faced today.

That doesn’t matter if the technical civilization outside the shelters has been destroyed. It is not even necessary to attack the infrastructure. It would be sufficient to kill as many people that the remaining survivors can’t operate it anymore. When the guys in the shelters return into a world with medieval technology they will change their government accordingly. That’s just a matter of time.
 
  • #15
Bandersnatch
Science Advisor
3,326
2,629
Ships is not designed to act as a projectiles, or rockets, or bombs, and especially it is true for their pilots! And what next, the fast small projectile will just make a hole in the Planet, but wee need to destroy it.
The design doesn't matter and it would not punch through, for the same reason meteoroids almost always leave a circular crater, regardless of the angle of impact. It will simply disintegrate.
The point is, once you have the technology to make spaceships that can easily travel between stars, or even within a solar system, you have the technology to destroy any planet (in the sense of ending life on it) just by ramming one of the ships into it. And if there are no kamikaze volunteers, take the pilot out and run it on remote.
Let's say you've got a 10 000 tonne spaceship (roughly as much as an Aegis cruiser). Ramming it into Earth at 0.5 c would be equivalent to the impact of the meteoroid that killed off dinosaurs.
Ramming it at 0.99999 c would blow off Earth's atmosphere. And if you have a spaceship that's 100 times as massive (a carrier or a tanker of sorts?), then you can melt the crust. No bunker would help anyone out.

7) And also question was how to eliminate the particular Planet - the small so-called "Black Hole" (of the Energy of the large Mountain) shoots directly into the nucleus of the Planet can make a devastating damage, the question only how many Energy it will require, and how long destruction process will be. In addition this can change the orbit of the Planet, and if the Planet is close to the Star, in can fall there. But I think it will take to long time.
A black hole as massive as Mt. Everest would be approx. 1 nanometre across. If you'd drop it onto Earth, it'd fly towards the centre and after approx. 40 minutes emerge out from the other side. Then it'd return again and again. Each time it'd consume a tiny amount of mass on its path (and damage a bit more), and grow. After some number of years that I'm unable to estimate (Thousands? Hundreds? Not a short time scale certainly) it'd start causing increasingly devastating earthquakes, and eventually consume all Earth. At that point you'd have one black hole of 1 Earth mass and less than 20 millimetres across. It will happily keep orbiting the Sun just as the Earth did (it wouldn't have fallen into the Sun).

5) Civilization cannot be brought to the Dark Ages due mentioned by you obstacles, any utopia will be destroyed by guys that will survive in the shelter, they will be organized in the same government systems as you faced today.
Actually, it's likely that any major apocalyptic event that breaks down the existing level of social and industrial development is to plunge the survivors into savagery with no hope of rebuilding the civilization - at least not in the technological-industrialized form that we are familiar with. You see, by now nearly all the easily accessible (i.e. surface or shallow depth) metal deposits on Earth have been depleted. If you kill off the majority of population, destroy infrastructure and know-how, and keep the survivors in the shelters long enough for leftover machinery and structures to corrode away, then will have no way of either accessing or processing ores. They won't rediscover metalworking and everything that relies on it.
 
  • #16
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
5) Civilization cannot be brought to the Dark Ages due mentioned by you obstacles
I don't think you got the statement... The civilization as we know it today stands on top of information age, with almost everything being computerized and connected thanks to sattelites and so on... The damage a few meteors can do on the whole structure of Earth is not just craters and a regional earthquakes. They will destroy Earth as you know it today (with its nice air, food and plants, animals and temperature) ... Also it's much easier and safer than creating a BH.

Also how powerful is humanity against natural disasters was shown a few years ago, when just a small volcanic activity in Iceland was enough to cut travels around the north-western Europe for a whole week (and you want people to escape with spaceships?).

At some point this won't even work - because you can always raise "ifs" to any statement... So to this if-else-if scenarios, I would throw a meteor as large as the USA on Earth... Life is erased in a few minutes if not seconds...not a single sattelite will be able to escape, not a single shelter will be able to defend, not a single human will be able to hide...
 
  • #17
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
4) And I think that the program of escaping to the Planet Mars, in case of "Doomsday" existing too.
No such program exists by the way...Mars is not able to sustain life.
 
  • #18
rkolter
97
39
If I had a fleet of military spacecraft capable of percentage-of-light speed travel, I would sit in space and shoot down the satellites. Then, take down the electrical grid (validated by watching for lit areas on the night side). I would hit mass transit next. It's not that hard to imagine sieging a planet like you'd siege a castle. Cut off communication, cut off the circulation of vital resources, and wait for the population to take the civilization apart for you.
 
  • #19
frostysh
63
3
Assuming the lifeforms are similar to the ones that we know of, you could destroy all life on the planet by removing all of the carbon from the atmosphere. Eventually, the cycle of life would stop because you have broken the circuit that creates the cycle of life. This may only be comprehensible to people who actually understand the carbonate-silicate cycle. Draining the carbon from the atmosphere and constantly relocating it to a different system will cause all life on that planet to eventually stop.
This will not work, if we are talkin' about IC population as a mankind.

1) The process of deleting Carbon-stuf from the Atmosphere is not instant process.

2) When the powerful governments of mankind (PG) will realize what is happening they will active strategy like in case of full scale Nuclear Apocalypses - the Nuclear Power Plant powered fully autonomous shelters. The will have no problems with Carbon there.

3) After some time their Scientists will realize how to make counter-meassures.

4) The mankind population will be restored after some time.

This strategy is totally ineffective. Imho.
Definitely not! Just imagine some kind of HIV with the virulence of influenza. Mankind would be doomed years before somebody realizes that we have a problem. Even natural pathogens like swine influenza show how unprotected we are against pandemic events. Not to imagine what could be done with advanced genetic engineering and the required level of unscrupulousness.
That doesn’t matter if the technical civilization outside the shelters has been destroyed. It is not even necessary to attack the infrastructure. It would be sufficient to kill as many people that the remaining survivors can’t operate it anymore. When the guys in the shelters return into a world with medieval technology they will change their government accordingly. That’s just a matter of time.
The question was not "How to bring a chaos to the countries", but "how to exterminate IC population". Any Biological agent can be easily countered even by 'chemical suite'. The chance that the virus will penetrate even a simple shelter - is close to zero.
The shelter in the ancient times of Cold War has been build to make their inhabitants able to 'operate', so they have anything that they will need, there is not sense in shelters in the opposite case. Today you can even buy some shelter in US, if you want the cheapest variant is something near 30k of green stuff, I think so. So you can imagine what kind of shelter can be bought by rich guys, or what kind of technologies is available for the militants.
The guys from shelters will have a modern army structure, a modern government organization, the modern weapon systems (obviously the shelter will be equipped with a weapon facilities), they will have Nuclear Weapon (no one idiot will build a shelter without a equipping inhabitants with a nuclear toys), they will have modern organization, etc. If they will face any threats from the 'medieval/anarchy like stuff' they will annihilate that threats with no hesitation and just move further. Any of utopia cannot stand against modern order for too long.
Yes, this is just matter of time before normal mankind population will be restored :).

Imho your strategy is a total fail, mr DrStupid
The design doesn't matter and it would not punch through, for the same reason meteoroids almost always leave a circular crater, regardless of the angle of impact. It will simply disintegrate.
The point is, once you have the technology to make spaceships that can easily travel between stars, or even within a solar system, you have the technology to destroy any planet (in the sense of ending life on it) just by ramming one of the ships into it. And if there are no kamikaze volunteers, take the pilot out and run it on remote.
Let's say you've got a 10 000 tonne spaceship (roughly as much as an Aegis cruiser). Ramming it into Earth at 0.5 c would be equivalent to the impact of the meteoroid that killed off dinosaurs.
Ramming it at 0.99999 c would blow off Earth's atmosphere. And if you have a spaceship that's 100 times as massive (a carrier or a tanker of sorts?), then you can melt the crust. No bunker would help anyone out.
A Very interesting! ^^

1) Still it is not a way to use the complicated (and very costly!) military devices such as ships, like a bombs or a projectiles.

2) I don't know what is mean "Aegis" and what a class of this craft.

3) I have doubts that small fleet will have such large ships.

4) Indeed the near Light-speed projectile is effective due to the fact, that the projectile is very hard to be spotted by any Electromagnetic scanner before it will reach the target.

--- but it seems, that unreal amount of Energy is need to reach such Kinetic speed.

--- can we make something like a 'bomb' but not a projectile, I mean to obtain the necessary amount Energy not from our direct devices, but from something that can be stored, like Energy from the Chemical/Nuclear Interactions in the stuff that inside of the modern bombs?

5) Yes indeed, in case of such horrific impact, the buners mostly will be useless. But what if some bunker will survive or some submarine stuff will survive, or shelter in Polar. I think there is a lot risk in this case, we have a huge probability that somebody will survive.
A black hole as massive as Mt. Everest would be approx. 1 nanometre across. If you'd drop it onto Earth, it'd fly towards the centre and after approx. 40 minutes emerge out from the other side. Then it'd return again and again. Each time it'd consume a tiny amount of mass on its path (and damage a bit more), and grow. After some number of years that I'm unable to estimate (Thousands? Hundreds? Not a short time scale certainly) it'd start causing increasingly devastating earthquakes, and eventually consume all Earth. At that point you'd have one black hole of 1 Earth mass and less than 20 millimetres across. It will happily keep orbiting the Sun just as the Earth did (it wouldn't have fallen into the Sun).
This is brilliant idea, and I have read such stuff before (on the above mentioned internet-resource), but we have a lot of problems:

1) How we can create such object?

--- Is it can be created by focusing enough amount of Energy in a small volume of the Space-Time? I mean, it seems that the Mass or the Energy is looks equal in this case?

2) The time is a matter. It's too long definitely.

--- If the IC population will realize what is happening they will have enough time to create an effective counter measures.

3) Can we accelerate the events?

--- Make a so-called "Black Hole" that will explode inside of the target Planet, and those inflict a catastrophic damage enough to depart the Planet?
Actually, it's likely that any major apocalyptic event that breaks down the existing level of social and industrial development is to plunge the survivors into savagery with no hope of rebuilding the civilization - at least not in the technological-industrialized form that we are familiar with. You see, by now nearly all the easily accessible (i.e. surface or shallow depth) metal deposits on Earth have been depleted. If you kill off the majority of population, destroy infrastructure and know-how, and keep the survivors in the shelters long enough for leftover machinery and structures to corrode away, then will have no way of either accessing or processing ores. They won't rediscover metalworking and everything that relies on it.
The hope is always persist, even in case the only one IC ( the human if we going to talk on this level) will survive.
No it is not, you forget about Science and Progress, for an example, if mankind will achieve the ability to make enough of Antimatter, they can create a Nuclear Reactor that will be able to combine Nucleons an produce the materials that humans is need for.
I don't think you got the statement... The civilization as we know it today stands on top of information age, with almost everything being computerized and connected thanks to sattelites and so on... The damage a few meteors can do on the whole structure of Earth is not just craters and a regional earthquakes. They will destroy Earth as you know it today (with its nice air, food and plants, animals and temperature) ... Also it's much easier and safer than creating a BH.
Also how powerful is humanity against natural disasters was shown a few years ago, when just a small volcanic activity in Iceland was enough to cut travels around the north-western Europe for a whole week (and you want people to escape with spaceships?).
I think it is makes a little sense.

1) No any natural disaster of the past (in the nearest 20k years) had no made any sustain damage to the mankind population, for an exception of the pre-modern Hygiene nonense, that holds so huge mortality level that can hold the human population of the entire Earth on such pity level.

WorldPopulationGrowth2025.gif


- https://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/damning-demographics.html
The resource is not academic, so the info may sux, but I think it is a good approximation. And I think there is a lot of nonsense on this resource too, especially about glob situation.

2) The strategies against "doomsday" has been successfully developed by US and SU in the previous century, no any destruction of infrastructure, nor the any anarchic like nonsense can due sustain damage to this strategies (I think this factors has been counted when the "doomsday" strategies has been created during the Cold War).
At some point this won't even work - because you can always raise "ifs" to any statement... So to this if-else-if scenarios, I would throw a meteor as large as the USA on Earth... Life is erased in a few minutes if not seconds...not a single sattelite will be able to escape, not a single shelter will be able to defend, not a single human will be able to hide...
The powerful government have effective long-range systems of monitoring space that can locate and identify the meteor threats.
No such program exists by the way...Mars is not able to sustain life.
I have no doubts in that too, especially when I am looking on the recent US NASA, and ESA programs :).
If I had a fleet of military spacecraft capable of percentage-of-light speed travel, I would sit in space and shoot down the satellites. Then, take down the electrical grid (validated by watching for lit areas on the night side). I would hit mass transit next. It's not that hard to imagine sieging a planet like you'd siege a castle. Cut off communication, cut off the circulation of vital resources, and wait for the population to take the civilization apart for you.
No it is makes a little sense too, imho. Such nonsense will create a dangerous situation when separated powerful government of Earth IC population (if going to talk about Earth) will be united into a single organization that have superior power, and there is a large risk that they will create effective strategy. Of course they will try to negotiate in the same time. In addition - hitting a large amount of multiple targets (such as satellites, communications, etc) for the small fleet is a not very easy task, it will take a lot of time.
 
  • #20
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
The strategies against "doomsday" has been successfully developed by US and SU in the previous century, no any destruction of infrastructure, nor the any anarchic like nonsense can due sustain damage to this strategies (I think this factors has been counted when the "doomsday" strategies has been created during the Cold War).
The fact that you know there is a possibility of something to happen does not mean you have the means to avoid or efficiently stop it... There is a huge gap between the one or the other...Also the strategies that were studied during the Cold War had to do with nuclear weapons and not meteors or huge natural disasters. I don't understand the anarchic thing- nobody speaks for politics... there won't be politics when there are no people.


I have no doubts in that too, especially when I am looking on the recent US NASA, and ESA programs :).
what do you mean? Have we sent at least 1 human on Mars? Projects of course exist but you have to realize the gap between studying something and making it work... this is not an applicable scenario to be made within a few decades.

The powerful government have effective long-range systems of monitoring space that can locate and identify the meteor threats.
Let them identify them- it's an impossible to escape from scenario. If someone learns that he or she has cancer, it doesn't mean that they can survive. Also the attacker can hack the defender's systems but that is not my point. The point is that you fail to understand the gap between theorizing something and practically making it happen.

And in general you are exagerating all the time... in the end you will say that the once equal to humanity defenders are more advanced than the attackers. Make your point straight!
 
  • #21
frostysh
63
3
The fact that you know there is a possibility of something to happen does not mean you have the means to avoid or efficiently stop it... There is a huge gap between the one or the other...Also the strategies that were studied during the Cold War had to do with nuclear weapons and not meteors or huge natural disasters. I don't understand the anarchic thing- nobody speaks for politics... there won't be politics when there are no people.
Mr ChrisVer, if something happens, if the choices has been done, you cannot reverse it in the Macrowrold at least. You cannot control the minds of the other peoples (well it is disputable, but still), you cannot control the future that they will create, there is a many kind minds of IC, and they will react in a different ways on the same things. It is like Entropy in Macroworld - have only the one way further, no backward. Better don't bother yourself.
About a strategies of the greatest Powers on Earth in case of cataclysm, I think this strategies (and shelters) has been created to include risk of the any kinds of the known and unknown threats, such as attack of the Aliens, Meteor impact, super Virus, etc. this is like the instruction for pilots of aircraft when they may see UFO :) All risks, known and unknown is counted - this is the way, in military-guys doing.
what do you mean? Have we sent at least 1 human on Mars? Projects of course exist but you have to realize the gap between studying something and making it work... this is not an applicable scenario to be made within a few decades.
Did you have watched the newspaper that have lighted up the so-called "Manhattan Project" on the stage of it's development? I have doubts about that. The same may be with the Mars program.
Let them identify them- it's an impossible to escape from scenario. If someone learns that he or she has cancer, it doesn't mean that they can survive. Also the attacker can hack the defender's systems but that is not my point. The point is that you fail to understand the gap between theorizing something and practically making it happen.
Nothing is impossible. frostysh faced a many thing in his life (good and bad), and this learned frostysh to have a doubts in anything and everything.
About the small fleet, no point in such actions. Of course in case of this fleet have a much more advanced technological level (obviously coz' they have ability to travel at unimaginable long distances) than targeted population of IC.
And in general you are exagerating all the time... in the end you will say that the once equal to humanity defenders are more advanced than the attackers. Make your point straight!
I have never said "equal" as I remembered, I have posted "something near", "something like". frostysh is straight, and clear to understand for a frostysh :). But yeah, I have a little bit poor English skill. ;/ .
 
  • #22
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
Meteor impact,
There are documentaries about meteor impacts and so on, you can sit and watch some of them. Once people are closed and confined within shelters (because the outside world will be inaccessible to them), then you can certainly speak about the end of civilization. Also the size of the meteor matters; a pretty massive meteor cannot be avoided by hiding underneath the ground (which probably will molt). You don't even have to go so far, you just need enough to destroy the people on the planet.
Also for the plot of the population growth, the time span of it is too short... how many humans were on Earth ~3billion years ago?

All risks, known and unknown is counted - this is the way, in military-guys doing.
Again accounting for a risk doesn't mean you can do anything to avoid it.

The same may be with the Mars program.
No, it's not the same. Studies can of course be done, but they are too far away from being operated. We we reached the moon about 500years after having the models to do so. And especially modeling self-sustainable extraterrestrial life, is even more difficult (leave aside trying to do it).

frostysh faced a many thing in his life (good and bad), and this learned frostysh to have a doubts in anything and everything.
Some things in life are unavoidable. Someday everyone will die, there is a risk you can count for it and take measures to delay it, but the fact that we all die still holds. So I think your character didn't live long enough to see those many things in his life.

"something near", "something like"
something like/near means almost similar. If the defenders' technology is something near to humanity's current knowledge and technological advancement, there is nothing you can do against a meteor attack...
 
  • #23
Anindya Mondal
21
1
Any planet can be easily destroyed by a nuclear arsenal, chance is high.
 
  • #24
XZ923
135
63
Any planet can be easily destroyed by a nuclear arsenal, chance is high.

"Easily destroyed?" If we set off every single explosive device (nuclear and conventional) on the planet simultaneously, we'd barely even scratch it. We'd wipe ourselves out, sure, but the planet would be perfectly fine and in a couple million years or so will basically be what it was before we came along several thousand years ago.
 
  • #25
quickquestion
60
5
Use the moon. Put a rocket on the other side of the moon and push it into the planet.
 
  • #26
DrStupid
2,167
501
The chance that the virus will penetrate even a simple shelter - is close to zero.

That's irrelevant if everybody is already infected.
 
  • #27
Anindya Mondal
21
1
"Easily destroyed?" If we set off every single explosive device (nuclear and conventional) on the planet simultaneously, we'd barely even scratch it. We'd wipe ourselves out, sure, but the planet would be perfectly fine and in a couple million years or so will basically be what it was before we came along several thousand years ago.
Oh .I think you don't know the famous equation E= mc^ 2.
 
  • #28
frostysh
63
3
There are documentaries about meteor impacts and so on, you can sit and watch some of them. Once people are closed and confined within shelters (because the outside world will be inaccessible to them), then you can certainly speak about the end of civilization. Also the size of the meteor matters; a pretty massive meteor cannot be avoided by hiding underneath the ground (which probably will molt). You don't even have to go so far, you just need enough to destroy the people on the planet.
Also for the plot of the population growth, the time span of it is too short... how many humans were on Earth ~3billion years ago?
Nope, the creators of this documentaries had no any access to the secret military shelters, so they have no idea what is there, we can only imagine.
The more large meteor, the more early it will be spotted, and it's trajectory will be approximated. And then most powerful government such as US, SU, and CPR will decide what they will do next.
Again accounting for a risk doesn't mean you can do anything to avoid it.
for frostysh, for an example is impossible to avoid disasters of such kind, because frostysh is a poor rural fellah, he have only a dirty wet basement (that older than a 100 years...) where even a vegetables that must be fine there, getting rot over the Winter :/.
But for US government, the counting risk is almost the half of problem solved, coz' they have unimaginable amount of different resources (I mean Scientific potential, materials, experience, etc)
No, it's not the same. Studies can of course be done, but they are too far away from being operated. We we reached the moon about 500years after having the models to do so. And especially modeling self-sustainable extraterrestrial life, is even more difficult (leave aside trying to do it).
And first Nuclear Bomb has been made and used after ~30 years from development of the Theory stuff, of course the researches of such kind was not public. If you have a smarty guys, and resources you can create anything. The Mars program is not an exception.
Some things in life are unavoidable. Someday everyone will die, there is a risk you can count for it and take measures to delay it, but the fact that we all die still holds. So I think your character didn't live long enough to see those many things in his life.
Well, if we going to imagine the situation an Social-Psychological aspects of situation where the IC population such as mankind will be aware about the catastrophe, I mean in public. We can easily predict a total chaos, panic, etc.
well, if going to take frostysh as particular example, he was few times on the 'edge' (and probably many times, but frostysh just pay no attention to that..), of course it is a bad feelings. It's hard to explain. Yep, frostysh not saw a many thing in his life, perhaps even some thing that humans accepting as a 'normal' stuff ;), but there is only a two or one thing (from frostysh child age) that frostysh regrets (he was always on the way of justice and allgoodness etc - some kind of principles/strong_ideology/rules, it's hard to explain), so in case of frostysh perhaps will be panic, perhaps will not, but definitely frostysh will be the same inside as the all this time before, and frostysh is actually a 'tiny sparkle' in that endless ocean of unspeakable horror nightmare etc, so one sparkle more, one less, what is the matter :) (sorry, frostysh have a super dark humor, from his child age...)
something like/near means almost similar. If the defenders' technology is something near to humanity's current knowledge and technological advancement, there is nothing you can do against a meteor attack...
I am cannot :), but the powerful government can.

1) They can try to destroy the meteor, to change it's trajectory.

2) The will send a mission to the space, or another planet such as Mars.

3) Even the entire crust of the Earth will be melted, we have probability that some 'secret' base under Polar Ice, or Idkn, a special-equipped submarine will survive. I think the melting will be most low in the opposite side of Earth to where the meteor will hits, so there will be the secret bases of something like that.

4) Another variants. I mean they have a lot bucket of the very smarty Scientific guys, so they can create some counter-measures.
Any planet can be easily destroyed by a nuclear arsenal, chance is high.
I am agree with user XZ923 - the Nuclear Toys is a very poor and archaic weapon in this case, and it is obviously will take an enormous amount of such weapon to inflict at least minimal sustain damage to the Planet of size of Earth.
Use the moon. Put a rocket on the other side of the moon and push it into the planet.
It's looks ridiculous and totally ineffective, imho.
That's irrelevant if everybody is already infected.
And how you may infect for a short time the any single person of IC on the Planet? I mean, how you can infect the crew of Submarines, the personal of secret closed bunkers, the astronauts/cosmonauts on the orbit, and the any other isolated from the world outside guys, and the more IC creature are infected, the more probability that the particular Virus will be exposed, and the will be "Alarm" and the total fail of the any Biological related attacks.
 
  • #29
XZ923
135
63
Oh .I think you don't know the famous equation E= mc^ 2.

I'm quite familiar with it. I suggest you do a little research regarding energy released from man-made nuclear reactions relative to the mass of the Earth before suggesting our nuclear arsenal could release anywhere near enough energy to destroy the actual planet. It is at least conceivably possible that if we were to devote enough global industry towards this goal and improve the yield of our weapons we might in the distant very future get to the point where we could physically blow the Earth apart with nuclear reactions but to suggest that we can do it with what we have now is crazy. Of course, it would be far enough in the future we probably would have come up with much better ways to do it by that time so it's a moot point. We'll improve our ability to create antimatter to the point where we can make a large enough energy release that way long before we manufacture enough nuclear weapons to do it.
 
  • #30
DrStupid
2,167
501
And how you may infect for a short time the any single person of IC on the Planet?

It is sufficient to do it within the incubation period. Natural resistances could be a problem. But that can be solved by simultaneous release of different pathogens.

I mean, how you can infect the crew of Submarines, the personal of secret closed bunkers, the astronauts/cosmonauts on the orbit, and the any other isolated from the world outside guys

Just wait. They do not spend years in total isolation.

and the more IC creature are infected, the more probability that the particular Virus will be exposed, and the will be "Alarm" and the total fail of the any Biological related attacks.

If the weapons are designed on the basis of common and usually harmless viruses or bacterias there will be no alarm. Even if somebody detects them in time nobody would care about some new variants which seem to cause no symptoms.
 
  • #31
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
Nope, the creators of this documentaries had no any access to the secret military shelters, so they have no idea what is there, we can only imagine.
The more large meteor, the more early it will be spotted, and it's trajectory will be approximated. And then most powerful government such as US, SU, and CPR will decide what they will do next.
this sounds too exagerated for me to follow. I am naturally repulsed by conspiracy theories. The facts about what will happen to Earth are irrelevant to what type of shelters you have.
That's why I said, hack their systems so they won't be able to detect it.

But for US government, the counting risk is almost the half of problem solved, coz' they have unimaginable amount of different resources (I mean Scientific potential, materials, experience, etc)
Still not enough. You have to understand that we are way better than we were 20 years ago, but we are nowhere near to achieving extremes. It's like those people imagining in the 60s that in the 2000s we would have robots as our slaves and things like that... 2000 came and we had mobile telephones as big as a boot.

And first Nuclear Bomb has been made and used after ~30 years from development of the Theory stuff, of course the researches of such kind was not public. If you have a smarty guys, and resources you can create anything. The Mars program is not an exception.
Nukes are not difficult to do. Moving to another planet certainly is. It's like telling a kid "ok since you were able to walk in 2 years, in your 20s you'll be able to fly".

I am cannot :), but the powerful government can.

1) They can try to destroy the meteor, to change it's trajectory.
I wonder whether you read my messages or not...
you overestimate the government powers...
human technology cannot change the trajectory of a meteor...

3) Even the entire crust of the Earth will be melted, we have probability that some 'secret' base under Polar Ice, or Idkn, a special-equipped submarine will survive. I think the melting will be most low in the opposite side of Earth to where the meteor will hits, so there will be the secret bases of something like that.
that's why I said, watch some documentaries on the topic (available on youtube).

4) Another variants. I mean they have a lot bucket of the very smarty Scientific guys, so they can create some counter-measures.
and now you overestimate the minds of the scientists. Scientists are still humans, not perfect machines with supernatural powers (what you would need to survive such a scenario).
 
  • #32
frostysh
63
3
It is sufficient to do it within the incubation period. Natural resistances could be a problem. But that can be solved by simultaneous release of different pathogens.
Just wait. They do not spend years in total isolation.
If the weapons are designed on the basis of common and usually harmless viruses or bacterias there will be no alarm. Even if somebody detects them in time nobody would care about some new variants which seem to cause no symptoms.
In short - I think it is almost totally ineffective.

1) Years, it is too much of time.

2) The more pathogens, the more peoples infected, the more time spent - the more probability that Virus will be detected. There is a lot of places on the Earth (for an example) where regular medical tests applied (military, research center, hospitals, special zones, etc), there is even a special public organization that continuously monitoring new pathogens and stuff, etc. I think the probability will growth exponentially depends on the above mentioned factors.

3) Can you give 100% guarantee that there is no fully isolated personal of IC on the planet exist? I don't think so.

4) Any Biological agent (the any known biological agent, I am not counting Sci-Fi like stuff with nano-technologies, etc, but imho nano-cyborgs that can carry pathogens is looks fearsome) can be easily countered by even a simple Chemical Suite.

5) The Nature can take effect on the pathogens, pathogens can evolve in unpredictable manner (there is no zero probability for that), it is icreasing the chances for detection. In addition, the above mentioned natural resistance can play it's role, and from a 1 billion of exterminated IC will be just 1 survivor with immunity, and the end. In addition the incubation period can take different time in different peoples, for an example in larva of IC population, and in old IC population it can take shorter time, it's drasitcally increasing the chance of detection.

6) After the detection, governments of IC just and another lot amount of peoples will be immediately isolated, and the end of story.

Imho in this case the combination of nano-Robotic Technology, Genetics, and Virology, etc is need to create really fearsome weapon that will be hard to detected, for an example:
Nano robots equipped with a stealth technologies, that will self-copy spread with defined density per square km on the planet surface (density function depends on the structure of the IC population, and it will count such factors as secret military bases, shelters etc), such nano-system will be designed to penetrate isolated areas, after some values reached, this nano-systems will simultaneously release a deadly pathogen that takes affect only on the IC population.
this sounds too exagerated for me to follow. I am naturally repulsed by conspiracy theories. The facts about what will happen to Earth are irrelevant to what type of shelters you have.
That's why I said, hack their systems so they won't be able to detect it.
Not post in the "New York Times" about secret underground shelter in the case of full scale Nuclear Conflict with Soviet Union it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a military reality. During the Cold War both, US and SU had preparation to that events, that have for an example: vehicles that designed to survive in full-scale nuclear conflict (fsnc), the prepared aircraft that can survive in the fsnc, they have even some civilian programs in this case - such as the any Metropolitan in the large cities is designed for such purposes, etc. So why they cannot have a secret full equipped military shelters for the special personal?
Hacking such large amount of stuff by single small fleet is too dangerous, there is a large possibility of detection - imho this is just impossible.
In addition small fleet cannot drug a large space bodies, such as meteor of size of United States.
In case more smaller impact, the peoples such as frostysh will be destroyed of course, but the guys that had preparing for a fsnc for a decades will be not. And the melting will be not homogenize on the crust of the Planet.
We have a large probability that some regions will be ~safe.
Still not enough. You have to understand that we are way better than we were 20 years ago, but we are nowhere near to achieving extremes. It's like those people imagining in the 60s that in the 2000s we would have robots as our slaves and things like that... 2000 came and we had mobile telephones as big as a boot.
If the revolution technology is developed, it is not means that it will be spread very fast. A very good example - a Nuclear Energy, a Nuclear Weapon, only the most powerful government system with the most advanced Scientific potential will have access to such kind of Technologies. In this case, on Earth, for an example, US and SU and CPR is superior, the have the most powerful strategy developed during evolution - "if you want, and can help to us, you are welcomed to become our citizen!", to underestimate such potential is a horrific mistake. In case of global danger, this potential will be released and united they can do a miracles, but to unite them you need to place the entire Earth on the edge of destruction, because in the any other case, they will continue to kill each others like a crazy :D, and squashing, using like puppet dolls anything that is weaker than them, as for my humble opinion. (I am again have sorry for my dark humor and satire, this is a habits, a part of frostysh speech style, that have caused a lot of troubles to frostysh :/ )

About robotic assistance, well perhaps wee need to wait for some time and perhaps in 2030, 2040 etc, some black dude like a Del Spooner (from "I, robot") will stand on the Bridge and declare a new era in the human-machine interaction history! :P Actually frostysh have a dream to create Artificial Intelligence, like a mr Miles Bennet Dyson from "Terminator 2: Judgement Day", but I mean without judgement day and anything of such kind ^^. But for now anything that frostysh have done - it's planted some trees on his yard :/.
Nukes are not difficult to do. Moving to another planet certainly is. It's like telling a kid "ok since you were able to walk in 2 years, in your 20s you'll be able to fly".
Same as moving a large asteroid undetectable to the target planet for a small fleet. And there is no need to move a planet, as I have said - the most powerful government can create another solution - like Mars program, etc. United they can easily do that, imho. I mean they have a lot bucket of smarty guys, so they can find the solution.
I wonder whether you read my messages or not...
you overestimate the government powers...
human technology cannot change the trajectory of a meteor...
I have read.
To overestimate a power of something the survived during the most horrible and bloody war in the History of mankind (Cold War), that have developed and constructed! The weapon that can wipe out ~70% - 90% of human population on the Earth in few days, the influence of which can be feel everywhere on the planet Earth (PC, AK-rifles, Dollars, etc), well . . . perhaps :).
that's why I said, watch some documentaries on the topic (available on youtube).
I cannot watch videos online, I can download ~ 1GB per few days ;(, coz' of my pathetic Interent connection (darn Internet Supply Provider), but I don't think that in this documentaries I can watch something interesting for frostysh.
and now you overestimate the minds of the scientists. Scientists are still humans, not perfect machines with supernatural powers (what you would need to survive such a scenario).
As I have said, in case of attack on Earth, frostysh will not survive, it is obviously - coz' frostysh is just a poor rural fella.
But in case of powerful government system, the situation is drastically different. Perhaps the single Scientist is only the human, but a large amount of well organized Scientists, and special personal can do a miracles. Imho.
 
  • #33
ChrisVer
Gold Member
3,381
464
vehicles that designed to survive in full-scale nuclear conflict (fsnc), the prepared aircraft that can survive in the fsnc, they have even some civilian programs in this case - such as the any Metropolitan in the large cities is designed for such purposes, etc.
and all those resulted to complete failure.

So why they cannot have a secret full equipped military shelters for the special personal?
Because it can't work for that... we are talking for a falling meteor and not a nuke.

Hacking such large amount of stuff by single small fleet is too dangerous, there is a large possibility of detection - imho this is just impossible.
That is 100% wrong. Hacking can be done by small groups and target larger groups. Afterall we are talking about a civilization that can travel near c.

In addition small fleet cannot drug a large space bodies, such as meteor of size of United States.
In case more smaller impact, the peoples such as frostysh will be destroyed of course, but the guys that had preparing for a fsnc for a decades will be not. And the melting will be not homogenize on the crust of the Planet.
We have a large probability that some regions will be ~safe.
Well if it's able to travel at the speed of light or create a black hole, it can move a small rock around.
You still have no clue what is going to happen in such a collision, thinking that there is any kind of strategy to save anyone...

If the revolution technology is developed, it is not means that it will be spread very fast. A very good example - a Nuclear Energy, a Nuclear Weapon, only the most powerful government system with the most advanced Scientific potential will have access to such kind of Technologies. In this case, on Earth, for an example, US and SU and CPR is superior, the have the most powerful strategy developed during evolution - "if you want, and can help to us, you are welcomed to become our citizen!", to underestimate such potential is a horrific mistake. In case of global danger, this potential will be released and united they can do a miracles, but to unite them you need to place the entire Earth on the edge of destruction, because in the any other case, they will continue to kill each others like a crazy :D, and squashing, using like puppet dolls anything that is weaker than them, as for my humble opinion. (I am again have sorry for my dark humor and satire, this is a habits, a part of frostysh speech style, that have caused a lot of troubles to frostysh :/ )
In case of global danger no potential is ever released... again you try to drag it into politics, but we are talking about reality.

About robotic assistance, well perhaps wee need to wait for some time and perhaps in 2030, 2040 etc, some black dude like a Del Spooner (from "I, robot") will stand on the Bridge and declare a new era in the human-machine interaction history! :P Actually frostysh have a dream to create Artificial Intelligence, like a mr Miles Bennet Dyson from "Terminator 2: Judgement Day", but I mean without judgement day and anything of such kind ^^. But for now anything that frostysh have done - it's planted some trees on his yard :/.
Everyone has the right to dream... but the dreams are never coming true... I think we need at least 100 years or even more to have robot slaves... and maybe we will never do.

Same as moving a large asteroid undetectable to the target planet for a small fleet. And there is no need to move a planet, as I have said - the most powerful government can create another solution - like Mars program, etc. United they can easily do that, imho. I mean they have a lot bucket of smarty guys, so they can find the solution.
First of all, let's be again realistic. A meteor is not seen in the deep space, it has to be close to the Earth to be detectable. However I am telling you that supposed that tomorrow NASA announces that a meteor will strike us in 20 years... It will be the end. You don't have the time to do act.

To overestimate a power of something the survived during the most horrible and bloody war in the History of mankind (Cold War), that have developed and constructed! The weapon that can wipe out ~70% - 90% of human population on the Earth in few days, the influence of which can be feel everywhere on the planet Earth (PC, AK-rifles, Dollars, etc), well . . . perhaps :).
Cold War was not bloody... that's why it was cold... what weapon can wipe out 70-90% of the population? We have discovered nothing that large yet... when a volcano is to erupt, we cannot stop it.

documentaries are on youtube and articles are available online too.

But in case of powerful government system, the situation is drastically different. Perhaps the single Scientist is only the human, but a large amount of well organized Scientists, and special personal can do a miracles. Imho.
The people on the government are also humans... since this is a strategy to wipe out the whole human population, the people in the governments are also doomed. Scientists need: resources, time, time and time and even after that miracles are impossible.
 
  • #34
Anindya Mondal
21
1
Even during the economic crisis of 2008, Barack Obama had invested a large amount of money for detecting large meteors towards the earth.
 
  • #35
Anindya Mondal
21
1
I'm quite familiar with it. I suggest you do a little research regarding energy released from man-made nuclear reactions relative to the mass of the Earth before suggesting our nuclear arsenal could release anywhere near enough energy to destroy the actual planet. It is at least conceivably possible that if we were to devote enough global industry towards this goal and improve the yield of our weapons we might in the distant very future get to the point where we could physically blow the Earth apart with nuclear reactions but to suggest that we can do it with what we have now is crazy. Of course, it would be far enough in the future we probably would have come up with much better ways to do it by that time so it's a moot point. We'll improve our ability to create antimatter to the point where we can make a large enough energy release that way long before we manufacture enough nuclear weapons to do it.
The threats of North Korea seems the time is not so far for a nuclear arsenal.
 

Suggested for: How to destroy a Planet, or 100% of the life forms on it

Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
104
Replies
0
Views
10
Replies
87
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
162
Replies
17
Views
551
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
814
  • Last Post
Replies
28
Views
4K
Top