Re: Star Trek Weapon

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Thomas Anderson wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> 
> >	In Larry Niven's "The Theory and Practice of Teleportation"
> >	he points out that a transporter teleportation device
> >	which does not need a transmitter/receptor pair
> >	will destroy the civilizations that make them.
> 
> this is incorrect. in niven's example, teleporters are used as nuclear
> warhead delivery systems. big rockets can also be used in this role,
in a
> way that is essentially the same as teleporters. our civilisation has,
i 
> understand, invented big rockets; why, then, has our civilisation not
been
> destroyed?

I haven't read the Niven article (sounds like I'll have to dig up a
copy)
but it sounds like his take on transporters is as deniable delivery
systems. As follows:

Big Rockets are fairly conspicious, to the right systems. These days,
you
probably can't launch anything ICBM-like and not get a lot of attention.
Cruise missles are different, but also detectable.

With a transporter, you can just slip a small nuke through, then be
sympathetic about your enemy's "terrible lab accident". "What, you say
there wasn't a nuke lab at that location? You're obviously lying, sir,
as
the whole world knows about the mushroom cloud."

No sattelites detecting launch signatures. No cruise missles to crash
and
leave embarrasing hard evidence. No radar tracks of 'something' inbound.
No surviving witnesses saying they saw a Tomahawk stream go overhead.
Nada. Just your enemy with a glowing hole in the ground, a state of
paranoia, and that Big Red Button.

Sounds like Niven has a point. This has been mentioned by various people
w/ regards to Star Trek, as well: Why don't they just transport a few
grams of anti-matter into their ship? Who needs photon torpedoes,
phasers,
and similar? (scriptwriters...)

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)
-- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9774/games.html
--DS2/SG2/misc--