Sturgeon Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Can any in the class tell me what is wrong with Arthur C. Clarke's short Superiority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The weapon wasn't all-powerful enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 It is an Arthur C Clarke story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 I guess I never followed up on this, here's what bugs me about it:"Norden proved his case less than a month later, when he demonstrated the Sphere of Annihilation, which produced complete disintegration of matter over a radius of several hundred meters. We were intoxicated by the power of the new weapon, and were quite prepared to overlook one fundamental defect - the fact that it was a sphere and hence destroyed its rather complicated generating equipment at the instant of formation. This meant, of course, that it could not be used on warships but only on guided missiles, and a great program was started to convert all homing torpedoes to carry the new weapon. For the time being all further offensives were suspended. We realize now that this was our first mistake. I still think that it was a natural one, for it seemed to us then that all our existing weapons had become obsolete overnight, and we already regarded them as almost primitive survivals. What we did not appreciate was the magnitude of the task we were attempting, and the length of time it would take to get the revolutionary super-weapon into battle. Nothing like this had happened for a hundred years and we had no previous experience to guide us. The conversion problem proved far more difficult than anticipated. A new class of torpedo had to be designed, as the standard model was too small. This meant in turn that only the larger ships could launch the weapon, but we were prepared to accept this penalty. After six months, the heavy units of the Fleet were being equipped with the Sphere. Training maneuvers and tests had shown that it was operating satisfactorily and we were ready to take it into action. Norden was already being hailed as the architect of victory, and had half promised even more spectacular weapons. Then two things happened. One of our battleships disappeared completely on a training flight, and an investigation showed that under certain conditions the ship's long-range radar could trigger the Sphere immediately after it had been launched. The modification needed to overcome this defect was trivial, but it caused a delay of another month and was the source of much bad feeling between the naval staff and the scientists. We were ready for action again - when Norden announced that the radius of effectiveness of the Sphere had now been increased by ten, thus multiplying by a thousand the chances of destroying an enemy ship. So the modifications started all over again, but everyone agreed that the delay would be worth it. Meanwhile, however, the enemy had been emboldened by the absence of further attacks and had made an unexpected onslaught. Our ships were short of torpedoes, since none had been coming from the factories, and were forced to retire. So we lost the systems of Kyrane and Floranus, and the planetary fortress of Rhamsandron." So, um, Clarke wrote this in 1951, 6 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and during the period of probably the most insanely high rate of technological development in history. Clarke clearly appears to be referencing atomic weapons with this, but the fielding of the Annihilation Sphere has absolutely no parallels with that of atomic weapons. After the Trinity test, the US didn't go "oh, well, we're gonna take all our B-29s and retrofit them for these experimental weapons" - and who the fuck would do that (like, maybe Nazi German would be that dumb), anyway?The circumstances he's describing don't make any goddamn sense, and the use of new technology was not what brought down the faction in his story - incredibly unrealistic and retarded procurement practices did.I found this story thanks to an article in Foxtrotalpha, where they claim Clarke "warned us about the F-35". HOW? How does this story have even the most remote parallels to the F-35 program? F-35 is an advanced plane, sure, but it's not a totally new technology (pretty much every single element in the A and C models is in fact an evolution of existing technology). It's not expensive because it's such a whizzbang jet, it's expensive because it's the biggest cooperative military project of all time, with what are - so far as I know - the most stringent lifecycle cost analyses ever applied to a military program. Arthur C. Clarke isn't warning us about runaway joint programs (which is a reasonable criticism of F-35), he's warning us about some bizarre alternate universe where military procurement officers are overridden by theoretical physicists who care for nothing but their pet projects. What makes that so funny is that's a direct inversion of what Clarke's actually criticizing: The Manhattan Project was a military-driven project that roped in as many scientists as it could in the service of a weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 Completely ignoring the actual details of the story itself (because I'm playing the 'separate intent from execution' game), the whole thing is simply a jeremiad against deathstar projects being seen as a cure-all for logistics and strategy failures. It's the anti-maus argument, basically. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 Completely ignoring the actual details of the story itself (because I'm playing the 'separate intent from execution' game), the whole thing is simply a jeremiad against deathstar projects being seen as a cure-all for logistics and strategy failures. It's the anti-maus argument, basically. Yeah, you can take it that way, but I'm certain Clarke means it as a misled railing against atomic weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 The joke is that nuclear weapons proved pretty conclusively that some technological superweapons projects pretty much are viable war-winners. So Clarke was technically wrong on that front as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 Yeah, you can take it that way, but I'm certain Clarke means it as a misled railing against atomic weapons. We're well into arguing authorial intent now, so unless we can produce some comment on the piece it's every man for himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 If you're going to make such a thinly veiled allegory the least you could do is actually make the problems anywhere near similar what your allegory represents. A squadron of silverplate superforts has about the combat power of the 8th AF and was in fact deployed in parallel with conventional formations. He's tilting at windmills with an imaginary weapon because they pose an imaginary threat. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 I never said Clarke was any good. On the contrary, I think he's well-known simply because he started early in the genre and was prolific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 Yeah that was just a general comment on the withering incompetence and blatant inability to understand what the allegory was of in the first place. Allegories illuminate things by comparison. Sometimes they just illuminate the author's ineptitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 We're well into arguing authorial intent now, so unless we can produce some comment on the piece it's every man for himself. Really? It seems impossible to me that this story isn't just a thinly-veiled allegory for nuclear-armed bombers and other nuclear weapons. There are far too many obvious parallels. Regardless, all of us can be certain that Clarke was not a sage who was in fact warning us against F-35. The people claiming he was like to shove children's toys up their asses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 Yeah, there's the whole Norden bit, the allusion to silverplate modifications as in modifying ships to carry the new weapon, the idea of other weapons being obsoleted overnight, and then the "suddenly fusion" bit. But this smacks of the same sort of mindset that you see in people who read holy books to justify their biases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 10, 2016 Report Share Posted January 10, 2016 Really? It seems impossible to me that this story isn't just a thinly-veiled allegory for nuclear-armed bombers and other nuclear weapons. There are far too many obvious parallels. Regardless, all of us can be certain that Clarke was not a sage who was in fact warning us against F-35. The people claiming he was like to shove children's toys up their asses. Pictured: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.