Wormhole Warfare

From: Robin Hanson To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:13:06 PDT Subject: TECH/WAR: Wormhole Wars

Technology changes the face of war. How would wormholes change war?

First, I’d expect defensive redundant booby-trapping of wormholes connecting potential enemy regions. Wormholes are the major transportation and communication channels; folks would invade along them if they could, so if limited in number they would be choke points — fortified against the most advanced invaders one could imagine.

Second, I’d expect military powers to try and control the entry of wormholes into their territory. If war breaks out, and the enemy has lots of wormholes behind your lines, close to targets and to raw materials, they can see what you’re doing and hit you fast. Bad news.

So I’d expect mainly bit streams to go through official wormholes; wormhole passage through wormholes would be tightly controlled, if they could manage it. And even bit streams can be dangerous; once aliens had connected up from across the universe, it might be most unwise to run unknown complex software from distant lands, as in Vinge’s A Fire Upon the Deep.

Regions with too many unknown wormholes in it might be dead zones, the sort of place no one could plausibly defend because attack could literally come from anywhere in great force. Neighboring regions might want to explode a quasar there or something to try and limit the threat of invasion from that direction.

Third, regions which, for the same “empire” or “universal” time, are at an earlier cosmological co-moving time would have strong military advantages. Say war breaks out at some empire time, and existing wormholes are sealed against attack. In this case the “earlier” region can send a cloud of wormholes toward their enemies the old-fashioned way, on rockets, to arrive rather soon in empire time. If any of the wormhole cloud gets through, a beachhead is formed for attack. Similar holes sent the other way would likely be quickly destroyed by threatening to form

causal loops, and even if they didn’t they would take a very long time in empire years to get there.

If warring regions have empire times at similar cosmological times, as in the meeting aliens example, and wormhole access is denied, and technological/economic growth is at all in force, then defenders have a huge advantage because they can just wait and grow, as Mike Price commented in his paper.

So the major links between and within civilizations might be under tight military control, new additions to the network subject to military veto, with regions at the geographic center of an empire having a strong military advantage. “Empire” doesn’t sound so far-fetched in this case.

Robin Hanson

From: "" dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:49:02 CST Subject: TECH/WAR: Wormhole Wars

On Thu, 17 Jun 93 17:13:06 PDT, Robin Hanson wrote:

Technology changes the face of war. How would wormholes change war? First, I’d expect defensive redundant booby-trapping of wormholes connecting potential enemy regions. Wormholes are the major transportation and communication channels; folks would invade along them if they could, so if limited in number they would be choke points - fortified against the most advanced invaders one could imagine.

You seem to be assuming each polity/society/culture is on one side of a wormhole only. Try this situation: There is a wormhole which is either natural or a relic of a long-dead civilization. On both sides, it’s in relatively isolated areas. The first people to find it and make use of it have several hundred years to build around both ends of it, before the first contact with anyone else.

For them, it’s not a danger. It’s a supply line; and if all else fails, a line of retreat.

Dan Goodman dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu

From: Robin Hanson hanson@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 14:37:14 PDT Subject: TECH/WAR: Wormhole Wars

Dan Goodman writes:

Try this situation: There is a wormhole which is either natural or a relic of a long-dead civilization. On both sides, it’s in relatively isolated areas. The first people to find it and make use of it have several hundred years to build around both ends of it, before the first contact with anyone else. For them, it’s not a danger. It’s a supply line; and if all else fails, a line of retreat.

Sure, it’s just like the one mountain pass between two parts of a nation. Indeed a supply line and retreat route, and if the other side got it you’d be split in two. So it would be top priority for fortification and defense.

Robin Hanson

Date: Sat, 19 Jun 93 18:48:58 GMT From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price) Subject: TECH/WAR Wormhole Wars

Robin Hanson wrote:

Regions with too many unknown wormholes in it might be dead zones, the sort of place no one could plausibly defend because attack could literally come from anywhere in great force.

I think this could be the case with most of the universe, as well, after a while. The enemy only has to sneak one nano-scale wormhole past the defenders, expand and then bootstrap more wormholes through to establish a beachhead. All institutions in space seem vulnerable to this.

High security, corporate and military, establishments may move into basement universes, where they are safer. Only a known number of holes to watch and monitor. If they need more space or matter, they inflate their basement universe a bit more.

Third, regions which, for the same “empire” or “universal” time, are at an earlier cosmological co-moving time would have strong military advantages. Say war breaks out at some empire time, and existing wormholes are sealed against attack. In this case the “earlier” region can send a cloud of wormholes toward their enemies the old-fashioned way, on rockets, to arrive rather soon in empire time. If any of the wormhole cloud gets through, a beachhead is formed for attack.

The neutral zone between two hostile civilisations is open to this wormhole-rocket attack, from both civilisations, since the home-worlds both exist at an earlier cosmological, co-moving time than the n-zone. The n-zone lies close to the future light-cone of both home-worlds.

However the home-world does have this advantage within its own empire. If we colonise the galaxy and an empire forms,

EXTROPY #12 (6:1) First quarter 1994

38

expect rule from Sol, not Trantor.

So the major links between and within civilizations might be under tight military control, new additions to the network subject to military veto[…]

Agreed. You can imagine the public-good arguments. :-(

“Private wormholes are a threat to national security!”

A bit like the damnable nuclear non-proliferation treaty, powerful states may seek to exert their control by controlling wormholes.

“Empire” doesn’t sound so far-fetched in this case. Robin Hanson

Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk

From: Robin Hanson

To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu

Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 12:22:35 PDT

Subject: TECH/WAR: Wormhole Wars

I wrote:

Regions with too many unknown wormholes in it might be dead zones, the sort of place no one could plausibly defend because attack could literally come from anywhere in great force.

Mike Price writes: I think this could be the case with most of the universe, as well, after a while… High security, corporate and military, establishments may move into basement universes, where they are safer. Only a known number of holes to watch and monitor.

Hmm.. Most of the universe littered with tiny hidden wormholes, and largely unoccupied because it can’t be defended. When it is occupied for a moment, it is soon destroyed without bystanders knowing who did it. All activity of consequence in “side” universes. Sounds suspiciously like the universe we see :-). Chilling thought.

Of course very spatially concentrated civilizations would have the same advantages as side universes, the ability to police their border. Activity would have to be very concentrated as well of course — probably look something like a quasar ;-).

Robin

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 01:27:32 GMT

From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)

Subject: TECH/WAR: Wormhole Wars

Of course very spatially concentrated civilizations would have the same advantages as side universes, the ability to police their border.

Difficult to stop a well aimed, massive black hole. Hiding in a basement universe has considerable other advantages as well: You’re only visible when you choose to be, and if you don’t like the location of your exit portals, you move them somewhere else. And you can be connected to all over the universe as well.

Activity would have to be very concentrated as well of course - probably look something like a quasar ;-).

Continued from p.36

While it does seem reasonable to expect a convergence between the general application design efforts and assembler emergence, present day social forces may well conspire to maintain dislocations between the times when general assemblers and useful programs/designs for them will emerge. Investment strategies, organizational savvy, public profiles and industry dynamics are just some of the factors to be considered. Given the general political and economic state of things today, I’m skeptical that the assemblers and utility instructions (e.g., for nanocomputers, deep AI, …) will simultaneously emerge in a clap of Olympian Thunder. Nevertheless, the perception that they may come together, generates its own threat profile. This could be problematic for some people.

It’s not uncommon for people in the general public, upon first learning about nanotechnology, to find fear stirring in their emotions. Not everyone across the planet cheers at the thought of having a force or agency that can, in terms of contemporary lyrics, “turn their brown eyes blue.” Fear can often lead to dogmatic and drastic reactions. Angry people get even; fearful people get nasty. Significant public education and involvement would be a wise precaution, but has yet to begin in earnest.

Various nanotech enthusiasts strongly advocate an “open” development of nanotech. But let’s keep in mind the fact that Admiral David Jeremiah, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon, has already shown interest in future implications of nanotech in security contexts. Others, across the planet, would welcome the opportunity to make Orwell’s fantasy a reality. So, it’s reasonable to consider that “open” means “in addition to secret” but not “instead of secret,” at least in real-world pragmatic terms. That kitty is out of the basket. Whether nanotech is developed in an “open” environment or in both “open” and “secret” environments, clear and

A beacon to the marauding, berserker hordes… I think hiding in basement universe has a lot going for it. Of course if you had a comms link to a private basement universe (and kept continuous backups) then you’d get all the advantages of roaming freely with the security. Killed, and you wake up ‘back at the ranch’.

Robin

Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk

present dangers will likely be perceived by the fearful and by competing forces.

To the extent that nanotech is developed “openly” there will be a broad base of information available about the players and their progress. Assassins bullets, commissioned by the fearful, may well find rich targets among these players who will be easy to locate. For the work done in “secret,” those entities fearing a nanohegemony may be making plans at this moment to act preemptively when the time is ripe. If they have nukes or CBW agents, running for cover may not offer protection or benefit.

Consequently, discussion that leads people to understand the positive potentials of nanotechnology might somewhat ease the tensions of the transition. Without key benefits for the public mind to rally around, fear and nervousness may well fill the vacuum. Notions of improved health care, a culture of abundance, or a Diamond Age of materials, are wonderful thoughts (and ones I hope to witness) but they are far too vague to allay the general public’s fearful tendencies or block off demonic leaders who may rise to rail against nanotech. As some writers and speakers develop a more near term focus wherein the public opinion is led to anticipate nanotech in clear and specific terms (e.g., the end of death), the potential for successfully making it across this transition from now to the nanotechnology enabled society of whim increases.

Spaceship Earth hurtles on. I recall Paul Saffo remarking “never mistake a clear view for a short distance.” If we only look far, far away past the Singularity, it’s just possible we may miss clues for successful navigation. This transition is going to be a bitch, in human terms. Presently, it seems that the Extropians list is the only ongoing forum where these issues are actually receiving exposure, dialog and analyses. Upwards and Onwards.

Jamie Dinkelacker, Palo Alto CA Jamie@netcom.com 415.941.4782

39

EXTROPY #12 (6:1) First quarter 1994