/comfy/ - A place to relax

I wood use the superweapon as a thruster to adjust the Earth's orbit for a 0% chance of collision. Once we're safe and communications are back up, I hire /comfy/posters to work as ambassadors. They'll win our new neighbors over whether they're hostile or no.

This is definitely a bit of a silly question, though.

03c9eea2b33c4a4ed7fe66043b20ec36feb81b528a7bd9852fb2f2a730940e87.jpg
[Hide] (53.9KB, 625x504) Reverse

>>13193 (OP) 
>Make your choice, President of Earth.

I will start establishing taxes for interplanetary trade. And also berate idiots who made such useless planetary destruction weapons.

Supernova_SN_1994D_(lower_left)_in_the_outskirts_of_NGC_4526's_central_disk.jpg
[Hide] (134KB, 1280x1280) Reverse

space,_earth,_night_lights.jpg
[Hide] (643.9KB, 1242x2208) Reverse

>>13193 (OP) 
the first problem i see with your hypothetical situation is that a planet coming our way doesn't make a lot of sense to me; if they were in control of the planet of course their technology wood be much superior than our own — if they were not, it wood either collide with earth, the sun or any other planet, also a massive planet coming our way woodn't just lock in orbit with the sun next to our own.
it wood make more sense if they were coming in a space ship, or many if you will.

anyway, i woodn't shoot them, the death of billions of alive creatures woodn't come from my hands; first, because if we destroy their planet theres a great chance of the fragments of such massive destruction hit our own (since their planet is heading our way) causing a mass extinction here; second, showing hostility first wood send the wrong message, imagine for a moment that they are not alone, maybe they are the first planet heading to our solar system because their star is dying out there and they need a new sun, maybe they called other planets too, who knows whos coming next?

in such pressure to take action, you just need to remember that you can always and will mostly regret whatever you end up doing; kill them or not, the result could be a disaster either way, so i choose not.

>>13193 (OP) 
I wood not destroy them. 

I can't see why a planet of beings wood want to set themselves on a suicidal collision course.  What wood be the point?
Also, I wood be berry concerned why were we using taxes to fund a planet destroying weapon.

81a.png
[Hide] (317.8KB, 680x476) Reverse

I am conservative and I see too many reasons why letting them be might be a bad idea. I don't like the victim mindset of seeing eberryone as a potential enemy, crying when preemptively striking etc, but OP's statement involves stakes that are shrimply too high. Even if their intention were good, which we have no way of determining, the movement of the planet is too risk (for us AND them). I wood pulverize their planet
If we changed the situation to a planet teleporting into our solar system with not insurance that the other guys were frenly or not, I woodn't consider it the same way as the threat is less direct.

And let us not forget that the danger posed by another planet next to us doesn't only depend on their intentions. Bringing plants from another country is dangerous because they're not adapted to the local fauna and may, as it habbened many times in the past, become an invasive species. This also habbened with animals introduced in different ecosystems, mostly by the Brit explorer cunts. So imagine that on the level of a planet, imagine the diseases...

>>13201
Also a planet moving at that speed wood have shed most of its armosphere on the way, meaning that once it locks into orbit around the sun, its frozen surface wood be scorched in a matter of days.

But I prefer to take OP's question as an ethical exercise.
It is a bit similar to the trolley problem, the point isn't to imagine technical solutions but to compare the 2 alternative moral stances, hereby shedding light on the mental processes that create our moral positions.

I like your reserve about a possible retaliation if we miss the shot. I wood argue that to outside observers, the perceived threat can be reasonably explained ESPECIALLY if enough investigation efforts go into determining the risk of collision before making the decision.

As you are swimming away from a sinking boat, if a panicked passenger tries to latch onto you wood you kick them or not ? I wood honestly go for the face
We're talking about life and death here, it's not like nuking North Korea because "they MIGHT one day attack us" it's a direct threat. It's like shooting at home invaders: you have no way of determining how dangerous they are, especially at night.
This is why we have social norms, we respect personal space etc.