The Absurdity of Borders in Space

[Timo]

You forgot that the land marks like stars,planets,asteroids,etc,are MOVING themselves and not fixed,thus the idea of a FIXED border is untenable.

I don't see anybody in this discussion forgetting this (rather trivial) fact.

And there would be no problem in fixing a border even when there are no landmarks. Most of Earth's borders are like that, too, when one counts the kilometers: they run through deserts or oceans, and can only be identified by using a GPS receiver or taking a fix from stars.

And neither of those means of localization relies on absolutes, either. Nobody needs absolutes, not when relative fixes are more than good enough for the job.

Add to that the fact no ABSOLUTE frame of reference can exist,says Einstein and you will see why the idea of borders is absurd.

Of course an absolute frame of reference can exist. For any given subset of the universe, that is. It's merely a matter of definition - as is everything. It would be trivially simple to decide that, say, certain fixes from distant pulsars define an absolute map grid. Nobody would have to count nearby asteroids, any more than seamen track seagulls in order to find out where the border between Norway and Russia runs in the Arctic Sea.

As someone said space is big and the idea of trade ROUTES is nonsense.

Of course it isn't. In fact, space being big almost automatically results in the adoption of trade routes - to defeat such vast distances, one would necessarily have to fly the straightest route between A and C, as no detour would make an ounce of sense, and thus those controlling the volume B between A and C would have a keen interest in establishing borders for B.

In fact the volume of solid matter as a fraction of total space is very very low,less then 0.01%.

But in an era of replicators, that solid matter would not be of much interest to the various interstellar empires. The empty vacuum between the matter specks would have a relatively higher significance, as it would be crucial in controlling what the enemy empires do with their specks of matter, and in defending those specks.

Space is mostly that,empty space.

And land is mostly that, empty land. People still slaughter each other for the control of a few thousand square kilometers of useless sand.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deckerd]

I have to admit that taking the enormous pinch of salt which allows people to be able to travel a sufficient distance and trajectory to actually find another sentient life form; to then start shooting at each other is just silly. It's not called fiction for nothing.

 

[Timo]

To be sure, if the capacity existed to reach interstellar sentients - that is, if an interstellar drive was built, and if those sentients were found to exist and to also possess this type of drive - shooting to kill , and shooting first, might be the only viable course of action. The galaxy probably wouldn't be big enough for two species, not in the long term anyway. And species going interstellar would have to think in the long term - the next 500 million years or so.

Not that the idea of borders would come to play in such a situation, though...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[captcalhoun]

trade routes may not just be a case of the straightest line from (for one) here and Epsilon Eridani.

if there's a FTL drive system similar to the SW hyperdrive (as described in various novels) where the drive is inoperable in a strong gravity well (such as close to a planet or a star) then specific routes around these 'mass shadows' as they're called become necessary and of course, can easily lead to ambushes, interceptions and conflict...

 

[ticktock]

trade routes may not just be a case of the straightest line from (for one) here and Epsilon Eridani.

if there's a FTL drive system similar to the SW hyperdrive (as described in various novels) where the drive is inoperable in a strong gravity well (such as close to a planet or a star) then specific routes around these 'mass shadows' as they're called become necessary and of course, can easily lead to ambushes, interceptions and conflict...

People on Earth cannot even agree on not shooting each other.It is very unlikely aliens will agree on using a common frame to define vague boders undefined by MOVING objects.

People cannot understand that

Someone above keeps mentioning tectonic plates,etc in 2 dimensions which move at a few millimetres a year but stars and planets move at 100 to 10000 times the speed of sound!

Space is really,really big.Matter is less than 0.0001% depending on the size of space which is volumetric and not planer. voulme wise

You cannot ambush in empty space.

 

[JM1776]

People cannot understand that.

Don't be patronizing. People understand your point. They simply don't agree with you.

You cannot ambush in empty space.

I imagine the Klingons, Romulans, Breen and crew of the Defiant would disagree.

 

[ToddPence]

It seems to me that a Borders in space is no less absurd than a Barnes & Noble in space.

 

[Basill]

People on Earth cannot even agree on not shooting each other.It is very unlikely aliens will agree on using a common frame to define vague boders undefined by MOVING objects.

Two benevolent alien strangers walk into a bar...

Someone above keeps mentioning tectonic plates,etc in 2 dimensions which move at a few millimetres a year but stars and planets move at 100 to 10000 times the speed of sound!

The use of tectonic plates in this topic is a mere analogy to indicate the non-static nature of our own borders. Granted, analogies only stretch so far, but they are useful. Also, tectonic plates are hardly two dimensional and differ in the rates at which they move in relation to one another.

Space is really,really big.

This is true. And if you acknowledge that scale (and the use of scale goes back to the analogy) it also renders the speed of "10,000 times the speed of sound" to a putrid crawl (not unlike the millimeters or centimeters of a tectonic plate in relation to a much larger Earth.) A border doesn't need to be absolute. Only defined and predictable.

 

[FalTorPan]

A border doesn't need to be absolute. Only defined and predictable.

Yup!

 

[EnsignRicky]

Of course Borders in space is absurd; All the books would just float away.

 

[MarianLH]

Are you kidding? They pack their shelves so tight you could put carbon between the books and it would come out diamond.


Marian

 

[blakbyrd]

It seems to me that a Borders in space is no less absurd than a Barnes & Noble in space.

Of course Borders in space is absurd; All the books would just float away.

Are you kidding? They pack their shelves so tight you could put carbon between the books and it would come out diamond.n

 

[stj]

Remarks about shipping lanes and controlling the volumes of space that constitute them still ignores the problem of scale. It's like claiming that because Hawaii is between Peru and China that the US can demarcate the Pacific to control that lucrative traffic. Quite aside from the nonsense about bulk shipping of the maritime sort, it ignores the logistics of this control.

If China were to lay claim to the entire Pacific Ocean and patrol it to prevent the Medfly from traveling from California to Shanghai, it would be a little like the idea of borders in space.

 

[JM1776]

One reason political entities would endeavor to control the borders of their space is to minimize a necessity to exhaustively patrol within the interior—thus in some measure solving this purportedly insoluble problem. If you know what enters and leaves, after all, you've a fairly good idea what's there in toto.

In addition, if we're going to accept warp drives, the ability to place thousands (if not millions) of buoys and probes, cochrane factors, subspace radio and sensors the resolution of which are admittedly preposterous in the real universe, why not accept the ability to employ such fantastic resources to accomplish such a fantastic feat?

 

[Timo]

In fact, the USN could plausibly control the entire Pacific shipping if that were in its political interests. The means would have to be somewhat crude: rather than carefully identify every ship, USN forces would do wisely to enforce a state of affairs where any shipping that isn't overtly and actively submissive to US rule will be blindly fired at, with Harpoons from patrol aircraft on the open ocean, with more economic means while close to the coasts. Monitoring and control of nearly all Pacific ports of worth would be trivially easy, and those ports that remained outside direct control could be nuked to submission.

I see no major showstoppers with the Klingon Empire controlling its volume of space in like manner. A couple of thousand starships would be available, each with a sensor range measured in dozens of lightyears at least, and with the speed to reach targets within that sensor range in a matter of hours. Even if the control of Klingon territory weren't 100% perfect, the ramifications of getting caught would deter most violators. And most opponents would expect the Federation to act in a similar manner, even if they spoke unusually softly while carrying their considerably big Starfleet stick.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[stj]

If there are no technological problems left for interstellar flight, there is no need for shipping lanes at all---the long way round is a trivial matter!

No navy could blockade the Medfly from crossing the Pacific even if a Medfly were able to do so. The insect is too tiny in comparison to the vast area. A starship would be even smaller by comparison to the volumes of space.

The fact remains that there's literally nothing there to defend.

 

[JM1776]

A starship would be even smaller by comparison to the volumes of space.

Which is why the point about the extraordinary capabilities of sensors in the Trek universe is germane.

The fact remains that there's literally nothing there to defend.

You are preventing a competing government's military presence in your space, at the very least. If borders extended only a (relatively) limited distance from stellar systems, someone could legally park a battle group off your homeworld with ease.

 

[Sector 7]

We don't know that all border areas are simply bags of nothing. I've always liked the game Tachyon: The Fringe, and some of the political borders in that universe are based on two key factors: the location of jump gates, which provide FTL travel, and the presence of asteroid fields. The asteroids contain minerals which are valuable for mining and trade purposes, and this is why some areas were colonized. Most of the factions are rather territorial.

Many of the planets visited in TOS were mining colonies, hence the reason for annexing systems and planets.

As I recall, wasn't the Organian Peace Treaty meant for settling these types of disputes? In order to annex a new planet/system the government had to show they could make use of the planet for their common good (The Trouble with Tribbles).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course borders in space are ridiculous and unenforcable - just one of the little sillinesses that Trek has perpetuated and which have become more annoying as the tendency of the Franchise to fall back on tired war stories has increased over the decades.

 

[FalTorPan]

Of course borders in space are ridiculous and unenforcable - just one of the little sillinesses that Trek has perpetuated and which have become more annoying as the tendency of the Franchise to fall back on tired war stories has increased over the decades.

Borders in space are no more ridiculous than warp drive, aliens with American English accents, infallible artificial gravity, aliens who resemble humans either entirely or with the exception of a bumpy forehead, "table-top" starship movement and combat, instantaneous communication across interstellar distances, needlessly enormous space garages, or an incomprehensible method for keeping track of dates and times. As I and others have suggested, borders can be defined logically, and with the near-magic technology often employed in Trek shows, it's possible that borders can be defended and enforced.