I was just wondering why they wouldn't have just nuked Klandethu instead of send instead of sending in the infantry (a plan that they very quickly learned was futile). They quite clearly have the technology
shareThe cost would be huge. The planet could be 10 times as large as earth or even larger also we have no idea how radiation would effect them and they live underground. The earth is 3/4 water and is a very small planet yet the cost to kill every living thing on land would be massive.
Our planet is already over populated in the movie we had colonised other planets maybe the human population is 50-100 billion so sending in millions to die isn't that big of a deal. Also don't we want these planets for ourselves it does mention in the movie we tried to colonise planets the bugs had already claimed.
[deleted]
The planet could be 10 times as large as earth or even larger
Still doesn't change the fact it would cost far too much to nuke these planets and still doesn't change the fact radiation might not effect them like it effects us.
With our limited knowledge of our galaxy we have possibly found land based planets 2-3 times the size of earth and earth's 71% water. So a planet 3 times bigger than earth without ocean's would in fact have about 12 times the land mass of earth.
That's not true at all. Just because a planet is larger does not mean it has a stronger gravitational pull. There are more factors that go into gravitational pull than just size. In fact, a larger planet can potentially have a smaller pull than a smaller planet. For example, Uranus is approximately 64 times larger than Earth, yet a human would actually weigh less on Uranus than they do on Earth. A 200 pound human on Earth would weigh around 184 pounds on Uranus.
shareThat's not true at all. Just because a planet is larger does not mean it has a stronger gravitational pull. There are more factors that go into gravitational pull than just size. In fact, a larger planet can potentially have a smaller pull than a smaller planet. For example, Uranus is approximately 64 times larger than Earth, yet a human would actually weigh less on Uranus than they do on Earth. A 200 pound human on Earth would weigh around 184 pounds on Uranus.
What you're not taking into account here is how the radius of the planet affects the surface gravity of a planet. The formula for determining surface gravity is:
g = G * M / r^2
Where g = surface gravity, G = the gravitational constant, M = mass, and r = radius.
So, in simple terms, the further you are from the planet's center, the less its gravity pulls you.
Gliese 163c, which is considered to be a super-earth, is 8 times more massive than Earth, but it only has 1.39 times the gravity of Earth because it has a larger radius than Earth. A 150 pound person would weigh 208.5 pounds on Gliese 163c. While that's definitely some extra weight, it's not more than a person could handle and they wouldn't be crushed under their own weight.
It is sometimes more useful if you then fold in the equation for mass of a sphere with radius r and density d:
M = d * (4/3) * r^3
g = G * (d * (4/3) * r^3) / r^2
g = (4/3) * G * d * r
So if you really are talking about two planets with similar density, then doubling the radius simply doubles the gravitational pull at the surface.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/
Sure, if you assume that the two planets have the same density, then you'd be right. However, I wasn't assuming that they had the same density. A planet can appear rocky like Earth yet still be less dense. Mars for example is less dense than Earth, even though they both appear rocky on the surface.
shareHowever, I wasn't assuming that they had the same density.
Okay, I guess I misread your first post then. I thought you were trying to say that Klandethu would have to have about the same density of Earth. Yeah, either equation is valid. I just tend to use the one I originally posted when possible because I find that it's more simple (for me).
shareg = G * M / r^2
Where g = surface gravity, G = the gravitational constant, M = mass, and r = radius.
So, in simple terms, the further you are from the planet's center, the less its gravity pulls you.
I cannot say it is impossible, just not likely.You actually cannot even say it isn't very likely with any legitimacy. But that doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that's going to stop you.
You actually cannot even say it isn't very likely with any legitimacy. But that doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that's going to stop you.
Fascinating discussion... but the reason the Federation didn't nuke Klendathu is entirely based in narrative and theme.
The Fascist government does not take decisive action to win the war immediately because said government gains its authority and power from maintaining a state of constant war.
If you were paying close attention, the movie repeatedly implies that humans started the war and then painted the bugs as the aggressor through the use of the omnipresent propaganda.
Further, the long and arduous war is beneficial to the Federation social order because the core values of the society come from a Nietzschean worldview wherein man is at his best when he is fighting.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
Well, I am going to jump into this fantastically scientific analysis for a rather unscientific film (the book is another matter), and point out that in the source novel, the reason they did not nuke Klendathu was in part due to the hope that they could win the war without annihilating the entire bug species, it was more to put the bugs down and keep them there, in addition to the fact that the bugs had prisoners.
"Aw Crap!" - Hellboy
I always looked at it as them not being able to get the majority of the bugs due to them being deep underground.
Sure they would kill a bunch, but it seems impractical to attempt to nuke an entire planet
Bug society is largely based underground. It would be possible to saturation-bomb the surface but it wouldn't necessarily do the Bugs a great deal of harm.
There is no more human race. There is only.. the Master race!
Nuking planets suitable for habitation, are u insane, i' rather send a million soldiers to their deaths to claim a planet than nuke it an MAYBE.. kill the bugs, they are too resilient to radiation, one would have to assume like cockroaches, only direct contact with fire or blast radius can *beep* them. So no, u don't nuke planets, it would be of no use anyway bugs are underground.
The increase in human knowledge is the cause of the decline of religions.
Well from the book, the bugs live underground - and at that time the MI didn't know how far. They could smear the surface, but then what? That hasn't helped win the war. They wondered whether even a "burrowing H Bomb" would get deep enough to hit anything really important.
Additionally, they had MI prisoners on Klendathu. That ruled out just nuking everything in sight anyway.
Because the fascists provoked an always running war. War is part of the shown society and the prime enemy in this war is not the bugs, it´s the poor people which have to go to war to become a citizen. The rich people don`t have to die on battlefield. This fact is visible in many scenes and really obvious in the dialogue between Johnny and his parents discussing his ambitions to go to the army. Johnny is shown as the only one who really has a choice to go to work or to fight because of his rich parents.
Because the fascists provoked an always running war.
War is part of the shown society
The rich people don`t have to die on battlefield.
This fact is visible in many scenes and really obvious in the dialogue between Johnny and his parents discussing his ambitions to go to the army. Johnny is shown as the only one who really has a choice to go to work or to fight because of his rich parents.
There is no war at the start of the story(...)
War is part of the shown society (How?)
News reels make it clear the situation has been ongoing.The news reels indicate that settlers on outlying planets have been attacked by Arachnids, and the military presumably consider them a threat to some colonies, if not a threat to Earth itself. But the actual war doesn't begin until the asteroid hits Buenos Aires.
There is no war at the start of the story, and the extent of the war depicted in the movie does not seem to be long enough for anyone involved to show any visible signs of aging. Not much of an "always running war".What we see in the film is really just the early stages of the war, up to their first major victory. Even disregarding the sequels, it could have gone on for years afterwards.
Other than the propaganda videos (which we only see once the war begins), how is war part of the society? Because they have indoor football?And the history lesson, in which we hear about how "the Veterans" seized control of the government. And the fact that you can only attain full citizenship or participate in politics via military service. And that several of the older authority figures in Rico's life (two of his teachers, the recruitment officer) have disabilities or missing limbs (indicating that this is a society that goes to war a lot) while one of them uses class time to rant about violence being the only real authority. share
What we see in the film is really just the early stages of the war, up to their first major victory. Even disregarding the sequels, it could have gone on for years afterwards.
And the history lesson, in which we hear about how "the Veterans" seized control of the government.
And the fact that you can only attain full citizenship or participate in politics via military service.
And that several of the older authority figures in Rico's life (two of his teachers, the recruitment officer) have disabilities or missing limbs (indicating that this is a society that goes to war a lot) while one of them uses class time to rant about violence being the only real authority.
I still don't see how this can even be considered passing evidence of "always running war".Never said it was evidence of anything, much less an "always running war" (not my words). I was just responding to your assertion that "the war depicted in the movie does not seem to be long enough for anyone involved to show any visible signs of aging". The war is still in progress at the end of the film, and we have no way of knowing what it's duration will be.
two guys injured under unknown circumstances.One of whom states that "the Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today", while the other clearly has prior military experience, since he goes from being a teacher to a capable and effective frontline commander with very little fuss.
Yes... veterans not active militaryNitpicking, surely.
and while this suggests a military-related to the start of the government (and, I should note, that a lot of governments start with military action), it does not indicate the pervasiveness or even involvement of the military after that origin.No, but after the veterans seized control of the government and put an end to the "failure of democracy", it seems unlikely that they simply stepped aside and let liberal pacifists run things from there on in.
Which is somewhat misquoting both the movie AND the book.I've never read the book, so I'll have to take your word for it. It's a moot point, since we're discussing the movie (and I'm told there's very little resemblance between the two).
You have to volunteer for federal service, which can mean the military but does not have to.Are you sure? The movie presents a term of service in the military as its prime example of what "federal service" means, and doesn't show us any alternatives. Meanwhile, the conversation in the shower room turns up a writer, a hick looking for a way off the farm, a young woman with political aspirations, a guy who got into Harvard but can't afford his tuition, an aspiring mother trying to grease the wheels to get a baby-making license, and one guy (Ace) who has any interest in an actual military career. Seems unlikely that the majority of those kids would have gone anywhere near the Mobile Infantry if other (presumably safer and easier) forms of federal service were available. You'd think the college boy and the budding politician would have opted for administrative roles, at the very least.
But both the book and the movie give ample evidence that citizenship is not held as a particularly valuable thing to most peopleThe movie strongly suggests that citizenship, while not necessary for a comfortable life, opens up a lot of doors and is the only way to achieve any kind of real responsibility, including the ability to vote.
His teacher is largely regarded as nothing more than an annoying member of the facultyWell, we know Johnny's father doesn't like him. But then, Johnny's father is a wealthy civilian who's clearly opposed to the party line on federal service and citizenship. We're given no indications as to what the broader society, the school administration or even his colleagues think of Rasczak's views.
Considering that military training historically has high rates of injury and death, I would hardly consider two guys to be indicative of a state of eternal war, especially since the first death we see in the movie (after the flashback) is in fact in training.Once again, I'm not arguing that there's any state of "eternal war" - the other guy was. I'm arguing that military service (which would feature military training and its many dangers as a requirement) is a prevalent and valued thing in their society. share
The war is still in progress at the end of the film, and we have no way of knowing what it's duration will be.
One of whom states that "the Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today", while the other clearly has prior military experience, since he goes from being a teacher to a capable and effective frontline commander with very little fuss.
proudly relating the history of the veteran takeover
while extolling the virtues of "naked force" (using Hiroshima as an example),
The movie presents a term of service in the military as its prime example of what "federal service" means, and doesn't show us any alternatives. Meanwhile, the conversation in the shower room turns up a writer, a hick looking for a way off the farm, a young woman with political aspirations, a guy who got into Harvard but can't afford his tuition, an aspiring mother trying to grease the wheels to get a baby-making license, and one guy (Ace) who has any interest in an actual military career. Seems unlikely that the majority of those kids would have gone anywhere near the Mobile Infantry if other (presumably safer and easier) forms of federal service were available. You'd think the college boy and the budding politician would have opted for administrative roles, at the very least.
Besides, people who haven't achieved citizenship via federal service are referred to as "civilians". I think the terminology probably speaks for itself.
The movie strongly suggests that citizenship, while not necessary for a comfortable life, opens up a lot of doors and is the only way to achieve any kind of real responsibility, including the ability to vote.
In one of the deleted scenes (which I accept is probably irrelevant to the finished film) we learn that Carmen's father doesn't approve of Johnny because his parents aren't citizens ("They have money, so they don't need to be citizens"). This suggests that there's a strong class division between citizens and civilians, with the latter being less valued by both the government and society in general, and even being rich isn't enough to get around it.
But then, Johnny's father is a wealthy civilian who's clearly opposed to the party line on federal service and citizenship. We're given no indications as to what the broader society, the school administration or even his colleagues think of Rasczak's views.
I'm arguing that military service (which would feature military training and its many dangers as a requirement) is a prevalent and valued thing in their society.
Yes... so you chose to object to my statement saying the same to the prior poster's assertion?Nope. His assertion was that "the fascists provoked an always running war." You responded by saying that the war shown in the film didn't last very long. I said that we have no way of knowing how long it lasted.
Sure. Tell me which ones (if either) were injured in combat and which ones (if either) were injured in training, and how you know.Oh, come on. It's implied.
Also, the point of requiring federal service is that the sacrifice is tied to the ability to direct violence on behalf of the state - although you can request, you don't get to choose how you serve, and there has to be a risk of any individual who applies winding up in a combat role . In the movie, the MI is treated as a dumping ground, and with few (if any) requesting such a position, it is likely that many who fail to qualify in their preferred fields wind up, well, dumped there.You seem to have a far deeper understanding of the process than the film actually presents. That aside, it implies that although certain prerequisites are required for some branches of service ("The first thing the Academy looks at is your math scores") you do, in fact, have a choice of which one you choose. Carmen expresses a desire to go to the Fleet Academy, and is working towards that goal even in high school. The recruitment officer shakes Johnny's hand and says "Good for you, son!" when Johnny announces that he's joining the MI. And the writer (whose name escapes me) kicks off the conversation in the shower with "Well, we all have one thing in common - we were all stupid enough to sign up for Mobile Infantry!"
This all feels contradictory to me - being a citizen offers all kinds of opportunities (including political power), but citizens are looked down upon by non-citizens AND citizens??Uh... no. Civilians are less valued in their society, no matter how much money they have, and are apparently looked down upon by at least some citizens.
Fair enough, but considering that neither Johnny nor anyone else in the class appears to particularly look up to him, I still don't see support for calling him an "authority figure" in any meaningful sense.Johnny clearly looks up to him. And even if the others don't, they're a bunch of innocent kids who can't fully comprehend what he's talking about ("I doubt anyone here would recognize civic virtue if it reached up and bit you in the ass!").
And yet you have given numerous examples of how it is NOT valuedI have? Where?
in the civilian scenes we only ever see or hear about 3 veterans - Rasczak, and Carmen's parents! We see only a snapshot of that society, and it does not support military service being valued, nor does it support it being prevalent. We see 4 classmates enlist... of how many?Several of the kids at the end of school dance are wearing military uniforms. That aside, the characters are our window into this society, and represent the various (often opposing) aspects of it. Are you suggesting that the film's main characters - many of whom express strong political and social views throughout the story - are some kind of minor fringe group, and that there's a far more liberal society beyond the screen that we're just never shown? That Verhoeven went to all the trouble of creating a futuristic civilization for the purposes of telling his story, but then chose to focus on a minority of characters who don't represent that society's views? share
The film is a satirical version of the book and includes the Orwellian theme of governments preferring war to actual victory.
share@cosmicfish
Great. So we see the early stages of A war, that might have gone on for years afterwards. I still don't see how this can even be considered passing evidence of "always running war". It is evidence of a single war, with no evidence of any prior wars beyond two guys injured under unknown circumstances.
Just a simple question, how do you know they're fascists? Communists act the same way, if not more so. Communists yearly have their military parades where they bring out their greatest weapons (real or not). In fact, if you know anything at all about communist societies you'll see that they are a closer fit to this movie than fascism. USSR had women and other minorities in the military as equals far before fascist or democracies.
shareJust a simple question, how do you know they're fascists?
A) The characters are all dressed as Nazis.
B) The cinematography repeatedly and overtly recalls Leni Riefenstahl's twin Nazi Propaganda masterworks Olympia and Triumph of the Will.
C) The in-school glorification of violent use of force.
D) The science professor who sounds like Dr. Strangelove.
E) The director lived through WWII and saw the horrors of the Third Reich first hand and has said openly and repeatedly that this was the primary motivation for making the film.
While Communist governments may perform many similar actions, the specific iconography, cultural values, intertextual allusions, costumes, music cues, governmental emblems, and the writer and the director's interviews all reference Fascism as the satirical target. Specifically, Nazi Germany; subtextually, post-WWII America and the Military-Industrial Complex*.
*No, Verhoeven is not saying USA = Nazis. He is, however, calling out a warning of a possible future based upon the path he saw in front of 1997 I will leave it to you to decide if his satire proved off-base.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
Just a simple question, how do you know they're fascists? Communists act the same way
Gee, it's almost like you were actually paying attention throughout the whole of the film! How does no one get the extremely broad satire going on here?
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
"Because the enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand!" -Sgt. Zim
You guys are all overthinkin it.
=========
wait for iiiiit...
I was just wondering why they wouldn't have just nuked Klandethu
You read far too much into it. Who said the planets are barren and useless, people had set up colonies on these planets and as they have air they must have trees and water.
They're not attacking the bugs for a laugh they're doing it for the planet so mankind can spread across the galaxy.
We are trying to set up bases on Mars and that planet has no air, no liquid water and no life. It's not far fetched to believe in the future we would jump at the chance to set up bases and planets with air we can breathe
Who said the planets are barren and useless, people had set up colonies on these planets and as they have air they must have trees and water.
Well it does oxygen doesn't come out of the bugs @rse. Trees make oxygen trees need water and am assuming the bugs would need water and food like all other life.
The planet would be extremely valuable it could be used as a refueling station for further space exploration. I don't see any reason to believe that the humans are attacking the bugs for no reason at all.
Well it does oxygen doesn't come out of the bugs @rse. Trees make oxygen trees need water and am assuming the bugs would need water and food like all other life.
The planet would be extremely valuable it could be used as a refueling station for further space exploration. I don't see any reason to believe that the humans are attacking the bugs for no reason at all.
It does tell us, we humans have been colonising the galaxy and so have the bugs. It even said we set up a colony on one planet not knowing the bugs had already claimed it and all the people were killed.
share