IF they do invade? Well, depends on many factors but it would be pretty easy.
IF they do invade? Well, depends on many factors but it would be pretty easy.
How so? If the civilization in question was small or extremely sustainable then it might make some sense that expansion would be counterproductive to it (especially as it wouldn't be considering interstellar travel aside from curiosity's sake) however if the civilization was extremely wasteful/had high resource requirements or high reproductive rates (which likely would have been a driving reason behind developing interstellar travel) and had the ability to expand to other worlds then surely expansion would largely be exponential based on fast they use up the resources of previous planets. Of course that's talking in extremes whilst also ignoring the simple fact that it doesn't matter if they need anything from Earth to actually invade it as for example they don't make decisions based on cost or benefit. I mean if they just don't like us is a valid enough reason for them to try plus they're advanced enough to do so in this scenario.
pfft..."they..."
Could be a single entity...a super macro-organism..
I would put about the same amount of concern for this as if the question was asking the same thing about "The Smurfs" I'll bite. It wouldn't be as difficult as some might suggest, but easier than others.
My answer is that it would depend, on their technological capabilities, what their ultimate goal was for invasion. The cause for the invasion could be they simply lack the capability of being able to do whatever they had plan for us or whatever is here (earth). However there are reason why they would invade even if they could do it another way, but my guess is if they had to step foot on earth in some conventional way, then they aren't all as advanced as some suggest.
The idea that because they had FTL capabilities they would probably not need to invade presumes as much as any other hypothosis with no real bases for comparison either just logic or reason or both.
Whatever the case might be one thing that I am personally convinced of is that 1) If they don't view us or consider us there wouldn't be any invasion. They could simply do whatever the hell they wanted and there really isn't anything we could do about it. 2) If they considered us we would know it, because their presence and actions would be clear and a sign of more clear hostility.
Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis
Half Life states it took about 7 hours.
So I'll go with that. Asshole Combine took most our water and ability to reproduce . . . (and the ability to finish trilogies in a human lifetime Gabe)
Putin khuliyo
Depends on the reason for their travel.
It might be for the same reasons we want to colonise mars.
Resources, space, own planet becoming inhospitable due to own activity or not.
It might not be about what we can offer, but about what they can take.
Though if they have the means of travel, we can't be the only planet to choose from I expect.
Advanced technology in one area does not ensure anything about other areas.
<eats some popcorn>
So, when we finally decide to get around to building an interstellar probe, does that mean we'll be instant world-destroyers, too? What if we perfect some technology similar to cryo-freezing and actually send manned missions to other stars? Will that miraculously give us world-dominating powers? As opposed to rickety ships loaded with the bare minimum life support needed to make the journey and back in order to minimize the amount of fuel we have to load up on it.
But sure, boogity boogity, interstellar alien travel = doomz!!!!
This question has so many variables... Like how did their technology advance? war or peace? How did they travel through space, FTL or sleep? Do they have gods? these all can effect who wins.
For the Alliance, and for Azeroth!
I don't think so. 99% of the wars ever fought weren't fought over a species....it was for land or control or power or resources....why should space be anything different.
Even in the Utopia that is Star Trek where for everyone gets along for the most part, there is still races who want to control. Take a religion like Islam where a major tenant is to spread the word (even if at the point of a spear). There was a reason Frank Herbert picked a religion like Islam for the Freeman. Their holy war spread out across the know universe. It's not infantile to think that it is possible that a race from another world wouldn't be all puppies and kittys just because they can cross the vast reaches of space.
The Earth is mostly made of water. What if water is some system of planets gold..... and there sits a big blue vault just waiting to be taken.
Given that 99% of all sci fi books and movies are about aggressive aliens how can someone say that even thinking there could be aggressive aliens is infantile.
Me thinks Chromie has a whole lot of splaining to do!
Would they invade in a covert way, using mind control and cloning? Or would they run in with guns blazing?
Just depends on the aliens.
I don't like ant-hill analogies because that presumes that the aliens are gigantic in size. Sure they might possess weapons of mass destruction beyond what we are not capable of assuming, but with that said, doing that might completely destroy the ecosystem.
It also depends on whether or not they have a full invasion force and the purpose of said conquering. Do they need the planet for its natural resources? Do they need humans for slave labor?
But they could also do it incredibly easily with friendly tech. Say bring medical cures, immortality, etc.., and maybe tech that stops us working but keeps us entertained and fed, the majority of the population would go willingly without need for bloodshed.
Though still, with all this assumption, it still presumes that the aliens have human-like emotion and feelings, whether that be good or evil.
That's hard to tell at the moment but definitely possible, although I still don't see what value can be placed on that as a motivation for hostility against mankind outside of perhaps some altruistic attempt to spare the overall biodiversity of Earth from collapse due to future human action?
It's also possible, and I believe more likely that life is abundant in the universe based on what we know about the development of life on earth and therefore shifts from being a primary motivation to one of scientific curiosity.
We still don't know that life on Earth is unique to the solar system but even if that does turn out to be the case it doesn't rule out that life may be common throughout the universe due to how quickly it started on Earth once the conditions were available for it to do so and the sheer number of stars and planets there are.
Bearing in mind that the formation of the Earth was 4.5 billion years ago, the oceans formed 4.4 billion years ago and that life is estimated to have emerged as early as 4.3 billion years ago when Earth was still a hellish nightmare it seems that once some very basic chemical requirements for life were met it may have been an inevitability, this would suggest that life should be relatively common throughout the universe.
Last edited by Thoughtcrime; 2017-06-25 at 12:54 AM.
I've elaborated on all of that further into the thread, Slaves are mostly worthless to humans already; that's the biggest reason we don't use them anymore. How useful would they be to a species hundreds of millions to billions of years more advanced than us? On the subject of minerals, to a species capable of interstellar travel there are much better targets for resource acquisition.
- - - Updated - - -
Luckily for us, Locusts can't really swarm for very long. I think if a civilisation was extremely wasteful and prone to exhausting it's ecosystem it wouldn't survive long enough to develop the technology required for interstellar travel. The challenges involved are colossal, possibly the among greatest any species could ever face. Sustainability on the other hand is achievable with what we understand already and with technology already available to us, it is a far easier problem to deal with; and due to the resulting long term stability may even be a prerequisite for making the transition to a true space-faring civilisation.
Last edited by Thoughtcrime; 2017-06-25 at 02:05 AM.
Why does everyone always assume that? So because we've put a man on the moon (and not recently, mind you), all the rest of our technology has advanced to that stage as well? Everything across the board is brought up to the same level all at once? They can travel the stars, they must be invincible!
Have you not watched Sci-Fi movies, like, at all? War of the Worlds, Mars attacks, Independence Day, just to name a few? Hell, Stargate SG-1? The Asguardians being so advanced they can't think in terms of earth technology anymore? A simple shotgun blast at short range would obliterate them. They might have some sort of energy fields, but how do you know it'll stop something kinetic? What if it's just made to diffuse energy blasts, because that's all they've had for the last thousand years or so on their planet?
You also forget the fact that, in times of crisis, humans will fight as hard as they can. Not all, mind you. But the entire South, Southwest, and Southeast of the US are gun-toting red-necks. You think they're just going to roll over and die? Fuck no. Probably every 10th person living in TX has an arsenal to arm a neighborhood.
Hell, it could come down to just basic tactics. The US had an extremely difficult time fighting the hit and run guerilla tactics in the Middle East, because that's not how we do war. Could be the same with the Aliens. They expect the rules of engagement to be a certain way, but we fight a completely different way that counters what they do.
Short of simply bombarding us from orbit, which really we have no defense against (I will certainly admit, if they are able to successfully nuke us from space through the atmosphere, they definitely have the tech to shoot down any missiles we try firing at them), I can't imagine an Alien species having an easy time taking us over. And even if they do, resistances will certainly spring up everywhere. Remember, we have spent the past several thousand years warring AMONG OUR OWN SPECIES. So we aren't out of practice. Changing the target from a 2 armed, 2 legged human to a 4 armed, 6 legged alien just means we have more of a reason to make sure we hit our target.
Say you could take an entity that had access to something like the combined arms of the current US military and transport it 100 years in the past. How much credible opposition would it face if given the goal of conquering the world? How about 200? 1000? 1,000,000? 4,000,000,000 years? There quickly comes a point where it ceases to be called a conflict at all.
In fact, if the US had really set it's mind to it; they could have completely eradicated all threats to them and established a decisive strategic advantage over all of humanity when they first developed nuclear weapons and were the sole nuclear power on the planet for 4 years until the soviets tested their first weapon. There were many military figures who argued this point and plans were made at the time to push for this very thing. That was only 70 years ago.
Last edited by Thoughtcrime; 2017-06-25 at 11:23 AM.