A relatively low-tier K2 civilisation could almost certainly do it, but why the fluctuation in the IR signature rather than a more steady "shadow" indicative of a more consistent harvesting/drain?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean the dark forest strike that destroyed (Three body problem trilogy heavy spoilers) >!Trisolaris only took out one of the three stars, destroying all 3 is inefficient which goes against all the rules of a dark forest strike.!<

[–] WaxedWookie 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More spoilers (though I'm pushing at the bounds of my memory here, so possible inaccuracy)...

!The attack on the three Trisolaran stars worked because it was a trinary system, and that was sufficient to destroy the civilisation. In the case of 3 standalone star systems (what I assume is the case here), the destruction of one star is unlikely to eliminate the residual threat of the remaining systems, and gives them motivation to develop deterrent, defensive, or offensive capabilities. The first priority of the attack is to destroy the civilisation (presumably because they're a would-be threat). Efficiency is a secondary concern. A single-system attack on a multi-system civilisation gives no assurance.!<

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

From what I recall (I may also be wrong) they used a (heavy spoilers for three body problem trilogy) >!photoid to destroy only one of the three stars that Trisolaris was orbiting because there was no where the Trisolarans could hide considering that was the only planet in their system. A dark forest strike using a dual vector foil was used against the solar system due to the presence of "blind spots" which I took as a reference to our nine planet system as opposed to the one planet system of Trisolaris. We had giant, distant gas giants we could hide behind to shield ourselves from a photoid strike whereas Trisolaris was a solitary planet with no where to hide.!<

But yeah if >!the three stars were far enough away to have their own separate planetary systems then you would absolutely need three separate dark forest strikes to ensure you got rid of all potential civilizations. But what I got from the Three Body Problem trilogy is that a dark forest strike is meant to be as efficient and low cost as possible, if one photoid could destroy all life in the system then that's what they would do, but if there was a concern that they could potentially survive a simple photoid strike then they would use something more advanced like a dual vector foil to ensure there were no survivors that could try and take revenge. If the systems were far enough apart then they would absolutely strike all the systems separately as opposed to half assing it, but the Singer chapter made it pretty clear to me that efficiency and low effort was key to a dark forest strike.!<

That's just my opinion and what I got out of the books though :)

Edit to add - I think we both agree with each other, I'm just happy to run into another fan of TBP trilogy, some of the greatest books out there besides The Expanse ;)

[–] WaxedWookie 1 points 1 year ago

Likewise!

Yeah - I think we more or less agree... I've loved watching The Expanse, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet - though I'm keen... This might just be the nudge I need - thank you!

[–] Mango 3 points 1 year ago

Bro don't scare me like that!