A-Bomb Or Giant Robot, What's The Difference?

Last night AMC ran The Day The Earth Stood Still. The original, not the Keanu one. I've been thinking about Klaatu's final speech to the assembled Earth folk, where he lays out the choices: Stick to Earth and do what you please, venture in to space while continuing your warlike ways and be obliterated, or clean up your act, and join or interplanetary community.

He talks about how the civilizations on other worlds understand the need for law and order, like Earthlings, but out in space, they entrusted the robots with the task of law enforcement. What I find interesting is he says they've given the robots 'absolute power over us'*. Also that the penalty for provoking them is 'too terrible to risk'. The way he frames it, this leaves the people free from war and aggression, to pursue more 'profitable enterprises'**. Which I can see. They can't make war, or fight, because they'll be killed, or their planet destroyed, so they have to find something else to occupy their time.

It sounds like a civilization built on fear. Don't be aggressive, because if you are Robot Guy will disintegrate you. I don't know how much aggression is required to bring the Death Beam down upon you, or how much leeway the robots have in their interpretation of aggression. Gort killed those two soldiers who were moving slowly towards him, though they hadn't fired upon him yet (and weren't capable of damaging him with their popguns), which suggests the robots aren't big on shades of gray. It doesn't sound all that different from what we have on Earth. There are people who don't commit crimes because they believe it's wrong, or it wouldn't occur to them. There are also people who don't commit crimes because they're afraid of being caught and thrown in prison, or executed. We don't use robots with laser eyes, and I don't know that there's a set of laws all countries across Earth obey equally (whereas I get the impression every planet in the alliance Klaatu's part of follows the same rules), but the concept doesn't seem that different.

At the time the movie was released, the U.S. and the Soviets had atomic weapons, so everybody was a little edgy about whether they'd blow each other (and everyone else on the planet) to smithereens. So the idea of come on people, now, smile on your brother, everybody get together and we'll be able to join a totally awesome Space Civilization sounds pretty appealing. Better than death by atomic fire, and it'd be a sign of growth as a species if people could put aside ideological differences and work together. I have a hard time picturing that, all sides trying to find some equitable middle ground that everyone can be satisfied with.

It still feels like trading one Sword of Damocles for another, though. In theory the robots would be better, because you can be killed by an A-Bomb even if you had nothing to do with what brought things to the point somebody uses one. With Gort and his ilk, if you're being disintegrated, you were probably actively taking part in the "aggression" that was deemed objectionable. On the other hand, Gort doesn't seem like someone you could reason with, or make an appeal to. Gort sees you do something, he acts, you're more than likely screwed. With other people, there's at least a chance you could reason with them, convince them not to stay on their present course. It might fail, they might be hellbent on carrying out their plans, but there's a chance.

* Which isn't true is, it? Klaatu is able to give Gort commands, override his impulses to eradicate everything. Maybe it works because Klaatu isn't the one doing things that Gort would respond to.

** The way he says that makes me wonder what he means. It sounds ominous. "The assembled Great Powers agree to set aside their differences to exploit all the lesser people of the universe" and all that. I may just be an distrustful person.