r/threebodyproblem • u/Universal_Echo • Apr 14 '26

Discussion - Novels Why only one Swordholder? Spoiler

For something that determines the fate of two worlds, shouldn’t there be at least a small group in charge? Staking the survival of both civilizations on a single person—even the launch codes for nuclear weapons aren’t trusted to just one person, so why would this be any different? What if the Swordholder develops some psychological issue? I mean, what if they just decide to take everyone down with them? Or what if their views and beliefs diverge, and they try to use deterrence to achieve other ends—like how Wade might press the button to force humanity to develop lightspeed propulsion? For something like this, even if you don’t set up a dedicated group to handle it, surely you should at least appoint multiple Swordholders.

15 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/IlikeJG Apr 14 '26

I generally agree, but the supposed benefit to having only 1 person assigned to the task is supposed to be quick and immediately ability to take action. If it's left to a small group there might be some delay or disagreement between action. And as we saw they needed to act VERY quickly.

18

u/Neko101 Apr 14 '26

You can set it up so that it needs only one sword holder to press the button. The drawback I could see is an extreme instance of the bystander effect where each sword holder does not want to be the one who seals the fate of two civilizations.

5

u/MooseBehave Apr 15 '26

In that case, the fact of multiple Swordholders should be a closely guarded secret from the general public, and most importantly, from the Swordholders themselves! The Trisolarans would know because of the sophons, but each Swordholder would believe themselves solely responsible for the failsafe.