SCP-173 And Water: Why It's Not The Solution You Think

by Felix Dubois 55 views

Hey guys! Let's dive into a fascinating question that often pops up in discussions about SCP-173: Why don't we just submerge it in water and drain the water instead of relying on D-class personnel for cleaning? It sounds like a simple and effective solution, right? Well, as with many things in the SCP universe, the answer is a bit more complex than it appears. Let's explore the reasons why this seemingly straightforward approach might not be the best idea.

The Allure of the Water Solution: A Tempting Idea

When you first think about it, the idea of using water to contain and clean SCP-173 seems brilliant. SCP-173, affectionately known as "Peanut" by some, is a statue that moves at terrifying speeds when not directly observed. It snaps necks with alarming efficiency, making containment a constant challenge. The standard procedure involves keeping it in a concrete cell and having D-class personnel enter periodically for cleaning while maintaining eye contact. This method is risky, to say the least. Submerging SCP-173 in water and draining it offers several apparent advantages:

  • Eliminating the Need for D-Class: The most significant benefit is the potential to remove D-class personnel from harm's way. D-class individuals are, after all, expendable in the SCP Foundation's eyes, but any method that reduces casualties is worth considering. By automating the cleaning process with water, we could theoretically avoid putting lives at risk.
  • Constant Observation: Water could provide a medium for constant observation. Imagine a transparent tank filled with water, allowing researchers to monitor SCP-173 from all angles. This continuous surveillance could prevent any unexpected movements or breaches.
  • Incapacitation: The thought is that if SCP-173 is submerged, its movement might be significantly hampered. Water resistance could slow it down, making it less of an immediate threat. Plus, if the water is drained quickly, SCP-173 might be left in a vulnerable position.

These are compelling reasons to consider the water solution. It seems logical, humane, and potentially more secure than the current methods. However, the SCP Foundation doesn't always opt for the most obvious solution. There are deeper considerations at play, and that's where things get interesting.

Why the Water Solution Might Not Work: Unpacking the Complexities

So, why isn't SCP-173 just chilling in a giant aquarium? The reasons are multifaceted, touching on the nature of SCP-173 itself, the practical limitations of the containment procedure, and the overarching philosophy of the SCP Foundation. Let's break down the key arguments against the water solution:

1. The Unknown Nature of SCP-173

The biggest hurdle is the simple fact that we don't fully understand SCP-173. Its anomalous properties are still a mystery, and assumptions can be deadly in the SCP world. Here’s what we need to consider:

  • Unpredictable Behavior: SCP-173's behavior is primarily dictated by observation. When not observed, it moves. But what other triggers might exist? Could submersion in water alter its behavior in unexpected ways? What if water somehow enhances its abilities or allows it to bypass its observational limitations? These are critical unknowns.
  • Material Composition: We know SCP-173 is made of concrete and rebar with traces of Krylon-brand spray paint. But does the water affect these materials? Could prolonged submersion weaken the concrete or corrode the rebar, compromising its structure? More worryingly, could the water interact with the materials in a way that grants SCP-173 new abilities? The SCP Foundation is notoriously cautious about introducing new variables into containment procedures.
  • The Peanut's True Form: Is the concrete statue its true form, or is it merely a vessel for something else? Submerging it in water might not contain the entity if its anomalous properties extend beyond the physical form. It might be able to manipulate the water, teleport, or even exist in a non-corporeal state under certain conditions. Without a complete understanding, we risk creating a situation far worse than the one we currently have.

2. Practical Containment Challenges

Even if we ignore the existential questions about SCP-173's nature, there are practical hurdles to implementing the water solution. These challenges might seem mundane, but they are critical in the world of secure containment:

  • Water Quality and Maintenance: Water isn't a static substance. It needs to be maintained, filtered, and potentially treated with chemicals to prevent the growth of algae or bacteria. This introduces complexity to the containment procedure. How do you maintain water quality without risking SCP-173's movement during maintenance? What if the chemicals used in water treatment have an adverse effect on SCP-173 or its containment cell?
  • Draining Mechanism: The draining process itself poses risks. A complex drainage system could malfunction, leaving SCP-173 partially submerged or creating opportunities for escape. The system would need to be incredibly robust and reliable, and even then, there's the risk of mechanical failure at a critical moment.
  • Observation Issues: While water might seem like a transparent medium for observation, it's not perfect. Turbidity, reflections, and other visual distortions can make continuous monitoring difficult. If the water becomes murky, we're back to square one, relying on periodic observation which defeats the purpose of the solution.

3. The SCP Foundation's Mindset: Risk Aversion and the Status Quo

Beyond the unknowns and practical challenges, the SCP Foundation operates under a specific mindset. They are, above all else, risk-averse. If a containment procedure works, even if it's not ideal, they are hesitant to change it unless absolutely necessary. Here's why:

  • Documented Procedures: The Foundation relies on meticulous documentation and established protocols. Every procedure is carefully documented, tested, and refined over time. Introducing a new containment method, like the water solution, requires extensive testing and carries the risk of unforeseen consequences. The Foundation prefers to stick with what they know, even if it's imperfect.
  • Acceptable Losses: This is a harsh reality, but the Foundation operates with the understanding that some losses are acceptable. D-class personnel are, unfortunately, considered expendable. While the Foundation isn't callous, they prioritize containment above all else. A known risk with D-class is often deemed preferable to an unknown risk with a new procedure.
  • The Cost of Failure: The cost of containment failure is astronomical. An SCP breach can lead to widespread destruction, loss of life, and even the collapse of reality. The Foundation is unwilling to gamble with containment unless the potential benefits clearly outweigh the risks. In the case of SCP-173, the perceived risks of the water solution likely outweigh the potential gains.

Exploring the Alternatives: What Else Could We Try?

While the water solution might not be the answer, it's essential to keep exploring alternative containment methods. Complacency is the enemy of security in the SCP universe. So, what other options might we consider?

  • Automated Cleaning Systems: Instead of relying on D-class, could we develop a fully automated cleaning system? Robotic scrubbers, pressure washers, or even self-cleaning surfaces might reduce the need for human intervention. This would require significant investment in technology, but it could be a long-term solution.
  • Alternative Observation Methods: Are there other ways to maintain constant observation? Infrared cameras, motion sensors, or even some form of psychic surveillance might offer alternatives to direct visual contact. These technologies could potentially bypass SCP-173's movement trigger.
  • Material Science: Could we modify the materials used in SCP-173's cell to make it easier to clean or more resistant to the statue's actions? Self-healing concrete or non-stick surfaces might reduce the need for frequent cleaning.

These are just a few ideas, and the possibilities are endless. The key is to approach the problem with creativity, scientific rigor, and a healthy dose of caution.

Final Thoughts: The Enigma of SCP-173

So, why don't we just put SCP-173 in water and drain it? The answer, as we've seen, is complex. It's a combination of the unknown nature of SCP-173, the practical challenges of containment, and the risk-averse mindset of the SCP Foundation. While the water solution seems logical on the surface, the potential risks and unknowns outweigh the apparent benefits.

SCP-173 remains one of the most iconic and enigmatic SCPs. Its simple design and terrifying ability have captured the imaginations of countless readers. As we continue to explore the SCP universe, it's crucial to remember that even the simplest solutions can have unforeseen consequences. The key to successful containment lies in understanding the anomalies we face, being prepared for the unexpected, and never underestimating the dangers that lurk in the shadows. Keep those eyes peeled, guys, and stay safe!