I will when I figure out how to solve this problem: I'm trying to accomplish two major objectives.

The more important objective is to explain to people how we can use concepts from mathematical fields, especially algorithmic information theory and reflective decision theory, to elucidate the fundamental nature of justification, especially any fundamental similarities or relations between epistemic and moral justification. (The motivation for this approach comes from formal epistemology; I'm not sure if I'll have to spend a whole post on the motivations or not.)

The less important objective is to show that theology, or more precisely theological intuitions, are a similar approach to the same problem, and it makes sense and isn't just syncretism to interpret theology in light of (say) algorithmic information theory and vice versa. But to motivate this would require many posts on hermeneutics; without sufficient justification, readers could reasonably conclude that bringing in "God" (an unfortunately political concept) is at best syncretism and at worst an attempt to force through various connotations. I'm more confident when it comes to explaining the math---even if I can be accused of overreaching with the concepts, at least it's admitted that the concepts themselves have a very solid foundation. When it comes to hermeneutics, though, I inevitably have to make various qualitative arguments and judgment calls about how to make judgment calls, and I'm afraid of messing it up; also I'm just more likely to be wrong.

So I have to think about whether to try to tackle both problems at once, which I would like to do but would be quite difficult, or to just jump into the mathematics without worrying so much about tying it back to the philosophical tradition. I'd really prefer the former but I haven't yet figured out how to make the presentation (e.g., the order of ideas to be introduced) work.

I know that nano von Neuman probs is strongest argument against the theory and I knew it even before I published it here. Moreover, i have shorter article about possible alien nanobots in Solar system which I will eventually publish here - if it is not to much offtopic.

But from epistemic point of view we cant close one unknown case with another big unknown with 100 percent certanity.

Any way it will not change conclusion: SETI serch is or usless or dangerous, and should be stopped.

A signal travelling slightly ahead of the cavalry would be like a trumpet call announcing "here come the nanobots!", giving the adversary time to prepare.

Yes, but we better prepare for nanobots anyway. If they don''t come it's just a bonus. It is wise to be prepared for an intergalactic war in any case. For the robots, for the small kinetic projectiles with a near light speed, for some artificial gamma ray bursts, for SETI attacks and for many more.

Then we should strike in all directions in the best tradition of a very benevolent colonist. To end all the space wars even before they relay start. As much as we can.

The aliens, who are extremely rare (as I think), had, have or will have the same dilemma, what may be another opportunity. Game theoretically speaking, we must do some calculations right now, it is already late and the OP's article is a good one.

I actually don't mind this length of comments (less is okay, but sometimes too vague, and starting at double that length it definitely feels like too much).

Overall, I see your point, but I think it depends on what kind of strategy the spreading superintelligence is using and on what wars would look like in general. For example, the universe probably mostly doesn't resist, so it might be sending small "conversion" probes everywhere to expand as fast as possible. In that case, any actual opponent might be able to easily repel them and start getting ready to present a serious defence by the time any dedicated offensive force is sent, so the additional forewarning of having a signal travel slightly further ahead wouldn't really change anything, and might prevent an opponent from emerging in the first place.

(On the other hand, maybe the conversion probes it sends are smart enough to detect any signal originating from their destination and stop flying/change course if it looks like it might resist. But maybe any superintelligence is on the lookout for extremely fast-travelling objects that behave like this and would notice anyway.)