Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Skyblade: Did you ever wonder why the CSA didn't get European support, especially from Britain? It was the blockade that did the job.
A blockade is hardly the only method. Where invading using ground troops is pointless. Air support can easily cause any military to fall. The problem is not capturing a planet but maintaining it. Once military outposts are destroyed and you land you have to deal with guerillas. If you blockade a planet until the goverment bends to your whims, you will still have guerillas. In reality neither invasion or blockade would be effective in the long run. In the short run invasion would probably be best and would be more difficult to perceive as an atrocity.
------------------ "Paranoia is Life"
Originally posted by OctoberFost: **Now, as for naval bomardment vs blockade, I would disagree with GWG that the latter would be easier in outer space and the former harder. In space, the blockade runners have a much greater area to operate in. The size of the spaceships, presumably, does not grow at the same rate that the area grows, and the blockade runners have a three dimensional space to operate with. **
True. Otherwise you need ships the size of planetoids. But ship size is irrelevant. What matters is range and range could be assumed to increase in proportion to area. I earlier calculated EV turret ranges as somewhere in excess of half a million km. Furthermore Guided weapons can reasonably be expected to hit pretty much any freighter aproaching a planet from most of the inner system. This is where a comparison of speeds puts some weapons exceeding the speed of light without hyperspace and my argument comes slightly unstuck.
There seem to be two schools of though. One is the more low-tech (and, though I form most of the other camp, the more believable one) which supposes weapons that can devastate a planet suface from orbit (nukes?) and no reasonable way for the planet to stop them (this begs another question but more on that later). The other assumes EV level tech and a close a translation to real-world physics as I can manage (still puzzeled over the light barrier thing. I'll find a loophole later!)
Both seem (at least to me) basically sound. A planet will cave in under threat of unstoppable bombardment. Or, shield tech prevents a bombardment except by massively superior force and given the comparatively tiny size of EV ships such a fleet could not be feasiblly amassed, therefore blockade is the only remaining option.
Originally posted by OctoberFost: **Now, while the naval bombardment is certainly difficult to defend, it has advantages over such bombardment on Earth. **
I disagree since the main advantages of the defender are still unaffected. The vessel is still siloueted against a neat backdrop (sea/sky) making spotting easier for the defender. A hit on a defence battery is one battery gone but a hit on a ship is the destruction of four or five batteries. Planets don't have to refuel or return to base to pick up more ammo (they are the armoury!). The vessells have a much longer supply chain. All of these should still apply regardless of whether you accept the possibility of a planets energy resourses being diverted into shield generators (which would make the argument academic anyway).
Anyway, thats my tupence for the moment. A very interesting debate in my opinion.
------------------ Non est ad astra mollis e terris via.
Originally posted by Great White Godfather: I disagree since the main advantages of the defender are still unaffected. The vessel is still siloueted against a neat backdrop (sea/sky) making spotting easier for the defender. A hit on a defence battery is one battery gone but a hit on a ship is the destruction of four or five batteries. Planets don't have to refuel or return to base to pick up more ammo (they are the armoury!).
Planets may not have to refuel, but they also can't move. Depending on what type of weapons are being used (missiles that can be dodged or destroyed before impact, or laser-type weapons), this can make all the difference. A ship can dodge incoming fire, while a building can't just get up and move to the right 3 miles.
Originally posted by Great White Godfather: A very interesting debate in my opinion.
Agreed.
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")EVula,(/url) your friendly (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")self-promoting(/url) EV & EVO Boards/Addon/Newswire/Chronicles moderator (url="http://"http://www.evula.com/")evula.com(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.net/")evula.net(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.evula.org/")evula.org(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.ev-nova.net/")ev-nova.net(/url) :: (url="http://"http://forums.evula.com/")Lair Forums(/url) (url="http://"http://pftn.evula.net")pftn(/url) | (url="http://"http://dreamwave.evula.net")dreamwave(/url) | (url="http://"http://davidarthur.evula.net")davidarthur(/url) | (url="http://"http://ucplugs.evula.net")ucplugs(/url) | (url="http://"http://jager.evula.net")jager(/url) | (url="http://"http://stark.evula.net")stark(/url)
Planetary bombardment is very difficult to achieve by missile weapons if the planet has beam or other light speed batteries. (As you can shoot down incoming missiles) Incoming beam weapons will dissipate on any planet with high humidity due to cloud formations and if ships come to close enough to fire on planetary batteries the ships are already destroyed before they can fire because planetary batteries have infinite mounting space and large power cells.
Conclusion; It ain't easy to take over a planet, even without a fleet.
Historically, Air Bombardment has not been sucessful alone, but in combination with ground troops it has worked. Even when it has failed, it has rarely failed because of Anti-Aircraft Weapon.
The most relevant example is the Gulf War. Iraq had sophisticated Anti-Aircraft Weaponry. The Coalition had Aircraft. I seem to remember a quick Coalition victory with minimal losses. Throughout the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union had Anti-Aircraft Artillery, in much greater ammount than Iraq could ever dream of. Each side also had aircraft ready to attack the other. Neither side had a strategy resting solely upon Anti-Aircaft technology.
While technology will increase in complexity and effectiveness in the EV world, I see no reason why it should not do so equally for both AAA (now cannons/turrets) and attack aircraft (now fighters of some kind, presumabley). I see no reason why AAA should somehow magically become omnipotent when it has not been the most effective thing in the world.
------------------ OctoberFost: Chosen of Ra, Beloved of Amun, disliked by Anubis (but he's just jealous). **(url="http://"http://www.siteofbruce.com")SiteOfBruce.com(/url) | | (url="http://"http://www.cafepress.com/homefish")The Store of Bruce(/url) | | (url="http://"http://www.sourcecod.com/~homefish") Return of the Webboard Theory Site (/url) **
Hi. I'm new, but this topic interested me.
If you think about it, at least with humans, we don't reproduce very fast. Most of the colony planets in EV would be heavily populated if their population exceeded a couple of million, especially seeing as how they've only had a couple of centuries to multiply. Populating the Americas was easy - a single ocean liner could get 2,000 immigrantsinto Ellis island every trip, and therewer dozens of them. However, the same economy cannot be expected ofearly interstellar colony ships.
Furthermore, if the populations are centalized (urban, industrial) they are localized and easy to control, while if they are decentralized (rural, agricultural) it is nearly impossible for them to coordinate with any hope of sucessful resistance. The net result - small populations are easy to control. Shoot, most of the colonies in StarTrek only refer to colonists numbering in the hundreds or thousands. It's only a species' homeworld where the population is going to be to large to easily subdue.
So say that you, in your war of conquest, slog through dozens of colony worlds, one by one, conquering them, while your enemies are frantically doing everything in their power to stop you. Strip mining entire planets and setting up clone-shops in an effort to beat you back. If they aren't sucessful (a big if, since logistics are bad enough on a planet - imagine keeping millions of troops supplied over several hundred light-years away, definitely provides a home-court advantage) then your fleet eventually will arrive at and establish space superiority over a homeworld containg no natural resources, and a huge hostilenative population.
My solution? Turn it into a cinder.
Tke Earth as an example - we've already extracted most of the high grade iron ore from our planets outer crust, and are working on thelow grade stuff, same goes for copperore and bauxite (tin). Furthermore, before even the most optimistic think it would be possible for us to get to another planet, we're scheduled to run out of hydrocarbons gasoline) which, besides being used to make cars go, also are used to manufacture plastics of various kinds. And, we haven't even left our solar system. Certainlynot atempting target for other species... can we count on theirs being any more valuable?
------------------
I'd just buy giant speakers and point them at the earth, then play the worst songs ever written.
------------------ Live free or die
Originally posted by dvpierce: **we're scheduled to run out of hydrocarbons gasoline) which, besides being used to make cars go, also are used to manufacture plastics of various kinds. **
The thing with the hydrocarbons gasoline is that we are running out already, and because of the prices, we are beginning to discover and refine new sources of energy. And you have gotten way off topic, there. The thing with making a blockade will work much more efficiently because you would not require hundreds of thousands of trained military personnel. You would just need about a hundred ships. Don't worry about the planet's economy, with a population of that size, it needs supplies from other planets to keep the population fed and sheltered.
------------------ Unified Space Intelligence (http)http://www.usi-rpg.com(/http) Tell them Derek Pitt sent you.
Originally posted by Spaceiscold: **The thing with making a blockade will work much more efficiently because you would not require hundreds of thousands of trained military personnel. You would just need about a hundred ships. Don't worry about the planet's economy, with a population of that size, it needs supplies from other planets to keep the population fed and sheltered. **
Great Britain needed supplies durring WW1 and WW2; the German blockade in both wars starved many, but ultimately got nowhere. The Confederacy needed supplies from Europe durring the Civil War; they were blockaded for years but did not surrender until some crushing land defeats, and even then they fought out. Japan needed supplies from the US and others, they were cut off for 6 years and didn't surrender (and, indeed, stil held sigificant land power) until they were nuked. France needed supplies from many places durring the Napoleonic wars, British blockade didn't get anywhere; in the same way, Napoleon's continental system went nowhere, and France's later blockade of Prussia got nowhere.
Blockades are not means of victory by themselves; they are merely supplements to land power; they weaken the enemy for your ground forces by depriving them of luxuries, forcing the enemy to live on the necessities. Without Ground Forces doing active conquest on land, Blockades will fall to thrift and runners; not to mention the disadvantages a space blockade force would have that I mentioned earlier.
------------------ OctoberFost: Chosen of Ra, Beloved of Amun, disliked by Anubis (but he's just jealous). (url="http://"http://www.siteofbruce.com")SiteOfBruce.com(/url) | | (url="http://"http://www.cafepress.com/homefish")The Store of Bruce(/url) | | (url="http://"http://www.sourcecod.com/~homefish") Webboard Theory (/url) | | (url="http://"http://homefish.sourcecod.com/blog/")The Blog of Bruce(/url)
Originally posted by Soviet mikee: ** I'd just buy giant speakers and point them at the earth, then play the worst songs ever written. **
Maybe, maybe. It worked in Panama.
Just wanted to thank you all for your contributions to the discussion. Please continue; it's been thoughtful and interesting.
------------------ (url="http://"http://fumbling.com/phloem/writing/full-internet.html")go away - the internet is full(/url) (url="http://"http://www.brunching.com/evilovermom.html")the adventures of evil overmom(/url)
Ever heard of orbital bombardment?
------------------ Unified Space Intelligence (url="http://"http://www.usi-rpg.com")www.usi-rpg.com(/url) Tell them Derek Pitt sent you.
Alright. HEre's mine: Send spies before the initial attack to learn all they can about the planets defense, ecetera. Have them stay on the planet in specific cities and lay low. Then, bring the huge attacks. But before striking, have the undercover dudes spike the water supply with a virus, IE. Ebola, E.Coli (Or something stronger) Then, attack, and while the fleet beats the crap out of their's, the planets water will be bad. This will create a reason to come in contact with other planets, in which case you create the blockade. This creates sickness on the planet, and then you strike softly, and take the weakened areas. This inflicts more fear, and eventually they give up as you take more important areas.
------------------ (Insert Clever Saying Here)
The only solution to this conundrum is to think outside the box. Civilians always complain about their goverments, right? So give them a better goverment. Cause civilian unrest through misinformation campaigns and spread positive information about your own faction. Then when civilians uprise and begin rioting come in as their saviour and they will worship you until you betray their trust.
Originally posted by Paranoid: **The only solution to this conundrum is to think outside the box. Civilians always complain about their goverments, right? So give them a better goverment. Cause civilian unrest through misinformation campaigns and spread positive information about your own faction. Then when civilians uprise and begin rioting come in as their saviour and they will worship you until you betray their trust. **
That doesn't work if the civilians have been indoctrinated, particularly if they have been indoctrinated against you.
Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan for example. We spread food and flyers all over Afghanistan. Has the country had any spontaneous "I love the USA" demonstrations? If any, they are negated by the significant ammount of paramilitary types shooting at US forces.
Propaganda has its place, particularly in demoralization, but it is nothing without raw force.
Originally posted by Spaceiscold: **Ever heard of orbital bombardment?
**
Have you been reading any of my posts?
Afghanistan is not a good example, we caused massive unrest multiple times in their history and action or lack therof has caused many deaths. Now we simply waltz in kill of the goverment and leave. I also said forgery of atrocities was a method. (i.e. kill anyone who may be loyal to the previous goverment but can be framed, then summarily execute them using assasains in the regional goverment, bribery will be used for them). The US tended to avoid this effective method due to moral scruples.
Originally posted by Paranoid: Afghanistan is not a good example, we caused massive unrest multiple times in their history and action or lack therof has caused many deaths. Now we simply waltz in kill of the goverment and leave.
Originally posted by OctoberFost: **Never us, but the Soviet Union and other such nations have attempted to use it. Sometimes it has suceeded, yes, but because those nations allowed virtually no freedom of press; I don't see it as being too workable in a world where there must be great ammounts of instant mass media, especially with the very literate masses that must inhabit a space-aged world.
I think that quite the oppisite would be true because the knowledge would be impossible to contain due to an active media. Controlled media always reports good things and would ignore this, free media tends to have rebellious instincts and sometimes reports things not sanctioned by the goverment.