Re: Planetary invasion ramblings (longish)

Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> Austin would be harder (relatively) to conquer without collateral
damage,
> but would be more likely to surrender outright under threat of orbital
> bombardment.	In Alaska, it would be easier to seize major resources
with
> small forces, but harder to round up the whole population and keep an
eye
> on them.  I suspect that most colony worlds would fit the Alaskan
model.

That would depend on the nature of the colony. Mining colonies might 
well be focused around small pockets of a resource.  Colonies on hard 
to inhabit worlds might exist underground or in domes which contain 
friendly atmosphere or (a la deathworld) try to keep out the native 
flaura and fauna. But given a Star Trekish M class planet with 
breathable air, liquid water, and a topography that looks like we'd 
expect, established for reasons of growing a colony or agricultural 
products, then yes, the Alaskan model would probably prevail.

> Depending on the situation, a similarly large force might or might not
be
> able to stop a determined enemy from seizing control of a planet.

The Canadian Army is I think about 60,000 men (of which I'm not sure 
how many would be line troops). I don't think (no offence intended) 
they could protect the Metro Toronto penninsula from an invasion. 
It's just too big. Places like Canada are just too decentralized, and 
large pop centers are just too big to make defence feasible. Here 
again raw size isn't the issue, it's army size, topography, and the 
things that must be defended all rolled into one neat package. 
 
> Large concentrations of troops just beg for orbital bombardment and
unless
> they are using their own population centers as human shields, there is
no
> reason the bombardment has to be indiscriminant.  Kinetic strikes or
low
> yield nukes will make short work of large troop concentrations,
military
> bases, and centers of resistance.

Hmm. I think even in our latest Hi-Tech war (the gulf) their were 
plenty of 'accidental losses' and a lot of 'collateral damage'. I 
don't really think you could do really surgical strikes if any degree 
of urbanization existed without expecting significant collateral 
loses. Even the intercepted SCUDS in the gulf were killing people 
with their explosive rocket fuel.... as were falling patriots. 

> Smaller, highly mobile/heavily stealthed forces with cached supplies
and
> equipment can put up a tough resistance and work to deny the enemy the
> infrastructure and resources of a planet, but these require a high
degree
> of initial preparation and training which may not be reasonable on a
> developing world.  (Political or social climate may change this; a
couple
> of pirate raids or a long-running cold war would encourage the
development
> of such contigency plans.)

And it may be that the invaders merely want to remove the colony as a 
waypoint (take the starport), capture rare resources (vital minerals 
for stardrives stockpiled at the mine site), or some other such thing 
which doesn't require beating the planet or giving the locals free 
shots at your troops on their turf.  

> Controlling the "high ground" of local space gives any attacker
tremendous
> advantages of superior surveillance, relative invulnerability of
supply
> lines and reserves,

Only from ship to ground... if the invasion force is a long travel 
time from 'home', it may have a limited supply situation. 

 superior mobility and the ability to choose when and
> where to fight.

Or not.... if they plan to defend or take planet bound locations or 
if they have objectives... that may force their hand. And the locals 
(if they fade away into the background) can make it so that there 
isn't much to fight... except when they wish it. 

  One of the first targets of an incoming attack fleet would
> be to  destroy enemy communication and survey satellites.

But watch out for the SDBs lurking on the sea-bottom or in extinct 
volcanoes or on the moon of the colony just waiting for a week moment 
from the orbital invader.... or the large salvo missiles that might 
be installed by a rich corporation.... etc. It is just possible a 
high tech invader may find more than they bargained for.  

> Unfortunately, starships are too valuable a resource to just park in
orbit
> forever.  If they move on, the odds become a little more even. 
Although
> the invaders can leave their own satellites in orbit, a hidden laser
or
> surface-to-space missile may be able to knock them down. 

What if the incoming force had a few freighters with it - military 
transports that either have good shipboard defences or contain enough 
parts to throw up some short-term modular 'battle stations' to allow 
the invading force to retain an 'orbital' basing.

> In my opinion, any unsupported ground forces that try to resist an
initial
> invasion will be annihilated.  The larger they are the higher the
stakes;
> the enemy will just bring more ships, more troops and use orbital
> bombardment more liberally.

The point of the defender is to bleed the attacker as he advances 
(from system entry right down to planetary landing) - each life he 
costs the attacker is theoretically better for him since the 
defending planet should start out in the ammo/fuel/people catbird's 
seat. If the siege goes on, the advantage may shift to the invader as 
resources grow short on the invaded planet.  

> The best hope of any colony world IMO (short of its own fleet and/or
full
> scale orbital and planetary defenses) is a pre-prepared resistance
force
> armed, equipped and trained to lay low until the initial invasion is
over
> and then attack the enemy garrison troops to deny the economic value
of the
> planet to the enemy until relief arrives. 

And perhaps to defend key points like power stations etc. that the 
enemy may want but won't want to ortillery....	

That forces the enemy to commit forces to hit these points... thus 
making them perhaps vulnerable to counterattacks or traps...

Good points though! Jeff obviously thought about this some.... :)

Tom. 
 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page: 
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page: 
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/