RE: Planetary defenses

Jean-Pierre spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

>	I would like to think about your problem in a different angle.	
> 
>	If a race lives in the atmosphere of a given planet, then that
race
> is very vulnerable to space attack for the purpose of obliteration. 
All
> that is required from an offensive force is to build devices that will
> destroy the atmosphere.  In case of the earth, a large number of nukes
would
> suffice to do the trick (think also about bio warfare). 

No offence to nukes but you would need a LOT to make earth totally 
uninhabitable. You'd need a fairly large number just to make the 
majority of it difficult to inhabit. 

 After a number of
> years of war like that, not a living creature would be left in good
health
> to keep fighting.  In this scenario, the offensive force is not
planning to
> occupy the planet afterward.	Also, the offensive force does not have
to
> come close to the planet; it can lob those nukes from far away.  The
defense
> system will stop some, but it would not take too many misses to wreck
the
> planet.

Wouldn't it? I think we're talking in the high thousands or possibly 
tens of thousands to make someplace like Earth unpopulable. I think 
you underrate the recovery of the biosphere. It can take quite a slug 
and keep on ticking. Now, it may change how life is conducted, but it 
may well be just fine for survival with a few new steps (time to 
move underground).  

>	Second scenario, the offensive force wants to occupy the planet.
> Now, this is a totally different game.  1) They must identify what to
shoot
> at.  They can do this through intelligence or by getting close to the
> planet.  2) They must be able to aim at the specified targets.  They
can do
> this by getting close to the planet.	3) They must survive the attack.
 In
> this scenario, the roles are reversed because the offensive force
needs to
> get close to the planet while securing the artificial environment in
which
> they live.  I will not discuss about the technological issues, but the
> earlier observations (previous e-mail) on power requirement seem to
indicate
> that the planet is better equipped to destroy all space installation
that
> come too close.  In this scenario, the analogy with the air force
makes
> sense: even in the event that the offensive force win space
superiority,
> grunts are still required on the ground to take over the defensive
> operations.

And a way to conduct this attack (given your comments on the power of 
ground based weapons) would be thousands of drop pods (some full, 
some dummies, some EW images) to swamp the defences and let your 
troopies on the ground take out weapons installations to let the 
fleet move in. Sounds like a job for Marines! OTOH, attacking a 
fortified high-pop planet has to be a non-starter because they'd have 
the weaponry, the power, the sensors, and the ground troops to 
forestall orbital attack and invasion.	

>	It seems to me that the most important factor is whether the
> offensive forces are taking the planet over or if they are getting rid
of
> rodents.

Why do I get the feeling when you speak of getting rid of rodents 
this is a reference to what you plan to have your ESU fleet do to 
your gaming companions, JP? (Grin)

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/