Re: Planetary defenses

On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> > c) The planet might not contain anything of value besides the enemy
> > base(s)
> 
> Ergo nothing of value. 

Well, it seemed to me that the concept of military forward/supply bases
and/or staging areas on "dead" planets whose only worth lies in their
location was forgotten and everyone just assumed that every planet worth
attacking would have a significant civilian population. 

For contemporary examples, look at Truk and other Pacific atoll bases in
WWII.
 
> Sure. And do you think that if the Japanese too had had the bomb and 
> the ability to deliver it that the US would have Nuked Hiroshima and 
> Nagasaki? I doubt it. They wouldn't have wanted to open that door. 
> It's one thing if you're the only one who can do it....it's another 
> if it can be done back to you. But the lessons here still apply to 
> space combat and planetary bombardment.  

Well, once things get that far, the planet receiving the bombardment is
unlikely to be able to pay back... its allies might, but the concept of
preparing for retaliation in kind (or an escalated one) applies to any
military venture anyway.

> Ratiocination and Attritional Warfare by whatever means are usually 
> the tactics employed by those who don't have the raw manpower to push 
> through all opposition, but they are very effective and reasonably 
> conservative.  

It's also a good way to capitalize an advantage in industrial power
(especially if you lack a similar manpower advantage).

In modern times, the dollar cost of launching yet another
missile/bomb/whatever may be inconsequential compared to the political
price of yet another bodybag going back home.
  
-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |