Re:Planetary insurgencies..was Planetary defenses

You wrote: 

>One is the sheer size of the endevour. A huge amount of resources 
would >be needed. The planet is a big place. Lots of places for the 
insurgents >to hide as LONG as they have support of the people. As far 

Depends on settlement patterns and population densities.  If I've got 
settlers concentrated about 40% in/around a major urban center centered 
on a spaceport, and another 40% within a couple hundred miles of that 
urban center, then the question arises as to whether that remaining 20% 
(of whom only a few will have the 'revolutionary conciousness' to 
support the insurgents appropriately) can supply enough food and hiding 
places to the insurgents?  

What's the transport infrastructure look like?	If it's centralized and 
limited, then interdicting the guerilla's mobility may be easier. 
During the Boer Wars, once the Boers lost their mobility due to the 
blockhouse networks, the war was all over but the mopping up.

Cultural factors--If the planet were inhabited by Afghans or 
Montagnards I'd nuke it from orbit.  Inhabited by Frenchmen, and I'd 
have no problems going in.  Some cultures have a much higher tradition 
of resistance to outside intervention.	Others roll over and whimper to 
please whoever holds the whip.	

On and on and on. . . I'd love to run or participate in a campaign of 
this type. . .

as a the >counter isurgency having the planet balnketted with sensords 
from orbit >or whatever. Then I have to believe that similar sensoir 
defeating >technolgies will keep pace, as his been teh history of 
warfare with any >technological or operational development. As far as 

It may not be a matter of sensor limitations, but of trained and 
skilled analysts.  I know people have been making all sorts of claims 
about computors and pattern recognition.  But noticing the little 
out-of-place things that scream to an experienced analyst "This is 
camoflage" is never going to be a computor's strong suite.

outside resources >go, they already have the resoruces of their whole 
planet. If given any >bit of thought to the prospect, they could have 
squirrelled away any >number of vast amounts of supplies and weapons.

But most of the resources of a colony would be raw materials with 
little manufacturing ability, and that likely concentrated in a few 
major centers which can be easily controlled.  

The second point is interesting.  There are a number of variables.  
First, does the earlier owning government encourage this?  Second, do 
they organize this stockpiling?  If it's on private initiative, do they 
do like modern US survivalists and stock a wild variety of private 
firearms with no thought to long-term ammunition resupply, 
standardization, communications gear, logistic assets, and basically 
everything except small arms?  Are heavy weapons or crew-served weapons 
included?  A mortar in every villiage is enough to make me want to nuke 
from orbit.

>Again either side could argue that with suffiicient resources, they
>could attain their objectives. I'm just saying DO NOT	dismiss the 
power >of a palnet to conduct an insurgency all on it's own. It's not 
like a >country which may not have suffiecient resopurces. A home or 
well >established colony world, could have everything it needs to 
sustain >itself.

Again, it's a question of which world?	Albion could--but then again 
Albion isn't likely to fall.  If it's Research Colony XS-319 with a 
populations of 500 scientists and 50,000 support personell and 
long-term colonists, then effective resistance is less likely.

>And what if it doesn't? If it has any allies at all, key equipment or
>supplies could still be inserted, blockade or not. How easy would it 
be >in the FT universe for example to put a tight clamp down on solar 
system >say the size of ours?  Ships could be slipped through and 

Depends on which scale you are using.  If Earth is a 6" ball then it's 
fairly easy to blockade it.  If it's "table edge" sized, then you're 
screwed.

insertions >made. Heck there are already rules for cloaking. Speical 
insertion >vehicles, specialists along the line of current day U.S. 1st 
Special >operations wing of TF 160, would make a living doing just 
that. Blockade >or no.

One thinks it will be well-nigh impossible to stealth an atmospheric 
reentry.  Analogy--you may be invisible, but if you do the cannon-ball 
into my swimming pool, I damn sure am going know something is up.

>I'm just saying, don't discount the potential for a conducting a
>successful insurgency given the right situation. And you know what,
>regardless of whether it would ultimately be successful of not, there
>are many that would undertake it anyway. Would you just roll over?

No.  

>Anyone who's been in the military probably has the experience of 
having >had to carry out stupid plans made by officers that have had 
these >kinds of ill thought-out ideas. Or maybe it's just me because we 
get >used for some damn dangerous things, be it training or live. Just 
some >examples:

Ah, well, I've watched an E-4 bluntly inform an infantry company 
commander that if he didn't do things our way, then we would find 
something more important to do than bother with giving his company 
engineer support.  Jackass didn't listen, and found himself with no 
Engineers for the remainder of the exercise.  Corporal Luther's 
perspective was that if the infantry was that stupid in combat we'd all 
have been dead and he wouldn't have any Engineer support anyway.

>"Well they're SEALs they can be parachuted into the ocean, they're
>expert swimmers." (4 guys drown in ten foot waves)

Oops.  Of course, if the SEALs didn't believe their own propaganda then 
their commander wouldn't have gone ahead with the mission.

John M. Atkinson