Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

I wrote:

> > This is a dilemma that has had me flustered for ages. There is no
reason
not
> > to use nuclear weaponry, and yet FT dreadnoughts can take dozens of
SM
hits
> > before being destroyed. If each SM carries a nuke, then surely one
hit
would
> > destroy any ship? I mean, what are these vessels built out of that
allows
> > them tos survive 30 missile hits intact (if barely)? The way I see
it,
SMs
> > are non-nuclear. The reason nobody uses nukes in space or ground
warfare
> > (except in desparation) is that it is illegal. I can imagine the UN
being
> > very strict on this issue, and I always got the impression that the
UNSC
was
> > the most advanced and the most powerful human space navy, certainly
more
> > powerful than any one national navy. By my reckoning any use of
nukes
gets a
> > swift and brutal reprisal in the form of sanctions and blockades
enforced by
> > the UN - they may not be powerful enough to stop colonial warfare
> > altogether, but I reckon they should have no trouble imposing enough
> > economic loss on a nation that nukes just aren't worth it anyway.

Richard & Emily Bell replied:

> Nukes are not nearly as powerful as you describe them.  Wet navy ships
must
> float, yet they are still highly resistant to nuclear blasts.  Very
few of
the
> vessels consumed in the A-bomb tests actually sank from the blast
effects.
This
> does not mean that they could still fight, or the crew would have
survived,
> merely that they were not sunk, one cruiser was pulled up into the
mushroom
> cloud, and dropped several thousand feet into the ocean, but (although
any
crew
> would have been VERY dead) it still floated after bobbing back to the
surface.
> In space, you lack the direct concussive effects of an atmospheric
detonation,
> so nuclear warheads are less damaging than expected.	Also, space is
very
large,
> and ships are very small, so contact blasts do not happen, the missile
is
happy
> enough to find a ship in its proximity range, and detonates at closest
approach
> (which can still be many kilometers away from the target).  By mutual
consent,
> you could allow SM's fired on non-maneuvering (thrust 0) targets to
> automatically hit for 30 points of damage each, unless stopped by
point
defence.

I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to surface
use,
and explains why surface warfare is still necessary. Without something
to
stop nukes being used, what point is there in conducting a surface
campaign?
You might say that troops can survive on a planet underground while the
bombardment is carried out, but this is assuming that troops are all
that
there is on the planet. If there was actually anything valuable there,
such
as habitable land or a working population, all anyone would need to do
to
gain control of a planet would be to threaten them with nuclear attack.
They
would have no choice but to agree (what would you do if you were faced
with
impending nuclear doom??). Therefore, to make land warfare viable in the
future you need SOMETHING to prevent nukes from being anything other
than a
desperation weapon. At least I think so :-).

Matthew Smith