Re: [SG/DS] Orbital assault was RE: Troop Quality was RE: [SG2] weapons

***
>I'm going to assume that given an entire planet to
>choose from, they are going to live relatively near
>the high-value items that the invading force is going
>to want intact.  Besides which, if the ESU starts
>nuking colony planets clean, then the NAC is going to
>start nuking colony planets clean, and who the hell
>wants that?  You end up with a lot of sterile little
>ex-colonies.

This is the thing that gets me (and I agree with you). If you
Orb-Bomb the planet from high into submission, why exactly are you so
hot to take it again? After all, you've now got a planet in the
middle of nowhere (galactically speaking) that will need aid and
resources. What population you haven't killed is going to die from
the after effects of the bombardment and you just tied up lots of
resources trying to fix a planet. This assumes you're planning on
staying.
***

Please note this somewhat explains (P-Sociopolitical-B) my 'liberal'
political structure that has home world(s) as no conflict, inner
colonies
as severely restricted rules-of-engagement, and far colonies still under
'humane' rules of warfare. It's mentioned in the timeline concerning the
UNSC, but the little assault system on which I've worked is based on an
expanded vision.

I always wanted an entry where a ship was hunted down and destroyed by
it's
own service after nuking a colonial city from orbit...

Interestingly, the restricted rules-of-engagement require drops from
synchronous orbits, and that all entry paths are strictly near
equatorial,
not polar, to restrict 'collateral' damage. I don't claim to have the
PSB
worked out.

Comes from the restrictions of working with flat maps. ;->=

Some liberals even admit MAD works, to some extent. We just don't have
to
be happy about it.

The_Beast