Re: [VV] Vectorverse FTL

> 
> At 12:48 PM -0500 2/1/05, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> >
> >    See, this is my point.  Unless there is something that prevents
it, I
> >  *never* send ships through.  Hell, I don't even leave ships near
the other
> >  end of the wormhole.  I just ballistically launch massive missile
strikes
> >  through the gate from long distances away.  I don't pay for
hulls/engines/
> >  crews that are put at risk *at all*.  Just far cheaper missiles.
> 
> Can I send 100 fighter groups through the gate to the other side?
> 
   Sure, of course they can build a fleet to kill 100 fighter groups
quickly
 much easier than you can *maintain* 100 fighter groups on the other
side.

> Can I have 100 fighter groups sitting on this side with PDS and ADF 
> to intercept the missiles?

   Sure.  Can you maintain them there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
without
 running your economy into the ground?	I don't have to attack on your
schedule
 but you have to be ready for it *all the time*.

> 
> >	Ho ho.	Once we're nuke free, you're toast.  You have no chance
of nuking
> >   all the possible launch point in the Atlantic from which you'll be
attacked.
> 
> Think of the weapons ranges. You have a fixed area to launch from and 
> I can find you with land based aircraft that have a longer range than 
> your ship based aircraft. I'm going to try to find you before you get 
> to your launch point.
> 
     You're kidding, right?  There is currently no way *at all* to
prevent a
   large scale SSN launch no matter what they're aiming at.  Hell, it's 
   entirely possible for subs in the Pacific to fire on a target like
Gibraltar
   with modern tech.  They don't need to be ICBM's either.  Cruise
missiles 
   with tremendous ranges are very feasible once you give them a reason
to 
   exist.

> If we're talking the US hitting Syria then sure, Syria's toast even 
> with it's land based aircraft. But if you're a US Carrier battle 
> group trying to get close to launch a strike against a Soviet North 
> Sea base that has a Flock of Bears and Backfires...good luck. You'll 
> run into that odd Badger Maritime recon craft with at least your E-2 
> and F-14s long before you're in weapons range and then you'll start 
> to see the odd badger and bear in greater numbers before your scope 
> fills with Hopefully a bunch of bears or if less lucky a bunch of 
> kingfishers.
> 

   So you don't attack with a Carrier battle group, you attack with a
massive
 sub launched cruise missile strike.  Assuming that the attacker is
stupid is
 an excellent way to be defeated.

> If you're just Nuke free and can do so, sure, an ICBM can be 
> launched, but that's outside the scope of what we're talking about.
> 
    No it's not.  There's no reason for an attacker to restrain himself
in 
  these situations.  If the worst case is that you kill the gateway,
well their
  defenses have effectively done that already, so why care?

> >   This is directly analogous to the wormhole situation.  The other
guy can
> >   launch his nuke strike from *anywhere* on the other side of the
wormhole and
> >   you don't see it till it comes through.
> 
> What stops me from sending short range forces through the wormhole to 
> run interference? Does the Wormhole allow non FTL forces through? 
> like Fighters or system defense ships?
> 

    That's fine, now I get to kill your short range forces away from
your fixed
  defenses.  Eventually I wear you down to the point where you can't
maintain
  the fight.  If you have to send a fleet through to hold that side,
then we're
  back to the fleet vs fleet battle, which was my point.

> >  If you have sensors/ships on the
> >   other side to observe the strike, then I strike those pieces first
and we're
> >   back to the first step.  If you don't see the nukes until they're
almost on
> >   top of you, then you don't really have a chance to stop them. 
> >Worst case for
> >   the attacker is that they set off some of the nukes further away
from your
> >   defenses (Gibraltar) to kill your sensors, and "walk" them in on
you.
> 
> Sensors can be replaced. How do you hide from all of my sensors? Even 
> if I have a couple of SSK's you're still going to pay in blood to get 
> close and land your marines.
>

     Again, why land marines at all?  All I care about is eliminated the
choke
   point so I can go on by.

 
> >Quite
> >   frankly, you don't have a chance unless you have a large fleet out
there
> >   contesting the Atlantic, and if you have a large fleet out there,
then you
> >   don't *need* large defenses at Gibraltar.  Then the scenario is
the fleet to
> >   fleet battles in the ocean, and that was what I was saying.
> 
> It pays to defend such a point well. In the case of WWII Germany and 
> Italy couldn't begin to afford to think about forcing Gibratar short 
> of a major campaign. Even if they hit it from both sides and doing so 
> would have left them so weak that Britain's remaining mobile assets 
> would have made short work.
> 

   Oh please.  There is no sense where Gibraltar's inherent defenses
prevented
 an invasion.  It was the absolute inability of Italy and Germany to
sustain
 an invasion force against Great Britain's fleet that made such an
attack 
 impossible.  Gibraltar needed no more actual defenses than enough
troops to
 guard against a sneak attack from a sub or freighter.

> >	Which is why the military lobs hand grenades through the door
first.	Your
> >   scenarios are all applicable if one side is forced to send bodies
through
> 
> And that's where theres usually a door with a long hallway and a 
> portal at the end of the hall for a Machine gun to fire down the 
> hall. If you built your bunker properly. ;-) Sure, you can chuck a 
> grenade down the hall, but so can I. And I have the benefit of near 
> total cover.
> 
> A wooden room is not a prepared defense.
> 
    Then don't imply that it's impossible to take one.	Quite frankly,
there
  isn't a single defensive position *possible* that can't be defeated. 
This
  has been proven repeatedly.

> >   door instead, but that isn't *necessarily* the case.  There are
ways to
> >   constrain the situation such that fixed defenses are essentially 
> >impregnable,
> 
> It depends on how much prep both sides take.
> 
> >   but for a lot of the wormhole/gate situations stipulated in SF,
those
> >   contraints aren't there.	For others there are.
> 
> Which is where context really comes in.

     Yes.  I'm just arguing that you really have to stretch the context
to 
   make a massive defensive position truly worthwhile.	Under most less 
   constrained situations, you're better off with limited fixed defenses
and
   lots of mobile units rather than lot's of fixed defenses and limited
mobile
   units.  A situation where you can have both is unrealistic and
hopeless.

  grant