Re: Base Destruction

On Mon, 12 May 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:

>	  As a Naval Officer, I have never seen a Naval base that did
have any
> of these weapons you name (AA Guns, Missiles, etc.).	Instead they
just
> support the ships and aircraft present.  These resources then engage
the
> enemy away from the base.  It is a waste of resources to tie them up
in a
> static facillity unless you know the enemy is invading etc.
 
No AA missiles? Really? I'm curious. How do you know the enemy is not 
invading? Oh, right, you're probably the only country in the world that 
can afford to make that assumption.

Well, I'm no expert on current US military doctrine, but the Finnish 
coast defense still relies very heavily on shore batteries. Ok, so these

are closed waters, but defense installations have been outmoded only
very 
recently. Germans lost a bunch of stuff to Norwegian coastal fortresses.

I guess this boils down to personal preference again: I like the 
dreadnought -style gunnery combat while you seem to favor the 
missile-slinging "Harpoon in Space" approach.

No harm there, FT is flexible enough to be played both ways.

-- 
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 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |