Re: Planetary defenses

Darryl Adams wrote:
> 
> The problem here is that with any non underground defence system, a
decent
> EMP blast would knock it out. Or a nuke.
> 
> I would argue any planetary defence has to be off planet (keep off
planet
> stupid : Howard Anderson TFN [Starfire]), with support ships (Monitors
and
> Planetary Defence Cruisers). The problem here is big is vunerable, and
small
> lacks firepower.
> 
> Also needed is lots of fighters to block any holes in your coverage.
> 
> Darryl
> 
	Another point is political.  For instance, no country today
seriously
designs its bases to survive nuclear attack, because A. it's impossible,
and B. It's about as likely as an alien invasion.
	The point is, that in a human universe, or a universe  where
humans and
aliens have had a fair amount of political contact, there will be
political considerations on what type of planetary defense set ups you
have.
	For example, in a very old, stable political setting, planets
may have
no defenses at all, the policy being to fight until the fleet is out
matched, and then withdraw, expecting things to be settled during the
negotiations.  
	On the other hand, with beserker/K'vak style enemies, planets
will be
fortified as much as possible-- the aliens will show no mercy and
forcing them to utterly destroy a biosphere to neutralize the defenses
works to the defenders advantage-- except for the fellows on the planet,
of course.