Re: Planetary defenses

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> Well, it does in some cases.
>
> a) You might be an alien attacker with motivation incomprehensible to
> humans
> b) You might be a religious/political fanatic with motivation
> incomprehensible to sane humans :-)
> c) The planet might not contain anything of value besides the enemy
> base(s)
> d) The *threat* of total annihilation coupled with demonstrated
> ability
> can cause a surrender. You do remember Hiroshima, don't you?

Well I think we already established a while that if your dealing with
some opponent bent purely on annihlation (Arachnids, Bugs, berserkers,
Doomsday devices any numberof  scifi enemies or opponents summed up in
your arguments above ) then defensive options are seriously limited.

But think of even the GZG universe. These wars are much more power
politic/cold war type affairs. Noone is going to be annihlating anyone
else just like major and minor wars have been fought since WW2 without
people using NBC weapons. SO the theat of nuclear annihlation is a
limited threat. Of course the occassional nuke lobbed down from orbit
is going to happne now and then, but a planet sufficiently prepared
should be able to ride even a number of simultaneous hits out.

Even in the extreme GW universe, Where major races are going at it
always, an exterminatus is almost only conducted when a Genestealer cult
infestation has become to deep to arrest.

You look at Weber's stuff, ie Honr Harrington, these aren't really wars
of annihlation either, the resources on the planet People. mineral,
wahever are too valuable to waste.

However, you take new Israel and they DO have a much more differnt
situation to deal with Intyheir minds, the Islamic Federation is most
likely bent on teh physical destruction of tehir peole and tehir world
(I'm speculating of course), so I believe that a comnutry like taht
would take every effort to have the most formidible of defense, both in
fleet units, orbital defenses and ground installations.

Los