Re: Planetary defenses

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> Frankly, I could not care less for the Official(tm) GZG universe.
>

So what? A large portion of the people carrying on this discussion do.

>
> There are valid reasons to obliterate a planet.
> There are valid reasons not to.
> That's all.
>

Yes and the discussion about planetary defenses revovles primarily
around the
latter. Continuing to harp on just annihlating the planet has no
relevance on the
discussion after being stated once. The discussion ais about how to
defend the
planet	once you have decided to. Not whether it could or should even be
botehred
with.

>
> > 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.
>
> Orbital bombarding a "dead" planet is not going to make it any more
dead
> (and you don't have to use nukes), nor destroy raw material resources
like
> mineral deposits.

It does if whoever you plan on putting down there to harvest the
minerals (i.e.
humans) have an adverse reaction to deadly radiation or the aftermaths
of
whatever other type of method of annihlation is used? (i.e.biological
etc).

> As for capturing enemy bases intact... well I don't
> think it's a very reasonable chance.

Intelligence gathering raids have been a staple of warfare over the past
several
thousand years. If you can secure an enemy facility by hook or by crook,
extract
whatever you are looking for (beings or data) and get out, then you work
to that
end. Heck a plausable example of this in the SF world is the Kra'Vak
raid on ROSS
142 in "Karl's Kidnap" which was posted on the unofficial stargrunt
website. The
Kra'Vak forces secured orbit, came down, assaulted the colony  complex
with
infantry, were looking for some "unknown thing" at the colony facility,
then
hauled ass out. They left a little "see ya later" orbital bombardment
then were
gone.

Los