Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

Matthew Smith wrote:

> I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to surface
use,
> and explains why surface warfare is still necessary. Without something
to
> stop nukes being used, what point is there in conducting a surface
campaign?
> You might say that troops can survive on a planet underground while
the
> bombardment is carried out, but this is assuming that troops are all
that
> there is on the planet. If there was actually anything valuable there,
such
> as habitable land or a working population, all anyone would need to do
to
> gain control of a planet would be to threaten them with nuclear
attack. They
> would have no choice but to agree (what would you do if you were faced
with
> impending nuclear doom??). Therefore, to make land warfare viable in
the
> future you need SOMETHING to prevent nukes from being anything other
than a
> desperation weapon. At least I think so :-).

In this situation, mutually assured destruction works, just like it
worked in
the Cold War.  If you threaten to nuke a world, they won't believe you;
unless
you have previously nuked a world.  If you have previously nuked a
world, you
declared open season on civilian populations (including your own) with
no bag
limit.	Stopping an amphibious landing is easy.  Dropping a million
marines on a
world is hard to do stealthily and only landing two hundred thousand is
worse
than not trying.  Stopping every stealthed corvette with a single crust
buster
is impossible, and the attempt will divert all of your resources.  If
cloaking
is allowed, there is no credible defence against the surprise immolation
of your
cities.

I suspect that the UN does not threaten nuclear terrorists with
sanctions, they
launch a retalitory strike that exterminates the offending nation state.
 While
terribly draconian, this ends age old tensions the simple way (the other
way is
assimilation), has a zero rate of re-offending, and presents a strong
deterrent.

There is also the problem that threatening to nuke a colony from orbit
is
difficult if you really need the real estate.  The population may call
your
bluff, or wait until you occuppy the place and start a guerrilla war. 
The
population knows it is a bluff, because if you did not need the real
estate, you
would have nuked them from orbit and passed on.  They know that you
REALLY need
the colony because you attacked it in the first place (never fight a
battle that
you do not need to win).  If you have to utter the threat, it can only
be a
bluff.

I actually see the more credible threat going the other way: "You pay us
for our
products, or we nuke our own colony".  The invaders will need a labor
force
anyway, and paying the locals to continue producing is much cheaper than
the
alternatives.