Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

I 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 :-).

Richard and Emily Bell replied:

> 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.
________________________________________________________

I have no choice but to admit defeat against your vulcan-like logic and
fine
military understanding!! :-)

Matthew Smith