Re: Close Orbit Support (COS) a.k.a. CSS (Close Space Support)

> I have been thinking (red alert!) - given my USAF slant, and John A's
> cogent thoughts on Ortillery what is the purpose of 1)Ortillery 2)CSS
> 3)COS and CAS (Close Aerospace Support)?

Considering the treatment of "ortillery" in DS (p 40) as mearly another
type
of artillery, I'd think that the first three of those you listed could
all
be grouped under the geberal heading of ortillery w/ the categories you
listed as subgroups.  However, for this post I will stick to your
differentiations.  Just commenting on terminology.

> I liken it [ortillery] to a mass strike of a
> flight of B-52's in modern terms except with residual radiation
affect.
> Clearly a WMD [Weapon of Mass destruction] in nature and effect that
> should be considered an escalation into the borders of Nukes, Chemical
> weapons, and Biological warfare.  Using Ortillery on a foe equipped
with
> NBC (or ABC, depending on your generation) would invite response by
WMD
> by the defending force.

I would suggest that the description of ortillery given above is the
upper
end of it's potential and would expect from thte DS ortilllery reference
that it could be somehow "dialed down" to produce an effect no greater
than
that of a standard groundbased battery.  As for the use of ortillery
escalating a conflict to WMD (years in forensics have made me hate that
phrase) slinging level, I personally couldn't see a government that
possesses WMD's not using them if they were going to be destroyed and/or
occupied by an opposing, external power.  For reference, have we ever
(historically) had a WMD possessing power conquered by another power?
Therefore, the threat of escalation due to WMD-level ortillery might be
irrelivent as such escalation wouldn't be very unusual should a
planitary
government be faced with the choice of using WMD's or ceasing to exist.

> Why NOT use Ortillery?
>
> 1) You have to pass through that spot, regularly and possibly with
> unprotected troops, civilians, and radiation affected goods.

Asuming of course that the ortillery has a significant residual effect,
which it would appear to have from looking at MT, but would not appear
to
have from the DS description.

> 2) Your enemy has many more WMD (and the will to use them) then you
can
> defend against and still carry out your mission.

Considering the power of shipmounted weapons, immagine what you could
emplace on a planet.  Also, if you opponent has WMD's and your objective
is
to occupy him, as I stated above, I'm sure he'd use them before allowing
you
to be successful.

> 3) Your geopolitical leadership will publicly have you drawn and
> quartered for your "Crimes against Humanity".

If you strike civilien things, probably.  Military targets only, I'm not
so
sure.  It's not your fault that your opponent chose to place legitimate
military targets within civilien population centers (aka Well, he
shouldn't
have had anyone living withing 100 km of the target.  Nothing we can do
about using civiliens to shileld military targets).  You're using
nuclear or
worse weapons on each other in space, why wouldn't that extend to the
ground?  Also, I'm sure the peoples of Earth will be horrified to hear
about
millions of inocent K'V being killed.

> I invite more thoughts on Ortillery, CAS, COS, and CSS.  I have been
> thinking about how to tie FT (Ortillery) and DS 2 together in a
campaign
> that I like.

Honastly, I could never see how it would be practical to attempt to
occupy
an entire planet w/ enough troops to keep a hostile population in check.
 If
I was playing in a campagne and thought I was going to win long term, my
MO
when dealing w/ enemy planets would be to ask them, politely, to
surrender.
If they did so, they would be allowed lots of freedoms and their own
puppet
government and all that and it would be attempted to make their
situation
better than it was previously.	If they refused, I'd blow them to heck
and
back.  It'd get the point across.  If i didn't think i was going to win
long
term, I'd just ignore ethe planets that failed to surrender.  Similarly,
I'd
think it'd be practicly impossible to controll an alien population with
which communication was difficult.  Therefore, it would be expected that
interspecies wars would see alot more "genocide" than wars withing the
same
species.  And, it always must be remembered that there are nations who
treat
WMD's as just another option and others who think like Tamerlane.  For
that
matter, the whole idea of "genocide" being bad as well as the so called
"rules of war" are rather modern inventions.  It would be good (very
good)
if these ideas would continue to be in vogue, but with humanity fighting
for
it's life, how likely is that?

Zachariah Lakel