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

--- "Z. Lakel" <zlakel@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> 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?

Both France and Nazi Germany had large stockpiles of
chemical weapons during WWII and did not use them. 
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and did
not use them either.

> 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.

IMNSHO, the MT description is suited for particle beam
usage, which is the "canon" (From FT) description of
human beam batteries.  The DS description indicates a
differing, more specialized system.

> 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 civilian 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). 

Depends on the nation.	Look at the gyrations we go to
to avoid harming civvies in the US of A's military
actions at present.  I have a feeling that some
superpower conflicts will take on a early 18th century
feel--deliberately limited wars for deliberately
limited gains using limited means.  Fought, often, by
professionals who are ignored as much as possible by
the locals.  Since you want the locals to keep
ignoring you, living productive little lives
extracting resources, engaging in manufacturing, and
PAYING TAXES instead of running amuck with kitchenware
slitting drunk soldier's throats behind brothels, you
wish to avoid pissing the locals off by killing
Great-Aunt Ethel.

> You're using nuclear or worse weapons on each other
> in space, why wouldn't that extend to the
> ground?  

Because people don't live in space, and if they do
they live in big metal cans that are radiation
shielded.  Because most food is not grown in space. 
Because the Sierra Club can't get all hot and bothered
about hard vacuum.  Because the radiation from a space
battle won't linger on and cause trouble for the next
500 years.  

> Also, I'm sure the peoples of Earth will be 
> horrified to hear about
> millions of inocent K'V being killed.

Specious argument--the only ground battles vs. the K'V
have been on human-inhabited planets.
 
> 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

Depends on how many inhabitants you've got.  Beth ran
the population figures for New Serbia and came up with
under half a million inhabitants.  And it's not a
brand new colony.  On the other hand, with really
cheerful estimates New Constantinople checked in at
over 80 million.  That's not going to be that far from
the top end of non-Core colonies.

> 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.

"And thought I was going to win long term."  Who,
between the ESU and NAC is going to win long term?  I
mean, they've been around for better than a century
and a half and have clashed intermittantly ever since.
 They aren't going to topple each other barring some
truly strange events.  You're thinking in WWII, Final
Crusade To End Evil terms.  I think the GZGverse
portrays a world where no one really can afford to
think in those terms, instead reverting back to
Balance of Power concepts.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com