Re: Soap bubbles?

*shrug*  1 hull box or 50, if it can't move, and can't shoot, it's paper

thin in FT.

If you're looking for semi-realistic paper hulls, that military forces 
might realistically serve on, Q-ships come to mind.
And frankly, anyone suicidal enough to get in a FT fighter probably
isn't 
going to mind paper thin hulls either.
Conscripted soldiers come to mind...
Then there are always those who will try things even if they appear to
be 
suicidal to others...  I'm thinking those brave lads who sank in the 
Confederate subs.
Then there's alien races...  What humans do may or may not reflect on
what 
aliens will do.

*shrug*  PSB is PSB.  Justification is in the eye of the builder.

*sigh*	And now I feel dirty.  I just justified soap bubble 
carriers...  Ick.  Gross.  "I've been slimed!"

At 08:04 PM 2/18/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Not really.  The attendent benefit includes survivability. It does
force you
>to build a ship that a sane individual would be willing to serve in.  
A
>soap bubble is really a cheat, a way to build a killer force that no
>responsible military could ever sanction.  Looking at it from the
>perspective of "my sons and daughters	have to serve on that ship".
Imagine
>if our warships had cardboard walls and were held together by duct
tape.
>Why use steel when wax paper or doped canvass will do?
>
>Soldiers are kinda funny about suicide missions. Far less liketly to
>volunteer than we are to volunteer them.
>
> > Perhaps...	But you inadvertantly just increased the cost of
fighters...
> > Without changing the cost of a swarm by equatable means.  (By 4+
points
>per
> > fighter bay)
> >