Re: [VV] Vectorverse FTL

At 12:36 PM -0500 1/31/05, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
>
>     The Bospherous (sp?) or Gibralter were pains *for the technology
of the
>   time*.  Right now, we'd just pound them day and night with cruise
missile
>   attacks until a manned force could just walk right in.

That ignores that they don't have their own systems for similar defense.

Gibraltar is largely just a logistics point. If Britain were to add 
in Missile launching systems, hardened Phased arrays and secondary 
radar emitters as well as hardened Land based gun systems it would 
become a much harder nut to crack. Add in Land based airfields (make 
the tarmac sufficiently large to make it hard to crater it and some 
other sneaky ways of supporting your aircraft) for strike craft and 
mobile defense systems (SP artillery and AA assets) and you're 
starting to make it a much harder nut to crack.

Against a similarly technically sophisticated foe, Britain could find 
a hard job to defend, but it'd be a hard nut to crack. Against a less 
sophisticated foe, Gibraltar with nearly as much money sunk into it 
as one sinks into a mobile task force, the rock would stay a place to 
shy away from short of a massive effort to force it.

Our current doctrine for reducing land based systems involves ARMs, 
GPS guided missiles and stealth technology. If the foe has similar 
technology and isn't going to take it laying down (Diesel Electric 
and Nuke powered subs prowling the nearby waters, land based Maritime 
patrol aircraft and interceptors as well as AWACs) then you're going 
to have a hard time of it. Think Normandy with out the all but 
destroyed Luftwaffe and lots of radar guided systems. Or better yet, 
think of Battle of Britain.

Heck, a land based Aegis system networked with aerial platforms and 
with multiple VLS pods sunk in the rock would not be something you 
could just hit with impunity from the air.

>  That's the most
>   likely scenario in any SF context.	Fixed defenses are just targets
for high
>   mobility "smart" weapons and nukes.

The same argument is used against ships today, but that doesn't make 
large ships any less valid. You just have to build in 
countermeasures. Ships today cannot bring along armor and you can't 
sink an island. Most fixed defenses are largely irrelevant because 
you can bypass them. A naval task force can't bypass Gibraltar.

>  Fixed defenses only work when the
>   situation forces the other guys to risk very high value units to
bust them
>   up, and I don't see that here.  In reality, the best "defense" for a
gate
>   would be to keep launching your own missiles through to break up the
>   attacker's forces before they even reach the gate.

Which ignores the typical countermeasures you'd have. If you have 
fixed bases (orbital platforms on the other side) you could easily 
add in lots of PDS, sand casters and jamming systems to deal with 
small craft coming through the gate. Plenty of beams and other 
weapons focused on the crossing point would make it very hazardous to 
come through. The first ships through would be very short lived once 
they transition. They get a few shots off and then they die.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-		  Data Center Operations Group		      -
-		http://web.turner.com/data_center/	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		       One CNN Center SE0813 E -
- Internet Technologies   --   Data Center Operations Manager  -
- Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri	    (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)      -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205	     e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
- Office: 404-588-6191					       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-	      Emergency Power-off != Door release!	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------