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.
> 
<< a bunch deleted >>
> 
> 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.
> 

   All very true, but none of it changes the basic equation.  No fixed
set of
 defenses is going to be sufficient against an opponent that can just
continue
 to attack with impunity.  At some point, if you can't prevent him from 
 continuing to launch wave after wave of missiles (rocks, nukes,
whatever) at
 you then you're going to be overwhelmed.  Fixed defenses around a
wormhole are
 going to be like modern minefields.  They're intended to slow and
damage an
 opponent, not stop him.  The real battle is when you engage the mobile
forces
 behind the fixed defenses. 
   If there is a way to build "perfect" fixed defenses, then you've just
gone
 back to the lockable/closeable gate idea.  If there is another way to
do ftl,
 then the other guy is just going to skip entirely around your very
expensive
 defensive position.  If there isn't another way to do ftl, then both
sides
 build the impregnable defenses, and the gate is effectively closed.  
 Personally I doubt if you'd be able to build any kind of defense that
could
 actually withstand the "many nukes pushed through the gate" kind of
attack.

> 
> >  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.
> 

    Sure, but you never send ships through until the unmanned weapons
have 
  reduced the other side.  Most "gate" systems presented in sf don't let
you
  see what's coming until it's shown up.  This gives the attacker total
control
  over when and how an attack is launched.  A defender that can't see or
  anticipate what's coming until it's almost on top of them is in big
trouble.
  If you're far enough away from the gate that you have warning time
*after* it
  leaves the gate, then the attacking weapons have too much time to
deploy into
  less predictable locations.  

  grant