[GZG] (no subject)

>
>From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au>
>S
>Enzo de Ianni wrote:
> >
> > And now, why I think that is relevant to the "colonies" issue:
> > Such an "asymmetrical" campaign could be waged in simpler ways if
the
> > invaded population is relatively large.
> > So, what do you think? What's your opinion?
> >
>
>I think it will depend on both population size and settlement pattern.
>The greater population you want to control, the more troops you need.
>Also the more concentrated a population the fewer troops you'll need
>compared to a same size population that is far more dispersed. Even if
>colonial populations are quite large, how they are spread out will make
>a big difference to an occupiers deployment.

You are right.

>If you nuke the population from orbit then you are probably nuking the
>thing you're after.

THat depends from what I am interested... :)
Natural resources not concentrated in a single site? A whole 
habitable planet, whose eco-system will survive a single nuclear 
detonation? A friendly refuelling post (hydrogen fueling at oceans or 
gas giant) without interference? Such things would survive a nuclear
bomb.

> > That would depend, also, on the reason why the colony was there in
> > the first place: resources, strategical importance, whatever...
> >
>
>Also environment. On hostile worlds were people are depended on
>particular infastructure (power station, atmosphere processors etc)
then
>by controlling those few structures you effectively, if not completely,
>compel the population to do as you want. Dare I say the John rasied
this
>point when refuting the US vs Canada example.

Both true things.
A large population in a friendly environment is hard to control, 
while smaller populations or vulnerable, fragile habitats would be 
easier to control, even by smaller parties (and probably less prone 
to resistance). There are interesting scenarios suggested in Flandry 
books by Poul Anderson on the matter, an author always interested in 
the human part of the story.

>I could really only see that happening where a majority of occupied
>worlds are depended on some sort special infrastructure for survival, a
>domed city if you like, where attacking that infrastructure might be
>considered "unlawful". If terraforming is relatively easy then such
>limitations are unlikely. The environment will be either robust enough
>to take what you can throw at it or can be repaired afterward.

Yes, and probably lots of habitable (or easily terraformed) planets 
mean more colonies (as the process is not costly)... so probably the 
value of a single planet would be lower, after all.

>Is that a boast? ;-)
>
>Tony.

Alas, no, just rampant imagination :)

>From: Ken Hall <khall39@yahoo.com>
>
>
>   There's historical precedent for what Enzo suggested, in the post 
> to which Tony replied -- think about the "condottieri" era in 
> Renaissance Italy (even more so than the wars of maneuver of 18th 
> Century Europe, an apple cart upset only when first Marlborough, 
> then Frederick the Great came along and actually wanted to fight 
> battles with those painstakingly assembled armies).
>
>   The peculiar features of the condottieri era (and I confess I 
> have not studied it in detail) likely had something to do with a 
> desire to avoid ravaging the countryside, along with the fact that 
> it was conducted with professionals on both sides who calculated 
> they got paid for showing up, and didn't get paid any extra for 
> dying (and no investment in a Greater Cause).
>
>   Best,
>   Ken

Everybody would need infrastructures, after the war, and revenue from 
local production so, why ravage it all? :)
And, even without reaching the excesses of later Condottieri, such a 
situation would favor the creation of merc units, with the habit to 
seriously fight up to a point (there would be incentives to a winning 
fight and bad publicity for an early retreat, after all) and folding 
up, as soon as the other guys looked like the winner... and the 
immediate starting of a bout of commercial discussion about the 
ransoming of good equipment and trained prisoners... (I think there 
is a nice depiction in Pornelle's West of Eden:)

Best wishes

							 Enzo de Ianni	

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l