Re: [GZG] Invading Mars (was FTverse colinies)

Wow good points, but have been playing too much traveller lately, so
went 
for the role-playing and small armies of figures and scenery types of 
games, with a more moderator involvement flavour.
But a well done reply none the less.
Actually the funny thing is by the time the group has given all our
various 
way's to invade the earth and sol system, Jon could of copied it and 
released a scenario booklet on this topic.
It must give Jon so much enjoyment sometimes reading all our emails on
his 
universe and our passion for the Tuffeyverse, wow hope he doesn't  think

he's god.

james mitchell

From: "Robert Mayberry" <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Invading Mars (was FTverse colinies)

> My take on this:
>
> 1) James, your theory pre-supposes not only that they know a lot more
> about humanity than I think they really do, but also understand our
> psychology better. I know they have been using those research ships to
> learn about human physiology, but psychology would be much harder (I'm
> sure all their instincts would push them to Kravakapomorphize us). Do
> the Kra'vak use covert operations like that at all?  They may be
> WINNING, but that has nothing to do with having the capabilities you
> describe.
>
> 2) I pretty much agree with John's assessment of the sheer size of
> planets and their impacts. Though one quibble: in my conception of the
> Tuffleyverse, there is no space elevator.
>
> 3) Alan's points about the value of mars as a target are very good,
> though again a quibble: FTL drives are less accurate as you approach a
> star. Once you get close enough, they stop working altogether. FTL as
> I understand it requires that you be at least further out than the
> Kuiper Belt (beyond Neptune). So basically using FTL to bypass picket
> forces isn't going to work. HOWEVER, due to the relative velocities of
> constant-acceleration ships, interceptions are still unlikely. You
> have to park your defenders on the ground they'll defend.
>
>
> OK so here's my take:
>
> First, we start from Earth, figure out the forces we need, and work
> backwards to figure out what we need to get there. This is rough
> because we have to decide what the overall Kra'vak strategic objective
> is: conquest, neutralization, extermination? It could be any of those.
> The Earth-Minbari war in B5 on one hand sounds really contrived and
> scripted. On the other, it's a good model for the fact that while
> there will be common principles in the evolution of both species, that
> we really are fundamentally different and insane-seeming surprises can
> happen. Larry Niven's Footfall is a good example of that in action.
>
> An annihilation force would be low on ground troops and high on mobile
> industrial gear: bio-factories to make bio/chem weapons, asteroid
> mining to prepare a Dinosaur Killer. Any of these techniques would
> destroy most life on earth at minimal cost/effort compared to an
> extended ground campaign. At the very end you might have to drop
> cleanup crews to handle that last stubborn million holdouts, but then
> you get a planet that will return to habitability and is devoid of
> competitors both to Kra'Vak colonists and any transplanted flora/fauna
> they introduce.
>
> There's a good argument AGAINST extermination already, and that's that
> Kra'Vak ground invasions have already happened. As John points out,
> it's way easier to render a habitat uninhabitable from orbit than it
> is to actually go down there and go hand-to-hand. If they're doing
> ground invasions, that could be a cue that their objective is
> something other than annihilation.
>
> OK so let's assume conquest, since that requires the most conventional
> force. Like John said, they need hydrogen for their fusion-powered
> ground vehicles (and presumably, ships). They need water and
> carbonaceous ore to make habitats for their troops while they wait for
> the Big Drop. You need some kind of structural material. Some you can
> cart in, but for an invasion of a planet with (by then) 12 billion
> people, you need colossal resources, and presumably some kind of
> staging area.
>
> If I were invading late 22nd century Earth, I would need total control
> of orbit. I would want to neutralize any moon base, and perhaps
> establish one of my own. Beyond that, here's what I think we need to
> watch:
>
> 1. There are several NEO asteroids, any would be a great start for
> carting sufficient non-volatile resources in, especially if I can move
> the asteroid into earth orbit (similarly, taking control of any
> asteroids that HUMANS have moved into orbit is crucial). Keep in mind,
> even many minor asteroids are GIGANTIC, capable of housing huge
> numbers of troops. Remember also that their gravity is low enough that
> you're talking about filling a volume, not covering a surface area. I
> ran some back-of-the-envelope calculations about how many people you
> could fit on a small asteroid and the number is astonishing. But my
> understanding is that NEO's are short of volatile chemicals like water
> that I'll need for my troops. So we have to do more.
>
> 2. Mars: Mars is a dump. Deep gravity well, not habitable unless we
> somehow terraformed it. No resources we can't get more cheaply from
> the Belt. Deimos and Phobos (mars's moons), on the other hand, are
> potentially strategic targets. If I don't have a refueling base or
> orbital construction base there, I should build one. Even when Mars is
> in opposition, it's still relatively close by high-G continuous
> thrust. So: neutralize any martian base, capture deimos/phobos.
>
> 3. The Belt: The asteroid belt is filled with useful resources, all
> broken up into bite-sized chunks for easy exploitation. On one hand,
> it has everything we need. Especially Ceres, which has no gravity well
> to speak of and (it is believed), enough subsurface ice to supply your
> whole invasion force. The only problem is that the Belt is going to be
> thick with human habitats-- all with some moderate defenses, hard to
> detect, and difficult to patrol. A big fleet could grab Ceres, but
> there's simply no hope of completely clearing the belt. Human
> resistance is likely to be strong here, but it's certainly a strategic
> objective. Another value of Ceres: even if you don't have artificial
> gravity (and the Kra'Vak *do*), the gravity is gentle enough here that
> you could centrifuge your troops to simulate 1g.
>
> 4. The Jovian Subsystem: By that I mean underwater facilities (where
> feasible) on the Galilean moons, and mining/industrial/naval
> construction facilities in the trojan asteroids. A deep enough base on
> Europa would be very hard to detect or harm from orbit, because you're
> protected by all that water and ice. If Callisto and Ganymede have
> similar bases, (and from my reading it's far less likely that they
> have subsurface liquid water like that), then ditto for them.
> Jupiter's magnetic field would wreak havoc on Kra'Vak sensors-- not
> enough to hurt them, but plenty of noise for a colony under EMCON to
> go undetected. Most of what I said for the Belt applies to the trojan
> asteroids and minor moons. I'm not sure if the near-jupiter asteroids
> are water-rich or not.
>
> 5. Saturn: Similar to Jupiter, with one exception. The Rings are chock
> full of ice. Definitely desirable for invasion. Titan's methane and
> water supplies would be crucial for habitats if they weren't so far
> out from earth. Better to use Ceres, unless the theories that say that
> Ceres is rich in subsurface ice turn out to be wrong. Titan is
> probably a human base, so you'd either eliminate that from orbit or
> use a ground invasion to try to capture it (mostly) intact). That's
> hard considering the hostile environment.
>
> Further out you have similar arguments. In general, you want to
> eliminate any human habitats you find throughout the solar system to
> prevent a counterattack (especially if humans resort to relativistic
> kill vehicles for your staging area, though obviously FTL drive makes
> that hard to defend against in general). In an attack on a colony,
> this mostly consists of bypassing the habitats, taking the planet,
> then going back and mopping up with patrol ships.
>
> The Solar System is totally different. With two hundred years to
> expand into the solar system, even now it's still very much a frontier
> filled with all kinds of independent folk who will do whatever they
> think they can to save the homeworld. But even sparsely settled, the
> intrasolar population will be vast. A shattered human fleet would
> fleet to outer colonies for repairs, but many would return to wage a
> guerilla war in the asteroids. I think this would resemble the
> island-hopping campaign of WWII in the pacific theatre. The Kra'Vak
> might shatter the human fleet, push to Earth, clear Earth orbit and
> the Moon, destroy starports and naval facilities on the ground, and
> then back off and start systematically clearing the solar system while
> keeping earth blockaded and building up an invasion force on the moon
> or a NEO asteroid.
>
> The Siege of Sol would take a very long time to do right. Unless
> (again) you're aiming for annihilation, in which case John's point
> applies.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Mayberry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 

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