Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 16

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:27 AM,  <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:

> [TomB] - We don't know that they haven't perfected binary propellants.
> We also don't know that making BP explosives isn't possible. And it
may
> be that there are other fingerprints you can engineer into the
gunpowder
> that a detector could differentiate from stuff made by the locals. You
can
> play this one either way is what I'm getting at.

Ayup!  Depending on requirements of scenario design, IMHO.

> [TomB]: I can easily construe at least one scenario for smuggling
> that works on a crappy colony world. Stipulate that these places
> aren't worth a huge high-tech presence. High tech forces may
> deploy some spy sats, but they'll be limited in how much of the space
> around the planet they can monitor. If stealth material is cheap (and
> it may well be), it could be easily possible to have a ship jump in
outside
> of detection range, drop a stealthed pod of munitions, and jump out
> without ever being seen. The pod then inserts ballistically, using
some
> crappy parachute system to slow its descent. It arrives at particular
> coordinates and the insurgents pick it up. The spy sats may or may not
> pick it up. High tech forces may or may not be able to get there to
stop
> a pickup.
> Requirements: Cheap stealth materials enough to fool a spy sat,
> some coordination with offworld brokers/smugglers or extra-planetary
> influences (enemy gov'ts are one example).

Look, you just wrote a scenario!  Pod Recovery, for Band o'
Insurgents, and the Only Platoon In The District.  Reinforcements are
coming for the OPITD, but they have to hold off the Band o' Insurgents
long enough to get there.  And what is Corporal Mackey doing in the
pod?
'
>  Any wheeled or tracked vehicles
> are likely to built mine resistant
>
> [TomB] A fair number of the minis might have you question that....

Obviously designed for head to head conventional combat, wherein the
high profiles of mine resistant vehicles are a disadvantage.
Obviously mines/IEDs are not a major threat, OR. . .

>  unless sniffers are so accurate as
> to make underbelly explosives completely ineffective.  Not sure it is

this is true.

> [TomB] Ground penetrating scanners capable of making 3D models and
> evaluating threats
> from 'mystery objects' may well be able to rule out most landmine
threats
> that rely on
> vehicles overrunning a mine or IED.

Entirely possible.  GPR is cool, just currently has a lot of
limitations, and now I shut up.

> But recovering a GEV or a
> GRAV vehicle presents some significant challenges of its own.
>
> [TomB] Worse than recovering a tipped over or rolled wheeled vehicle?

I can give you the grid coordinates where there's an RG in a ditch
because there's no way to recovery it.

>  They
> can't be towed, they will always require a 'lowboy' of some sort.
>
> [TomB] Do we know that a GEV doesn't have a deployable wheel system
> underneath to allow it to be rolled around while unpowered? (Ditto
grav?)

I'd be inclined to doubt it. . . Seems like too many redundant pieces,
which are likely to be destroyed in the blast anyway.

> With that, an emergency tow may be possible. Alternately, a large
wheeled
> dolley might be available to be fit to hull fittings on a damaged grav
or
> GEV
> to allow towing in a conventional manner. [Or maybe engineers can bolt
> an external Grav unit to a wreck and float it back....]

Possible and possible.

> [TomB] Radio can only be jammed if you know what frequency to jam and
when.
> This is a non-trivial power expenditure for jamming effectivley across
a
> spectrum.
> If you foe has all bands from baseband up to high GHz available to
them and
> they
> can in theory use the same frequencies your military system hop
through,
> then
> there is no reason they can't use command detonation.

Actually, only true if you are doing brute force jamming.  Give the
guys building the system some credit.

> [TomB] If I was building this system, I would have 1 or 2 radio
triggers
> (coded),
> plus a sensor trigger. A fiber optic cable may also be acceptable - no
real
> radiation threat, hard to detect if it is hair thin, spools of fiber
may be
> readily
> available commercially. In the long run, its far cheaper than copper.

Actually, I know how I'd beat jammers -- but pardon me if I don't
discuss it in detail.  :)  Let's just say that it is possible, but
under most circumstances somewhat inconvenient and requires a lot of
failed detonations IOT to get the characteristics of the system down
perfectly.

> [TomB] Or perhaps other propellants. It might be possible to homebrew
> some form of FAE mixture. Or a gas based propellant for shot for AP
> purposes. Certainly, if you can get a good blast wave, you can do some
> crazy things. I saw one film of a US company that had manufactured a
> large copper disk (I'm guessing about 15-20 inches in diameter) that
> was propelled this way from a remote control 4 wheel ATV. It destroyed
> the ATV, but it blew through the derelict tank they fired it at like
the
> armour was irrelevant.

6" EFP is all it takes.  Generates more energy on target than a tank
main gun.  Will go through any armor in the inventory today.

> [TomB] Also assumes you cannot be conditioned to beat these systems.
> Assumes there is no chemical counter. Insurgents that are well
supplied
> may have a counter that kills their guys when they are subjected to
drug
> interrogation. Maybe there are ways to trigger similar effects with
> implanted
> detectors. If we can build a lot of the other space tech, we can
surely
> build
> some implanted systems (we see it even today, the beginnings thereof
with
> micro-chip vitamin/nutrient distribution systems for SF in
development).

Not true.  It just assumes that Joe Insurgent, his family, and Joe
Farmer are not routinely conditioned.  Remember, we aren't talking
professional intelligence agents.  And if Joe Insurgent is conditioned
to suicide when interrogated, then that's a pretty nice warning sign
to hang out that I've hit paydirt.  I'll just interrogate the whole
damn village and the guys who keel over, are insurgents.  The ones who
don't, provide the intelligence that confirms that, and tell me which
village I need to raid next.

> Nationalism:  The Ground Zero Games universe seems to presuppose the
> death of the concept of nationalism.
>
> [TomB] Funny, I'd have said the opposite.

You've got the Russians, Indians, and the Chinese as one country, the
Africans have given up massacreing each other, and the United Kingdom
is running Argentina.  The Islamic Federation is apparently a
functioning state rather than a constant running sore.	Etc, etc, etc.
 Impossible given modern nationalistic and tribal mindsets.  If
superstate, then death of nationalism.

> [TomB] There's a lot more than just protection. The American
Revolution,
> for instance, doesn't seem to have had much to do with security. It
had
> a lot to do with not honouring local input and I can see vast
pan-system
> polities being very poor in terms of responsiveness. The ESU would
almost
> be culturally disposed to be and the NAC would be so for bureaucratic
> reasons if no other.

The American Revolution also had a security factor.  Part of the
reason that the Americans felt so entitled to a voice in government
was because, a bit over a decade prior, they had provided the lion's
share of the forces in the war against France in the Americas, and
were responsible for providing their own security.  Or at least, that
was their preception.  The perception in London was otherwise.	And
that's where the first real major issues start coming up.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l