Warfare IN SPAAAAAAACE!

Which does you precisely no good against the then equivalent of RIM-162s, and probably not much more against the equivalted of RIM-161s.

If you're down to one ship with orbital weapons then invading is suicide anyway since as soon as the ship is away from overhead the locals will hit it with everything they have.

75 pound SG-357s are considered large enough to be equipped with parachutes, thus I imagine most orbital weapons would be as well, and whether they're deployed depends on how much damage you want to do.

If they're unwilling to give it to you under threat of orbital bombardment, why do you assume they won't destroy it themselves if you try to land troops?

The orbital forces will se the package coming though, and probably before it gets into range to do anything.

The ability to launch is fine, but if all your launch facilities have been destroyed (and they probably will bee, there's only going to be so many ways they can be disguised) and the enemy is constantly monitoring then your ability to launch anything is probably close to 0.

Hitler threatening Britain was silly, but if the enemy's in orbit, and has already taken out your (probably manned) launch facilities, then what proof do you have that they won't start whacking your population? Or your infrastructure?

This is a crazy statement, if you can't threaten them from orbit, then what are boots on the ground - with weapons a couple of orders of magnitude less powerful - going to do your you? You might as well just drop unarmed civilians as hostages, because against any planet with a defensive industry that's about what ground troops are going to amount to.

Ground troops are for when you've already secured the enemy surrender and require them to ratify it, not when you're trying to force them to surrender.

No, kinetic weapons are exactly as big or small as you want them to be. This one for example Would be of the perfect size to take out one person at the dinner table without harming any of the other. Not practical of course since people don't usually hold still for long enough to hit them, but proves quite nicely that you don't have to damange anything you don't want damaged. And if the groundside resistance is hiding inside whatever structures you want to capture, it's not like ground forces could dig them out without damaging the structure either.

No they can't. They can shoot back, but not "just as easily". Because of the gravity well, it is a situation similar to a constant acceleration chase, which always massively favours the one holding higher ground. In a way, it's like a medieval castle siege, only that the besieging side has the large walls on the hill, not the besieged ones. Consider this: A trashcan dropped from orbit will pick energy equal to twenty times it's own weight in TNT on the way down (it's called 20 ricks). Without any other effort required from the people in orbit. On the other hand, any missile or bullet fired from the planet will require that amount of energy invested just to get it up there, even before considering what energy it might need to make a useful impact if a kinetic projectile, or be fast enough to dodge point defence if carrying a warhead. Air friction can be ignored because it applies to both sides. Point defence is another thing: subtract 1g from the acceleration of any missile that goes from the planet to space, and add 1g to ones going the other way, making them much harder to shoot down, and the first ones easier. Hell, even lasers aren't fair. While the athmosphere interferes with laser (or particle beam) shots both ways, the air is thickest at ground level, so if both side shoot at something halfway in between (like incoming missiles) the spaceside force has an advantage even here. The only real advantage the planet has is that they have comparatively unlimited cooling capacity and can build much larger amounts of reactors to power energy weapons. But then again, the spaceside force doesn't have to turn it into a shootout between energy weapons if they don't want to, given their advantages with kinetic weapons and they are the mobile ones.

In short: your planet hates you and actively collaborates with the enemy.

You can't shoot back "just because someone can shoot at you", you can't shoot back because you're sitting at the bottom of a gravity well, and they don't. And there is nothing unique about that scenario, that's what higher ground is all about. It's one of the reasons for example why Switzerland went untouched in WW 2. No-one is going to dislodge them from those mountains.

And no-one claims that people will hand over whatever you want when threatened. The point was that when you can't threaten them into giving it up, despite having an overwhelming strategic advantage and being able to kill them at will, then you're not going to get it by sending in ground forces either. Maybe you should take a look at what an area looks like after a ground war. It's not like you can sweep away the shellcasings and act if nothing happened. If they are willing to fight you to the death, you can just give up on capturing intact whatever it is you want. You'll never take it, even if it isn't destroyed in the fighting, they'll probably blow it up rather than let you have it. After all, they're already willing to die rather than let you have it.

If you are attacking a world, any world, for economic reasons, and the inhabitants are willing to fight back, you have already lost. There is no way you will come out of it making a profit. Doesn't matter whether you just bomb the crap out of it from orbit and collect the scraps or send in the ground fources and collect the scraps after a huge land war. Hot wars are never a profitable business. Unless you sell bombs. Almost. If they're not willing to give, you can try to take it but will go home with nothing but rubble. Might as well go home right away.

edited 30th Oct '12 2:10:11 PM by McKitten

You know, you just expressed a point I've been trying to make in threads like these for months better than I ever could have. Thank you very much.

That said, I could see some very unusual circumstances that could potentially lead to fighting on the ground, but they'd require a MacGuffin of ridiculously high value that you aren't likely to find anywhere in a hard-sci fi setting.

It would go something like this. Side A needs MacGuffin B, which is currently held by side C. Side A goes to side C's planet and gains orbital superiority. Side C refuses to surrender because they know side A needs the MacGuffin. Assuming this hypothetical item is relatively fragile, I could conceive of side A sending people down to the planet to try and steal it, but that would be more like spy fiction In Space than your typical Space Opera battle.

That said, If we're talking about REALLY hard sci fi, the only wars in space you'd see would be wars of total genocide (or religious wars) where one side wants to kill/convert every member of the other side. The sheer cost of space travel leaves no rational reasons to fight a war. Though that quickly devolves into a KKV shitstorm in the "war of genocide" example.

edited 30th Oct '12 2:33:30 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

The sheer cost of battleships coupled with the benefits of rapid world trade meant no rational reason to fight a war at the turn of the 20th century. Then came 1914.

The same "no rational reason for war" schtick was repeated in the 1920s during the disarmament era. Then came September 1, 1939.

edited 30th Oct '12 3:26:05 PM by MajorTom

Well, those wars show that fighting for irrational reasons is just fine with humans. That war in space is irrational just means it'll be ideological wars, not economic ones.

KKV are not actually a big threat (at least not at comparable levels of civilization). First of all, they're quite pointless aside from a MAD perspective, but more importantly, if you can launch a KKV you can simply hit an incoming KKV with one of your own, causing a pretty explosion vaporizing both of them (and incredible amounts of money) rendering them harmless. Heck, the interceptor doesn't even need to go that far, as long as you hit the KKV with anything far enough out, it'll vaporize because of it's own kinetic energy.

Unfortunately, without any sort of FTL, that simply isn't possible; at high portions of c, your warning will be weeks if not days (or if they really work at it, seconds) in advance for a class of projectile that takes years if not decades to reach top speed. In addition to that, pinpointing an object moving at relativistic velocities with the certainty necessary to hit it with anything is equally impossible without FTL. That said, because of the threat of mutual destruction, one would hope interstellar civilizations would be intelligent enough not to start that kind of war. Then again, as you said, wars in space will be ideological rather than based on the acquisition of resources or other "rational" reasons...On the other hand, we haven't nuked ourselves, and that's a start. There's also the possibility that an interstellar civilization would disperse themselves into a large number of hard to hit targets that can easily accelerate or decelerate like space stations or asteroids, which would minimize the damage any one projectile could do, and require an actual invasion force to destroy.

@Tom: What I was saying is that war in space is too expensive to justify wars that occur for rational reasons like the acquisition of resources, and as kitten said, ideological wars are still fair game. Additionally, unlike the historical examples, the cost of space warfare is so high because it runs up against insurmountable physical limits like the speed of light when you reach a large enough scope. Interplanetary war could conceivably be cost effectively, but the only way interstellar war would be fought for rational reasons is if you involve MacGuffin materials like that unobtanium from Avatar.

However, all the parameters change if FTL or other sci fi technology gets involved. With sufficiently energy efficient FTL travel/communication or FTL sensors, drone craft become important for scouting reasons, since they'd allow you to more accurately gauge the exact position of enemy craft and thereby gain more accurate firing solutions, which makes countering said recon drones with (drone) interceptors extremely important. Of course, you still won't see piloted space fighters, and in all likelyhood warships themselves would be run by artificial intelligences or lone/small groups of transhumans with sufficient reaction time and calculation abilities to match AIs.

edited 30th Oct '12 5:39:51 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

No KKV aren't actually helped by their speed. They're easy to spot a long distance off, since every little speck of interstellar dust that hits them will light them up, given the force of the collision. After that, it's pretty easy to predict the path, since an object moving at that speed can't really manoeuvre to dodge anything incoming, and you don't have to hit it hard, any little thing is enough, so countermeasures can take a shotgun approach. Let's say you spot it 10 lightyears out, since it moves at .9c, it's actually at 1 ly distance when you spot it. Still, calculating the path isn't hard, and you still have one year to throw something, anything in it's path. If you use some sort of self-propelled projectile, it can even correct course to improve the intercept chances as it gets closer. The faster the KKV is, the shorter behind its signal it will be, but it will also be spotter further out since it lights up hotter. In fact, one can have KKV go too fast, because it might get burned to nothing during travel. Space is close to a perfect vacuum and interstellar dust and hydrogen are extremely thing, but impacts at .9c are also incredibly violent so even impacts of individual molecules can add up quickly.

I remember reading an excerpt from a book by two physicists on atomic rockets that said pretty much the opposite. IIRC it was been something to do with it being impossible to calculate the speed of such a fast moving object without being hit by it because you can't tell how far behind its image the actual weapon actually is, which consequently makes it impossible to determine where exactly the KKV itself is. Or something. I really don't remember, but the main reason they thought that interstellar war wouldn't be about who fires a KKV first is because doing so would alter any third parties observing that your intentions are likely hostile.

edited 30th Oct '12 6:01:21 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Well, i'd love to read the original text, because that makes no sense at all. You can calculate the speed of any object, the only reason you might be wrong is if it changes that speed in the meantime. The latter is quite possible for something like a spaceship (i.e. something not at .9c) but not possible for a KKV. So what if there's noticeable light speed delay, calculating that is something i can do with a pencil and a computer can do in milliseconds. I mean, it really is pretty basic. You get the image, you calculate the speed and distance. The distance tells you how long it took the light to get to you, and the speed allows you to take that time and calculate where the object is now. Two images a couple of minutes ago will also give you the course, then you just throw something in there and watch it go boom.

edited 30th Oct '12 6:32:46 PM by McKitten

Mckitten; For starters that is a rocky meteorite not a weaponized space to surface projectile, also it is about as aerodynamic as a brick. As it is it came in at less then ideal angle burning off the majority if it's energy before hitting the car. Damage like in that picture is trivial and easily defended against. If it had been a purpose designed weapon to be launched from orbit to surface it would hit with quite a bit more force. You have to have enough projectile mass (either in straight materials or ablatives) to survive the trip from orbit to surface in the first place so there is a limit to how small you can make your proctiles and have them be even reasonably effective.

They can still shoot back none of what you said removes that fact. Your not out of the danger zone. There is no gurantee you can zap everything they have, and there is no gurantee you can intercept everything. There is no gurantee that you are not tagged by defenses on the way in or when your setting up your orbit. There is no gurantee your ship doesn't get smacked by something fired from planet side. Being in the gravity well doesn't really matter they can still shoot at you. Even in high orbit you are not in a position of impunity.

Hey there are energy weapons great. There is limited mass for that weapon on the ship. This means you have less stuff to give your ship range and power advantages then say a whole bloody planet. The planet however does not have that problem and can expend the effort to make a weapon powerful enough to fire into orbit and outrange you. You are also going to be generally limited in how many of those KKV's you can haul around. Again the planet has no such issue. Your sitting in orbit. There is nowhere for you to really hide from the planets surface. If the planet has defensive measures around the globe and poles that can cover the whole planet from any approach your going to always be approaching a dangerous area in orbit. Unlike the ship the stuff on the planet can hide things in the ground clutter, camoflauge it, put it in bunkers, dig in to mountains etc.

Even better the planet doesn't have to worry about consumables like fuel, munitions, and if you have a living crew food, air, and water. They can easily wait you out before you have to go your own way.

Here read this Courtesy of Rocket Punk Manifesto.

Again if there is something ground side you want, you spent the time and resources to come and get it. I doubt just destroying it is an option. Your coercion didn't work and they still have what you want. Chances are they will not just up and destroy it if there is anway they can force you into a more dangerous fight in their favour or to expend your supplies to the point where you have to leave.

Destroying the object someone wants badly enough to cross space and threaten you over kind of negates the advantage of making them come get it or forcing them to more carefully consider what they target and what they target it with.

If it is valuable to someone willing to travel long distance in space it is very likely roughly similar value to the people on the planet. If you did not come prepared to go planetside with something to get it you have effectively wasted the time to come and get it.

Your either visiting a habitated planet for trade or as resupply point, to destroy stuff on the planet (almost guaranteed to be contested), or to get something from the planet by means other then trade/resupply.

Trying to take on a thoroughly inhabited planet with industrial base to sustain said population is akin to asking for a hard time. Again the planet has a slew of advantages including stacking the defensive measures heavily in their favour.

However targeting say small colonies or outposts becomes feasible for both coercion and ground invasion.

Who watches the watchmen?

On the other hand there's no clearer message of "We will come over there and kick your ass" than landing say 60 million troops on a heavily populated planet and winning in a conventional war. If the costs are outweighed by the benefits (say lose 1 million soldiers in the conflict but end the interplanetary/interstellar war as a whole) the mission is a go.

And since wars of extermination are typically a very good way to find yourself a victim of genocide as opposed to you dealing it (or worse the people you're genociding by flinging rocks and nuking planets have friends, or even worse powerful friends) those are typically not feasible compared to ideological, conventional, or economic wars of conquest. You still have the option of the peace table if things go pear shaped in those, not so in a war of extermination.

edited 30th Oct '12 7:02:32 PM by MajorTom

@Mckitten: I think the Atomic Rockets example assumed a phlebotinum infinite acceleration drive thingy. As things stand, there are far better ways of wiping out a planet with no ways of stopping it. Green Goo, which is to say weaponized Grey Goo is one way to utterly ruin a biosphere, hard to get rid of when it's already there, and it would be relatively easy to sneak it into a biosphere under a false pretense.

@ Tom: You don't need to wipe out a planet's population to subjugate it, just defeat any assets capable of fighting your ships. If the planet doesn't surrender once you've won the battle in space assuming it wasn't a Pyrrhic Victory that leaves you unable to wipe out the planet's population, there's nothing you can do but wipe out the planet's population and move on, or just leave them crippled and move on (or start vaporizing cities until they give in or everyone's dead), since refusing to surrender in such a scenario indicates your enemy is going to fight to the last man woman and child.

@ Tuefel: Didn't we already say any realistic interstellar war will be ideological rather than based on resource acquisition or other "rational" reasons for fighting? There's no resource in the cosmos that's so scarce that civilizations would end up in conflict over it. Also, most hypothetical KKV weapons that would be used in an invasion scenario would be retrofitted asteroids, likely constructed by Von Neumann machines you brought along.

edited 30th Oct '12 8:03:38 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Did you forget all about Tueful's stuff? A planet without boots on the ground is a planet that can simply wait you out. Unless you are trying to exterminate every last man, woman and child simply intimidating the place doesn't work. (Just look at historical examples of Gunboat Diplomacy and how appallingly often it didn't work or backfired horribly.)

Remember if you came that far to do war, you came that far to put boots on the ground because if you're there, you want something on the ground and they aren't going to give it up through intimidation meaning you're gonna have to get your hands dirty and fight the old fashioned way. All the orbital bombardments in the Universe mean nothing if what you want on the planet is still in your enemy's possession on land. They can simply hide military assets and facilities underground or in regions not easily targeted from orbit (like underwater or under ice), and worse will likely possess means to counterattack your ship(s) in orbit. Meaning you still have to come down there and get your hands dirty lest you get blown out of the stars!

And remember there's still the possibility that intimidation tactics will make the planet call for help. And that help might be very formidable or powerful. Just as would happen if you started slagging every last centimeter of the planet in a genocide.

Yes I did, and I agree, any planet with a reasonable industrial base can wait you out, and will always beat you on the ground if you go for that option due to a war of attrition being weighted so far in their favor that attempting a ground invasion is inconceivable. That said, if you possess the capacity to wipe out all life on an enemy planet and intend to use it if you can't win otherwise, not surrendering would be insane, and more importantly means they're going to fight to the last man woman and child, in which case a ground war has more or less than same net outcome at a significantly higher cost in time and resources: the majority of the planet's population is dead and most of the infrastructure is ruined.

Furthermore, if the planet had those hypothetical powerful friends, you won't be able to stop them from taking the planet back so you might as well deny it to the enemy. If that would make them come and do the same to your worlds, you've already lost, and might as well surrender yourself. In order for a ground invasion to be feasible, YOU have to be that overpowering empire that can afford to fight a war at such a massive logistical disadvantage.

edited 30th Oct '12 8:16:33 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Not necessarily true. Only a poor strategist would make a war of attrition. A smart one would achieve his objectives through multiple means including shows of force, direct action and occupation coupled with continuing threats of further hostilities until either the planet is taken or they surrender.

Planetary defense is contingent upon two things: 1) Assuming enemy orbital presence is both finite and relatively small and 2) fomenting a defense plan that would draw the enemy into decisive and costly defeats.

Otherwise you're looking at full scale war here and you'll need not only orbital assets of your own but likely allies to come to your aid. (The same will happen of the orbital invaders. They may need friends to keep the other side's friends at bay.) Meaning either way you're gonna have to fight on the ground lest your ships be destroyed or fight on the ground to take your objective be it cities, resources, artifacts or simply show your national pride by beating the enemy into submission.

And remember, it doesn't matter if your ship can vaporize cities. One ship is no threat to a planet. A thousand warships backed by troop transports (Or they themselves are the troop transports) is a message that you're here to fight and is a very credible threat to an entire planet.

Meaning ultimately, there's no such thing as inconceivable. (You Keep Using That Word.) You get your hands dirty either way in such a war.

That's assuming the power that invades in the first place always commits 100% of its battle ready troops and ships to the planet. No military ever does that and no empire worth its salt will build so few of anything as to have its imperial ambitions stopped by a planet or race having friends. They'll (militaries and empires/powers) both account for that.

Meaning it goes back to that full scale war scenario. To avert that (which could end in either side's favor) you'd need to strike and take the planet before help shows up and then reinforce and prepare a defensive for when it does. Alternatively that's exactly what you want, you want those friends to show up to ravage them so that once you've pacified the first planet you move on and take the next ones that are now weakened in the war.

A conventional war against a planet is inevitably a war of attrition if you're trying to capture the planet, since, contrary to what the standard sci fi setting would tell you, capturing a planet conventionally is not like capturing a city on it. It's an absolutely massive undertaking that takes a really long time. Coming for a single MacGuffin is out of the question in hard sci fi, as is a war over resources since you'd be better off going a few more light years to get whatever it is you wanted somewhere else. Once again, an ideological war or "irrational" war of conquest (which is to say wanting to conquer an area of space not for it's material value but for the sake of ruling it) are the only wars that can be fought in a realistic sci fi setting.

Additionally, all but the smallest of colonies will have a massive numerical advantage against you, on the order of around a million to one (hyperbole mode) if you want to be realistic about the amount of drones you could make and bring (and they will be drones of some sort, either artificially intelligent or remotely controlled, but feel free to think of it as soldiers if you want) vs the amount of drones they could make for a given cost in resources. Even gram you need to bring to another solar system takes energies comparable to its own mass-energy to transport at reasonable speeds, while everything the opponent needs is already there.

Regarding that part about no sensible empire committing 100% of its troops to one battle, that's completely irrelevant. If this civilization can take back the planet if you bombed it into submission, taking it back if you conquered it conventionally will be trivially easy because of how much more the latter approach costs. If you aren't willing or able to wipe out the planet's population, and they haven't surrendered already, you're not going to take the planet, and might as well start negotiating the terms of a peace treaty if that was your main goal or retreat if it's only a secondary goal or one of many planets you want.

Finally, a conventional war would be at least as bloody and far more costly than just bombing cities until they give in or nothing's left alive on the planet, since refusing to surrender under threat of that indicates an intent to fight to the last, man woman, and child. Either that or they're betting that you're bluffing, and will likely surrender if you show them you're not. It's also a lot slower than just bombing the planet until the enemy surrenders.

By the way, while inconceivable doesn't technically mean what my statements imply it means, it's perfectly usable in that context as hyperbole. All but impossible would be more accurate.

edited 30th Oct '12 8:49:47 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Sooner or later there will be something on someone's rock speck in space that is of value enough to come after it. No one agreed the war would be about ideals, politics, or other less tangible items. You may have wanted it to be but I don't recall agreeing to that being an objective for the discussion.

The objective in general was a reason to put boots planet side. The answer is simple there is something ground side you don't want to or can't destroy for any reason. Bullying them has not worked. They have time on their side. They are not likely to destroy it because of the value to them in whatever quantifiable way. If you want whatever IT is you need go get it. This is also assuming whoever the intruders are have the assets to make even a contested space to surface infantry assault of some variety to even attempt seizing the asset.

In that case dropping asteroids on the planet has a pretty good chance of removing the value you spent your resources to come get.

Other things to consider is that there are a host of possible military objectives that the effort to capture is worth the expenditure in life.

So you are going to suddenly whip out a new technology to achieve your point. Oh look we have the same tech and all the asteroids you can find that are suitable for your ends are all booby trapped or suddenly turned against the would be attackers. We can carry on arguements like this until the sky falls. :P

If we really want to discuss a reasonable range of possibilities we need to pick a preset and agreed upon scenario with specific limits and conditions. Otherwise we are ultimately going to run ourselves in silly circles.

Taking a planet with sizeable population woudl be the effort of centuries. We really need to set up scenarios.

edited 30th Oct '12 9:08:12 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I'll explain why I and many others think a war over anything rational in space (which is to say non-ideological wars) is exceedingly unlikely: There is no resource in real life which is rare enough to fight an interstellar war over. Stars are a dime a dozen comparatively speaking, rare Earth metals aren't all that rare in the grand scheme of things, and pretty much all natural elements can be found in large quantities easily.

So really, there's is no reason for boots to be on the ground in hard sci-fi, and no conventional warfare. However, espionage is still a possibility, and a very attractive one given the costs involved in fighting any sort of interstellar war. If the OP insists on having wars in space become ground wars, they'll need to involve some nonexistant technologies, the first of which is a means for (relatively) Casual Interstellar Travel.

On a side note, having the technology to traverse the interstellar void at reasonable speeds implies the technology to create an RKV that can move at the same speeds in a hard sci fi setting. It also makes things like dropping asteroids on a planet rather trivial.

edited 30th Oct '12 9:22:46 PM by Archereon

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

No, but you can make a damn good job of it anyhow, and it's kind of hard to hide the kind of Cape Canaveral grade infrastructure needed to launch anything big.

Getting into orbit involves quite a lot of thrust, and isn't going to be an instantaneous achievement either, thus you will see the planet firing before the rocket gets there.

True. However weather in inclined to get in the way.

And if that's the case interplanetary KK Vs are a better way to go because they've probably used up most of their planetary resources on those defences.

Because no-one of course thought to pack solar panels and spare parts for the life-support. Also, it's kind of hard to hide things like power-plants, ports and major transport routes, which means that the guys from orbit can do you plenty of inconvenience.

That works if you want if for yourself, but if it's the enemy command centre, then nuking it from orbit is perfectly fine.

They can bombard you from orbit, and probably will so refusing will mean a lot of pain on your part if you refuse, but don't have the power to actually see them off.

If you're prepared to attack their planet, then you'll probably have few qualms amout hurting them until they give it to you. And I repeat, any troops that are there in more than a ceremonial guise are likely to be outnumbered and outgunned, and thus more-or-less hostages or targets.

They however have a lot of disadvantages too, like providing a target-rich environment for any attacker.

Or you just smack enough infrastructure to put them out, then wait for the inevitable descent into anarchy.

Yeah, but boots on the ground will be outnumbered and outgunned, so you really need a win in your pocket before disembarking them really becomes an option.

And being in possession of a valuable artefact means nothing if trying to prevent the enemy getting it ends up crippling you.

And of course bunker-busters are impossible now right?

And occupation falls apart real quickly if the locals decide they're not welcome, which means they have to rely on orbital support, except by your supposition orbital fire is next to useless. See the issue there?

If 1) is true then the enemy's probably going to be aware of it too, and thus a show of force any they'll leave anyway.

And a hundred ships with just a smattering of troops is almost as big a danger, and can stick around longer.

However, you can't leave your own planets unguarded, and it's quite possible their friends are powerful enough that they can force you to choose between their planet or yours.

Matt II; Please see the Rocket Punk Manifesto Link a couple posts back. Also read the comments. Rick rather neatly covers everything including pointing out that myth of invincible orbital position is very likely just that. A myth.

We already do this with ICBM's. They are called missile silos. It is not that much more difficult to just create a large silo and camoflauge it and make other arrangements to conceal it, until it fires. We can even fire ICBM's from Submarines something that is very difficult to track from surface and unless they surface impossible to track from orbit. You're also conflating how America did it's space program with how someone in future might do it. There is a good chance they will have a wider range of options then something obvious like Canaveral.

That works both ways however the more powerful weapon will still have the advantage in both range and power output at target. The advantage would still be the planet side weapon.

[[quotblock]]And if that's the case interplanetary KK Vs are a better way to go because they've probably used up most of their planetary resources on those defences.[[/quoteblock]]

One you can intercept or deflect a large variety of KKV's with a range of other weapons. Two. It doesn't take much to make large area threatened by weapons from surface to orbit. Also I don't recall any part of the discussion giving the planet any specific limits on resources. I doubt giving every major approach defenses would even come close to depleting the entire resources of an entire planet. Even more so if the planet has had general access to trade in general.

One great you have energy but do you have infinite fuel, ammo for consumable weapons, and infinite supplies of food, water, and other needed human consumables?. You can partially hide or thoroughly protect a variety of power plants by burying them under ground with minimal structures exposed. You can also use alternative methods of cooling where needed. Transport is easy. We have done it time and again by simply putting it underground. Hiding factories underground has also been done. Not just small factories but extensive operations that built aircraft, missiles, and a host of other items. The ship in orbit does not have anything to hide behind or under.

One again we did not dictate what they are after only that they are after it and made the trip to do it. The point is moot as you can hide the entire command center underground or in deep bodies of water. Again they are there to capture or take it not destroy it.

If by target rich you mean a crap load of possible defensive measures then yes. They can also threaten the attacker far more effectively with a larger variety of weapons and defenses including orbital defenses, ships of their own, and more robust ground to space assets. If they have a moon(s) they can turn that into a orbiting threat in and of itself or put launch bases for ships to counter attack from.

In the mean time your still wiling away the time expending consumables like food, water, and likely limited fuel you have left for maneuver hoping anarchy works the way you need/want it to. While your at it once you decide to get closer for a more detailed look you better hope they didn't have some weapons they kept hidden waiting for such an opportunity. The method of attempting to cause anarchy is notoriously unreliable especially with a prepared military infrastructure.

The problem is the enemy already possesses it and you want it. Or it is possible your assaulting an asset that does not belong to your enemy but some third party. Say you know your enemy has no intention of taking this asset for any number of possible reasons. The assets value intact far outweighs it's value destroyed. Who says the attacker would be crippled? Lets say they successfully suppress the defenses. Great. But the guys on the ground are being stubborn and not giving up the object. You can't blast it because it is too valuable to destroy. The enemy likely won't destroy for whatever reason perhaps a hope of retaking it at later date. You have no choice at this point but to go down there and seize what you want with boots on the ground end of story.

Not true of all occupations. The amount of local support vs resistance is highly variable. There are examples in history of occupations lasting decades with the military propping up a government puppet. Various examples last many decades to over a century. Also orbital fire support has the risk of missing and killing your own and takes more time to get to ground then say fire support assets ground side. Any fire support from orbit to surface is going to require some careful consideration especially when forces are engaged in direct combat and there is no guarantee the enemy has no way to deflect or intercept physical object type fire support. Energy weapon fire support might be more viable but you still have to be careful that your weapons accuracy is good enough to not cook something you or your troops need surface side. Just because someone has any sort of fire support does not mean there will not be ground side resistance.

Can't really argue with this.

Almost forgot about the bunker busters. Like today it is far easier to bury something deep enough to negate the effectiveness of bunker buster and to know where to accurately strike then it is to target precisely where you want your round to go. Also see the earlier comment about intercepting projectiles. Some might get through but there is no guarantee they are your bunker busters.

Acheron: Habitable planets especially ones with water those are not a dime a dozen as we are finding is likely the case. Also stars tend to be really far apart and there is no guarantee the star system holds anything of serious use worth the effort to travel there. Which costs more and yields results sooner? Flying past known assets to maybe find something further out or going after known assets?

Ease of access to certain resources vs others lack of certain assets can always be a reason for war if any number of nearly impossible to predict events line up. This can be especially true if you need those resources you are lacking for one reason or another to go further out in the first place.

Your RKV comment is moot it has no bearing on the discussion in general. We are not talking about turning a planet into a pile of slag. Your also ignoring the part of the argument that the planet has something someone deemed of value enough to not turn the planet into bits of floating rock. Please try to stay with the topic and not dodge it.

You can not ignore the fact that if someone somewhere decides there is value to not just blasting something off the planet that sooner rather then later someone is going to have to go ground side. There is no way around it.

Or I can do this.

Hostile People from Space with Blue Ideology: Oh hey our blue ideal says we have to own this planet. Oh drat it is owned by someone else. Well crap. We want it so we can't turn it into rubble. But our ideals say we also can't do too much harm to planet. Well we can try and take out defenses and key structures but that likely leaves someone down there. Gee how to get them without causing devastating effects to the planet surface and climate. Well nuts we have to put boots on ground.

Planet People with Orange Ideology: Holy crap dudes. Totally not cool. This our planet we were meant to live here. Always have man. Since we live here we don't want to turn it into a hell blasted wasteland with nukes and bad weather and stuff. So we are gonna try and use what defenses we can to keep your ships away. If you get rid of our defenses and come down after us to wipe us out we are gonna fight back dude. You hear me bro?

To achieve their conflicting ideological goals both sides are likely going to have to strive to stick to conventional warfare. Welcome to the insanity of human kind.

Bam done. Using ideology, you know things like religion are considered an ideology and people do far more nonsensical things for it, I came up with a reason for some group to put boots on ground. There is room for a lot of varying ideologies in the human race and I highly doubt the bulk of them will be reasonable or sane. Or even the ones that start out that way will stay that way.

While I can agree that having to fight on a planets surface will not be a constant factor in warfare. However it is rather ignorant to assume someone somewhere will not find a reason to do it anyways. Just like someone somewhere will find a reason for their group to beat another group over the head.

---

Any arguements we have in this thread aside I think quite a few of us would find this game of interest.

Torch ships Real 3 D Space Combat Realistic space combat. I would so buy this.

edited 30th Oct '12 11:19:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Oh, you mean like a major airport. Sorry, but as long as there's a chance of failure, launch sites will be open with lots of empty space nearby.

Except that the orbital warship isn't reliant on just one weapon.

Assuming you know it's coming in, which isn't totally certain since it probably won't be crewed (thus you maintain it at a lower temperature because you don't need all the power that normally goes into life-support), and can use Gravity slingshot to change course, if it's planned right.

Well assuming an earth-level resources, you're spending a big portion on your defences.

because of course you burn fuel even when you're getting power from outside, and no, you can't possibly recycle water.

However, hiding everything underground is much more expensive than building it on the surface, so unless you're actually expecting an attack it's not going to be buried.

Sure, but you're going to have a real time shooting them down with anything besides beam weapons though.

And we won't have bunker-busters in the future?

If you've got surface to orbit weapons but you've let them settle in then you've dunced already.

Which negates any sort of landing if that's what you're getting at.

A moon (probably) doesn't have a protective atmosphere, so any projective is going to hit with maximum force, and you won't need a heat-shield.

And if they do fire back you nuke the whole area.

At which point you're now at war with that third party.

Read again, I'm talking about the defender being crippled, not the attacker.

So they just lay the collateral damage on heavy until either they're out of ammo, or have hurt you enough that you cry uncle to make them stop.

You're just guessing that, and there's probably a 50/50 chance you're wrong, because once all the documents and people are out, a military HQ is just an especially well-protected office-block.

Assuming you want it intact, and that you aren't willing to (or capable of) destroy half the enemy's population to get it.

The closest thing to your scenario would be something akin to the Warsaw pact, although in that case the USSR could probably have brought enough power to the party to flatten some of the countries outright.

That's assuming you have the necessary support groundside.

Quite. And if it's an industrialised world then the locals can probably put up quite a lot of resistance, maybe even enough to overwhelm your troops, at which point you're left with a choice, let them become hostages, kill them yourself to prevent that, or bombard some of their other cities to make them kowtow.

Building a major base more than 200 feet (the approximate penetration of the GBU-57) underground is not easy, and making it capable of surviving a 5,300 pound explosion. And that's just today, what might be possible in the future...

You're assuming that, but it's quite possible that destruction works too (say if it's the enemy's main command centre).

See above comment, "Wanted, destroyed or intact" is quite possible, depending on what the target actually is.

Except that Blue wants Orange gone, but doesn't want to destroy the environment in the process, fine, but that says nothing of just smashing all of Orange's cities with EM Ps, followed by KK Vs, followed by Bunker Busters, and then conventional bombs for anyone left alive.

The only reason to drop troops is to capture something you definitely want in one piece (and that the locals don't want to destroy), but is heavily guarded by people who don't much care about what happens to the rest of the planet, and who can overcome anything the normal locals throw at them (most leaders would be willing to lose 10,000 troops to retain a city of 10,000,000).

Who said anything about airports? Cape Caneveral was ideal for the U.S. and at the time it is the best we could do. This what we are stuck with using because of our limits in technology and extensive delays in researching alternatives. You get to the point where you have interstellar travel and your telling me we are stuck using centuries old layouts and tech? I highly doubt it.

Neither is the planet. The ship is still far more limited in it's options due to concerns for mass. The planet can explore more options without concerns for mass. They can afford bigger,stronger, longer in concerns of offensive and defensive weapons then a space ship can.

Knowing they may be coming is pretty easy. Oh hey hostile ship guess where the weapon fire is going to come from. We have similar tech so we can expect kinetic weapon salvos. Who said anything about crewed KKV's? What is this kamikaze time? Once you launch anything other then a beam weapon they can see it coming and have time to deflect or destroy it. Considering any ground side force is going to be watching them closely to see what they are doing they are going to have a chance to pick off the weapons. What is likely to happen is the two forces are going to stalemate unless someone gets lucky. They will hold each off at maximum beam ranges and snipe at each other with KKV's and various missiles.

Your point is what? We haven't yet stripped the earth of all it's resources and planet that has access to resources that are not even on your world via trade means you can get more from somewhere. What if it is world with more resources then earth? I would say if the planet has anything of value to protect building defenses for it are likely worth it.

It is not that expensive and with advances in technology that cost could go down dramatically. Also knowing what any possible enemy is likely to attack allowing you to go ahead and bury it underground well ahead of time. Oh gee I don't want this zapped from orbit. Underground it goes.

And they are going to have to have a helluva time getting closer then High Orbit. Again Rocket Punk Manifesto blockade post covers this.

That block kinda got mangled there so addressing only part made sense. Dunce it, not really. The whole purpose of those weapons is if something goes wrong you are not left scratching your head going shit that didn't work out, well were fucked. You have something to fight back with other then rolling over and letting someone do as they please. This also helps you force the opposition to expend time and effort to have to take down your defenses.

That negates more then just landing. The point I was trying to get across was attacking worlds like that are simply not worth the cost unless your out for total destruction. Far easier to go prey on colonies and outposts which are less likely to be as heavily defended or have as extensive defense networks.

That lack of atmosphere also works in the favor of weapons mounted on the moon. Energy weapons for example have much less issues of weather or atmospheric beam degradation. The moon also likely has less gravity making firing missiles a lot easier to do from it's surface. The moon also has the benefit of possibly being a serious credible threat to a high orbiting ship depending on proximity and orbit relative to the planet.

That is assuming they don't kill the attacker in their surprise attack.

Possibly. If that planet is the only member of that said third party you deal with them you gain assets (item/thing/place x you came for) and knock out any possible future allies for your enemies in one fell swoop. Plus politics complexities do not necessarily mean and automatic war but that is a different thing altogether.

Again your holding on to it because it is valuable enough to defend or fight over for whatever reason.

And if they don't give up then your still in the same boat especially if the enemy is sitting on that objective. That means either going home or going down to get it. The only difference being you beat them up more and likely expended more time and resources doing it. The sooner you do what you came to do the better.

That was the assumption to begin with. Your not there to destroy. As for the population unless they are included in your objective or you have reasons to not blast them who cares. Your there for item x unless item x is person(s) you want that badly.

Try the Romans or the Spartans just for starters. Both occupied foreign soil through might of arms, use of force, and propping up of puppet governments. They also lasted for decades or longer. It is not just that you are occupying it is how you do it.

Wouldn't be that hard to include some sort of ground side fire support and there might be situations where smaller amounts of firepower are better fit then an orbital strike. Another situation is if the ship is in a non stationary orbit you have something to back you up just in case the ship is out of position for fire support. To be honest I still like the idea of calling down orbital energy weapon fire.

Depends on if the locals outside of the military body are willing and capable of being involved in stopping an assault on/for item x. Civilian resistance has had a lot of mixed results depending on various situations. I wouldn't count on it. Maybe if they had local armed militias but that would be more akin to fighting military elements then a rebellious population in the middle of a fullout military assault.

And how you are going to make sure you got everything? Orbital scans have limits and might miss something. You are going to need to go ground side to make sure you got everything. You have to make sure there isn't anyone tucked away in a bunker you missed or perhaps you left something intact for whatever reason.I would say that is something worth sending troops on the ground to at least find it.

If your fighting to exterminate the population and not smash up the planet too badly your still going to be careful on how use weapons like KKV's. EMP would be interesting to see used and would more to suppress the ability to fight back outside of possible ground forces. The attacker may also choose to leave certain infrastructure intact as destroying them would be counter to their goal. For example any large power generation sources might be dangerous to destroy or even damage.

If that is the case going in on foot might be a better option. If the attacker scarpers off for whatever reason even having bits of infrastructure left to ensure rebuilding and survival for remaining population has a pretty good chance of making the locals a lot less likely to sabotage or destroy those particular items. No guarantees on that though.

When it comes to war of extermination being thorough is commonly a trait. Spending a few weeks minimum ground side to make sure you got the job done right, possibly helping direct orbital fire on certain targets, and ensuring it is safe for your own guys to move in is likely to happen. This would be more a mop up action though.

---

Who watches the watchmen?

So what the heck is your point here? That a random chunk of rock deorbiting is capable of causing very little damage, but a precisely designed and aimed weapon has to be at least a city-block killer? You're not making any sense whatsoever. Kinetic weapons can be used in all sizes and shapes, from something the size of that meteor to dinosaur-killer size. You are not going to damage anything with kinetic weapons you don't want to damage. Sure, the target might hide in whatever structure you don't want damaged, but then we're back to the point that ground forces aren't going to take it undamaged either.

So what? No-one said they can't shoot back, only that they are at an overwhelming disadvantage. There is a big difference between being able to get a lucky shot in, and having a chance to win, or cause serious damage. I'm pretty sure there were quite a few people killed in knife-fights in WW 2, that doesn't mean that any side showing up armed only with knifes would have had the faintest hope of winning. You don't need to have any range or power at all. The planet does it for you. And further out you orbit the worse it becomes for the people on the planet. You can just drop crap out of your ships, have some guy kick it out of the door, to get a weapon more powerful than any conventional explosive. None of that is any help. Just take a look what bunker-busters do when dropped from a measly few meters out of a bomber in the air. The only thing that works is dodging whatever is incoming, and ships can do that, planetary installations can't. Well, you can shoot it down as well, but that depends on what it is. Another advantage for the ships however, since anything with a rocket motor that could follow evasive manoeuvres can be shot down. Because that stuff just falls from the sky? You can't really hide power plants, water treatment facilities, weapons factories or any other large-scale operation. Sure, some will go unnoticed, but good luck outlasting the siege when "only" 90% of the infrastructure is gone. You might want to say that the invaders want to take it intact so aren't going to damage it, but again: if the planet doesn't surrender they're not going to take it intact anyway. Might as well destroy it to help pushing for that surrender. Yeah, i'm not impressed. Usually Rick writes quite good posts but that one's just a lot of hand-waving. He's simply claiming "rockets exist, therefore the planet wins". The reason why atomic rockets is believable is because they show the numbers. Don't believe them, and you can follow the calculations yourself. The Rocket Punk post on the other hand offers no solution to the massive physical disadvantages of the gravity well and atmosphere, simply hand-waves them away as not a problem, which isn't the least bit convincing. And once they see they're going to lose that fight because you put a hundred million space marines on the planet and the front-line is closing in, do you think they still won't destroy it? Because of what, you put up such an honourable fight they don't want to deprive you of your just reward? If they don't blow it up immediately, they'll blow it up when they're at risking of losing it to you. That's what warfare is all about, not pretty explosions, but denying the other side what they want. And once the McGuffin is blown up, all your boots on the ground are pointless. They were pointless before they even landed. If you can't threaten the enemy into surrender, you're not going to get what you want, it's as simple as that. (unless you're just after the planet and are willing to commit genocide)So what if it's valuable to them to, they're going to lose it anyway. It's like two children fighting over a teddy bear, both pulling a leg. Unless one of them is willing to let go, it'll rip in half and neither one has it. If the spaceside force has enough troops they can land to conquer the planet, a resisting planet will destroy their McGuffin once losing seems inevitable. If the spaceside force is succesfully repelled and not willing to expend any more resources, they'll bomb the McGuffin before leaving to at least deny it to the enemy. Although that is besides the point, even if the planet had a chance of repelling an invasion and keeping the McGuffin safe, that would only strengthen the original argument: that big land invasions from space are nonsense.

Well, the drive doesn't quite figure into it, unless you also use highly magical shielding. You'd pretty much have to stop impacts on the projectile from lighting it up, to stop it from being detectable, which is not something physics easily allows for. Otherwise, going faster doesn't change much, because it makes it visible further out.

I've never heard of green goo used that way, i'm familiar with grey goo referring to mechanical replicators, green goo to engineered plants (algea pretty much) and pink goo to non-plant life (i.e. bacteria). The grey goo idea of infinitely replicating machines doesn't work because of energy problems, but yeah, simply ruining a biosphere is perfectly possible that. Although it also has downsides, a big fast rock could also hit space stations and similar habitats, while a bioweapon is far easier contained there, if it even manages to breach the hull.

Also, the sheer energy required to travel in space is a problem (this also kills interstellar trade). Even if you're not after some simple substance, the energy required to move stuff between stars means it is much simply to just manufacture yourself whatever it is you're looking for. Even if you have to assemble it atom by atom. Basically, space is the ultimate post-scarcity setting, and in such a setting it makes no sense to fight over resources of any kind.

And you're still not understanding the physical disadvantages of being planet-side. Look, the earth's escape velocity is 11km/s. A tank APFSDS round travels at something between 1 and 2 km/s for comparison. For any physical weapon, be that a missile or an inert slug, you can add that 11km/s to the weapon fired at the planet, and subtract it from the weapons fired from the planet. Similarly, the atmosphere greatly reduces the effectiveness of any laser or particle beam that has to travel through it, but any weapons from the planet always has to cross the atmosphere first, while a weapon space-side does so last. Giving point defences space-side a massive advantage as well. These are physical realities that cannot simply be hand-waved away by invoking "various" missiles and KK Vs. If you want to reach the orbiting force, ICB Ms aren't going to cut it, you'll need something with the thrust of a Saturn rocket. And it's still going pretty damn slow and easy to shoot down.

Moving facilities underground is nonsense. It offers no protection from kinetic impactors once found. Camouflage nets are pretty much all you need, as long as you manage to hide the facility it's safe, if the attackers spot it no amount of burying will protect it.

High Orbit? They can orbit 50000 kilometres out and still kill you. Hell, they could orbit beyond the moon and still threaten to glass your cities if you don't surrender. Or destroy any military facilities they spot. And because all that's between them and the planet is empty space, it doesn't even affect their sensor capabilities. (Yours neither, but spotting the attackers is not the problem)

Yes, moons are much better for installing defences on than planets. You'll have to take them out before going into orbit. Quite possible though, it's still a big stationary target , and you're not worried about genocide, yo can bring out the big guns. If the moon is actually inhabited by significant numbers of people, they're sure as hell not going to fight, risking damage to life support and atmosphere containment. If the moon is inhabitable on it's own, it's just a small planet and all considerations regarding those apply. There is no surprise attack from either planet of moon. Getting into energy weapon range before taking them out is stupid, and missiles or projectiles need far too long to get out of the gravity well to be surprising.

Any weapons that are even close to threatening ships in orbit are more than capable of taking out incoming troop transports. You're not going to land any troops before you have eleminiated them, and if you can do it on one side of the planet, nothing's stopping you from doing it to the other one as well.

edited 31st Oct '12 5:09:28 AM by McKitten

No matter how futuristic your tech, failures are going to be nasty and you won't be able to guarantee against them, thus you'll want your major launch sites well away from anything delicate.

It's also at the top of a gravity well, so hitting the planet can be done with guided bombs, whereas the planet needs to pack a rocket, and hope that the enemy won't notice it for the two or three minutes it's more-or-less helpless.

Colonies take a long time to build up, so unless you're fighting a power that's been in space for a few centuries, or is part of a larger collective, then the chances are his resources are going to be limited to what he can get from his world and the asteroids.

It's still quite a bit more expensive (structurally you're holding up a lot of weight of rock and soil).

Again, assuming you know the enemy is coming.

droping stuff from high orbit (as opposed to LEO) only adds to the power of their weapons, and the speed they're coming in.

If you've let the enemy settle in despite having weapons that could hurt him then, sorry, you've dunced.

Since you've probably only slagged a probe (anyone who sends a ship where a probe would do needs to be shot) then you can assume that the ship will be firing soon, yes.

How many cities are you prepared to lose to stop the enemy getting it?

The more you beat them up, the less they're able to fight back against your most probably outnumbered troops.

Again, how many cities is that installation/artefact worth to the defenders?

Firstly, tanks/artillery take up room you could use for orbital weapons, and need to be soft-landed, and secondly, who says orbital bobardment can't be soft? The USSR ground-landed all of its capsules, and got most of the crews back alive.

If you try to land a brigade, but the enemy can have a corps in quickly then it doesn't matter about the civilians overmuch.

You misunderstand, the GBU-57 penetrates 200 feet, then detonates its 5,300 pound warhead, shakes you up, then all the rock that was on top of the now-hole comes down and shakes you up even more. And that's with a dumb-drop weapon and a conventional warhead, how deep could a rocket-assisted weapon with a high-orbit drop origin dig, and how much power would a nuke that size have when it went off?

Then the troops are not likely to be engaged in battle, but in cleanup.

edited 31st Oct '12 10:13:01 AM by MattII