Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

Well, so far as I can tell, it would work, but I ain't no physicist. Basically, provided you deliberately design the network such that it isn't possible for anyone to arrive somewhere at an earlier date than they were there previously, then causality wouldn't be violated. Now, what the universe would do if someone did try to connect a shortcut is an open question.

Not Cheating Unless You Get Caught.

Who's gonna catch us? God?

Beware the Higgs Boson. It holds a grudge, and never forgets.

All FTL paths violate causality, or to put it differently: for every FTL path through spacetime, it is possible to construct a frame of reference in which that path goes backwards in time. Since all frames of reference are equally valid — this is a core principle of relativity — FTL paths are impossible by definition. (Mathematically speaking, I believe they are imaginary, an unusually apt metaphor.)

Whatever you think you could do to break this principle simply won't work. There is no magical "negative energy" that would let us create Alcubierre fields. Wormholes can't transmit information. This is what physics tells us. Relativity, causality, FTL. Pick any two. Unless you hand-wave it in your story, which I must stress again is perfectly fine, or we discover something new about the way our universe works.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 28th 2019 at 11:07:02 AM

I don't think that's true. There is such a thing as negative energy, they've created it in the lab. You can't traverse normal spacetime faster than the speed of light, but one could theoretically bend or stretch space in such a way as to create shortcuts, which functionally would allow one to arrive at a destination sooner than a beam of light would do so. There may be other reasons why these things can't be done, but I don't think relativity is quite the barrier you are making it out to be.

You mean like is always happening? We know so little about the Universe as to think FTL Travel is absolutely impossible no matter what.

We discover new things all the time, sometimes conforming to what we think, sometimes not, sometimes all they do is leave us baffled. One example is the Fast Radio Burst, nobody knows exactly what makes those and the number of FRB's found to repeat can be counted on one hand. (So far, it's only been one.) One theory though unlikely explaining why FRB's exist is it is the telltale sign of an FTL drive being used. Certainly explains the seemingly random nature of their detection.

So, I'm trying to work out how SEAD could potentially work in space (this is soft-sci FI), and I'm coming up with a. blank, as Wiki article barely goes over specific tactics and it's much geared towards history. Would SEAD and suppression of a starships air defenses kind of go Hand in hand, or would SEAD only count for stationary (relatively) objects?

Question: Why are you not simply bombarding the crap out of the ships and breaking them to pieces instead of suppressing their air defenses?

Or are we talking about space stations and moon bases and whatnot that doesn't move or run away?

I mean if it’s like Star Wars kind of makes sense. X-Wings typically wee able to supress air defenses and what not for either bombers or capital ships.

Realistic space combat occurs at such a large scale that it is rather unlikely to resemble war on Earth, except in the most general way. Suppressing the enemy's point defenses would probably be better done via long range sniping with a laser.

I maintain that KKV bombardment is still the most efficient way to attack things in space. Put another way, Rock Beats Laser.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 30th 2019 at 11:09:15 AM

Genuinely feel like these two topics have gone too far in the direction of Hard Sci-Fi, rather than usual discussing implications normally.

Not everything needs to be met with “wellll actually!”

Heh, depends on how big the rock is, and how powerful the laser.

As for sci fi hardness, just specify the degree of realism you are most interested in whenever to introduce a topic.

I only use "well, actually" if someone asks how they can justify something. If the conversation is predicated upon "make this seem realistic", then you'll get feedback to that effect.

I should add that the question, "what are the implications of X?" is only meaningful when provided adequate context — in particular, the level of hardness of your sci-fi as De Marquis points out above. The softer your sci-fi gets, the less relevant accuracy or realism is, so there's increasingly little point to even asking the question.

If you want space slugs shooting laser rockets from their pores, then go for it, with my blessing. If you want to discuss how you can have FTL or artificial gravity in a work that adheres to hard sci-fi rules, then we need to talk.

Anyway, the thing about SEAD, or any form of combat, in spaaaaaaaaaaace! is that ... well, several things are...

• 360 degree field of view (and field of fire) for both attacker and defender. Unless you're on a fixed, large object like an asteroid or moon, there is no horizon to worry about.
• No air or gravity ^note (If you're being super hard, you do have to account for the effects of atmospheric drag and gravity to some extent, but in soft sci-fi it's not worth worrying about.) means that unpropelled objects don't slow down or fall.
• All projectiles, whether ballistic or guided, have effectively unlimited range (although not unlimited accuracy). One advantage of missiles within a planet's atmosphere is that they can fly a lot farther than bullets, but this advantage is eliminated completely in space. Missiles can perform terminal guidance and evade counter-fire; ballistic projectiles are harder to detect and kill.
• The definition of what constitutes a "kill" is much different. Something that can no longer maneuver, for example, will keep going at its present velocity and may still do a lot of damage if it hits something or is able to detonate or fire weapons.

In general, suppression of defensive fire would work in a similar way as it does on land. You try to eliminate or disable weapons emplacements and detection systems that can intercept your own weapons and/or craft. The balance of offensive and defensive technology would determine whether the ideal combat craft are heavy, capital-class ships or agile, fighter-class ships.

The major reason why SEAD might be pointless is what I said earlier: there's no horizon, ergo no reason to get close to your enemy to attack them, ergo no envelope in which point defenses would be effective against manned craft, ergo no reason to suppress point defenses.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 30th 2019 at 2:58:37 PM

A plotpoint in my story is that a group is developing sonic weapons. I'm wondering what would be the most effective design for a sonic device: Either as a handheld weapon, to be used by individual soldiers, or as a large device that would be attached to an armored vehicle.

Depends on what you plan to use it for. That being said you’re going to have to find ways to have your own sides immune to its effect.

For the enemy tho that’s likely permanent deafness.

Sonic weapons can do a lot more than deafen people. The Brown Note trope is a real thing, though it's not as simple as "tune to 110.35 Hz to make people crap themselves". Subsonics can induce responses like fear (this is a real phenomenon that has explained certain "haunted" houses). High-volume sound, especially at higher frequencies, can temporarily or permanently deafen, even incapacitate. Resonant frequences can directly damage physical objects.

As noted, the major problem is how you keep your own side from being affected. Whatever you're using to project the sound needs to be directional.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 30th 2019 at 5:25:02 AM

Variations on sonic weapons exist right now. The Long Range Acoustic Device can be used as a loud hailer or its aimed and dialed up effects can cause injury to the inner ear. A more intense take on this could do damage to tissue with varying frequencies. I recall someone likened some potential results to being somewhat similar to eating a blast wave from an explosive.

As for not hurting everyone around you, that is pretty easy. We have been creating various noise directors and attenuators for some time. The LRAD is a key example as its effects are directable. It's more like sweeping a beam across targets than spraying it everywhere.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Aug 30th 2019 at 9:31:24 AM

Also, keep in mind, sonic weaponry has non-military uses as well, as people In Cuba can attest.

Or sports fans...

Sonic device are generally thought of as nonlethal weapons. You use them when you dont want to kill anyone—so, riot and crowd control, that sort of thing. Really more of a police and paramilitary tool than anything else. A handheld sonic gun would be a rad replacement for a taser or pepper spray. More reliable, more adjustable, and less likely to cause accidental injury. Works differently, though. While a taser or pepper spray act to disable someone for a period of time, a sonic weapon would act to keep someone away, or disable them only while the sonic effect was on. It would be hard to arrest someone or put handcuffs on them while continuously operating a sonic pistol, so either the officers work in pairs, or use the threat of it to force someone to surrender or desist whatever they were doing.

Or you find some way to mount the device that doesn't require the use of a hand.

Police power armor

It does sound like it would be good for riot control where the entire point is getting people to disperse, pun not intended. People would be a lot less violent if they've got a subsonic brown note blaring at them.

As for design, I'm thinking a small forearm shield. This leaves your hand free to hold things. On the flip side, sound tends to disperse so you don't need the precision of a handgun design.

Edited by Belisaurius on Aug 31st 2019 at 12:49:56 PM

I have an idea so hear me out....

How about we put it on wheels? Like a cart or a trailer or something?