A question about military manpower vs population

[geoschmo]

Technology is a force multiplier. The current state of the military is undergoing a shift towards smaller numbers of more highly trained professional soldiers with a lot more investment in weapons and technology. There is some disagreement about the best way to effect this change, but almost noone disagrees that it's coming. And we are just at the start of this trend now. Forecasted hundreds or thousands of years into the future of your sci-fi universes it's not at all unbelievable that the numbers of military forces needed to conquer or protect populations in the many trillions would seem pathetically small by our current standards. Considering that you can sit in orbit and obliterate a population that won't submit, it doesn't seem like it would take all that many boots on the ground anyway.

Of course conquering and controlling are two different things, but populations can be controlled in other less violent ways for the most part. An empire that's growing will understand this. To the average Joe and Jane in the population it doesn't matter if the seat of the governemnt is on your continent, the other side of the world, or the other side of the galaxy. If they aren't too oppressive you can get along ok.

On the other hand the logistics of supporting a military that is a significant portion of overall population would be simply staggering. And considering that all those support personell and vehicles have to be supported as well and you can see that it's quite possible that a point of diminishing returns could be reached where it's just not practical to get a larger military, even as your empire continues expanding.

[Starhawk]

Yes but on the other side of the equation what kind of military would actually count as "Large" or "small" in terms of trillions of people?

As I said the Star Trek universe for example the Federation has something like 70k starships each wtih a minimum crew of about 50 and on several occasions we hear that starfleet personnel number in the billions.
Now add to that the very inconsistant number of planet-v-population-starfleet size and star trek just gets confusing.
I mean as I said unless the Federation has a few hive worlds how could they lose 900 BILLION people in a single war and not be utterly and totally destroyed as a people?


Well another argument Geoschmo is that technology has a way of winding back around in a circular pattern by that i mean eventually technology would nullify it's own effect, some say that we may eventually see the return of WWI and WWII style warfare someday in the future, not because the technology has become primitive again but because both sides having that kind of tech may very well result in a return to the old style of fighting.

Likewise it is not always a good idea to destroy a world, especailly one with billions of people because if you think about it Empires are not built by destroying those you seek to conquer. Just like the US and Russia don't go around nuking everyone we find a threat as that would hurt everyone in the long run and in the end increase future resistance against your nation/empire.

Now assuming a planet would have it's own military forces (lets say even a few hundred thousand) then you WOULD need ground forces to seize a planet from your enemy, of course an orbiting warfleet could help but it would likely be in the tactical sense not the strategic sense, I mean a well placed kinetic strike or energy strike could be very effective in haulting an enemy advance but the odds of friendly fire risks would skyrocket.

And if you look at it the threat of utter annihilation usually drives people to greater resistance not passivity as they may well begin to think you would destroy them anyway.

So if you think about it wouldn't military forces increase again as this "circular" pattern of technology countering it's self equalized the playing fields?

[El_Phil]

Starhawk said:
Well another argument Geoschmo is that technology has a way of winding back around in a circular pattern by that i mean eventually technology would nullify it's own effect, some say that we may eventually see the return of WWI and WWII style warfare someday in the future, not because the technology has become primitive again but because both sides having that kind of tech may very well result in a return to the old style of fighting.

So if you think about it wouldn't military forces increase again as this "circular" pattern of technology countering it's self equalized the playing fields?

There is a cycle, offence and defence. When one improves the other reacts to it. Whether in weapons or tactics. Faced with charging knights? Longbows
Faced with armoured charging knights? Shoot the horses.
Armoured knights and horses? Gunpowder

Over simplified maybe but that's the principle. This held true until nukes against which a ballistic missile shield might work and only Moscow with 100 dedicated ABM batteries is really safe at the moment. However that doesn't stop a nuclear tipped cruise missile ruining you day.

The big trend that I see is the consequence of a small failure in defence:
If an archer missed one knight at Agincourt it wouldn't change much.
If an anti-tank crew missed one tank in North Africa it could ruin their day, but someone nearby could cover.
If your SAMs miss an F/A-18 you'll have a hole in your defence network eveyone else will steam through.
If your ABM shield missese one nuke...
If your fleet misses one ship on a 'glassing' mission.....

[NullAshton]

Humans populate most of the Star Wars galaxy, I'd guess around 80% of the population is human. The alien populations are repressed by means of fear, and controlling laws. The Rebellion is viewed by the empire as a minor threat, and very little resources are used against them, most of the forces are used for tyranny and conquering new systems.

[geoschmo]

Starhawk said:
Well another argument Geoschmo is that technology has a way of winding back around in a circular pattern by that i mean eventually technology would nullify it's own effect, some say that we may eventually see the return of WWI and WWII style warfare someday in the future, not because the technology has become primitive again but because both sides having that kind of tech may very well result in a return to the old style of fighting.

Technology never has and never will eliminate the need for technology in battle. Individual pieces of tech can nullify each other's effects, but then another technological advance will come along and upsets the balance. It's a cycle, not a cirlce, between technology to kill and technology to protect from being killed. It's been going on since the second guy used an animal hide to block the first guys stick.

[Starhawk]

geoschmo said:

Technology never has and never will eliminate the need for technology in battle. Individual pieces of tech can nullify each other's effects, but then another technological advance will come along and upsets the balance. It's a cycle, not a cirlce, between technology to kill and technology to protect from being killed. It's been going on since the second guy used an animal hide to block the first guys stick.

Oh you misunderstand me I did not mean that technology becomes irrelivent I meant that I've heard/read/saw people who argue to the fact that okay say a hundred years from now side

A. Has lasers, tanks, armor that protects against lasers, nukes and nuclear defense systems.

Side B: Also Lasers, tanks, armor that protects agaisnt lasers, nukes, and nuclear defense systems.

Side A- v-Side B
Laser Anti-laser armor
Anti-Laser armor Laser
Nuke Anti Nuke
Anti Nuke Nuke
Tank Tank
Airpower Airpower
Sea Power Sea Power

Now what they said is basically that because both sides become roughly equal do to the very technology that gives them an advantage their "advanced weapons" are neutralized as "advanced" by the fact that they have "advanced countermeasures" and likewise these "advanced countermeasures" are rendered un "advanced" by the weaponry employed against them.

Basically it's like pitting two WWI era soldiers against one another they are both now just rendered into just "grunts" fighting one another on such a level playing ground that trench warfare may again rear its ugly head.
Or more likely not a WWI but a WWII because the sides would indeed have tanks and mobility warfare.

So the argument is that the very technology that makes them advanced compared to us levels them out with one another to the point where it would likely come down to attrition warfare again one way or another, where one side simply tries to find the other's technological/numerical breaking point.


Did that make sense this time? (seriously I'm asking because some times I don't type as well as I speak or think)

[El_Phil]

It makes sense.

But I think it's wrong. You will never get then anti-technology evolving at the same rate as the technology. It's not until you know what your fighting against that you can develop an effective counter-measure. So the first use of a clever technology will normally have the edge as no-one has developed the appropriate counter-measures.

So very rarely have a force with a clever weapon and only that clever weapon met a force with the exact clever anti-weapon. In fact the counter-tech tends to be cleverer than the tech it was designed to counter. Take the tank, originally designed just to cross no-mans land and beat machine gun emplacements. Look what it became.