Semi-OT: A General Tech Question Thread for me :)

[Starhawk]

Okay El-Phil first off US Casualties are not "A Couple thousand" it's just over 1,000 in a period of what threee YEARS? Compare that to the several THOUSAND terrorist casualties and your talking about a good ratio.

US Military has unfortunately killed some civilians (AS HAVE THE BRITISH) they have hardly "Shot everything" and for the most part civilian loses are inflicted by the Terrorists. The only reason British forces aren't having as many problems is also the fact that they are ocupying the less resistant parts of the country (go figure eh)

People die in war, civilians die in war and that's the way it will be forever no matter what and Urban warfare even with casualties is markedly better then simply dropping weapons from orbit and killing anything that even TRIED to show resistance.

The point of warfare is not usually the extermination of the entire enemy populace or even mass casualty infliction because the fact is your idea of simply taking any formation out from space would be even more "politically FUBAR" than sending in ground troops who yes may kill some civilians but will have a better idea of what they are actually shooting at.

I mean for all oyu know your orbital strike would be taking out a massive cluster of refugees with a military escort?

The problem is Air Power (OR Space power) probobly will never win wars because politics simply is not the answer to everything you know, as Starship Troopers (the book) pointed out, for every group that wants to solve something with politics another group will want to solve it with military force and usually the political element loses because they're too busy trying to talk.


Think about it this way El-Phil if say another country had a warship over your city would you just go "Aw what the hell I'll switch sides" Just because they ask you too? NO you probobly wouldn't because you didn't want to be part of that country in the first place and say you've got people in your city that want to fight back (even assuming you rolled over) now do you want that warship turning your city to slag just to get that handful of folks that wanted to fight back? Troops on the ground would provide them the option of going in without having to massacre the entire city and yeah ground losses would probobly be heavy on both sides but probobly a lot better then simply bombing everything from orbit.


Now lets go into another reason ground troops are far better than simply bombing the hell out of your target, they can think for themselves they know who and what to shoot at and are a lot less likely to cause an accidental bloodbath than a guy aboard a ship who just spots a mass of people and decides to open fire on them.

Troops are population control, just because you put a ship in orbit and maybe they go "Okay we'll join you" the second you leave they'll probobly snicker and go back to serving their own country and your little police force will get slaughtered.

A garrison of heavily armed soldiers will definately make any resisters think more about the military power that first took them over to begin with and will probobly make them feel a litte more wary then a few cops.


Also your not thinking about the fact that we in the modern day could effectively do what you suggest (Just sit there with a fleet and take out any formations you see) but it's not an effective way to fight a war because yeah you've got ships there HELL we have nukes that could level an entire country and yet people still resist.

WAR is the failure of politics your looking at it too much like "Oh talk solves everything" it doesn't so odds are anyone who wanted to fight you in the first place won't simply roll over and pout because your politico's are sitting up in orbit with a fleet.

Also planetary weapons batteries may be in place and your getting warships into range of their weapons could get your fleet destroyed so launching a few hundred troop shuttles may get a few of them destroyed and a lot of ground troops killed but once those troops hit the ground they could proceed to take out the weapon platforms OR even keep them intact for your own forces to use after the planet falls.

To bring my little rant to a conclusion, GROUND TROOPS unlike a space bombardment CAN take out a target in the middle of a city with minimal civilian losses while firing ANY Weapon from orbit that's not the size of a pea would probobly level a city block and ruin your little "Let's talk" idea right there.

Add this little quote to that for another example of what ground troops can do that air or space power may not:

During the first Iraq war an Iraqi soldier told a US Soldier he gave up to that when the air force bombed them "We lost a few men and a couple of tanks, but when your ground forces came in we lost the entire brigade in a single afternoon."

Basically you can HIDE From air or space power or do things to make it so they can't simply drop stuff on you, you can't hide as easily from a ground force intending to hunt you down and kill you.

[El_Phil]

OK the US has lost under 2000 soldiers since the campaign started for starters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4132058.stm

Given that in both the north and the south the coalition was welcomed, why has everyone in Baghdad start shooting while Basra stays quiet? Could be the difference between troops in berets patroling and men in tanks threatening anybody who looks shifty? I think it might you know.

Right I never said slag the place. I said 'selectively target' Clearly you've never heard of precision bombing. You know when the US can amazingly accurately hit Chinese embassys because they mis-read street maps. Now I'd say it's reasonable that sensors will get better, they aren't going to get any worse that's for sure. So you can just take out the target in the middle of the city, without risking any of your men.

Ah silly me. You can't ever hide from ground troops, no ground troops have ever been ambushed or surpised! Hush my mouth I keep forgeting the amazing stealth defeating abilities of human eyeballs. If your hiding stuff, it's harder to hide from radar and decent sensors than an eyeball.

For evey Iraqi who said that you can't find dozens who said 'Most of our unit was killed by B-52s we never even saw.' because they all died or ran away to avoid capture.

Finally name a time when anyone has taken down a rebellion when the majority of the population supports it? Ever.
That's why you have to talk. It's a simple fact. Sending in ground troops just gets them killed and the population still don't like you, in fact probably like you less.

Unless the majority is on your side you will spend the rest of time fighting a losing guerilla war until it's not worth your time or blood. Bear in mind this is just 'I don't want to be ruled by country x' not 'Species x'. If you can offer a decent deal 'We leave you alone just give us the same amount of ore (maybe less to sweeten the deal) you gave the old goverment and we'll just stay in orbit and leave you alone.'

You try an opposed landing against a population that doesn't want you there... **cough** Vietnam in space **cough**

[Starhawk]

Hey El-Phil congratulations for crossing from civilized discussion into snide *** rather foolish and obvious political crap that you started the last time I brought up a discussion that had nothing to do with the overall war in Iraq and this time I will not rise to your attitude that US soldiers are some how inferior to your "gods almighty" royal army buddies and btw this is my last reply to you on that subject at all as you are obviously sure yours is the only possible solution to anything in the world I'll let you keep on wrongly thinking that. The British have made plenty of stupid mistakes and I won't start debating something like that since you are either too immature or too arrogant to look at anything other then the way you want to see it.

And what I was referring to is that your "precious all seeing sensors" will probobly never exist as there is always something to counter it you'll need troops on the ground for that sort of thing because yeah they might be ambushed but they'll be a lot more capable of fighting back then simply blasting to bits a whole forest to get one squad that might be hiding from your sensors.

Oh and "Hush my mouth" Radar doesn't detect organics very well......(rolleyes)

You want a "clean bloodless" war for whoever is attacking that ain't gonna happen no matter what you do.

BTW Vietnam was a political FUBAR on many levels the US had it's hands tied and if it hadn't things probobly would have turned out much differently as they would ahve been able to pursue into Louse and Cambodia and kick the hell out of the viet kong there it had nothing to do with "Landing against opposition" we were opposed in WWII and won and many other invasions have won look at the formation of Rome, France, Spain, your beloved little Brits all of whom forged empires on the Blood of people they invaded and conquered who didn't exactly want them there, it was thanks to internal fighting and or streign of wars only that those Empires broke up.

Hmmm Taera that's a great idea that would definately be more detailed and look impressive plus it would help me get some better ideas on it for the books so I don't do the typical Trek technobabble where one thing can work this week and suddenly be totally different the next (Transporter ranges anyone? phaser abilities eh lol)