Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: CT27 on August 26, 2014, 08:36:29 pm
-
Forgetting about the Shivans for the purposes of this topic, what were the war aims of the Terrans and Vasudans in their war against each other?
For instance, if the Terrans had 'won', what would that have looked like and what systems would they have taken in the final settlement?
-
my understanding is that both sides were on a total war footing, while I believe diplomatic exchanges did happen the evidence from my understanding is that these were at most fleeting moments and that both sides in general were closer to xenocide than any kind of war for territory, if the Vasudans won i seriously doubt they would have had an issue with wiping out the terran race and to be blunt I dont think we would have been much better. Both sides might have accepted a slave labour force but I think that would have been the less severe of the possible outcomes regardless of who won.
Basically too much bad blood so to speak
-
I don't belive an openly xenocidial strategy was more than a fringe option at any point of the T-V war.
The GTA was threatened the most by the PVE's drive to colonize which in turn came from Vasuda Prime being devoid of ressources. Considering the Vasudan culture before the destruction of Vasuda Prime by the Shivans was collectively oriented (e.g. the PVEP Ra-techroom entry states that the Vasudans focus on saving records before people), they might have been able to mount colonisation with a great success as establishing colonies would be a good way to benefit all Vasudans by claiming new ressources and relieveing the strain on the ressources of other planets by moving parts of the population elsewhere. Containing the Vasudan colonisation would also meant to practically incapcitate the PVE as it would not have any access to additional ressources or additional space to accomidate its needs - in the long run maybe even forcing the PVE in dependency of the GTA. In turn the PVE would most likey have been trying to sustain and expand its colonisation effort.
But the particulars of the strategies of either side most certainly changed throughout the war ... so must have the proposed lines of settlement in a Peace Treaty; although due to fact how subspace travel works in FS with fixed inter-system routes, several system will always be on top of the list of "most-valueable territories".
Considering a first generation of Terran commander mostly concerned with containing the Vasudan colonisation, so the early war peroid was most likely a struggle to stake as many claims as possible and to defend them. Key systems would have been Antares, Beta Aquilae, Sirius and Vega, due to their strategic positions to contain Vasudan interests in the system neighbouring Vasuda Prime and to maintain a claim to other systems in between.
Later the focus must have shifted from gaining territory to taking enemy holdings, most likely beging by the most valuable ones for the enemy economy and those strategically close to Vasuda Prime. So Antares became a more pominent target due to it's direct connection to Vasuda, but also its adjacent systems like Ribos and Beta Cygni would have become grade A assets in a function to support war efforts in Antares.
As for the Vasudans, their war aims would be to prevent and break the Terran encirclement and disrupt their efforts to maintain an effective "ring" around Vasudan space; the Vega-system would play a key role here as it would allow control of the travel to Capella and beyond (assuming Alpha Centauri and Deneb are Vasudan holdings, considering they are NTF targets). Another aim would be to deny the GTA access to Vasuda Prime, emphasing on control of Alpha Centauri, Deneb and Antares. On the flip side the control of Beta Aquilae would reduce the pressure the GTA could lay on the PVE by dening them the Beta Aquilae-Vega and Beta Aquilae-Antares jump nodes.
A Terran-dictated peace would most likely have secured Antares as a Terran holding; it has a jump node to Vasuda and with control of Ribos, Beta Cygni and Beta Aquilae (from canon we can assume all three are GTA holdings) would make primer point to threaten Vasuda Prime should need arise. Similarly Vega would fall to the GTA in such a peace treaty, to secure safe passage for Terran ships all the way to Sirius (of which we can assume is a Terran holding considering Terran supplies come from there in FS1's "Exodus"-mission) without having to move through systems that share a jump node with Vasuda Prime.
A Vasudan-dictated peace would most likely have secured both Antares and Vega as PVE holdings but IMO included passages that regulated a non-GTA status of systems like Sirius, Regulus, Polaris, Epsilon Pegasi and Capella - as these are cut off from the rest of the GTA due to Vasudan control of Vega and Alpha Centauri; something similar might come into play with Beta Cygni & Betelgeuse as well as Ribos & Ikeya, which would be seperated from the rest of GTA space by the PVE-controlled Antares-system. The PVE would also be interested in takeing Beta Aquilae from the GTA by terms of the settlement, or at least ot demilitarize the system, as it has jump nodes to Vega and Antares which are of strategic improtance.
-
That's one of the best speculation write-ups I've ever seen on this topic. :yes: I fully agree that, at least by the end, the war wasn't xenocidal in any sense, probably not even in popular sentiment. The command briefings about the cease-fire in FS1 make it pretty clear that both sides were sick to death of fighting at this point, and honestly welcomed an excuse to cease hostilities.
-
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.
EDIT: GTVA=GTA. Shows how much I talk about FS1.
-
Orpheus, you said a Terran victory would have secured the Antares system. However, didn't it become a Terran system after the Great War anyways?
(Sorry for the necro, the recently released BTA campaign made me think about Antares)
-
Orpheus, you said a Terran victory would have secured the Antares system. However, didn't it become a Terran system after the Great War anyways?
The Reconsturction-era status of the system was/is irrelevant for my musings about the wartime goals of each faction. That can be a number of reasons why the Antares Federation was a terran state and not all of them require Antares to be prominent terran colony during the war. However it is likely it was due to its location and because the connected systems apart from Vasuda and Vega* are cannonically Terran; and because of its strategic location it may also have been more aggressively colonized by the GTA and the PVE. The cost of war for the PVE in canon material is much higher so the PVE might not have been that much of power factor in Antares as it was before the war.
*The system that could be Vega is listed as contested, like Antares, in the first two FS1 starmaps, which still treat the PVE as hostile power. However it is also the ralley point for the Vasudan fleet early in the game, so you can assume there is considerable Vasudan infrastructure in that system.
ps. You also have to consider that early in 2014 I had worked on for German Bundestag to help prepare the diplomatic events surrounding 100th anniversary of World War I (part of my History BA). That's why I was somewhat trying to immitate the kind of territorial politics of the early 20th century, still heavy with colonial overtones, when I wrote this.
-
After the coming of the Shivans, the Terrans and Vasudans quickly coalesced into a well oiled machine, as if they'd been fighting alongside each other all along. There was never any tension between them. This would make it seem as though they did not hate each other and probably respected each other and fought a civilised war. If they were trying to wipe each other out or had been committing atrocities on each other, this would simply not have been possible. Oh they'd have recognised the sense in fighting the Shivans instead of each other but the distrust and hate would have made it difficult if not impossible to work together, there'd be incidents here and there of individuals blowing each other out of the sky, it would be a mess.
I think Mongoose is right, they were happy to stop fighting each other, and happy to join hands immediately after the Shivans had been dealt with.
-
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.
EDIT: GTVA=GTA. Shows how much I talk about FS1.
Yep, this has always seemed like the strongest evidence for the character of the war. Civilian colonies were nuked and irradiated, and it was doctrinally encouraged - weapons were mass produced for the purpose.
Without Shivan intervention the war probably would have escalated to the depopulation of major worlds and the surrender of one side after economic collapse and the threat of invasion.
-
GTA politics were basically a military junta and the Vasudans had Byzantine internal intrigue. Both sides would need to have their bubbles popped with a really hot needle before they backed down: think late war Japan in WW2.
-
I don't belive an openly xenocidial strategy was more than a fringe option at any point of the T-V war.
The GTA was threatened the most by the PVE's drive to colonize which in turn came from Vasuda Prime being devoid of ressources. Considering the Vasudan culture before the destruction of Vasuda Prime by the Shivans was collectively oriented (e.g. the PVEP Ra-techroom entry states that the Vasudans focus on saving records before people), they might have been able to mount colonisation with a great success as establishing colonies would be a good way to benefit all Vasudans by claiming new ressources and relieveing the strain on the ressources of other planets by moving parts of the population elsewhere. Containing the Vasudan colonisation would also meant to practically incapcitate the PVE as it would not have any access to additional ressources or additional space to accomidate its needs - in the long run maybe even forcing the PVE in dependency of the GTA. In turn the PVE would most likey have been trying to sustain and expand its colonisation effort.
But the particulars of the strategies of either side most certainly changed throughout the war ... so must have the proposed lines of settlement in a Peace Treaty; although due to fact how subspace travel works in FS with fixed inter-system routes, several system will always be on top of the list of "most-valueable territories".
Considering a first generation of Terran commander mostly concerned with containing the Vasudan colonisation, so the early war peroid was most likely a struggle to stake as many claims as possible and to defend them. Key systems would have been Antares, Beta Aquilae, Sirius and Vega, due to their strategic positions to contain Vasudan interests in the system neighbouring Vasuda Prime and to maintain a claim to other systems in between.
Later the focus must have shifted from gaining territory to taking enemy holdings, most likely beging by the most valuable ones for the enemy economy and those strategically close to Vasuda Prime. So Antares became a more pominent target due to it's direct connection to Vasuda, but also its adjacent systems like Ribos and Beta Cygni would have become grade A assets in a function to support war efforts in Antares.
As for the Vasudans, their war aims would be to prevent and break the Terran encirclement and disrupt their efforts to maintain an effective "ring" around Vasudan space; the Vega-system would play a key role here as it would allow control of the travel to Capella and beyond (assuming Alpha Centauri and Deneb are Vasudan holdings, considering they are NTF targets). Another aim would be to deny the GTA access to Vasuda Prime, emphasing on control of Alpha Centauri, Deneb and Antares. On the flip side the control of Beta Aquilae would reduce the pressure the GTA could lay on the PVE by dening them the Beta Aquilae-Vega and Beta Aquilae-Antares jump nodes.
A Terran-dictated peace would most likely have secured Antares as a Terran holding; it has a jump node to Vasuda and with control of Ribos, Beta Cygni and Beta Aquilae (from canon we can assume all three are GTA holdings) would make primer point to threaten Vasuda Prime should need arise. Similarly Vega would fall to the GTA in such a peace treaty, to secure safe passage for Terran ships all the way to Sirius (of which we can assume is a Terran holding considering Terran supplies come from there in FS1's "Exodus"-mission) without having to move through systems that share a jump node with Vasuda Prime.
A Vasudan-dictated peace would most likely have secured both Antares and Vega as PVE holdings but IMO included passages that regulated a non-GTA status of systems like Sirius, Regulus, Polaris, Epsilon Pegasi and Capella - as these are cut off from the rest of the GTA due to Vasudan control of Vega and Alpha Centauri; something similar might come into play with Beta Cygni & Betelgeuse as well as Ribos & Ikeya, which would be seperated from the rest of GTA space by the PVE-controlled Antares-system. The PVE would also be interested in takeing Beta Aquilae from the GTA by terms of the settlement, or at least ot demilitarize the system, as it has jump nodes to Vega and Antares which are of strategic improtance.
FS1 portrayed Beta Aquilae as having a node leading to Sol, that presumably collapsed along with the Delta Serpentis node. The GTA would never consider any treaty that allowed a single Vasudan ship into Beta Aquilae.
-
FS1 portrayed Beta Aquilae as having a node leading to Sol, that presumably collapsed along with the Delta Serpentis node. The GTA would never consider any treaty that allowed a single Vasudan ship into Beta Aquilae.
Think of it in terms of the French goals for the peace treaties with Germany in 1918+ and 1945+, esspecially in regards to the german industrial regions at Rhine, Ruhr and Saar. After both world wars it was french policy to either annex these regions or have them be in a seperate entity from the a post-war german state, keeping the then economic powerhouses of the region from Germany becoming a new credible threat to french security. In both cases there were a multitude of reasons why this was not realized (e.g. British concerns for a balance of power post 1918 or the preception of an immidiate Sovjet threat in late 1940s).
GTA politics were basically a military junta and the Vasudans had Byzantine internal intrigue. Both sides would need to have their bubbles popped with a really hot needle before they backed down: think late war Japan in WW2.
I am rather thinking WWI Western Front ... while WWII in the Pacific might yield good analogues too (esspecialy on the techincal side)
Civilian colonies were nuked and irradiated, and it was doctrinally encouraged - weapons were mass produced for the purpose.
Both the Sovjet Union and the USA mass-produced nuclear weapons during the Cold War, but the existence of these weapons doesn't imply their use (officially and sanctioned). Actually the increasingly realistic threat of Nuclear weapons deployment following the so-called Sputnik Shock was lead to policy of disarmament - from the SALT-talks (1969-1979) to New START-treaty (2009).
It is not unrealistic for both sides to build an arsenal deterence weapons to pre-empt an escalation but that doesn't imply their use. The Harbinger tech and the command briefing of "Reaching Zenith" only ever say this:
Until recently, Harbingers were reserved for planetary attacks only.
"Being reserved" doesn't indicate use, it only means the weapons were stockpiled for that purpose. At this point it doesn't even mention the deployment of the Harbinger at anytime.
most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.
This is the strongest evidence that the Harbinger was used on prior to the development of the Ursa as it's carrier. The "most effective when used" part doesn't need to mean that it was deployed on a civilian target, you can make that assumption from testing the weapon on simulated target and got to same conclusion - early nuclear weapon tests in 1940s did just that: Put up a dummy building (later even an entire dummy town) and see how far from the detonation point you would still destroy said building.
And then there is "preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations", which is really hard to unpack because what exactly consitutes a target for a preemptive defensive strike (i.e. an attack to preempt an attack which is currently being prepared - NOT an attack to deter a future, possible attack) if the target is also a "non-military installation", per definitionem a target that cannot execute a military attack that can be preempted?
The existence of the distinction between a military and a non-military target however re-cludes a regime to designate them. Since all current regimes to designate invalid targets are made by mutual agreement (e.g. the red cross desigating a medical facility) it stand to reason for me that the GTA and PVE at some point made an agreement on rules of engagement which contain such a provision. (In Of Shivans and Men those are the Antares Accords)
For me this reads as a handbook entry for a deterence weapon as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Multually Assured Destruction however is in essence build upon the premise that with both sides having the ability to destroy each other, either side will seek another way to resolve the conflict.
(Quick side note: In Blue Planet, the deployment of WoMDs against civilian targets by the GTVA is another matter because from the state of the war you can assume that the UEF doesn't have tha capacity to retaliate in kind, as such ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction do not apply)
-
Almost every bomb in Freespace is a WMD. The yields are absolutely massive, at least if you take the techroom values without question.
A cyclops is around 3 GT, that's ludicrous considering most powerful US nuke in service is only 1.2 MT. A cyclops is equal to about 2500 of the most powerful US nukes currently in service.
This makes sense if you assume bombs in FS were used for planetary bombardment. You need a lot more power than modern nukes have if you want to completely wreck a planet's surface rather than just target some key cities.
In Blue Planet, the deployment of WoMDs against civilian targets by the GTVA is another matter because from the state of the war you can assume that the UEF doesn't have tha capacity to retaliate in kind, as such ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction do not apply
Though the GTVA in BP are simply targetting the UEF logistical backbone rather than "~wahaha genocide is fun" or some kind of fear tactics like nukes in the cold war.
And I don't think MAD would really apply in Freespace because there's no guaranteed retalliation strike. MAD works because we can't really stop swarms of ICBMs or SLBMs, but there's no such system in Freespace. To nuke a planet you have to secure its orbit first which means that the stronger space navy can nuke away without fear of retaliation. Not to mention that even if you had SSMs that could nuke a planet from elsewhere in the system you'd have to get to that system first, which again means that whoever controls the jump nodes doesn't need to worry about a second strike.
-
If the GTA won the war, would they have annexed Vega?
-
The presence of the Harbinger does not necessarily imply a xenocidal doctrine. Rather, I think the war goal of each side was to capture a prized system and threaten to nuke it from orbit in order to force a peace. You would need actual WMD to make that a credible threat.
In the event that the war is not decisive, I'd imagine the side that's winning would include provisions for preferred control of the node lanes if the control of systems themselves was not an acceptable war demand.
I think a second TV war would follow some years later if either side suffers an economic downturn, likely as a result of node lane control. Then I'd imagine one of two things could occur. 1) the previous loser would successfully win the war and return conditions closer to before the first TV War. 2) the previous winner would win a second war and force disarmament and possibly splinter the government of the loser.
-
Except for one thing. If you hold the high orbitals, the only WMD you need is large rocks. Kinetic strikes are just as good as nukes if you hold the orbital high ground, and a lot less messy afterward.
-
Almost every bomb in Freespace is a WMD. The yields are absolutely massive, at least if you take the techroom values without question.
A cyclops is around 3 GT, that's ludicrous considering most powerful US nuke in service is only 1.2 MT. A cyclops is equal to about 2500 of the most powerful US nukes currently in service.
What I am going to type here is probably not-impotent, but another thing to remember is that the Tsunami and Harbinger did not show up until the midpoint of the Great war, (after the Shivans arrive) and the Cyclops until the events of FS2, all presumably using research from Shivan technology.[Citation Needed]
We do not know the yields of any T-V war era bombs, they could have been far lower. [Citation Needed]
However; that may not matter much in the case of planetary bombardment. (As stated above)
-
What I am going to type here is probably not-impotent, but another thing to remember is that the Tsunami and Harbinger did not show up until the midpoint of the Great war, (after the Shivans arrive) and the Cyclops until the events of FS2, all presumably using research from Shivan technology.[Citation Needed]
We do not know the yields of any T-V war era bombs, they could have been far lower. [Citation Needed]
However; that may not matter much in the case of planetary bombardment. (As stated above)
I don't think the Tsunami, Harbinger, or their associated bombers, the Medusa or Ursa, were necessarily developed during the Great War. It seems more likely to me that these hardware were already in service and that the player simply hadn't been granted access to them yet. The particular note of the Medusa's FS1 techroom description which described it as being "the first bomber to carry the Tsunami bomb, the Medusa is considered the staple of any bomber pilot's career" seems to suggest that it's a workhorse design that has seen service for a while. Presumably, most bomber pilots have flown a Medusa during their career. There's also nothing that suggests the bombs were built from Shivan tech afaik.
-
Goals.
Deny enemy infrastructure.
Maintain momentum.
Promote civil unrest in enemy population.
Hold strategic access points.
Promote ease of allied movement.
Prohibit ease of enemy movement.
Kittens.
-
Those are not strategic goals, those are tactical ones. How you fight the war is not the same as why you fight the war and what you ultimately intend to get out of it.
-
all presumably using research from Shivan technology.
Tsunami was definitely underway prior to that, you actually have to defend a science ship that's doing the experiments. Similarly there's nothing about the Harbinger that suggests it's using exotic technology; we could build the Harbinger warhead now, if we were minded to.
Those are not strategic goals, those are tactical ones. How you fight the war is not the same as why you fight the war and what you ultimately intend to get out of it.
You don't know the difference between strategic and tactical, so this is laughable. "How" and "why" you fight the war are not strategic or tactical questions; they have little to do with how this apportioned at all.
Grand strategy is the level at which war, economics, politics, and diplomacy overlap, and concerns itself with why if any do, but that is hardly the only question. ("Europe First" to use a WW2 reference.) Strategy is the level at which goals and means towards achieving the grand strategic ends are decided and units assigned and supplied to achieve them. (Operation Overlord.) Operational warfare concerns the maneuver and engagement of forces to achieve a specific goal dictated at the strategic level over a limited timeframe; usually to achieve a breakthrough, or force the destruction or surrender of specific enemy forces. (The paradrop to block easy access German access to the beaches, enable easy Allied breakout, and defeat threats to the landing.) Tactics is the level at which local commanders issue orders to directly combat the enemy in accordance with the operational plan. (Dick Winters' ad-hoc squad taking out an artillery battery that was firing on the beach.)
Dekker's goals for the most part fall in the strategy and operational levels. None of them are actually explicitly tactical.
-
I'm working on a scenario where the GTA does a lot better in the T-V War. Would taking Vega be reasonable in that regard?
-
@NGTM-1R, I'm aware of that, (hence the citation needed jokes :p ) but my main point was that the Medusa bomber, Tsunami, and harbinger where not used during the T-V war, even if they were underway in development.
I don't think the Tsunami, Harbinger, or their associated bombers, the Medusa or Ursa, were necessarily developed during the Great War.
They could have been in development/R & D, during the T-V war, but they were not used before the Great War:
We have also acquired a wing of the new Medusa bombers. . .
The new Tsunami bomb is the ultimate anti-cruiser weapon, and can be carried by the Medusas. . .
As the first bomber to carry the Tsunami bomb. . .
The destruction of the GTS Asimov has struck a major blow to our attempts to preserve this sector. Due to the loss of the Asimov's data, Project Tsunami is no more.
The prospect of destroying Shivan cruisers without the Tsunami bomb is daunting, to say the least.
Without it, we have no chance of destroying enough major Shivan vessels to win this war.
Sorry if my tone came across as negative at any point, text/word only communication can make it seem so for everyone. :blah:
-
@NGTM-1R, I'm aware of that, (hence the citation needed jokes :p ) but my main point was that the Medusa bomber, Tsunami, and harbinger where not used during the T-V war,
Tsunami, probably.
Harbinger...
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.
No, it seems quite possible they actually DID use the Harbinger on the Vasudans.
-
all presumably using research from Shivan technology.
Tsunami was definitely underway prior to that, you actually have to defend a science ship that's doing the experiments. Similarly there's nothing about the Harbinger that suggests it's using exotic technology; we could build the Harbinger warhead now, if we were minded to.
Those are not strategic goals, those are tactical ones. How you fight the war is not the same as why you fight the war and what you ultimately intend to get out of it.
You don't know the difference between strategic and tactical, so this is laughable. "How" and "why" you fight the war are not strategic or tactical questions; they have little to do with how this apportioned at all.
Grand strategy is the level at which war, economics, politics, and diplomacy overlap, and concerns itself with why if any do, but that is hardly the only question. ("Europe First" to use a WW2 reference.) Strategy is the level at which goals and means towards achieving the grand strategic ends are decided and units assigned and supplied to achieve them. (Operation Overlord.) Operational warfare concerns the maneuver and engagement of forces to achieve a specific goal dictated at the strategic level over a limited timeframe; usually to achieve a breakthrough, or force the destruction or surrender of specific enemy forces. (The paradrop to block easy access German access to the beaches, enable easy Allied breakout, and defeat threats to the landing.) Tactics is the level at which local commanders issue orders to directly combat the enemy in accordance with the operational plan. (Dick Winters' ad-hoc squad taking out an artillery battery that was firing on the beach.)
Dekker's goals for the most part fall in the strategy and operational levels. None of them are actually explicitly tactical.
Can your pedantry, you know that Dekker's answer was not what the thread was asking about, and "how do I win the war" and "what ultimate result do I want from this war" are different questions. Dekker's answers could apply to nearly any war in the FreeSpace universe (except wars against Shivans because they don't have an identifiable population base or home territories) and are thus not answers at all.
-
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.
So I just went through the command briefings and:
Oh yeah, It was the new Ursa bomber that was the first to carry the Harbinger and that's why it showed up late in-game, that's right. . . . I forgot. . . :warp:
So Harbinger's must have been made to be launched from installations or capital ships of some kind. We know that no bomber could carry it before the Ursa, (as explicitly stated by the game) so something else must have.
Tsunami, probably.
It's not "probably", It's absolutely- The game explicitly says that the Tsunami will not enter circulation if you fail to save the Asimov from shivan attack at the end of the mission "Big Bang". :p
-
Goals of each side.
That's a pretty general question.
Goals is a pretty general term.
war aims equally so.
I put in adequate answers.
I I'd say I could list more points but I'd hate to wind anyone up by not being specific and getting down to a micromanagement level for instance-
Supply each regiment with adequate petrol/oil/lubricant for land based vehicles.
Supply each regiment with adequate petrol/oil/lubricant for field generators.
Supply each regiment with adequate oil for burning latrines out.
-
zods want fishes and headz, clearly
-
Goals of each side.
That's a pretty general question.
Goals is a pretty general term.
war aims equally so.
I put in adequate answers.
I I'd say I could list more points but I'd hate to wind anyone up by not being specific and getting down to a micromanagement level for instance-
Supply each regiment with adequate petrol/oil/lubricant for land based vehicles.
Supply each regiment with adequate petrol/oil/lubricant for field generators.
Supply each regiment with adequate oil for burning latrines out.
Let me reprhase the question a bit:
If the Terrans had 'won' the T-V War, what systems would they have annexed?
-
Almost every bomb in Freespace is a WMD. The yields are absolutely massive, at least if you take the techroom values without question.
A cyclops is around 3 GT, that's ludicrous considering most powerful US nuke in service is only 1.2 MT. A cyclops is equal to about 2500 of the most powerful US nukes currently in service.
This makes sense if you assume bombs in FS were used for planetary bombardment. You need a lot more power than modern nukes have if you want to completely wreck a planet's surface rather than just target some key cities.
On the contrary, massive yields could be due to bombs being used in space and not on planets. Lack of atmosphere means no destructive shockwave to rely on. All the damage would have to be radiative, quickly falling off with distance squared (and if there is anything plentiful in space, it is space (distance). Spaceships would have radiation shielding simply to be spaceworthy. Last but not least, there would much less risk of collateral damage in space, whereas using such bombs on a planet would probably make it all uninhabitable.
All this means that bombs used in space warfare ought to be a lot more powerful than our current firecrackers.
-
Um, shockwaves fall off with the radius squared too.
-
Except for one thing. If you hold the high orbitals, the only WMD you need is large rocks. Kinetic strikes are just as good as nukes if you hold the orbital high ground, and a lot less messy afterward.
You need to hold the orbitals for a considerable time for rocks to do their job. (Either boosting the package to sufficient speed or having gravity do that for you... maybe warping in a big damn rock, though we saw little such "sapper" work in FS). With the Harbinger and its ilk, you merely need to be in position to launch and not properly take and hold it... which means that "reprisal" strikes are very much a possibility. Yes, they can't nuke your *entire* planet, just wipe off your *capital* (...and half the continent it sits on).
So IMO high-yield nuclear weapons can still act as deterrents, because while they're not necessary as weapons of conquest, as tools of the (even suicidal) sneak attack they can very much function. Even a single destroyer getting loose in a system could launch a strike force where you'd be hard pressed to ensure *no* weapons *ever* get through. Have the bombers converge on the planet from as many directions as you can arrange... even with subspace drives of their own, the defender can't react *immediately*. Granted such strikes won't ever achieve a knock-out, even of a single planet... but the political consequences are disastrous for whoever gets sucker-punched. No democratic government (or any government who doesn't have their populace absolutely under the jack heeled boot) would risk it.
-
Flaser, with subspace drive tech, they don't need to hold the orbitals for that long. Just long enough to warp in some decent sized rocks with appropriately aimed exit points. And, regardless of the seeming ease of destroying space rocks in the FSU, it really isn't that easy. Star Trek has way higher power outputs and they couldn't take out one large asteroid headed for a primitive planet in "The Paradise Syndrome."
-
Star Trek
Erm, I'd stay away from quoting Trek number when it comes to quantifiable, hard SF questions. That they can't take out an asteroid has more to do with plot requirements than the stated yields of their weapons.
-
So, first I must apologize because, yes I did confuse a few terms here ... a MAD regime doesn't work beyond the planetary scale (however that doesn't mean MAD regimes were not implimented on contested planets, in absence of an orbital presence), however Flaser made the point I would have made about the details of a deterrence strategy.
Lack of atmosphere means no destructive shockwave to rely on. All the damage would have to be radiative, quickly falling off with distance squared (and if there is anything plentiful in space, it is space (distance).
You statement is only true for weapons that don't detonate by combustion (which would have a wave of expended material expanding outward with the force of the detonation) and for weapons designed to avoid shrapnell from the delivery system (which would have the shrapnell travelling outward with the explosive force)
Of course, the fact the GTA was developing and had deployment doctrine apparently based on experience ("most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations.") for salted nuclear weapons is...rather awkward to a non-xenocidal reading of the conflict.
No, it seems quite possible they actually DID use the Harbinger on the Vasudans.
We were already at that point ... but if you have plausible theory how the T-V war could have gone from the escalation which followed after the bombing of a civilian target, and then arrive at a lasting peace (even if said peace was enforced through fear of a common enemy)
In Blue Planet, the deployment of WoMDs against civilian targets by the GTVA is another matter because from the state of the war you can assume that the UEF doesn't have tha capacity to retaliate in kind, as such ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction do not apply
Though the GTVA in BP are simply targetting the UEF logistical backbone rather than "~wahaha genocide is fun" or some kind of fear tactics like nukes in the cold war.
Please re-read the command briefing for "Post Meridian" - it is quite clear there that the deployment of nuclear weapons on Luna was done with little to no regard for civilian life
-
We have a lasting alliance with Japan after nuking two of their cities and firebombing more.
-
We have a lasting alliance with Japan after nuking two of their cities and firebombing more.
Valid point, however I may submit the point that the political landscape of East Asia (in regards to possible involvement of Sovjets in the Pacific, the rise of Communism and Maoism in East Asia) might account for some of the groundwork laid after the war... (and quietly persists into the present?)
EDIT: Is it just me or did Battuta just take the very cavalier "it worked out in the end"-attitude for one most horrific things* humans have ever done to each other? :confused:
*EDIT3: Just to clarify, I don't mean to deny the crimes committed in the name of the Empire of Japan nor do I seek to invalidate the "stop the war now, to save the lives of those who fight and be caught in continuing war"-rationale; All I want propse is that there is a tier of events in recorded human history of singular horrific quality that they should not be repeated, emmulated or serve a guidepost for furture course of action, unless said course of actions is to NOT DO IT AGAIN.
EDIT2: Maybe I should rephrase the basis for the though experiment then (italtics for the added conditions):
Can you provide plausible theory how the T-V war could have gone from the escalation which followed after the bombing of a civilian target with the weapon of mass destruction, and then arrive at a lasting peace (even if said peace was enforced through abstact fear of a common enemy), if the attacked had the capability of an retaliatory strike with equal weapons?
-
Please re-read the command briefing for "Post Meridian" - it is quite clear there that the deployment of nuclear weapons on Luna was done with little to no regard for civilian life
It's quite hard to execute a surprise attack on civilian factories that produce military equipment/repair/ammunition/whatever while avoiding civilian casualties. In fact it's almost impossible.