Subject:
|
Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:14:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
677 times
|
| |
|
|
Ah, some fascinating dicussion possibilities...
In lugnet.space, Tony Knaak writes:
> Both these articles are very interesting as well as informative to all the
> spacers here. The first link leads to a listing and description of ALL
> proper names for space vessel designations by size and duty. I thought this
> was very informative.
>
> http://members.aol.com/noctifer03/private/Abyss/Technology/Vehicles/Space/overview.html
Well, although I appreciate the writer's efforts, I disagree with the idea
that his definitions are "proper", implying that other definitions should be
ignored. I recently posted my views on this here:
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=20158
> This article is very well written and brings up a good discussion point.
> Read it and see if you agree or disagree about this persons prediction of
> space warfare.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yuenkitmun/sf-coralsea.html
Yes, well written and a good read. However, some points are debatable (as
can be shown in the other replies to this thread so far).
If past warfare can be any indication, then the development of effective
space war machines will be an evolving process. Throughout the history of
warfare, militaries have sought to outsmart the enemy by applying new
technologies or strategies. Whenever a particular method proved superior,
all sides would strive to achieve it (for example, when the phalanx proved
capable of defeating all previous forms of units, all societies who could do
so began to include the phalanx in their armies; the same for cavalry,
submarines, aircraft, etc.). The next step in the evolution has typically
been that one side or another would develop a strategy or technology to
counter the existing superior one (for example, bored rifles were developed
to be better than muskets; machine guns to beat rifles; tanks to beat
machine guns; aircraft to beat tanks; etc.). One can assume that in space
warfare, a similar progression of development might occur.
This is to say that it is unlikely that space battleships would reign
supreme for long, even if the article is correct. Sooner or later, one side
or another would develop a way to exploit the weaknesses of a battleship,
and a new superior weapon would be devised. And the battleship does have
weaknesses. Just a few include: far more expensive in time and money to
build, costly in money and personnel to lose in battle, due to mass, cannot
accelerate or turn as quickly without tremendously great propulsion, etc.
Note that many of these weaknesses could be exploited (or protected) by
small fighters.
But I think that we cannot really say what types of vessels will be
effective in space combat without first analyzing the idea of space combat
itself. We must ask, why would war occur in space? Are future space forces
combating over passage rights? Colonial Territory? Resources? Any of
these might be true, but why would the battles take place in space, rather
than on the surface of one or more planets?
Presumably, some attackers would aim to hit targets on a planet surface, and
in such an event small fighters and small bombers might be useful. And such
small craft could not reach the target planet without an inter-stellar
carrier to get them there. Then the defenders might develop battleships to
blast any incoming carriers before they reach the planet. Then the attacker
might design torpedo ships to blast battleships, and so on. The result of
this is the same as in modern warfare: the development of combined arms
strategies in which armies have a variety of technologies to use against
whatever is thrown at them.
You might ask why would someone with space technologies bother with manned
spacecraft in battle, or why would they need to attack a planet surface? I
asked myself this too, thinking at first that current space programs usually
use unmanned spacecraft for most tasks. The use of unmanned attacks is
likely, since traversing space is so difficult. It might be reasonable that
an attacker might simply send guided missles from across the galaxy and kill
an entire planet's population long before they bother sending people.
...But then the defenders would eventually develop methods to intercept the
missiles.
Yet, throughout warfare, one fact has held true: enemy territory cannot be
held without infantry. In other words, if the goal of an attacker is to
claim a resource or planet, they cannot succeed without moving in people.
To move infantry in, the above uses of fighters, bombers, carriers,
battleships, etc. etc. all become necessary. Hence, we return to the
arguement that combined arms is the way of the future.
And so it goes.
My 2 bricks,
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
| <snip> (...) I think this is an excellent question to ask in the face of Space Warfare. Why in space? I've asked myself that, and this is what I came up with: Obviously planets and planetoid structures (asteroids, etc) would be the key territory to (...) (21 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
| (...) Probably not, actually. Fighters/bombers are expensive peices of equipment and getting them into (and out of) an atmosphere is a problem. If you want to bomb a territory, just drop rocks on it. Cheap, easy, accurate, utterly devastating, and (...) (21 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Some great Space info and dicussion
|
| Both these articles are very interesting as well as informative to all the spacers here. The first link leads to a listing and description of ALL proper names for space vessel designations by size and duty. I thought this was very informative. (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
