Subject:
|
Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:27:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
814 times
|
| |
|
|
<snip>
> 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?
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 hold (being home to resources and population). If planet X is
expecting an attack from planet A. The most logical place to repell such an
attack is not on planet X itself, but to intercept planet A's forces during
their voyage through space.
This of course assumes linear travel. "Space folding" would obviously change
this senario greatly.
But planet X's problems have only begun. Protecting a country is a relatively
easy thing to do, given the borders. But protecting a planet is much more
difficult, because attack can come from ANY direction with the 3D universe.
I think one of the biggest issues in space warfare will be simply *finding* the
enemy. or at the least, anticipating the enemy's actions within an area of
infinite possibility.
>
> 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.
I think the biggest argument for manned space warfare is simply: do it right
yourself. trusting a robot or whatever would be a definite gamble.
>
> 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.
beautifully and simply said. space combat will be one of great variety, and
the obvious need then is for versatility in or variety of combat vessels.
-logarzo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
| (...) Not according to Star Trek. Space is relatively planar, so you essentially have borders. Everyone knows you can't go around a temporal anomoly...you have to go straight through. And all spaceships face up. Peace, Long Life, and Giggles, Tony (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jan-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some great Space info and dicussion
|
| Ah, some fascinating dicussion possibilities... (...) that his definitions are "proper", implying that other definitions should be ignored. I recently posted my views on this here: (URL)This article is very well written and brings up a good (...) (22 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
