#92, RE: Two Questions.
Posted by drakensisthered on Oct-19-01 at 07:14 PM
In response to message #61
>>I suppose it would be possible for there to be a society that isn't >>interested in projecting power, and only wants to defend >>their own space. In such a case they wouldn't bother putting FTL >>drives on military vessels, because their military doctrines don't >>include scenarios in which they'd want to send their armed forces out >>of the system. > >Even if you're only defending one system, it seems like some limited >form of >FTL would be essential for a space navy if you're considering having >to face enemies who have it. Unless you're going for pure picket-duty >tactics (e.g. you have only a single planet that's worth defending), >you're going to have to be able to close with the enemy. > >And if you're going for this approach, it seems like fixed >battlestations posted near/in orbit around the site you're defending >would be more practical. > >Of course, just because this might not be a good idea, that >doesn't mean some planetary government trying to be stingy with their >defense budgets wouldn't try it. And would probably end up in the >situation where their fleet is stuck several light-hours away from >home while an enemy razes the planet. Not to mention that the ability to go over and kick the shit out of your enemies military-industrial complex will seriously upgrade your defensibility... just for starters they'll need to keep some of their fleet at home to stop any such efforts. 50% reduction in attackers before a shot's fired? It's a winning move. drakensisthered
So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'
|