Search results

You have to try to do things honorable first. You can always escalate your ROE, but you can't take back bombing out a city.

The thing is you don't know the quality of enemy moral before hand. The city might roll over and surrender as soon as you overcome the official soldiery. If your standard operating procedure starts out with burning cities though, that will never happen. That type of reputation gets around, and...

Gyrogets have issues with muzzle velocity and accuracy. It is likely for a space based civ to come up with a man portable reconciles riffle with an exhaust port that gets tucked under the armpit for zero-G use.

I can't think of any excuse for a gun launched missile where a two stage rocket would not avoid potentially lethal stress, except for the "We already have this tube, we want to have a missile as variant ammo".

For asat weapons, I think a low cost laser system that is designed mission kill orbital weapons and scouts by seeking out optics and blind them.

Modern tech gives us a floor on what capabilities an interstellar civilization would be able to do. They are more advanced than us, so they should not be worse than us.

Those locations are mostly centers of services and corporate headquarters. The physical location of production facilities, farms and factories, is far more evenly spread out.

It won't be back to the dark ages. 1920s era technologies is about far back as you can push someone without deliberately searching for and destroying books. Vacuum tubes and electromechanical equipment can all be made with hand tools and lathes.

The power tranformers in the grid will all need repaired. This can take months.

The problem with EMP is that you also need surge protection on all I/O lines. In particular for civilian infrastructure, power liens are also antennae.

Also, you will probably want to get pretty close to a planet before launching your shuttle craft for an invasion. There are multiple reasons. Low orbit means it is that much quicker to re-use your shuttle for the next wave of troops. You also need less Delta-V in the shuttle, which may be very...

The advantages of Hydrolox disappear very quickly when you factor in the difficulty in storing hydrogen.

An ideological war like that is the most heavily slanted against orbital bombardment. The people are the prize. In this sort of invasion you want make an example out of every single death to the other potential converts. Orbital bombardment alto makes it difficult to kidnap children for...

You are fialing to consider one important factor: Why does the invader want that planet. Unless the invader is a genocidal xenophobe, there is something on that planet that the invader wants. Taking custody of that thing is their victory condition. If that thing gets destroyed, they cannot...

Submarines with cruise missiles are a huge threat to a planetary invasion force because they can have a large tonnage of weaponry while avoiding orbital surveillance.

It will have a better penetration factor, but I doubt it would have the same area denial capability. Kinetic perpetrators have a problem with over-penetration. Unless you design the impactor for a meteor air burst, most of the kinetic energy would be wasted on subsurface rock formations. It...

It has never worked out that way in the entire history of human conflict. Literally every war that the United States has lost since the end of world war II has been proof that you are wrong. Morale exists, and just because you are sitting in space ships will not make the caustic effects of...

You don't even need good SAM, you just need to know what the enemy wants, and then stick your defenses tight with that while telling the enemy "Just because we we cannot win does not mean we cannot make you lose"

No he doesn't. Not unless all he wants to win out of the conflict is a rock covered in craters. You need ground forces to have any type of victory other than genocide.