Federation Marines
PwrPack
I'm afraid you'll just have to overlook them. Also if the below echoes
something that was said last week, please accept my appology in advance
for restating things.
As I interpet the conversation here, the main argument seems to be
one of strategy of the use of ground combat forces. Since we have only
passing references to this from ST:TNG and almost none from TOS,
this would seem to be up to the individual's preference. David Wythe seems
to think that Marines have limited if any use [prefering to stake
everything on a strong space-borne military preference]; while Brian
Pfeifer reasons that the only way to "conquer" anything ... or prevent
a planet's conquest ... is by having a strong, mobile Marine force ready
to take and hold real-estate.
To my way of thinking, Pfeifer is probably closer to what will
become the reality of any FTL political conflicts of the future. If a
full scale war is fought, I suggest that the tactics will probably look
something like:
1] Identify enemy industrial resources {necessary to build
starships -- which are necessary top "play" in this game}
2] Concentrait Fleet Power on a single target thus achieving
local fire superiority. The "Enemy" must protect all possible targets,
and so must keep his Fleet mobile. Hopefully UFP forces will be able
to "secure" the target before the "Enemy" can bring reinforcements to
the battle.
3] An invasion and physical occupation of the planet is used to
deny the resources of this industrial base to the enemy. These troops
will "dig-in" and use the resources of the planet to survive...as has
already been stated in past posts.
Chris Westbrook writes: [edited comments]
>>Consider the episodes Reunification Part 1 and 2 (I think that's what
>>they were called). The ones where Spock went to Romulus to work for
>>peaceful reunification of Vulcan and Romulus.
>>Tasha Yar's daughter layed out the Romulans' plan: To send a Romulan
>>ground troop invading force to Vulcan under the auspices of a
>>diplomatic convoy. Once there to entrench themseles. The Romulans
>>beleived that once they had Vulcan itself subdued with ground forces,
>>victory elsewhere would follow.
>>Ground based troops would almost assuredly have defensive systems
>>against space-based attack. The plan then would be to batten down >>the
hatches and wait for the politics to catch up........
>>.......It would become a holding action. And the people already
>>entrenched on the planet would probably win. Of course, there is the
>>other possibility that it turns into an all out war between the
>>Federation and Romulus. (Which is probably more like what you
>>have ben discussing so far.) Still, holding key planets, at least
>>denying them to the Federation, would be a valuable piece in the
>>Romulans' game plan.
So the purpose of the ground troops on offense would be to
garrison the planet and deny its industrial base to the other side.
The "Enemy" ground troops' job would be to dig these guys out.
4] Once the garrison troops are landed and established, the Fleet
units would move on to another target and replay this scenario.
If the Fleet's intellegence were good, they could keep the "Enemy" chasing
them, never sure of the next target until after the attack came.
The objective of these tactics is to eventually deny enough of the
"Enemy's" industrial base to it so that they would no longer have the
ability to wage FTL war.
Rick Blackburn
No cool organization - I'm just an individual at home.
"Where am I going? And what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Pwr...@aol.com -or- RBlac...@genie.geis.com
PwrPack
sl...@cc.usu.edu
would be to take down the defenders shields and then beam to the key areas of
the ship and capture it. The Kilingons were the first to come up with this
stratagy and Even the Borg use it.
I would love to see a detatchment of Space Marrines on DS9. It would make for
some interesting plots. Fore those who do not know what Space Marrines are
just think of Rambo with boddy armor, a phasore and an attitude.
Kraig
In article <3p94ci$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pwr...@aol.com (PwrPack)
writes:
Akela
>Space Marriens are used extensivly in ST combat simmulations. The stratagy
>would be to take down the defenders shields and then beam to the key areas of
>the ship and capture it. The Kilingons were the first to come up with this
>stratagy and Even the Borg use it.
>
>I would love to see a detatchment of Space Marrines on DS9. It would make for
>some interesting plots. Fore those who do not know what Space Marrines are
>just think of Rambo with boddy armor, a phasore and an attitude.
>Kraig
>
>In article <3p94ci$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pwr...@aol.com (PwrPack)
>writes:
I agree -- marines on DS9 would make sense, even if they were marines of
the Bajoran Militia and not Starfleet.
But... did you have to include Blackburn's ENTIRE (excellent) article
without making a single comment about it???? Netiquette, netiquette,
netiquette! Emily Postnews is going to have a fit! <grin>
--
-- Akela
"Reality is Subjective"
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> Space Marriens are used extensivly in ST combat simmulations. The stratagy
> would be to take down the defenders shields and then beam to the key areas of
> the ship and capture it. The Kilingons were the first to come up with this
> stratagy and Even the Borg use it.
>
> I would love to see a detatchment of Space Marrines on DS9. It would make for
> some interesting plots. Fore those who do not know what Space Marrines are
> just think of Rambo with boddy armor, a phasore and an attitude.
> Kraig
>
BZZT! Thank you for playing.
The average Federation Marine is more like a Ninja than a Rambo; stealth and
Electronic warfare are key tools (remember, this is ground combat played out
against a backdrop tech level where a Federation Starship can find a single
Vulcan in a Romulan D-7 (Stormbird?) full of Romulans [and that was in TOS]).
The Federation Marine officer is one of the most highly trained individuals in
existence; he can take on a platoon of American Special Forces and not break a
sweat. But in addition to his extensive skill as a personal combatant, he is
also a skilled tactician and strategian, a sociologist, psychologist, and
negotiator. His job is to win wars, with the least amount of casualties on
*either* side; and no civilian casualties if *at all possible*.
He is *not* prone to temper tantrums, psychological disorders (unless you count
the ability to silenty kill someone from behind, and feel little remorse
afterwards), gross insubordination, or the kind of free-wheeling chaos we
frequently see portrayed; Starfleet doesn't put up with this kind of behavior
from it's Fleet officers, why should it from it's Marines? Remember that, in
all the footage we've seen, we have seen only *one* marine (Colonel West). How
damn common can they be. Wesley Crusher had to re-apply to the Academy; how
many people are accepted into the Marine program every year? Starfleet can
afford to take only the very best for the Corps.
Scott taylor
Dave Wythe
> I'm new at this Internet thing, so if I make any "unforgivable mistakes"
> I'm afraid you'll just have to overlook them. Also if the below echoes
> something that was said last week, please accept my appology in advance
> for restating things.
Welcome aboard...............
> As I interpet the conversation here, the main argument seems to be
> one of strategy of the use of ground combat forces. Since we have only
> passing references to this from ST:TNG and almost none from TOS,
> this would seem to be up to the individual's preference. David Wythe seems
> to think that Marines have limited if any use [prefering to stake
> everything on a strong space-borne military preference]; while Brian
> Pfeifer reasons that the only way to "conquer" anything ... or prevent
> a planet's conquest ... is by having a strong, mobile Marine force ready
> to take and hold real-estate.
Yep. Subtleties aside that would seem to be the crux of it. I think :-)))))
> To my way of thinking, Pfeifer is probably closer to what will
> become the reality of any FTL political conflicts of the future. If a
> full scale war is fought, I suggest that the tactics will probably look
> something like:
> 1] Identify enemy industrial resources {necessary to build
> starships -- which are necessary top "play" in this game}
Certainly.
> 2] Concentrait Fleet Power on a single target thus achieving
> local fire superiority. The "Enemy" must protect all possible targets,
> and so must keep his Fleet mobile. Hopefully UFP forces will be able
> to "secure" the target before the "Enemy" can bring reinforcements to
> the battle.
Now this would not be possible. The situation within the quadrant is far too
uneasy for there to be any major concentration of fleet power such as you
describe. Even at Wolf 359 Starfleet were only able to muster half the fleet,
assistance had been requested from the Klingons and consideration was being
given to opening negotiations with the Romulans <AFAIR the Cardassians hadn't
been "invented" yet>. Simply put any such concentration would create vulnerable
areas on other borders. If going to war with the Cardassians then the first
thing you have to watch out for is the Romulans and possibly the Dominion.
> 3] An invasion and physical occupation of the planet is used to
> deny the resources of this industrial base to the enemy. These troops
> will "dig-in" and use the resources of the planet to survive...as has
> already been stated in past posts.
A question I asked in a previous post which has yet to be answered is "How many
troops do you anticipate are required in order to occupy a planet, assuming
equal firepower, i.e. they have phaser rifles, we have phaser rifles." I think
that we're looking at a lot of men here. An impractical number I would have to
say. I don't know for certain so I'm open to an answer but I think both the
Romulans and the Cardassians have made a habit of invading planets at a far
lower technological level than they are themselves.
> So the purpose of the ground troops on offense would be to
> garrison the planet and deny its industrial base to the other side.
> The "Enemy" ground troops' job would be to dig these guys out.
> 4] Once the garrison troops are landed and established, the Fleet
> units would move on to another target and replay this scenario.
> If the Fleet's intellegence were good, they could keep the "Enemy" chasing
> them, never sure of the next target until after the attack came.
Several points are raised here. The first is that we simply do not know what
UFP policy is concerning the invasion of member planets. Would, for example, a
member planet be expected to put up its' own defence if invaded ? Do member
planets maintain forces with which to put up a defence ? We know that Bajor has
its' own military but then Bajor is not a full member of the UFP. We also know
that Earth has its' own spaceborne defences. Furthermore we do not know how the
UFP could be expected to respond to an invasion of one of its' member planets.
We are assuming conflict from an organisation which has strict rules of non-
interference. That I admit is probably a little simplistic but consider the
following:
The situation within the quadrant is uneasy to say the least. The balance is
maintained much as the balance was maintained during the Cold War. MAD.
Although in the ST universe we can perhaps speculate on a long and protracted
conflict starting between two powers but eventually involving every power. Even
the more belligerent forces such as the Cardassians and the Romulans are only
prepared to see war as an act *taken in response to UFP/Starfleet provocation*.
No one wants to start anything that they can not with some confidence predict
the end of. The contribution <for want of a better phrase> of the UFP to this
uneasy balance is a lack of Federation Marines. To races such as the Romulans
and Cardassians ground based military forces have always been viewed as the
tangible manifestation of aggression, so in not having such forces the UFP
can therefore be seen by these races as non-belligerent, i.e. not a threat. It
helps to maintain the status quo.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
> The average Federation Marine is more like a Ninja than a Rambo; stealth and
> Electronic warfare are key tools (remember, this is ground combat played out
> against a backdrop tech level where a Federation Starship can find a single
> Vulcan in a Romulan D-7 (Stormbird?) full of Romulans [and that was in TOS]).
>
> The Federation Marine officer is one of the most highly trained individuals in
> existence; he can take on a platoon of American Special Forces and not break a
> sweat. But in addition to his extensive skill as a personal combatant, he is
> also a skilled tactician and strategian, a sociologist, psychologist, and
> negotiator. His job is to win wars, with the least amount of casualties on
> *either* side; and no civilian casualties if *at all possible*.
>
> He is *not* prone to temper tantrums, psychological disorders (unless you count
> the ability to silenty kill someone from behind, and feel little remorse
> afterwards), gross insubordination, or the kind of free-wheeling chaos we
> frequently see portrayed; Starfleet doesn't put up with this kind of behavior
> from it's Fleet officers, why should it from it's Marines? Remember that, in
> all the footage we've seen, we have seen only *one* marine (Colonel West). How
> damn common can they be. Wesley Crusher had to re-apply to the Academy; how
> many people are accepted into the Marine program every year? Starfleet can
> afford to take only the very best for the Corps.
Now I am confused. :-))))))
While detachments of the above have been cited in ST:VI as existing what about
the grunts ?
Regards
Dave Wythe
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
Grunts would be just as lethal, just as well trained, but in different areas
(more combat skills, less social sciences, more repair/maintenance skills, less
leadership/command skills).
some assumptions; the Federation has "over two hundred worlds" (Sisco mentions
this at one point, backed up by the Encyclopedia); if these are member worlds
(discounting piddly-shit colonies [population under 1 million]), on par
(population wise) with Terra (assume a stable population base on Terra; they've
had two really major wars to deal with), that gives
200*6 billion (or so, used as an average)= 1.2 Trillion member beings+
assuming only 1/3 of the population is "adult" (ie. physically and
intellectually mature enough to serve, if not capable enough), that gives a
base of 400 billion people to draw from.
even if only 1% of the population is willing to serve, that still gives a draw
base of 4 billion; skim off only the top .5% of that pool (that absolute cream)
for officers and enlisted (Marine and Starfleet), and you still have a pool of
20 *Million* beings to draw from.
Star Fleet officers, Marines, and enlisteds, therefore, can *easily* be drawn
from the best of the Federation (even if you assume that only 10% of the top
will *want* to serve, that still leaves you with 2 million individuals). There
is no draft, so they all *want* to be there, both officers and enlisteds.
Enlisted might be more "earthy" than the officers (witness O'Brien), but they
will be no less dedicated, trained, or willing to serve.
There are other factors; highly trained troops can obtain objectives that
lesser troops cannot, or will do so with fewer troops (very important when you
have to move every troop and their gear and support weapons by Starship).
Highly trained troops tend to have better morale (they know they can kick ass,
so they worry less; they also know that the government that spent so much time
and money on them supports and backs them, if only because they don't want to
waste that time and money).
It is also supported by Federation policy, which has never been "get thar
furstest wit the mostest", but "get there firstest with the *bestest*". The
Federation Star Fleet is made up, for the most part, of highly capable
multi-role vessels able to take on almost any task (Constitution, Nebula,
Excelsior, Galaxy), supported by a small fleet of highly specialised vessels
that are designed for specific roles (Oberth, Defiant).
Marine enlisteds aren't going to be swearing mustachioed waahoos, with blood
all over their hands and ripped shirts. They are, like the officers who
command them, going to, for the most part, be quiet, professional looking
individuals; they *know* they are some of the best trained, most lethal
individuals in existence; they don't feel the need (or obligation) to prove it.
Scott Taylor (who wasn't a Marine, but has a lot of respect for the Jarheads of
today as well...) ;-)
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
>In article <3p93k5$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pwr...@aol.com "PwrPack" writes:
>
> > I'm new at this Internet thing, so if I make any "unforgivable mistakes"
> > I'm afraid you'll just have to overlook them. Also if the below echoes
> > something that was said last week, please accept my appology in advance
> > for restating things.
>
> Welcome aboard...............
About time we got some fresh blood in this.....
(no insult Dave. This is, in fact, one of the politest discussions I've had on
the Net in a *looong time*....)
>> As I interpet the conversation here, the main argument seems to be
>> one of strategy of the use of ground combat forces. Since we have only
>> passing references to this from ST:TNG and almost none from TOS,
>> this would seem to be up to the individual's preference. David Wythe seems
>> to think that Marines have limited if any use [prefering to stake
>> everything on a strong space-borne military preference]; while Brian
>> Pfeifer reasons that the only way to "conquer" anything ... or prevent
>> a planet's conquest ... is by having a strong, mobile Marine force ready
>> to take and hold real-estate.
>
> Yep. Subtleties aside that would seem to be the crux of it. I think :-)))))
That would be it. In my way of thinking, Dave's a flyboy (the fighter is god,
trust in the fighter and it will do anything for you), whereas I was a
mudslogger, and *know* that in the end it always comes down to the PBI.
> > To my way of thinking, Pfeifer is probably closer to what will
> > become the reality of any FTL political conflicts of the future. If a
> > full scale war is fought, I suggest that the tactics will probably look
> > something like:
> > 1] Identify enemy industrial resources {necessary to build
> > starships -- which are necessary top "play" in this game}
>
> Certainly.
It is patently worthless to attack a useless rock...unless, of course, you want
to confuse your opponent.
> > 2] Concentrait Fleet Power on a single target thus achieving
> > local fire superiority. The "Enemy" must protect all possible targets,
> > and so must keep his Fleet mobile. Hopefully UFP forces will be able
> > to "secure" the target before the "Enemy" can bring reinforcements to
> > the battle.
>
>Now this would not be possible. The situation within the quadrant is far too
>uneasy for there to be any major concentration of fleet power such as you
>describe. Even at Wolf 359 Starfleet were only able to muster half the fleet,
>assistance had been requested from the Klingons and consideration was being
>given to opening negotiations with the Romulans <AFAIR the Cardassians hadn't
>been "invented" yet>. Simply put any such concentration would create
vulnerable
>areas on other borders. If going to war with the Cardassians then the first
>thing you have to watch out for is the Romulans and possibly the Dominion.
well, I'm not sure as the ships at Wolf 359 represented "half the fleet". More
likely "what we can muster in an absurdedly short period of time". 39 ships is
a *very* small number to be "half the fleet".
Two, you must always build a level of flexibility into your fleet numbers (this
amount varies; your Fleet Command will always say it is never enough, and you
pacifists/budget mavens will always say it's much too much). This gives you the
chance to respond to a developing threat on one border without stripping
others.
> > 3] An invasion and physical occupation of the planet is used to
> > deny the resources of this industrial base to the enemy. These troops
> > will "dig-in" and use the resources of the planet to survive...as has
> > already been stated in past posts.
>
>A question I asked in a previous post which has yet to be answered is "How
many
> troops do you anticipate are required in order to occupy a planet, assuming
> equal firepower, i.e. they have phaser rifles, we have phaser rifles."
I think
> that we're looking at a lot of men here. An impractical number I would have
to
> say. I don't know for certain so I'm open to an answer but I think both the
> Romulans and the Cardassians have made a habit of invading planets at a far
> lower technological level than they are themselves.
Actually, probably not *all* that many to start with (specially trained shock
troops with missions carefully planned to paralyze defenses, communication,
control, and supply sites before anyone knows what's up, backed up with
carefully selected and targeted airstrikes/orbital bombardment to take out the
heaviest hardened targets). still a large number of troops, but not prohibitive
(remember that the Enterprise, in "warship" mode, can carry 5,000 troops, and
is not a purpose built combat transport/assault ship). More would be needed for
mopping up/garrison duty, but these can be "regulars"; Army troops, specially
trained for such duties (which the Federation would have no need for, other
than defensive "National Guard" units, probably raised by individual planets,
rahter than the Federation as a whole).
> > So the purpose of the ground troops on offense would be to
> > garrison the planet and deny its industrial base to the other side.
> > The "Enemy" ground troops' job would be to dig these guys out.
> > 4] Once the garrison troops are landed and established, the Fleet
> > units would move on to another target and replay this scenario.
> > If the Fleet's intellegence were good, they could keep the "Enemy" chasing
> > them, never sure of the next target until after the attack came.
>
>Several points are raised here. The first is that we simply do not know what
>UFP policy is concerning the invasion of member planets. Would, for example,
a
>member planet be expected to put up its' own defence if invaded ? Do member
>planets maintain forces with which to put up a defence ? We know that Bajor
has
> its' own military but then Bajor is not a full member of the UFP. We also
know
> that Earth has its' own spaceborne defences.
Vulcan also has it's own spacefleet, apparently (Unification). As for ground
forces, who knows.
>Furthermore we do not know how the UFP could be expected to respond to an
>invasion of one of its' member planets.
> We are assuming conflict from an organisation which has strict rules of non-
> interference. That I admit is probably a little simplistic but consider the
> following:
I would think several times about joining a polity (the Federation) that
demands my world's support in building a space fleet, and then said "but if
they get troops on your planet, you're on your own, because we can't interfere"
>The situation within the quadrant is uneasy to say the least. The balance is
>maintained much as the balance was maintained during the Cold War. MAD.
>Although in the ST universe we can perhaps speculate on a long and protracted
>conflict starting between two powers but eventually involving every power.
Even
>the more belligerent forces such as the Cardassians and the Romulans are only
>prepared to see war as an act *taken in response to UFP/Starfleet provocation*
>No one wants to start anything that they can not with some confidence predict
>the end of. The contribution <for want of a better phrase> of the UFP to this
>uneasy balance is a lack of Federation Marines. To races such as the Romulans
>and Cardassians ground based military forces have always been viewed as the
>tangible manifestation of aggression, so in not having such forces the UFP
>can therefore be seen by these races as non-belligerent, i.e. not a threat. It
>helps to maintain the status quo.
Except that the Cardassians and Romulans would instead see this as a weakness,
to be exploited. We have seen time and again that the hostile powers refuse to
understand that the Federation is *not* a hostile; they instead see every
border violation, no matter how slight or accidental, as a prelude to war, and
every overture towards peace as a veiled threat.
Scott Taylor
JAMES DIXON
->
-> The average Federation Marine is more like a Ninja than a Rambo;
-> stealth and Electronic warfare are key tools (remember, this is
-> ground combat played out against a backdrop tech level where a
-> Federation Starship can find a single Vulcan in a Romulan D-7
-> (Stormbird?) full of Romulans [and that was in TOS]).
-> The Federation Marine officer is one of the most highly trained
-> individuals in existence; he can take on a platoon of American
-> Special Forces and not break a
I might be missing out on something here, but I've Always read that they
were Star Fleet Marines... In references like the Strategic Designs
publications and even The Best of Trek...
--- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0220
* Origin: The Dx Connection Bbs Teaneck New Jersey (1:2604/142)
Dave Wythe
I wouldn't doubt it. If they existed.................:-)))
Regards
Dave Wythe (who would like to point out that he has never intended the
slightest disrespect to the armed forces throught this thread and apologises to
those who might have found offence)
Dave Wythe
BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
> well, I'm not sure as the ships at Wolf 359 represented "half the fleet". More
> likely "what we can muster in an absurdedly short period of time". 39 ships is
> a *very* small number to be "half the fleet".
Agreed that 39 ships would be *very* small. However that figure would not
include those ships which would not be considered to be suitable such as
medical/science/exploratory vessels and also those ships within the sector
which could not be spared.
> Two, you must always build a level of flexibility into your fleet numbers (this
> amount varies; your Fleet Command will always say it is never enough, and you
> pacifists/budget mavens will always say it's much too much). This gives you the
> chance to respond to a developing threat on one border without stripping
> others.
I agree with the flexibilty and certainly wouldn't argue against more ships.
Give me a fleet of Defiants and I could run the universe:-))))
> Actually, probably not *all* that many to start with (specially trained shock
> troops with missions carefully planned to paralyze defenses, communication,
> control, and supply sites before anyone knows what's up, backed up with
> carefully selected and targeted airstrikes/orbital bombardment to take out the
> heaviest hardened targets). still a large number of troops, but not prohibitive
> (remember that the Enterprise, in "warship" mode, can carry 5,000 troops, and
> is not a purpose built combat transport/assault ship). More would be needed for
> mopping up/garrison duty, but these can be "regulars"; Army troops, specially
> trained for such duties (which the Federation would have no need for, other
> than defensive "National Guard" units, probably raised by individual planets,
> rahter than the Federation as a whole).
Rick has given a figure of 100,000 for initial invasion with between 25-30,000
in order to hold the planet which I think is a reasonable number.
> I would think several times about joining a polity (the Federation) that
> demands my world's support in building a space fleet, and then said "but if
> they get troops on your planet, you're on your own, because we can't interfere"
That was a typo. Sorry. I intended to say non-involvement. As a political
entity the UFP does not from what we know impose its' will upon its' members
unlike the Romulans/Cardassians/Klingons in which high
councils/commands.Senates etc. pass resolutions which have the effect of law.
It would seem to act much in accordance with the current UN. Members send
ambassadors which elect a president and then go on to pass resolutions. The
resolutions however do not appear to be enforced. Starfleet I think can be seen
as a later day peace-keeping force. I continue to think that under an invasion
scenario the UFP would act defensively rather than agressively. To be honest
and frank with you I would not support that kind of action.
Regards
Dave Wythe
PwrPack
In a recent post, da...@wythe.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> The situation I'm describing is more akin to a Federation "First
>>Strike" [*Perish the thought!*] against a foe like the Romulans...
>>[Superior(?)cloaking technology and weapons technology on a level with
the >>Federation]
>I agree with the essence of the point however in a conflict situation I
can
>not see why the UFP would not want to obtain control of systems that it
did >not hold at the outset <I thinking resources needed for starships
here>. I
>suppose Starfleet would call it something like "strategic initiative". I
>certainly would and that's from someone who's been called a pacifist
:-)))
I think that the problem that we have here {holding the system} is
due to a fundamental disagreement about time frames. I picture time lags
between surprise invasion/attack on the target system and a relief
squadron from the attacked government as being on the same order as in the
18th century ... two weeks to several months. You on the other hand are
apparently expecting the cavalry to be riding SSTs and be in the besieged
system in hours or at the very latest days. That scenario is one I had not
considered because it is several orders of magnitude faster than 20th
century militaries [excluding strategic atomic forces] can react. I agree
the invasion scenario becomes very "dicey" if reinforcements can be on the
scene in days instead of months.
In my "system" of combat the RDF would be there in 6 weeks to two
months, depending upon warp distance. This being the case the "avenging
angles" would find the invaders dug in, the planetary defenses augmented
by the invasion forces weapons, etc, etc. In such a case, control of the
target IS control of the system. Like the US Marines in WWII at such
places as Iwo Jima -- Star Fleet would find that naval bombardment short
of complete obliteration would be of little use, except as fire support
for a landing in strength.
>> In THIS scenario, the strike force is gathered and frontier
patrols >>allong relativly inactive boarders are balanced to take up the
slack. Are >>the boarders as well gaurded as before? No, are they
"defenseless"? No, >>they are of a certianty not! If one cannot muster the
required space >>transport and warships, one does not go to war.
>A sudden strike by any force within the quadrant against the UFP would
>involve the necessary instant response.
But the instant in my way of looking at things would be v e r y
long. 8-D
>In order to make that response starships would have to be diverted from
>their usual course which <using the Cardassians as an example> would mean
>that borders such as those shared with the Romulans/Gorn/Tholians etc.
>would be left weakened if not denuded of defences.I would agree though
that >should the UFP desire to make such a first strike then they would
prepare >so that would not happen. Certainly any invading force would make
such >preparations. I was however talking from a purely defenive point of
view.
I disagee about the frontier defenses, even from a defensive point
of view. If you are in a battle with Cardasian forces and you pull
everything off the Romulan frontier ... you are asking for a Romulan
invasion also. Therefor a defensive UFP CANNOT leave the frontier
undefended, to do so is to invite disaster.
=================================
And now to change the subject slightly, lets talk non-class M
worlds, maybe like the asteroids allong the Romulan Neutral Zone where the
UFP maintains it's listening posts.
>Of course if the planet was a non-Class M planet with vital resourses
><dilitium crystals say> then that would again affect the situation.
The Star Fleet Admiral given the job of re-capturing an outpost
on an airless, low gravity [ >o.oo1 g] asteroid which contains several
billion FedCreds ($..£) of super-secret sub-space sensor gear from a
Romulan invasion group has two tasks. First defeat the Romulan vessels in
the area;
and second re-take the asteroid. Assuming the sucessful completion of
phase one, either through combat or luck [no Romulan space support], the
sucessful
completion of phase II can be done in one of two ways. 1] Land marines on
the asteroid, fix bayonets and fight with the "dirty pointed-eared
devils";
or, 2] Bombard the asteroid from space, destroy the complex, and all of
the
invaders.
Which of these options the Admiral decides upon will depend upon
wheter or not he has sufficient marines to sucessfully carry out the
operation, or if he just wants to get the job done in two or three hours
of
sustained photon torpedo bombardment. I suspect that the Admiral's bosses
back at Star Fleet Command and the Federation will want the outpost back,
so they can again use the billions of $$ .. £ £ that the instillation
represents.
The tactical challenges of invading in a vacuum with little or no
gravity to assist in traction of course will be a challenging mission, but
one that you can bet the Star Fleet Marines would be trained for ... and
be
good at.
Akela
Fleet Battles entilted STAR FLEET MARINES. The blurb on the back of this
book states that there are three new areas of rules: Ground Combat,
Advanced Boarding Party Combat, and the intriguing (and sensible) concept
of Transporter Artillery (after all, why lug around a huge artillery
piece when you can have a support facitity beam the ordnance right to the
target? <g>) Also included are several SSDs for troop carriers and the
like.
I'll look through it, and post a brief review of it with emphasis on
items pertinent to this thread. Anyone with more experience than me with
playing Star Fleet Battles is welcome to add to this.
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> In article <1995May19....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
>>individual in existence; they don't feel the need (or obligation) to prove it.
> I wouldn't doubt it. If they existed.................:-)))
thpbtptthhh! :-)
> Regards
>
>Dave Wythe (who would like to point out that he has never intended the
>slightest disrespect to the armed forces through this thread and apologises to
>those who might have found offence)
none taken; I do get tired of people comparing Fed Marines to;
1; Rambo
2: Dirty Harry
3; those thugs in Aliens
4; Star Fleet "lets get beaten up by the bad guys" Security
<<<Scene; Bridge of the Enterprise-E: Large Alien Thug-like being beams
aboard>>>
Picard: Good afternoon. Welcome aboard the USS Enterprise. Would you care to
beat up our Chief of Security, Lt Cmdr. Worf?
<<At least they haven't turned Tuvok into the "lets show how nasty and tough
the alien critters we're introducing *This week* are" device...yet>>
Scott Taylor
(who thinks that, with all the cash they spend training these guys, Security
ought to be able to actually react inelligently to a threat, or at least win a
fight, *once* in a while) ;-)
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> In article <1995May19....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
> BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
>
>
> Agreed that 39 ships would be *very* small. However that figure would not
> include those ships which would not be considered to be suitable such as
> medical/science/exploratory vessels and also those ships within the sector
> which could not be spared.
>
>
> I agree with the flexibilty and certainly wouldn't argue against more ships.
> Give me a fleet of Defiants and I could run the universe:-))))
>
>
>Rick has given a figure of 100,000 for initial invasion with between 25-30,000
>in order to hold the planet which I think is a reasonable number.
Hmmm...that number seems large (lessee, assuming 12 man squads (increased Comm
capability, plus better trained soldiers), 5 squads to a platoon (4 rifle and a
weapon squad, with one rifle squad nominally assigned as a command squad),
and 5 platoons per company (for a nice round 300 soldiers per company). That's
333 companies of combat troops. (assumption; Fed Marines are an "everyone
fights" organization; troopers are cross-trained in weapon and vehicle
maintenance, Med-Techs are just riflemen with additional training (or
vice-versa, if you prefer), and signal is also handled by cross-training. Much
of the administrative duties can be handled by computer, and many other duties
can be handed off to the Fleet (My Ass Rides In Naval Equipment, Sir!) so when
you ask for 100 combat companies, you get 100 companies, not 100 companies,
plus 1000 companies of support personnell). Even assuming the Fed's don't
bolster their strength with combat robots or remotes (not unlikely, given the
Fed deep-seated distrust of computers), that's still a *lot* of marines.
>
>That was a typo. Sorry. I intended to say non-involvement. As a political
>entity the UFP does not from what we know impose its' will upon its' members
>unlike the Romulans/Cardassians/Klingons in which high
>councils/commands.Senates etc. pass resolutions which have the effect of law.
>It would seem to act much in accordance with the current UN. Members send
>ambassadors which elect a president and then go on to pass resolutions. The
>resolution however do not appear to be enforced. Starfleet I think can be seen
>as a later day peace-keeping force. I continue to think that under an invasion
>scenario the UFP would act defensively rather than agressively. To be honest
>and frank with you I would not support that kind of action.
The image that I think fits best is the United States; pre-Civil War (or
perhaps during the Articles of Confederation) a loose alliance of basically
sovereign states, banded together for mutual protection and trade reasons, and
because while there are few things that Government does *better* than private
organizations, there are some that it does more benignly, or effectively.
One can be acting aggressively and still fighting a basically defensive action;
retaking somewhere you once "held" (hey, gimme that magazine back...<Snatch!>!)
, intercepting an invasion fleet and destroying it (or disabling it, if you
prefer). Even attacking and destroying enemy staging areas or construction
sites (removing their ability to wage war). We have seen that the Federation
*does* engage in pre-emptive strikes against targets they consider to be
inflammatory or too dangerous ("The Enterprise Incident", and the two-parter
with Captain Jellicoe, among other episodes).
Scott Taylor
Daniel J. Peacock
In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
>In article <1995May19....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
> BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
>
>> Marine enlisteds aren't going to be swearing mustachioed waahoos, with blood
>> all over their hands and ripped shirts. They are, like the officers who
>> command them, going to, for the most part, be quiet, professional looking
>> individuals; they *know* they are some of the best trained, most lethal
>> individuals in existence; they don't feel the need (or obligation) to prove it.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it. If they existed.................:-)))
>
Oh, I'm sure they do. Here's a phrase I like : "Machines (read the starship)
may take the glory, but men take the real-estate". There are just somethings
a starship can't do, and that's capture planets. Sure they can waste them
from orbit, but that is hardly a satisfactory conclustion. Besides, from
our experirences in Viet Nam we should all understand that you can't bomb
everyone into submission. You have to take real estate, one acre at a time.
My $0.02.
--
* Dan Peacock * If winning is not important,
* ai...@detroit.freenet.org * then, Commander, why keep score?
* 71045...@compuserve.com * -Lt. Worf, 11001001
Daniel J. Peacock
In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
>In article <1995May19....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
>
>Agreed that 39 ships would be *very* small. However that figure would not
>include those ships which would not be considered to be suitable such as
>medical/science/exploratory vessels and also those ships within the sector
>which could not be spared.
>
Couldn't be spared? We are talking about the invasion of the Federation here.
I doubt there would be any ship that couldn't be spared. Not that it would
have done any good.
[snip]
>
>That was a typo. Sorry. I intended to say non-involvement. As a political
>entity the UFP does not from what we know impose its' will upon its' members
>unlike the Romulans/Cardassians/Klingons in which high
>councils/commands.Senates etc. pass resolutions which have the effect of law.
>It would seem to act much in accordance with the current UN. Members send
>ambassadors which elect a president and then go on to pass resolutions. The
>resolutions however do not appear to be enforced. Starfleet I think can be seen
>as a later day peace-keeping force. I continue to think that under an invasion
>scenario the UFP would act defensively rather than agressively. To be honest
>and frank with you I would not support that kind of action.
>
Here's where the breakdown in a "Federation" type government results. Since
the "head" government can't or won't impose its will on the members, there is
not cohesion in defense let alone offense. For example, in the Civil War
(which wasn't civil by any means) the Confederacy made great initial gains.
However, as the North (Union) pressed forward, eventually the Southern defense
fell like a house of cards due to lack of a top level command structure. Sure,
Lee was supposed to be a commander in chief or something, but he didn't have
total authority over all Southern units. Thus, they went into defending their
individual states and were destroyed piecemeal. (Cival War historians correct
any errors I have made, please.)
Now, how could the Federation hold off the Klingons for example. Well, they
had technological superiority, and the Klingons were predictable. Take alook
a "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Klingons now have the technological superiority
and are basically walking all over the Feds. Now, lets look at the Borg.
(ewwww, shudder, ugly 8) ) The borg are just plain unstoppable with just a
few ships. If all the Feds could muster at Wolf 359 were 39 (I believe Wolf
359 is 10-20 ly away from Earth) at the core of the Federation, what is on the
frontier? Two maybee three? If this is all the Federation can do to protect
it's members, I would not want to be a part of it at all!
Dave Wythe
ai...@detroit.freenet.org "Daniel J. Peacock" writes:
> Couldn't be spared? We are talking about the invasion of the Federation here.
> I doubt there would be any ship that couldn't be spared. Not that it would
> have done any good.
The actions of the Borg in "TBOBW" would seem to indicate that they felt that
the destrution/assimilation of Earth would result in the
destruction/assimilation of the UFP or at least that it would be the most
practical opening gambit in any complete assimilation of the UFP. Now bearing
that in mind it would be reasonable to assume that once Earth <the home of
the UFP> had been destroyed <together with most of Starfleet *if* every
possible vessel had been brought to Wolf 359> then the member planets of the
UFP would be "up for grabs" to whoever could cross the border first and take
them. So firstly these planets and borders still had to be protected <I
certainly wouldn't see the destruction of Earth as the end of the UFP
although the destruction of Earth and Starfleet would have been> and secondly
Starfleet did expect to win at Wolf 359 and probably would have done if the
Borg had not had the assistance of Picard <Locutus>.
> Now, how could the Federation hold off the Klingons for example. Well, they
> had technological superiority, and the Klingons were predictable. Take alook
> a "Yesterday's Enterprise", the Klingons now have the technological superiority
> and are basically walking all over the Feds. Now, lets look at the Borg.
> (ewwww, shudder, ugly 8) ) The borg are just plain unstoppable with just a
> few ships. If all the Feds could muster at Wolf 359 were 39 (I believe Wolf
> 359 is 10-20 ly away from Earth) at the core of the Federation, what is on the
> frontier? Two maybee three? If this is all the Federation can do to protect
> it's members, I would not want to be a part of it at all!
I suppose that becoming a part of the UFP is probably a question of the lesser
of so many evils. Certainly I would rather be a part of the UFP than either the
Cardassian or Romulan empires or assimilated by the Borg!!!! And Starfleet does
represent an impressive force with which to defend its' members.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
Several points have been raised in recent articles which I feel are best
answered by a single article from myself. I hope no one feels slighted or
offended because I haven't replied "personally".
These points are as follows:
1. Starfleet response time.
2. The use of frontier defences.
3. The capture of non Class M planets.
4. What a 24th century Fed Marine would be (should he exist.....)
5. The number of troops required in order to invade/capture a planet.
6. What the UFP is and how it would act/respond in a conflict situation.
The following scenario is assumed: Attempted take over of the UFP by the
Romulans.
Starfleet intelligence reports major build-up of Romulan forces on the Romulan
side of the neutral zone together with further reports received from the
Romulan Senate and also the Romulan Military High Command that such an invasion
is planned. These reports are recieved both from the bases along the neutral
zone and from spies on Romulus.
An emergency meeting of the UFP is convened on Earth on order to discuss the
situation. It is agreed that the frontier defences should be increased but
*not* to a level which the Romulans might consider belligerent, i.e. use as an
excuse to invade. The UFP is commited to not being seen as the instigators of
the war. The increased frontier defences include a couple of Galaxy Class ships.
<The minutes record Admiral Wythe's disgust that a fleet of Defiant Class
starships are not being sent to the area immediately. Later in the day Admiral
Taylor is seen to invest his entire fortune in the production of military
uniforms> :-)))))
The above in fact could almost be described as canon because the Starfleet
intelligence "reports" and the E-D rushes to the border of the neutral zone
scenario must have been seen several times during the series. It also answers
the question of Starfleet response time. They are "in place" before the first
invasion ship has crossed the border.
Because the UFP does not want to be seen as the instigators of the war the
fleet it has sent is far too small to be effective when the invasion finally
comes. Rushing over the neutral zone the Romulans are easily able to capture
the frontier bases and destroy the fleet. So far it has not been necessary to
land a single man on a single planet. The bases are destroyed from space and
the starships are also destroyed from space. The "negotiations" which Picard
has always been able to use in the past to "pacify" angry Romulans/Cardassians
did not happen. Sub-space distress signals are the first the UFP hears of the
invasion.
The use of frontier defences by the UFP is therefore useless as a means of
preventing invasion. In fact their effectiveness as spy bases is limited by the
policy of the UFP, i.e. we do not want to be seen as the instigators of the war.
Now this comment may seem contradictory to the one above however it can be seen
that at an early stage the UFP held the winning cards <had it only listened to
Admiral Wythe and deployed a fleet of Defiant Class ships capable of dealing
with the situation and not a fleet of negotiators>.
The Romulans now proceed to move on to the star systems in the area. Their
policy at this stage is quite simple. Submit or be destroyed. They have no
intention of invasion. It is a calculated act. Why? Im afraid you'll have to
wait for that but it will become clear......
A number of planets are destroyed but many more do submit. They are offered
"complete autonomy within the Romulan Empire". A promise that the Romulans have
no intention of keeping.
However the invasion has been successful. Star systems are being captured and
the only "invasion forces" to date have been a few Romulan sub-commanders sent
to take control of a planet from the planet's government. The capture of Class
M planets within a system leads automatically to the capture of non Class M
planets within a system. So far it has been easy.
So how does the UFP respond to this ? Well the fact is that its' options are
limited by the nature of its' organisation. A split occurs and the UFP becomes
a two factions: the Hawks and the Doves.
The Hawks believe in all out war against the Romulans.
The Doves believe that if they make peace with the Romulans then they will be
allowed "complete autonomy within the Romulan Empire".
Now the truth is I simply can not believe that this would not happen. You of
course might think differently.
The Hawks themnselves are of course split.
Admiral Taylor feels that the systems taken by the Romulans should be
recaptured one by one. He has a problem here however. Firstly none of the
planets have actually been invaded. They have simply been captured. And
secondly his vast reserve of manpower from which he intended to build his army
of Federation Marines is daily depleting as member planets of the UFP decide to
"side" with the Romulans rather than face the threat of seeing their planets
destroyed.
Admiral Wythe however feels that a direct attack on Romulus using a a fleet of
cloaked Defiant Class starships could end the war quickly and prevent the
Romulans from capturing the big five. And also because the Romulans have his
magazine...........:-)
So here we can see that the number of troops required to capture a planet is
not as many as might have first been presumed.
We can also see that the ability to "keep together" a force of Federation
Marines is dependent on the local <home planets> reaction to invasion and the
offers made by an invading force. Why ? because the UFP lacks the cohesion of
its more belligerent neighbours
That should put the cat among the Klingons.........
Regards
Dave Wythe
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> In article <1995May19....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
> BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
>
>
>So the question I have to ask here is would every Marine regardless of rank
> be such an individual. In other words would the grunt as we know it cease to
> exist ?
Yes, almost certainly. Would have disappeared long ago, during the dark days of
Terran and Andorian history when they were both aggressive, expansionist
powers. In those days, before the massive High-energy Warp Drives in use by
even the 2240s, each Marine would have to be self-sufficient; a ship would
carry very few, and they would be required not only to be trained (and very
highly trained) surface combatants, but also parts of the ship's crew (acting
as engineering assistants, scrub nurses, etc. The "dumb jock with a gun"
infantry grunt would have gone the way of the dinosaur. (As a note, one of the
main differences between American soldiers and Soviet troops during the Cold
war was that American troops, if contact with higher-ups was lost, were likely
to "soldier-on", going after the last objective they were assigned, and then,
once that was taken, find themselves a new objective, while Soviet troops
were very likely to just hunker down and reinforce wherever they were until
they got new orders).
>I would have to say that during a time of war all hardware in particular
>starships would be of immense value far greater than during peacetime. With
>enemies threatening those planets which provide resources for the construction
>of such ships then I would have to imagine that even damage could prove
>disasterous let alone destruction.
True; but the General/Admiral that forgets that units are *expendable* is
*going* to lose; he will continue to withdraw and cast only tentative strikes
guaranteed to *not* lose ships (often on either side). Units should never be
thrown away, but neither should they be overprotected.
>Unable to perhaps. Unwilling to certainly. However sometimes the threat can be
>enough to raise question about the practicality of continuing in occupation of
>a planet where all lines of communication to the central command have been cut
> and raids are certainly being conducted both by Starfleet and from the
> indigineous population. The value of holding a planet would then become
> directly proportional to the value of that planet either to Starfleet or the
> invading entity. You can set up shop but you can't buy and you can't sell you
> only pay the mortgage.
The indigenous pops can be kept in line (check out The Prince by Machiavelli...
I'm sure the Cardassians have...and found him to be an amateur) without *too*
much trouble, and if Star Fleet Security is the best you can throw at me...
oooh, I'm shaking in my boots now. Please don't hurt me, mr Big Bad Security
Wuss... :-) (my respect for Fleet Security is underwhelming, as y'all can tell)
As for the Mortgage...well, since I'm also knicking all your best silver and
the VCR while I'm at it...I suppose I'll just deal, eh Guv?
>I agree. Earth was used as an example although any planet at a similar
>tech level would have sufficed for the argument. Incidentally wouldn't
>attacking the big five successfully effectively render the UFP impotent ? It
>would seem like quite a sound move strategically. Clearly far more practicable
>than working your way across endless star systems invading each Class M planet
>you came across.
Nope. Anymore than bombing Washington DC (or even Cheyenne Mountain, assuming
you could build a bomb big enough to hurt it) would stop a war with the US.
Slow it down for a while, maybe. Piss a lot of people off...definitely. Make
Starfleet take off the kid gloves...oh yeah.
>The problem with the Borg was that everything was so absolute. The Borg ceased
>to be effective as an enemy once it became clear that the only thing they
could
>do was fly to Earth and try to destroy it. The Dominion....Well hopefully the
>writers will create a major force which can have some options. But that as you
>say remains to be seen.
The Borg never considered they might lose; they had never needed any other
strategy; they may not have *known* any other strategy. The Dominion, on the
other hand, seem to be a bird of a very different color; if they can infiltrate
agents into the intelligence agencies of the two most paranoid races of the
Alpha Quadrant...well, i'd be checking to see if the Federation President's
bedroom has a bucket in it...
> The good old "We only carry weapons for defensive purposes" argument. Sad but
> continually rammed down our throats. I agree that there is a major difference
> between a military organisation and a belligerent organisation.
I sometimes wonder why they even bother; everyone knows Star Fleet is about 60%
Navy (including the exploration/research parts), 20% Coast Guard, and 20%
Calypso). "Not a Military Organization"; They have ranks, call each other
"sir" and "mister", court martials, TOEs, and ships with guns...you tell me.
> But then again he would. However Starfleet has developed in so much as the
> Galaxy Class ships now carry families <I noticed how in any major potential
> conflict situation they still leave the kids on board. Weird that I always
> thought>. And the Defiant is built specifically for war so there have been
> changes since STIII in starship design and purpose.
Ships with families was one of the stupidist ideas i ever heard of (also one of
the most brilliant, from a writers point of view; too bad they never really did
anything with it, aside from Keiko and Alexander).
Defiant is an oddity in Starship design; as a purpose built warship, it flies
in the face of the Federation's penchant for "big do-anything ships". Even the
Reliant version of the Miranda class (Miranda-Avenger, to borrow the non-canon
name for the class), which, with it's multiple torpedo tubes, incredible fire
arcs, small size, massive shuttle(fighter?) bays, and phaser cannons (or
whatever those "nasty guns of death, doom, and destruction" on the sponsoons
were), certainly seems to be a warship, is still capable of survery/scouting
missions, as was the Excelsior.
>
>I agree with the scenario. In fact we have examples do we not ? The UFP was
>supposed to be at war with the Cardassians for the best part of the first five
>seasons of TNG and "we" heard nothing. Also the Tholians were supposedly
>causing problems although the exact nature and extent of those problems was
>never fully discussed on the program. You have however raised the question of
>localised and absolute warfare. What do you propose would be the differences
>here ? Apart perhaps from numbers involved.
"localised" war involves, outside of the actual combat troops, support
personnel, and those businesses involved in making arms and munitions, the
population of the nation in only a peripheral way; for the most part they are
unaffected (unless Johnny doesn't come marching home...). Most wars are
actually of this type (the Gulf War was a perfect example). "Total War"
involves the entire population directly in the war effort; everyone is, to a
lesser or greater degree, impacted by the war (WWII is certainly an example of
total war;ration cards, Rosie the Riveter, Lights-out and bombing raids, the
Home Guard, War Bonds. So was the American Civil War (and, I suppose, the
English Civil War). The jury is probably still out on the whole Cold War, but I
would say so, as someone who grew up under the threat of nuclear ahniliation).
>It'd be great and would open up far more potential plot lines than a number of
>episodes we've seen recently on DS9. But I guess we're probably asking for too
> much here. Starfleet at war!!!! Sisko forced to make decisions which cost
>hundreds of lives!!!! Characters being killed!!!! Invasion fleets!!! Political
> dissension!!!! All those arguments over Fed Marines.:-))))))) I think we're
> dreaming sadly enough.....
Actually, I suspect the very argument we are having would have been gone over
*many* times, both in the halls of Starfleet Commands and in the Federation
Assembly's chambers...
>It is of course possible that too much modelling has been done on the UN and
>the realities of space conflict have not been thought through. Either that or
>the producers do not want to consider the realities. Are grey area gets greyer
>and bigger with every passing week.
Actually, originally Worf was going to be a Colonel, and in charge of an elite
ground strike force (sounds like Marines to me...). But some conflict came up
somewhere, and someone at Paramount decided this was too *realistic* for them,
so Worf became a lowly LTjg, with no real reason to be on the bridge at all
until they offed Tasha Yar. <<above is according to the Compendium, I'm not
sure which page>> But the fact is, for all the research and thought put into
the show, in many areas they simply haven't given things a lot of thought (like
just how *big* the Federation is, and how many ships they would need to patrol
it adequately...39 vessels, when you think about it, is a pittance). our Grey
areas are beginning to resemble a London Fog jacket I once owned....and it was
black. :-)
Scott taylor
sl...@cc.usu.edu
them should be stationed on every Fed Ship even the Medical ships.
In article <801137...@wythe.demon.co.uk>, Dave Wythe
PwrPack
==========================================================================
==
I've only been here about a week, and so maybe someone has pointed
this out already, but another point that I thin is being missed in all the
invasion "fog of battle" is the fact that invasion or counter-invasion
assignments represent only a tiny part of the overall Star Fleet Marine's
mission in the Federation.
Although piracy is probably less of a problem in the Federation
that in some of the other interstellar entities mentioned in STOS and
ST:TNG, the
ability of mounting weapons on a ship and going after a nice plump robot
freighter on the Earth-Andor run is probably going to look good to some
people. After all, ships are lost all the time to "natural hazards" in
subspace; a robots memory can be wiped clean; and it might be months
before anyone missed the cargo of Vegan Dingbat slime glands and genuine
Earth cow-pies that are such good sellers on Andor. Piracy could be a well
paying
job for some up and comming briggand .... except its too hazardious! The
Star Fleeet Marines are rough on pirates. So anti-piracy might be a
mission for the Marines.
Natural Desasters happen on colony planets as often as they happen
on 20th century earth. The Marines, like their 20th century ancestors, the
National Guard are always on call to supply the brute muscle needed to
help out in a planetary emergency. They also have experience in housing,
feeding and providing electric power in primitive field conditions. Their
training
in ground combat of necessity is under less than ideal situations to
simulate what may be found in a combat situation --- or a situation in the
wake of a natural desaster with hundreds or thousands of civilians
suddenly homeless and without replicators, etc. So humanitarian roles
durring natural disasters are part of the Star Fleet Marine Corps'
mission.
Your star-yacht crash on an uncharted, vacuum for atmosphere chunk
of debris circling much too close to a dying white dwarf star that is
giving you way too high a dose of hard x-ray and gamma radiation [to say
nothing of the intense ion radiation from the solar wind]? Who ya gonna
call? Ghostbusters? Well, maybe, but Marine Search and Rescue is a better
bet. So
search and rescue missions are a part of the Marine mission.
Bandits in the hills are rustling the lawful rancher's cows, or
M'gatu's or whatever? You say the local constabulary is not as well armed
or have the vehicles to persue these thugs into the rugged outback where
they have their base? Call a starship to phaser and photon torpedo them
into submission? Again... well... maybe. But a lot faster and cheaper way
is to call a Marine platoon [or a whole company if they are a really BIG
band ...
say a thousand or more] and have them go in and arrest the neer-do-wells
and drag the miscreants back for a fair trial before you hang 'em! So
helping enforce law on frontier worlds that lack the resources to deal
with "organized" crime is part of the SFMC's mission.
These are just four I've come up with off the top of my head ...
the point being that no matter how sophisticated the starships that man
builds,
there will still be some jobs that require the "feness" <sp?> of the man
[or woman or betenticalled BEM] right on the scene, nose to nose with
withever the problem is.
Rick
Pwr...@aol.com
--------------------------------------------
"Where am I going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
==========================================================================
Timo S Saloniemi
>
>In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
>
>the real-estate". There are just somethings
>a starship can't do, and that's capture planets. Sure they can waste them
>from orbit, but that is hardly a satisfactory conclustion. Besides, from
>our experirences in Viet Nam we should all understand that you can't bomb
>everyone into submission. You have to take real estate, one acre at a time.
Why couldn't you bomb everybody into submission? If your objective is to
capture the planet's natural resources, simply *blackmail* the population
with weapons that can kill 90% of them (ST has those weapons). Better yet,
blackmail them with weapons that alter their climate or prevent communi-
cations and transport or make ice-cream manufacturing impossible. You
only need time to force the majority of the population into submission.
If your interests conflict - if you have little time but are not allowed
to carpet-bomb - then you are in trouble. But you do not have to put a
soldier on every rock on a country to occupy it, and you do not need
to put a soldier into every city or even continent to hold a planet.
You can take real estate one planet at a time, without firing a single
shot, if you have superior weapons of blackmail. The only thing you
are vulnerable to is counterblackmail.
Timo Saloniemi
.sigless and proud of it!
(No, this has nothing to do with real life. This is about Star Trek
weapons technology and possibilities)
Dave Wythe
> Although piracy is probably less of a problem in the Federation
> that in some of the other interstellar entities mentioned in STOS and
> ST:TNG, the
> ability of mounting weapons on a ship and going after a nice plump robot
> freighter on the Earth-Andor run is probably going to look good to some
> people. After all, ships are lost all the time to "natural hazards" in
> subspace; a robots memory can be wiped clean; and it might be months
> before anyone missed the cargo of Vegan Dingbat slime glands and genuine
> Earth cow-pies that are such good sellers on Andor. Piracy could be a well
> paying
I presume you are talking the Harry Mudd/Kivas Fajo type characters here? Then
I would have to say that I have always believed that acting as a form of Coast
Guard was one of the functons of Starfleet. It could also be a function of
local planetary control. Given the fact that each member of the UFP has to
either have the ability to travel great distances across space or be close to
developing the technology to do so then I would imagine that such a role would
be ideally suited to local planetary control <depending of course on how each
planet wanted to police its' space>.
> Natural Desasters happen on colony planets as often as they happen
> on 20th century earth. The Marines, like their 20th century ancestors, the
> National Guard are always on call to supply the brute muscle needed to
> help out in a planetary emergency. They also have experience in housing,
> feeding and providing electric power in primitive field conditions. Their
> training
> in ground combat of necessity is under less than ideal situations to
> simulate what may be found in a combat situation --- or a situation in the
> wake of a natural desaster with hundreds or thousands of civilians
> suddenly homeless and without replicators, etc. So humanitarian roles
> durring natural disasters are part of the Star Fleet Marine Corps'
> mission.
Unfortunately here we've seen the Enterprise rushing about all too often in
such cases <not perhaps as the main plotline but as part of the story> without
a hint of a mention of even Marines. We have heard of relief missions etc. but
whether or not Marines <if they exist> would form part of these missions we
don't know.
> Your star-yacht crash on an uncharted, vacuum for atmosphere chunk
> of debris circling much too close to a dying white dwarf star that is
> giving you way too high a dose of hard x-ray and gamma radiation [to say
> nothing of the intense ion radiation from the solar wind]? Who ya gonna
> call? Ghostbusters? Well, maybe, but Marine Search and Rescue is a better
> bet. So
> search and rescue missions are a part of the Marine mission.
Or the Coast Guard perhaps ?
> Bandits in the hills are rustling the lawful rancher's cows, or
> M'gatu's or whatever? You say the local constabulary is not as well armed
> or have the vehicles to persue these thugs into the rugged outback where
> they have their base? Call a starship to phaser and photon torpedo them
> into submission? Again... well... maybe. But a lot faster and cheaper way
> is to call a Marine platoon [or a whole company if they are a really BIG
> band ...
> say a thousand or more] and have them go in and arrest the neer-do-wells
> and drag the miscreants back for a fair trial before you hang 'em! So
> helping enforce law on frontier worlds that lack the resources to deal
> with "organized" crime is part of the SFMC's mission.
Following Scott's excellent depiction of what a 24th Century Marine would look
like I think it would be a little heavy handed :-) That said the question of
crime in the 24th Century is one which has been played up and down as the
storywriters have seen fit. Given that a planet can not join the UFP until it
has achieved a certain level of technology <warp drive or equivalent> then I
would imagine that it would have the tech ability to deal with rustlers. That
said there are colonies and there are non-member planets which despite the
Prime Directive are constantly being visited by Starfleet. As far as non-
members are concerned then I would have to say that they would be left to it
<the good old PD again>. So that leaves colonies. The selection of colonists
would seem to be pretty rigid. Family groups with a valid reason for being
there, i.e. as scientists, doctors, etc. It would probably be pretty hard to
get there if you were a criminal or were thought to have criminal tendencies.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
Rick has recently posted four examples of how Marines could be used in the 24th
Century. In reading through them however I had a thought........
How would Starfleet/the UFP deal with recalcitrant members of the UFP ? Most
of the ones that we've seen seem quite benign in general. But what if one
started to get troublesome. Would that require Picard or a detachment of these
Marines ?
Just a thought
Regards
Dave Wythe
Akela
>
>==========================================================================
>==
> I've only been here about a week, and so maybe someone has pointed
>this out already, but another point that I thin is being missed in all the
>invasion "fog of battle" is the fact that invasion or counter-invasion
>assignments represent only a tiny part of the overall Star Fleet Marine's
>mission in the Federation.
>Piracy could be a well
>paying
>Star Fleeet Marines are rough on pirates. So anti-piracy might be a
>mission for the Marines.
>on 20th century earth. The Marines, like their 20th century ancestors, the
>National Guard are always on call to supply the brute muscle needed to
>help out in a planetary emergency. They also have experience in housing,
>So humanitarian roles
>durring natural disasters are part of the Star Fleet Marine Corps'
>mission.
>of debris circling much too close to a dying white dwarf star that is
>giving you way too high a dose of hard x-ray and gamma radiation [to say
>nothing of the intense ion radiation from the solar wind]? Who ya gonna
>call? Ghostbusters? Well, maybe, but Marine Search and Rescue is a better
>bet. So
>search and rescue missions are a part of the Marine mission.
>M'gatu's or whatever? You say the local constabulary is not as well armed
>or have the vehicles to persue these thugs into the rugged outback where
>they have their base? Call a starship to phaser and photon torpedo them
>into submission? Again... well... maybe. But a lot faster and cheaper way
>is to call a Marine platoon [or a whole company if they are a really BIG
>band ...
>say a thousand or more] and have them go in and arrest the neer-do-wells
>and drag the miscreants back for a fair trial before you hang 'em! So
>helping enforce law on frontier worlds that lack the resources to deal
>with "organized" crime is part of the SFMC's mission.
>the point being that no matter how sophisticated the starships that man
>builds,
>there will still be some jobs that require the "feness" <sp?> of the man
>[or woman or betenticalled BEM] right on the scene, nose to nose with
>withever the problem is.
Sounds to me like you've set up the Starfleet Marines as
something akin to the Coast Guard <grin> and I have to agree; someone
once said on this newsgroup (forgive me for being unable to recognize or
acknowledge the person who said this) that Satrfleet is 60% Navy, 20%
Coast Guard, and @)% Calypso (though I think you would be looking for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for that last 20%; NOAA
maintains an officer corps and a fleet of research vessels. Very
intriguing, a lot how I'd imagine Starfleet's smaller science vessels
(such as Grissom) would be run; fortunately, even after spending three
weeks aboard one, we were not blown out of the water by Klingons. <grin!>
Anyway, we already know Starfleet performs these roles
repeatedly; the marines probably provide some of the 'grunt' labor such
as planetart SAR, disaster relief, and the like; starship crews perform
spaceborne SAR and disaster relief when neccessary, i.e. when a company
of marines is unavailable. Also, piracy is a distinctly Navy/Coast Guard
job, and would be handled by Starfleet cutters (ships that would, say, be
about the size of Grissom but with slightly BETTER offensive capability!
I would say vessels a little larger than Defiant (though without the
absolute raw firepower.) In such a case, since we must assume marines
are rarely deployed aboard starships, Starfleet Security personnel would
fulfil boarding/law enforcement duties aboard cutters. (And the pirates
must be trembling in their boots to envision a squad of redshirts coming
their way... NOT! :) Marines would probably not be used for piracy
interdiction UNLESS Starfleet had gained intelligence regarding the
location of a pirate base, and decided to capture some pirates instead of
just dooshing the base.
Your ideas sound good, though! Wouldn't the marines have
counterterrorism duties as well?
PwrPack
{I've often wondered if
Ellison ever really thought about what that line really meant?}
Anyway, tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) presented us
with some interesting
situations, he wrote on May 16th:
> This thread about Fed Marines may have some slight connections
with reality now that
>TPTB are moving away from the earlier Trek practice of big ships, clean
battles and idealistic
>officers. But unless the producers completely abandon earlier Trechnology
facts, space and
>ground combat in Trek will be *very* different from "real-world" space
and ground campaigns.
> There have been excellent real-world arguments for and against
ground combat forces
>in space battles. But in many cases, the almost magic Trek weapons
technology twists reality in
>funny ways. To arrogantly try and clarify where everybody stands, I would
like to ask any of the
>net.combatants participating in this thread how they feel the following
scenarios would be
>handled in Star Trek universe.
>
>Scenario one:
> There is a war between Federation and the Klingons. The latter
hold a class M world with
>big dilithium reserves. There are several garrisons on the surface,
capable of self-sustenance
>for decades. There are also rudimentary defences against starships, and
the capability to
>anufacture more of those. There is no protective fleet, however; it was
blown to pieces by the
>approaching Starfleet task force.
> You have to get hold of the planetary reserves. Ousting Klingons
is a secondary goal,
>destroying them only a tertiary. So this is like the first part of the
above quote - subdue the
>population to obey you.
If there is no indiginious population, and I must secure the
dylithium at any cost, then I
as Grand Admiral Of The Fleet demand the Klingon's surrender. When
they call me a
"Varool" I order the bombardment of the Klingon garrisons to
begin. It continues until
there is no longer any generated power on the surface. For this
encounter I did not
require Marine ground forces. Attempting to land on the planet and
obtain the resources
through mining without interference from the Klingons is obviously
a dead end and so
is just "stunning" them. Since I must obtain the resources, and it
is currently controlled
by the Klingons, ousting and destroying them is part of the
mission.
>Scenario two:
> Same as above, except that the planet was inhabited when the
Klingons intruded, and
>there is a large non-aligned population held hostage on the planet. You
have to get hold of the
>dilithium, with no danger to the population. Again, what you do with the
Klingons is not
>important. This is fundamentally different from subjugating the
population.
This is the hardest of the three. Basically I need to know how the
indiginious population
feels about the Klingons. Is there a resistance movement? Are they
pacificists? Are they
Orgainians who are only interested in observing us trained monkies
preform? Assuming
that the indiginious population is post atomic-pre stellar and do
not appreciate being
treated like servants [a lot of fan-fiction/pro fiction about the
Klingons states that the K's
tend to treat conquered planets as "servent-races" -- much as the
British did in Africa,
India and North America in the 18th and 19th century] then it may
be possible to obtain
the dylithium without the use of more than orbital fire support
for indiginious troops
armed and given a crash-course in Federation military doctrine by
the in comming Fleet.
If the population is pro-Klingon, I see no other way to get the
resources than a full scale
invasion of the planet. This requires ground forces, you cannot
hold real-estate by
remote control, no matter how advanced your VR and cybernetic
commo links are.
Invasion of a pro-Klingon planet would probably be a desaster for
any but the full
resources of the Federation. As has been pointed out several times
before, unfriendly
personell on the ground can make it mighty hot for invaders ....
and if you start such
a project you have to keep it up, there would be no way to turn
back after committing
100,000 to a quarter million troops to an invasion.
>Scenario three:
>
>The Romulans in Unification II managed to fool E-D and got through to
Vulcan, occupying large
>cities and holding Vulcans hostage. They have no defences to speak of
against starships, but
>do have ground combat equipment, and can use Vulcan replicators for
resupply.
>
>You have to free the hostages.
You will have to do what the Vulcan Government wants. From a
military point of view, I
think the only way you've got a prayer is to bring two marines for
every invader, beam
down simeltaniously and stun everyone in sight, Vulcan, Romulan,
Cat, Dog, or M'guto!
Then assuming this is accomplished with even minimal surprise
[doubtful - but one can
always hope] you can go about the business of untangling the
Romulan "Supermen"
from their Vulcan hostages and calling up the Romulan Preator to
come pick up these
"Varools"....because you KNOW the Romulan Government is going to
claim this is a
rogue Tel She-arr <sp?> operation. [If you've got a better
spelling for the Romulan CIA,
I'd be indebted to you for a brief E-mail at Pwr...@aol.com]
=======================================================================
Now on to Brian's excellent post of May 22nd. I'm still trying to
absorb all the stuff
he put in it, a couple of points though ....
BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu (BRIAN J. PFEIFER) wrote:
> Ground vehicles are likely to be almost completely unknown (hell,
it's unlikely they will
>survive the 21st century). Between PBIs who are all carrying weapons
capable of ahniliating
>anything that stands still long enough to draw a bead on it, and
starships (and other nasty
>things, like killsats) in orbit capable of reading the "this end towards
target" graffiti on the tank's
>gun barrell; and then pasting it with anything from a photon torpedo to a
crowbar, the traditional
>tank is dead.
Ground vehicles extinct? Not bloody likely! They probably won't
look much like the
things we're used to, but they will carry out the same function --
fire support platforms
and things to transport supplies and so on as you yourself say
....
>Tanks and APCs are likely to be replaced with gravitically propelled
vehicles and specially
>designed attack shuttles, heavily shielded, and armed with a mix of
phasers, railguns (much
>more effective at close ranges than in space, especially rapid fire
versions), and missiles
>(including small ones equipped with M/A-M warheads, probably in the
5-10kt yield area) NOTE
><<<feasibility of using forcefields to contain the blast of a M/A-M
explosion in one direction; a
>sort of M/A-M "Shaped Charge">>>
WHOA! An antimatter Claymore! Talk about overkill! Or are you
talking about the
Combat Engineers having to take out fortefications?
> The individual soldier will almost *have* to be equipped with
armor capable of
>withstanding phaser and disruptor fire; this may be Diburnium-Osmium
alloy plates on a
>polyceramic frame, deflector shields, or, more likely, a combination of
the two (<<<NOTE;
>armor may be prohibitively heavy; use of artificial muscles (myomer
technology) to offset
>armor/equipment load>>>). Similiarly, he has to be protected from the
environment; filters,
>sealed armor, oxygen supplies. The battlefield is *way* too complex to
deal with alone; between
>freuency skipping, encrypted Signal gear, incoming sensor data, threat
analysis and
>identification, and terrain mapping, the Marine is going to need an
onboard tactical computer to
>filter data, handle incoming and outgoing commo needs, control any
remotes/RPVs (if any are
>in use), and assist in target identification, acquisition, and targeting.
<<<NOTE; built-in MedKit,
>capable of diagnosing simple battlefield injuries and tending to them?>>>
This sounds like Heinlein's Mobile Infantry or Robotech, or a
cross of the two. The guys
who have to engage in combat in against forces like the Romulans,
Cardasians, and
so on WILL have to be armored and armed like this. Anti-piracy and
so on will not
require these levels of protection and firepower.
>Power for all this malarky is no problem;
It isn't?
>a set of the same (*techno-magic*) powercells Ë™ power phasers will
keep all of this stuff
>going for *years* (I once did some numbers and figured out that, at 10%
efficiency, *one* of
>those cells can fire one of the main Collimator arrays on the E-D at full
power *four times*).
Where did you get the "numbers" to do this? Also where did you get
the specs for
the Enterprise D's main phasers from? If you think this would bog
down the discussion
here too much, I'd really, really be indebted to you for an E-mail
at Pwr...@aol.com.
Rick Blackburn + + + + + +
+ Pwr...@aol.com
"Where am I going -- and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Bill Huber
> Sounds to me like you've set up the Starfleet Marines as
>something akin to the Coast Guard <grin> and I have to agree; someone
>once said on this newsgroup (forgive me for being unable to recognize or
>acknowledge the person who said this) that Satrfleet is 60% Navy, 20%
>Coast Guard, and @)% Calypso (though I think you would be looking for the
>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for that last 20%; NOAA
>maintains an officer corps and a fleet of research vessels. Very
>intriguing, a lot how I'd imagine Starfleet's smaller science vessels
>(such as Grissom) would be run; fortunately, even after spending three
>weeks aboard one, we were not blown out of the water by Klingons. <grin!>
Good point. The NOAA, also the Public Health Service, is one of the United
States' seven uniformed services. These are the only two that are not
Armed Services.
Bill Huber
Daniel J. Peacock
In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
Admiral Peacock concurs with Admiral Wythe. A few Defiant class warships
(let's call them for what they are) would be an excellent deterant. Also,
the Admiral suggests a mobile assault squadron (1-2 Defiant-class, 2-3 Galaxy-
class, and 5-10 Miranda-class cruisers with 10 or so SF Marine assault ships)
to patrol the neatral zone to flex UFP muscle.
>The above in fact could almost be described as canon because the Starfleet
>intelligence "reports" and the E-D rushes to the border of the neutral zone
>scenario must have been seen several times during the series. It also answers
>the question of Starfleet response time. They are "in place" before the first
>invasion ship has crossed the border.
>
Very good point. Unfortunately, the Enterprise (in many incarnations) was
always alone. BAD TACTICS. (I know, TV production stuff, but I still think
most of the writers didn't even bother to do any homework on naval strategy.)
The Fleet's ability to be flexible is its greatest asset, unfortunately it is
also it's greatest liability. It seems that Star Fleet Academy doesn't have
any training on Fleet tactics (I challenge you to show me an episode where
the training was anything but a single Star Fleet vessel versus one or more
hostiles.....hmmmm.....tap, tap, tap...I didn't think so. 8) )
Also, Star Fleet seems to want "free thinking" captains. My sense is that
this would make fleet actions difficult.
>Because the UFP does not want to be seen as the instigators of the war the
>fleet it has sent is far too small to be effective when the invasion finally
>comes. Rushing over the neutral zone the Romulans are easily able to capture
>the frontier bases and destroy the fleet. So far it has not been necessary to
>land a single man on a single planet. The bases are destroyed from space and
>the starships are also destroyed from space. The "negotiations" which Picard
>has always been able to use in the past to "pacify" angry Romulans/Cardassians
>did not happen. Sub-space distress signals are the first the UFP hears of the
>invasion.
>
Unfortunately, this is also a plausible scenario.
>The use of frontier defences by the UFP is therefore useless as a means of
>preventing invasion. In fact their effectiveness as spy bases is limited by the
>policy of the UFP, i.e. we do not want to be seen as the instigators of the war.
>Now this comment may seem contradictory to the one above however it can be seen
>that at an early stage the UFP held the winning cards <had it only listened to
>Admiral Wythe and deployed a fleet of Defiant Class ships capable of dealing
>with the situation and not a fleet of negotiators>.
>
This is where I begin to disagree with my esteemed colegue. There is one thing
that can be said about shore guns, they can't be sunk! You would think that
the Federation wouldn't be naive enough not to put nasty defense cannons on
important boarder worlds. Were I on the boarder with the Romulans, I would
certainly feel better if there were a few hundred phaser arrays on the planet's
surface pointing up. The role of these defenses is not to hold off the
invaders (though that would be nice if it happened), but to bloody the nose
of the invader and slow them down enough for help to arrive. (i.e. the mobile
assualt squadron I mentioned before. 8) )
>The Romulans now proceed to move on to the star systems in the area. Their
>policy at this stage is quite simple. Submit or be destroyed. They have no
>intention of invasion. It is a calculated act. Why? Im afraid you'll have to
>wait for that but it will become clear......
This fits with Romulan psychology.
>A number of planets are destroyed but many more do submit. They are offered
>"complete autonomy within the Romulan Empire". A promise that the Romulans have
>no intention of keeping.
>
Hold it right there. Most frontier planets have a very strong feeling of
"nationalism" in that they value thier independance as a system above all else
(why else live on the frontier?) So, I don't belive many systems would fall
this way. Also, most have heard the propaganda (again let's call it for what
it is) that the Romulans are brutes and don't treat conquored planets very
well. Better to die at the end of a disruptor rifle than to slowly rot in
a prison. Guerella activities would start soon after.
Therefore there would be a need on the part of the Romulans to land troops.
>However the invasion has been successful. Star systems are being captured and
>the only "invasion forces" to date have been a few Romulan sub-commanders sent
>to take control of a planet from the planet's government. The capture of Class
>M planets within a system leads automatically to the capture of non Class M
>planets within a system. So far it has been easy.
>
[See above argument]
>So how does the UFP respond to this ? Well the fact is that its' options are
>limited by the nature of its' organisation. A split occurs and the UFP becomes
>a two factions: the Hawks and the Doves.
>The Hawks believe in all out war against the Romulans.
Now, all out war is both wasteful and pointless. What good is a planet it
you have to annhilate it to get it back? None. So, a limited war of
containment and the a slow push back would work best (depending on the circumstances
of course!)
>The Doves believe that if they make peace with the Romulans then they will be
>allowed "complete autonomy within the Romulan Empire".
>
That fits all to well unfortunately (short sighted fools.)
>Now the truth is I simply can not believe that this would not happen. You of
>course might think differently.
>
I don't and I do. 8)
>The Hawks themnselves are of course split.
>
>Admiral Taylor feels that the systems taken by the Romulans should be
>recaptured one by one. He has a problem here however. Firstly none of the
>planets have actually been invaded. They have simply been captured. And
>secondly his vast reserve of manpower from which he intended to build his army
>of Federation Marines is daily depleting as member planets of the UFP decide to
>"side" with the Romulans rather than face the threat of seeing their planets
>destroyed.
>
>Admiral Wythe however feels that a direct attack on Romulus using a a fleet of
>cloaked Defiant Class starships could end the war quickly and prevent the
>Romulans from capturing the big five. And also because the Romulans have his
>magazine...........:-)
>
Well, damn it. Let's get going!!!!!!!!
>So here we can see that the number of troops required to capture a planet is
>not as many as might have first been presumed.
>
>We can also see that the ability to "keep together" a force of Federation
>Marines is dependent on the local <home planets> reaction to invasion and the
>offers made by an invading force. Why ? because the UFP lacks the cohesion of
>its more belligerent neighbours
>
Unfortunately, this is the fundamental problem with a federation.
>That should put the cat among the Klingons.........
>
>Regards
>
>Dave Wythe
>
>da...@wythe.demon.co.uk
>
--
Daniel J. Peacock
In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
>
>Rick has recently posted four examples of how Marines could be used in the 24th
>Century. In reading through them however I had a thought........
>
>How would Starfleet/the UFP deal with recalcitrant members of the UFP ? Most
>of the ones that we've seen seem quite benign in general. But what if one
>started to get troublesome. Would that require Picard or a detachment of these
>Marines ?
>
Ooh, that would be like Michigan (the state not the university) invading Ohio
because Cleveland is dumping sewage into Lake Erie. I doubt it would happen.
It would take exhasting all the available diplomatic avenues first and then
a probable expulsion from the Federation. If that still didn't work, then
by all means, send in the Marines! 8) But seriously, just about all of the
Federation members are members because they want to be. This means that they
have available to them the ability to petition the Federation Council with
a greivance. So picture what the UN is doing in Iraq (Bosnia isn't a good
example because troops are on the ground). They are exerting sanctions on
the nation and such. The only time you would send in Marines is when a
member state becam belligerant with respect to another member state (a la
Kuwait).
>Just a thought
Dave Wythe
ai...@detroit.freenet.org "Daniel J. Peacock" writes:
> Admiral Peacock concurs with Admiral Wythe. A few Defiant class warships
> (let's call them for what they are) would be an excellent deterant. Also,
> the Admiral suggests a mobile assault squadron (1-2 Defiant-class, 2-3 Galaxy-
> class, and 5-10 Miranda-class cruisers with 10 or so SF Marine assault ships)
> to patrol the neatral zone to flex UFP muscle.
Admiral Wythe would like to further suggest then that the Defiant fleet be
located at the border and operate under cloak in order to disgiuse the numbers.
And also that the mobile assult squadron be dispersed, i.e. not look aggressive
but that each vessel should be no more than two hours away <at warp nine> from
the border.
> Very good point. Unfortunately, the Enterprise (in many incarnations) was
> always alone. BAD TACTICS. (I know, TV production stuff, but I still think
> most of the writers didn't even bother to do any homework on naval strategy.)
> The Fleet's ability to be flexible is its greatest asset, unfortunately it is
> also it's greatest liability. It seems that Star Fleet Academy doesn't have
> any training on Fleet tactics (I challenge you to show me an episode where
> the training was anything but a single Star Fleet vessel versus one or more
> hostiles.....hmmmm.....tap, tap, tap...I didn't think so. 8) )
> Also, Star Fleet seems to want "free thinking" captains. My sense is that
> this would make fleet actions difficult.
The lone vessel such as we've seen can be very effective *only* where there is
some room for manoeuvre and a certain level of diplomacy is possible. Where an
invading force is commited to invasion and is not going to talk then the single
ship would just be wasted.
>> The use of frontier defences by the UFP is therefore useless as a means of
>> preventing invasion. In fact their effectiveness as spy bases is limited by
>> the
>> policy of the UFP, i.e. we do not want to be seen as the instigators of the
>> war.
>> Now this comment may seem contradictory to the one above however it can be
>> seen
>> that at an early stage the UFP held the winning cards <had it only listened
>> to Admiral Wythe and deployed a fleet of Defiant Class ships capable of
>> dealing with the situation and not a fleet of negotiators>.
> This is where I begin to disagree with my esteemed colegue. There is one thing
> that can be said about shore guns, they can't be sunk! You would think that
> the Federation wouldn't be naive enough not to put nasty defense cannons on
> important boarder worlds. Were I on the boarder with the Romulans, I would
> certainly feel better if there were a few hundred phaser arrays on the planet's
> surface pointing up. The role of these defenses is not to hold off the
> invaders (though that would be nice if it happened), but to bloody the nose
> of the invader and slow them down enough for help to arrive. (i.e. the mobile
> assualt squadron I mentioned before. 8) )
While I accept the validity of the points made there are several further points
here which need addressing. The first is that while the planets on the frontier
could well be equipped with some serious planetside hardware the major role of
the frontier defenses would be as listening stations monitoring activity. By
their very nature these stations would need to be covert in order to be
effective and the hardware which has been suggested would show up on Romulan
scans. Concerning the question of border worlds in general I would have to say
that they would in all likelihood have some level of defence. However the level
of that defence would have to be questioned. The UFP would certainly *not* want
the Romulans to think of these border worlds as staging points in an invasion
of Romulan space. The effectiveness of these weapons would also have to be
questioned. While I agree that they would not be expected to prevent an
invasion <spaceborne, as in the scenario> could they be effective against
starships to any serious degree, even when it comes to bloodying noses ? After
all any fixed installation is fixed and a starship is a moving target, the
planetside defences could therefore be neutralised with little difficulty. The
best and most effective use of planetside defences would I think be in
maintaining the morale of the local inhabitants!
>> A number of planets are destroyed but many more do submit. They are offered
>> "complete autonomy within the Romulan Empire". A promise that the Romulans
>> have
>> no intention of keeping.
> Hold it right there. Most frontier planets have a very strong feeling of
> "nationalism" in that they value thier independance as a system above all else
> (why else live on the frontier?) So, I don't belive many systems would fall
> this way. Also, most have heard the propaganda (again let's call it for what
> it is) that the Romulans are brutes and don't treat conquored planets very
> well. Better to die at the end of a disruptor rifle than to slowly rot in
> a prison. Guerella activities would start soon after.
> Therefore there would be a need on the part of the Romulans to land troops.
Unfortunately when dealing with the question of complete annihilation against
that of promising propaganda the propaganda quite often succeeds. That isn't to
say that there wouldn't be dissenters. Those with that form of national pride
which says it is better to be destroyed than submit however good the terms
offered. Some planets would undoubtedly be destroyed because of this. That said
the more planets which are destroyed then the better the propaganda looks. The
Romulans might *not* look as if they would keep their word concerning autonomy
but they are certainly going *to* keep their word when it comes to annihilation.
>> Admiral Wythe however feels that a direct attack on Romulus using a a fleet
>> of cloaked Defiant Class starships could end the war quickly and prevent
>> the Romulans from capturing the big five. And also because the Romulans
>> have his magazine...........:-) > >
> Well, damn it. Let's get going!!!!!!!!
Assuming here a direct attack on Romulus in the aim of capturing the planet
before the Romulans were able to capture the big five then what would be your
strategy for invasion and capture ?
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
ai...@detroit.freenet.org "Daniel J. Peacock" writes:
> Ooh, that would be like Michigan (the state not the university) invading Ohio
> because Cleveland is dumping sewage into Lake Erie. I doubt it would happen.
> It would take exhasting all the available diplomatic avenues first and then
> a probable expulsion from the Federation. If that still didn't work, then
> by all means, send in the Marines! 8) But seriously, just about all of the
> Federation members are members because they want to be. This means that they
> have available to them the ability to petition the Federation Council with
> a greivance. So picture what the UN is doing in Iraq (Bosnia isn't a good
> example because troops are on the ground). They are exerting sanctions on
> the nation and such. The only time you would send in Marines is when a
> member state becam belligerant with respect to another member state (a la
> Kuwait).
Yep I guess it would look like that or perhaps a better analogy would be the
EEC with Britain sending in forces against an Italian invasion of France. The
point is though that I disagree with the fact that just about all the members
of the UFP are there because they want to be. I am prepared to argue that a
majority are there for the protection that the UFP offers and also that a great
many of those members joined the UFP over a century earlier when the Klingons
were the "great threat". The Klingons no longer represent the same threat that
they did and also a great deal of time has passed since those days. Time during
which major technological advances could have been made and also the political
agendas of those running the member planets could quite easily have changed,
and in fact probably would have since the Klingons ceased to be the threat to
galatic peace that they once were.
Bearing that in mind wouldn't the UFP need to be able to call upon some form of
peace-keeping force ?
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
> I think that Fed Marrines are not only essential, but at least a platton fo
> them should be stationed on every Fed Ship even the Medical ships.
The special task force which was going to rescue Kirk and McCoy in STVI is
probably as close to Marines as it gets in the ST universe. I don't subscribe
to the 100,000+ military force which is being argued simply because I think it
unwieldy and impractical due to the fact that I don't see planetary invasion or
capture in the same way as I would consider the capture of national territory
in any war fought on Earth.
There is an argument which suggests that something positive should be done
about Starfleet security which I also agree with perhaps there is some scope
there to "upgrade" the rank and file security officer into a more effective
force.
It has also been argued that there should be a Bajorian military presence of
some kind on DS9. While I think that sounds reasonable in theory I would have
to ask what value it could be in practice.
Regards
Dave Wythe
John P. Raynor
: This is where I begin to disagree with my esteemed colegue. There is one
: think that the Federation wouldn't be naive enough not to put nasty
: defense cannons on important boarder worlds. Were I on the boarder
: with the Romulans, I would certainly feel better if there were a few
: hundred phaser arrays on the planet's surface pointing up. The role of
: these defenses is not to hold off the invaders (though that would be
: nice if it happened), but to bloody the nose of the invader and slow
: them down enough for help to arrive. (i.e. the mobile assualt squadron
: I mentioned before. 8) )
I'm afraid this just wouldn't work. I doubt that even an enormous phaser
battery, capable of handing a large fraction of the energy producted by an
entire industrialized planet, would be able to inflict significant damage
at interstellar ranges. An invading fleet would simply ignore, and avoid,
star systems known to be equipped with "planetary ultra-phasers." At
best, this kind of fixed defense could be used to passively "steer"
invading fleets towards "killing zones" and waiting defenders - but it
would be far easier to build decent mobile fleets, than squander vast
amounts of money on planetary ultra-phaser batteries. "Shore guns" only
work when an attacker is FORCED to come within range - thus, they're ideal
for guarding narrow channels, straits, and so forth. In space, however,
there is far less "terrain" capable of forcing targets into range, so
"shore guns" are nearly useless.
Disposable, generally automated border outposts, vast numbers of almost as
disposable manned "patrol cutters," and a few fast, large, hard-hitting
squadrons, stationed slightly farther from the border would be the best
solution, in my opinion.
- J. Raynor
Timo S Saloniemi
> Ahhh - a CHALLENGE! Since before your sun burned bright ......
>{I've often wondered if Ellison ever really thought about what that
>line really meant?}
> Anyway, tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) presented us
>with some interesting situations, he wrote on May 16th:
>>There have been excellent real-world arguments for and against
>>ground combat forces in space battles. But in many cases, the almost
>>magic Trek weapons technology twists reality in funny ways. To arrogantly
>>try and clarify where everybody stands, I would like to ask any of the
>>net.combatants participating in this thread how they feel the following
>>scenarios would be handled in Star Trek universe.
>>Scenario one:
>>There is a war between Federation and the Klingons. The latter
>>hold a class M world with big dilithium reserves. There are several
>>garrisons on the surface, capable of self-sustenance for decades.
>>There are also rudimentary defences against starships, and
>>the capability to manufacture more of those. There is no protective
>>fleet, however; it was blown to pieces by the approaching Starfleet
>>task force.
>>
>>You have to get hold of the planetary reserves. Ousting Klingons
>>is a secondary goal, destroying them only a tertiary.
>If there is no indiginious population, and I must secure the
>dylithium at any cost, then I as Grand Admiral Of The Fleet demand
>the Klingon's surrender. When they call me a "Varool" I order the
>bombardment of the Klingon garrisons to begin. It continues until
>there is no longer any generated power on the surface.
>For this encounter I did not require Marine ground forces.
Sounds like an acceptable solution :)
>Attempting to land on the planet and obtain the resources
>through mining without interference from the Klingons is obviously
>a dead end and so is just "stunning" them.
Why is stunning out of question? Stunned Klingons could be disarmed
by simple redshirts, and sent to Fed prison camps as a more "humane"
alternative. OTOH, TOS shipboard stunning phasers may not exist
for real in TNG.
>Since I must obtain the resources, and it is currently controlled
>by the Klingons, ousting and destroying them is part of the
>mission.
This is the part I disagree with. Ending Klingon control is neces-
sary, yes. Destroying them, I don't think so. Even Klingons do
surrender when facing impossible odds - only very stupid (or
Fed-trained :) ) Klingons believe in "honor to the death" when more
can be obtained by staying alive.
>>Scenario two:
>>Same as above, except that the planet was inhabited when the
>>Klingons intruded, and there is a large non-aligned population
>>held hostage on the planet. You have to get hold of the
>>dilithium, with no danger to the population. Again, what you
>>do with the Klingons is not important. This is fundamentally
>>different from subjugating the population.
>
>This is the hardest of the three. Basically I need to know how the
>indiginious population feels about the Klingons. Is there a resistance
>movement? Are they pacificists? Are they Orgainians who are only interested
>in observing us trained monkies preform?
It is assumed that the people do not like Klingon occupation, and
have asked for help from the Feds, but their emigrant government
has made it clear that the population shall not be harmed. If
the Feds can't do it without endangering the citizens, they
will refuse to give the Li2 to them. They will align with the
Klingons if that is the safest alternative.
Any resistance is assumed to be futile :)
>Assuming that the indiginious
>population is post atomic-pre stellar and do not appreciate being
>treated like servants [a lot of fan-fiction/pro fiction about the
>Klingons states that the K's tend to treat conquered planets as
>"servent-races" -- much as the British did in Africa,India and North
>America in the 18th and 19th century] then it may be possible to obtain
>the dylithium without the use of more than orbital fire support
>for indiginious troops armed and given a crash-course in Federation
>military doctrine by the in comming Fleet.
Sounds nice but very un-TNG. I also rank this the most difficult
scenario, but I believe there is greater danger to the population if
the Feds initiate a massive ground war. My preferred choice would be to
surprise-bomb the garrisons and orbital defences, assumed that the
Klingons do not use "civilian shields" (in TNG, they wouldn't).
After that, inform them that any attack against the civilians will
lead to punishment bombings against the remaining garrisons,
where isolated Klingons will die most dishonorably. Amidst the
confusion, begin mass transports of the civilians off the planet's
dangerous areas, leaving the Klingons even more vulnerable.
Holding the necessary balance of terror to protect the civilians
would be a long and tedious job, but the Feds could tilt the
balance little by little, until the Klingons had no hostages,
most of their leaders had been kidnapped by transporters or isolated
by threats of pinpoint orbital bombardment, and Federation
blockade weapons (climate changes, comm jamming, gagh ranch
sabotaging, prune juice poisoning) begin to have an effect. Time
would be on Fed side, if they could get hold of some stored Li2 at
the opening moments of the attack. The rest could be force-labor-mined
by the Klingons!
If you can demonstrate superior force, I bet even Klingons will
accept blackmail - as long as you do not call it that. Just make
sure you have very good psychologists formulating your threats.
>If the population is pro-Klingon, I see no other way to get the
>resources than a full scale invasion of the planet. This requires
>ground forces, you cannot hold real-estate by remote control, no
>matter how advanced your VR and cybernetic commo links are.
But why would you need to hold it? It suffices to CONTROL it.
>Invasion of a pro-Klingon planet would probably be a desaster for
>any but the full resources of the Federation. As has been pointed
>out several times before, unfriendly personell on the ground can
>make it mighty hot for invaders ....
This is a very good reason not to send any invaders in the first
place. They are just targets down there. Fight against orbital
defence weapons, they are your main adversary. The planetside
troops can not harm you if these defences are down and the factories
manufacturing them destroyed. After that, you CONTROL the planet.
No need to occupy it.
Don't go in mininig the Li2. Force the Klingons to do it. Force
them to leave the population alone for long enough for you to
secure them from Klingon aggression. *Then* move in to destroy or
imprison the Klingons.
A starship is a very effective blackmail weapon...
>and if you start such
>a project you have to keep it up, there would be no way to turn
>back after committing 100,000 to a quarter million troops to an
>invasion.
True. But a starship threatening you from orbit can withdraw whenever
it wishes, return if it wants, and you have no say if your defences
have been eliminated. How to fight a zero-casualties campaign? By
refusing to allow the enemy to FIGHT it!
>>Scenario three:
>>
>>The Romulans in Unification II managed to fool E-D and got through to
>>Vulcan, occupying large cities and holding Vulcans hostage. They have
>>no defences to speak of against starships, but do have ground combat
>>equipment, and can use Vulcan replicators for resupply.
>>
>>You have to free the hostages.
>
> You will have to do what the Vulcan Government wants. From a
>military point of view, I think the only way you've got a prayer is
>to bring two marines for every invader, beam down simeltaniously and
>stun everyone in sight, Vulcan, Romulan, Cat, Dog, or M'guto!
Seems like the only alternative, and requires a lot of the
famous O'Brien transporter magic to work. A job for a large special
antiterrorist force, no doubt. Goes way beyond normal grunt stuff.
>Then assuming this is accomplished with even minimal surprise
>[doubtful - but one can always hope] you can go about the business
>of untangling the Romulan "Supermen" from their Vulcan hostages and
>calling up the Romulan Preator to come pick up these
>"Varools"....because you KNOW the Romulan Government is going to
>claim this is a rogue Tel She-arr <sp?> operation.
>[If you've got a better spelling for the Romulan CIA,
>I'd be indebted to you for a brief E-mail at Pwr...@aol.com]
I have seen Tal Shiar, with an optional ' between the words.
>=======================================================================
>
> Now on to Brian's excellent post of May 22nd. I'm still trying to
>absorb all the stuff he put in it, a couple of points though ....
I'm afraid I can't comment on these, since this post would become way too
long. But I'm sure Brian will.
Your points here were well made, but you still support sending troops
to hold territory. Be my guest, but remember that the best way to beat a
Klingon is to wage peace with him - he'll be annoyed to hell if he has
no targets to fight against.
Timo Saloniemi
.sigless and proud of it!
> Rick Blackburn + + + + + +
Timo S Saloniemi
> Now on to Brian's excellent post of May 22nd. I'm still trying to
>absorb all the stuff he put in it, a couple of points though ....
>BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu (BRIAN J. PFEIFER) wrote:
>> Ground vehicles are likely to be almost completely unknown (hell,
>>it's unlikely they will survive the 21st century). Between PBIs who are
>>all carrying weapons capable of ahniliating anything that stands still
>>long enough to draw a bead on it, and starships (and other nasty
>>things, like killsats) in orbit capable of reading the "this end towards
>>target" graffiti on the tank's gun barrell; and then pasting it with
>>anything from a photon torpedo to a crowbar, the traditional
>>tank is dead.
>
> Ground vehicles extinct? Not bloody likely! They probably won't
>look much like the things we're used to, but they will carry out the same
>function -- fire support platforms
This is IMHO better done from orbit. This way, your fire support weapon
is not subject to enemy fire at all. Remember, never fight the
way your enemy wants you to.
>and things to transport supplies and so on as you yourself say
Those are called transporters in Trek. Molecular-level transport
shouldn't be too hard even if there are some shields in the vicinity
disrupting the process.
>>Tanks and APCs are likely to be replaced with gravitically propelled
>>vehicles and specially designed attack shuttles, heavily shielded,
>>and armed with a mix of phasers, railguns (much more effective at
>>close ranges than in space, especially rapid fire versions), and missiles
>>(including small ones equipped with M/A-M warheads, probably in the
>>5-10kt yield area) NOTE <<<feasibility of using forcefields to contain
>>the blast of a M/A-M explosion in one direction; a sort of M/A-M "Shaped
>>Charge">>>
> WHOA! An antimatter Claymore! Talk about overkill! Or are you
>talking about the Combat Engineers having to take out fortefications?
This is both over-and underkill. Starships have such hugely powerful
weapons that they can control battlefields, demolish enemy installations
and 'remove' enemy ground craft if these are not in close combat with
friendly troops. Why bother with going to close combat then? Let your
ships do the pounding, and go in afterwards only. If you have to fight under
the fire of heavy enemy weapons, no amount of ground equipment can help
you. Any ground campaign will depend on air/space supremacy more
heavily than any of today's real-world campaigns.
>>The individual soldier will almost *have* to be equipped with
>>armor capable of withstanding phaser and disruptor fire;
>>Similiarly, he has to be protected from the environment;
>This sounds like Heinlein's Mobile Infantry or Robotech, or a
>cross of the two. The guys who have to engage in combat in against
>forces like the Romulans, Cardasians, and so on WILL have to be armored
>and armed like this. Anti-piracy and so on will not
>require these levels of protection and firepower.
Agreed. But what can even a super power armor do against a fortification
or ship with phaser X's? If some fool fights with ground troops,
throw your heavy weaponry against him. It is hard to see what kind of
upper hand you would gain by ground troops in any action other than
using them to catch hostages. Ground troops aren't superior weapons, and
the way they are described here, they aren't cheap attrition units either.
Of course, Marines are useful when they can be considered superior
units. In such situations, ship bombardment would be overkill - but
so would heavy ground support, too. An enemy that can be defeated by
Marines seems to be by definition a minor player in the ST game. And
the Feds do not believe in attacking minor players.
> Rick Blackburn + + + + + +
> + Pwr...@aol.com
> "Where am I going -- and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Timo Saloniemi
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
>In article <3pn9re$m...@detroit.freenet.org> ai...@detroit.freenet.org
(Daniel J. Peacock) writes:
> >
> >In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
> >
> >Oh, I'm sure they (marines) do (exist). Here's a phrase I like :
> >"Machines (read the starship) may take the glory, but men take
> >the real-estate". There are just somethings
> >a starship can't do, and that's capture planets. Sure they can waste them
> >from orbit, but that is hardly a satisfactory conclustion. Besides, from
> >our experirences in Viet Nam we should all understand that you can't bomb
> >everyone into submission. You have to take real estate, one acre at a time.
>
> Why couldn't you bomb everybody into submission? If your objective is to
> capture the planet's natural resources, simply *blackmail* the population
> with weapons that can kill 90% of them (ST has those weapons). Better yet,
> blackmail them with weapons that alter their climate or prevent communi-
> cations and transport or make ice-cream manufacturing impossible. You
> only need time to force the majority of the population into submission.
The question is time, and the backbone/capability to back up your threats.
Capability implies not only technological, but moral, ethical, and value
judgements as well.
Example; anti-matter production facility on a planet orbiting a gas giant (it
uses differentials in the electromagnetic fields of the gas giant to generate
the power necessary to produce anti-matter; this is plausible, according to an
article I read some years ago; I'll see if I can dig it up). The planet is
Class M, and, due to it's position and facilities, is moderately populated
(1-2 billion people). The facility is *extermely* expensive; if you blow it up,
it's worthless to *both* sides (this may be an alternative, but is certainly
*not* the desired effect). The population of the planet knows this, and has
ample supplies for a siege. They are loyal and stiff backed (Izaran descent),
and are not likely to surrender.
Another note; facilities you bomb are rendered worthless, and probably for a
long time (Anti-matter/matter reactions given off most of their radiation in
Gamma rays, likely to seriously pollute the area around the blast). They were
likely to be put there for a reason (easy access to resources, pleasant
location, lack of nasty weather effects, whatever). Wiping them out is not
necessarily the smartest idea.
> If your interests conflict - if you have little time but are not allowed
> to carpet-bomb - then you are in trouble. But you do not have to put a
> soldier on every rock on a country to occupy it, and you do not need
> to put a soldier into every city or even continent to hold a planet.
>
> You can take real estate one planet at a time, without firing a single
> shot, if you have superior weapons of blackmail. The only thing you
> are vulnerable to is counterblackmail.
"For when you are requested, to pay up or be molested, you will find it better
policy to say:
"We never pay anyone Dane-Geld, no matter how trifling the cost"
"for the end to that game is oppression and shame"
"and the nation that plays it is lost, lost, lost"
"the nation that plays it is lost."
"Dane-Geld" Leslie Fish and Rudyard Kipling
Black mail only works on those willing to submit.
Scott Taylor
Dave Wythe
BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
>> Why couldn't you bomb everybody into submission? If your objective is to
>> capture the planet's natural resources, simply *blackmail* the population
>> with weapons that can kill 90% of them (ST has those weapons). Better yet,
>> blackmail them with weapons that alter their climate or prevent communi-
>> cations and transport or make ice-cream manufacturing impossible. You
>> only need time to force the majority of the population into submission.
> The question is time, and the backbone/capability to back up your threats.
> Capability implies not only technological, but moral, ethical, and value
> judgements as well.
Certainly I think it would take less time to blackmail a planet into submission
than it would to transport and then land an entire army of Marines on a planet
and attempt to retake the real estate. Even so should a decision be made to use
Marines wouldn't the same moral, ethical and value judgements apply ? After all
what is there to stop the enemy <once it found itself in a no-win situation>
from destroying exactly those installations which can create enviromental havoc
and doing precisely what you didn't want to do from space ?
> Example; anti-matter production facility on a planet orbiting a gas giant (it
> uses differentials in the electromagnetic fields of the gas giant to generate
> the power necessary to produce anti-matter; this is plausible, according to an
> article I read some years ago; I'll see if I can dig it up). The planet is
> Class M, and, due to it's position and facilities, is moderately populated
> (1-2 billion people). The facility is *extermely* expensive; if you blow it up,
> it's worthless to *both* sides (this may be an alternative, but is certainly
> *not* the desired effect). The population of the planet knows this, and has
> ample supplies for a siege. They are loyal and stiff backed (Izaran descent),
> and are not likely to surrender.
Well expensive is a very subjective phrase. Simply put if it can't be
replicated or if the replication procedure is not absolute, i.e. perfect, then
an object is expensive. Why can't the "parts" which consititute the facility
just be replicated ?
> Another note; facilities you bomb are rendered worthless, and probably for a
> long time (Anti-matter/matter reactions given off most of their radiation in
> Gamma rays, likely to seriously pollute the area around the blast). They were
> likely to be put there for a reason (easy access to resources, pleasant
> location, lack of nasty weather effects, whatever). Wiping them out is not
> necessarily the smartest idea.
Yes but use of ground forces as mentioned above would not preclude this and
could quite possibly increase the risk of enviromental damage.
> Black mail only works on those willing to submit.
Well faced with either submission or "Your planet will be inhabitable for the
next three hundred years" I would say that was a pretty damn good example of
effective blackmail. I think that many local planetary governments would be
willing to submit under those terms.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu "BRIAN J. PFEIFER" writes:
> And if your enemy wants to fight a starship superiority battle; make him come
> down to fight on the surface...
How ? By entrenching yourself in installations which it would be either
enviromentally dangerous to destroy ? Sending in ground troops would not in
itself prevent the destruction of such installations either by Fed Marines or
the enemy. And of course entrenching yourself in installations which are not
enviromentally dangerous to destroy can be destroyed far more effectively from
space than from the ground.
> Actually, we've pretty much seen that anything transported through a deflector
> shield, if it doesn't just splat on the surface of the shield, isn't real
> useful at the other end.
Agreed. Although the destruction of any such shields would have to be a
prerequisite for any successful counter-attack whether by land or space and
would probably be dealt with most effectively by a crack team of say twenty men
such as we've seen <heard of> in ST:VI not an invasion force of so many
thousands of men.
> Problem; Starship weaponry will also permanently ruin what you are trying to
> take. Phasers at high power (ie, anti-ship levels), can level small mountains,
> PhoTorps are worse than strategic nuclear weapons, etc. Are you actually
> planning on *using* the world after you take it?
>
> Marines/Ground forces are capable of measured response; they can
> escalate/reduce to a level of force appropriate to the situation...including
> acting as ground designators for starship weapons if necessary.
Well I have to disagree here. Phaser power can be measured and aimed quite
precisely and again we have the argument which seems to suggest that the use of
Marines ensures a happy ending. Why shouldn't the enemy forces destroy the
installations that the Marines are trying to take causing more damage than a
phaser blast from space; and why won't the Marines have to destroy an
installation if they are up against an enemy which will not surrender ? And if
you want a ground designator why not just beam down a "bleeper" of some sort to
pinpoint a target ?
I don't think that there is such a thing as a measured response. Any response
would have to be appropriate to the situation and I doubt that any situation
would arise when an enemy would say: "Oh look 20,000 Fed Marines we'd better
leave without doing any damage. And fighting is out of the question because we
might want to use the world afterwards."
>> Agreed. But what can even a super power armor do against a fortification
>> or ship with phaser X's? If some fool fights with ground troops,
>> throw your heavy weaponry against him. It is hard to see what kind of
>> upper hand you would gain by ground troops in any action other than
>> using them to catch hostages. Ground troops aren't superior weapons, and
>> the way they are described here, they aren't cheap attrition units either.
> the fortification will likely run into the same problems we've seen them run
> into now; they can't lock their major (read, anti-ship/anti-vehicle) weaponry on> small, fast moving ground targets like infantry; sure, attacking a fortified
> ground target with out support (either space or air based) will likely result
> in heavy casualties.But the fortification has, by definition, rendered the
> initiative to the commander of the ground forces.
I'm assuming that by commander of the ground forces you are refering to the
commander of the Fed Marines ? If so then why has it surrendered the initiative
? A nice sitting duck I would say. Easily disabled from space with a few
measured phaser blasts. And if such blasts could be harmful to the enviroment
then using ground forces would make no difference because if the installation
is of any value then the occupying forces would destroy it before they
surrendered it. Certainly they are not going to care what happens to the world
after they have left/been killed.
> Or a target where you simply can't afford to not take it *relatively intact*.
> Such targets have to be taken the hard way, where the amount of damage rendered
> by personal arms and light support weapons will be inconsequential compared to
> what ground bombardment. Now what you consider to be targets that must be taken
> intact are is up to question; my own view of the Federation says that they are
> not likely to want to scar up or wreck planetsides unless they can't help it.
By target here we have to assume entire planets. We cannot assume
installations/fortifications on a planet because we have seen that in
attempting to retake those installations/fortifications Marines are of no more
or indeed less value than a starship. Hmm.......now what was that I was saying
about interstellar wars being fought and won/lost in space :-)
> The Marines are not suitable for every mission; there are many times when just
> floating a Captial ship overhead will get what you want. But for those times
> when a Capital ship *can't* do the job; either because you can't, or won't,
> bombard or blockade, the Marines are the only other option (assuming political
> and economic pressures either cannot or will not work). And if you haven't got
> them.....
We have seen that the more belligerent forces such as the Romulans and the
Cardassians are more than prepared to use ground forces against *less*
technologically advanced races than their own and have indeed used them to
great effect in subding those planets. Perhaps the only exception here is the
projected Romulan invasion of Vulcan which was a covert mission and in which
the Romulans failed having been stopped in space. The point is that ground
forces become meaningless when having to deal which a planet of an equal
technological level. They can either be blasted away in space before they have
landed or destroyed on the ground if they do manage to land <the fact that the
Romulans could only attempt an invasion of Vulcan through covert means
underlines this fact>. And it is probably the main reason why the Romulans did
not take over the UFP a hundred years ago.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Akela
Timo S Saloniemi <tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
>>>The individual soldier will almost *have* to be equipped with
>>>armor capable of withstanding phaser and disruptor fire;
>
>>cross of the two. The guys who have to engage in combat in against
>>forces like the Romulans, Cardasians, and so on WILL have to be armored
>
>Agreed. But what can even a super power armor do against a fortification
>or ship with phaser X's? If some fool fights with ground troops,
There's one important thing to remember about ground troops: they're the
only units that can hold ground. True, artillery (and spaceborne
platforms) can pound a hilltop halfway to oblivion (or maybe all the way
to oblivion if photon torpedoes actually ACTED like antimatter-tipped
weapons <grin>) Nevertheless artillery lacks finesse; it's
indiscriminate. Napoleon may have said that 'artillery is the queen of
the battlefield' and it's well-known that artillery is more than passing
neccessary to win a battle. Nevertheless, no single branch of the
military -- Infantry, Cavalry (armor), Artillery (in this case including
starships), Aviation -- can win a battle. Ships cannot hold ground, and
neither can Air units (or space units such as starships.) Neither can
artillery. Cavalry can help to take it, but heavy weapons platorms are
notoriously easy targets when they're on the defensive; just ask any
trooper who has set up a modern-era Dragon missile. Only infantry can
take ground /and hold it./
One more thing -- a platoon of Fed marines, in a jungle
wilderness, will be a lot harder to find that we think. The Feds might
not have cloaking devices, but I would bet they have some sort of SCM
(Sensor Counter Measures) that their troops are equipted with. All in
all, I would say that ground troops, when used against mission-specific
objectives (such as destruction of a massive ground-based space-defense
phaser installation, to allow a starship to approach a planet) would be
critical to any campaign's success, though they would most likely be used
in an 'unconventional' warfare role.
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
>In article <3pvnmi$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pwr...@aol.com (PwrPack) writes:
>
> > Now on to Brian's excellent post of May 22nd. I'm still trying to
> >absorb all the stuff he put in it, a couple of points though ....
> >BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu (BRIAN J. PFEIFER) wrote:
> >> Ground vehicles are likely to be almost completely unknown (hell,
> >>it's unlikely they will survive the 21st century). Between PBIs who are
> >>all carrying weapons capable of ahniliating anything that stands still
> >>long enough to draw a bead on it, and starships (and other nasty
> >>things, like killsats) in orbit capable of reading the "this end towards
> >>target" graffiti on the tank's gun barrell; and then pasting it with
> >>anything from a photon torpedo to a crowbar, the traditional
> >>tank is dead.
> > Ground vehicles extinct? Not bloody likely! They probably won't
> >look much like the things we're used to, but they will carry out the same
> >function -- fire support platforms
>
> This is IMHO better done from orbit. This way, your fire support weapon
> is not subject to enemy fire at all. Remember, never fight the
> way your enemy wants you to.
And if your enemy wants to fight a starship superiority battle; make him come
down to fight on the surface...
> >and things to transport supplies and so on as you yourself say
>
> Those are called transporters in Trek. Molecular-level transport
> shouldn't be too hard even if there are some shields in the vicinity
> disrupting the process.
Actually, we've pretty much seen that anything transported through a deflector
shield, if it doesn't just splat on the surface of the shield, isn't real
useful at the other end.
> >>Tanks and APCs are likely to be replaced with gravitically propelled
> >>vehicles and specially designed attack shuttles, heavily shielded,
> >>and armed with a mix of phasers, railguns (much more effective at
> >>close ranges than in space, especially rapid fire versions), and missiles
> >>(including small ones equipped with M/A-M warheads, probably in the
> >>5-10kt yield area) NOTE <<<feasibility of using forcefields to contain
> >>the blast of a M/A-M explosion in one direction; a sort of M/A-M "Shaped
> >>Charge">>>
>
> > WHOA! An antimatter Claymore! Talk about overkill! Or are you
> >talking about the Combat Engineers having to take out fortefications?
>
> This is both over-and underkill. Starships have such hugely powerful
> weapons that they can control battlefields, demolish enemy installations
> and 'remove' enemy ground craft if these are not in close combat with
> friendly troops. Why bother with going to close combat then? Let your
> ships do the pounding, and go in afterwards only. If you have to fight under
> the fire of heavy enemy weapons, no amount of ground equipment can help
> you. Any ground campaign will depend on air/space supremacy more
> heavily than any of today's real-world campaigns.
Problem; Starship weaponry will also permanently ruin what you are trying to
take. Phasers at high power (ie, anti-ship levels), can level small mountains,
PhoTorps are worse than strategic nuclear weapons, etc. Are you actually
planning on *using* the world after you take it?
Marines/Ground forces are capable of measured response; they can
escalate/reduce to a level of force appropriate to the situation...including
acting as ground designators for starship weapons if necessary.
> >>The individual soldier will almost *have* to be equipped with
> >>armor capable of withstanding phaser and disruptor fire;
>
> >>Similiarly, he has to be protected from the environment;
>
>
> >This sounds like Heinlein's Mobile Infantry or Robotech, or a
> >cross of the two. The guys who have to engage in combat in against
> >forces like the Romulans, Cardasians, and so on WILL have to be armored
> >and armed like this. Anti-piracy and so on will not
> >require these levels of protection and firepower.
>
> Agreed. But what can even a super power armor do against a fortification
> or ship with phaser X's? If some fool fights with ground troops,
> throw your heavy weaponry against him. It is hard to see what kind of
> upper hand you would gain by ground troops in any action other than
> using them to catch hostages. Ground troops aren't superior weapons, and
> the way they are described here, they aren't cheap attrition units either.
the fortification will likely run into the same problems we've seen them run
into now; they can't lock their major (read, anti-ship/anti-vehicle) weaponry on
small, fast moving ground targets like infantry; sure, attacking a fortified
ground target with out support (either space or air based) will likely result
in heavy casualties.But the fortification has, by definition, rendered the
initiative to the commander of the ground forces.
> Of course, Marines are useful when they can be considered superior
> units. In such situations, ship bombardment would be overkill - but
> so would heavy ground support, too. An enemy that can be defeated by
> Marines seems to be by definition a minor player in the ST game. And
> the Feds do not believe in attacking minor players.
Or a target where you simply can't afford to not take it *relatively intact*.
Such targets have to be taken the hard way, where the amount of damage rendered
by personal arms and light support weapons will be inconsequential compared to
what ground bombardment. Now what you consider to be targets that must be taken
intact are is up to question; my own view of the Federation says that they are
not likely to want to scar up or wreck planetsides unless they can't help it.
The Marines are not suitable for every mission; there are many times when just
floating a Captial ship overhead will get what you want. But for those times
when a Capital ship *can't* do the job; either because you can't, or won't,
bombard or blockade, the Marines are the only other option (assuming political
and economic pressures either cannot or will not work). And if you haven't got
them.....
Scott Taylor
> > Rick Blackburn + + + + + +
> > + Pwr...@aol.com
> > "Where am I going -- and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
>
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
>In article <3pvnmi$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pwr...@aol.com (PwrPack) writes:
> > Ahhh - a CHALLENGE! Since before your sun burned bright ......
> >{I've often wondered if Ellison ever really thought about what that
> >line really meant?}
> > Anyway, tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) presented us
> >with some interesting situations, he wrote on May 16th:
(Scenarios removed)>
> >If there is no indiginious population, and I must secure the
> >dylithium at any cost, then I as Grand Admiral Of The Fleet demand
> >the Klingon's surrender. When they call me a "Varool" I order the
> >bombardment of the Klingon garrisons to begin. It continues until
> >there is no longer any generated power on the surface.
> >For this encounter I did not require Marine ground forces.
>
> Sounds like an acceptable solution :)
This depends on two things; are the reserves already mined, or still in the
ground (assuming, for the moment, that one cannot just "tune the transporters
to the magic "grab Dilithium while it's still in the ground" setting", which
would seem to put all miners and prospectors out of business), and how much
money/importance is placed on the mining/refinement facilities involved; ie,
how much is Admiral Nechayev going to bitch me out for wiping them out.
If the dilithium crystals are already mined (and the shields protecting them
are smashable), just slam in at high warp, phaser down the shields, wipe out
the space defenses, beam away the crystals, and continue on my way. If not, the
second question comes into play. Assuming the Klingon garrisons are in/around
the mining/facilities, I can only bomb them from orbit if my orders allow
me/Nechayev won't can my ass. If the facilities are too valuable, too difficult
to replace, or too likely to be irreplaceable (poorly located on a fault or
something), I'm going to have to send troops in and do it the hard way (the
Klingons would claim I'm being "honorable", but I'm gonna hate being honorable
like all hell; I'd rather not have to send the Marines down.)
> >Attempting to land on the planet and obtain the resources
> >through mining without interference from the Klingons is obviously
> >a dead end and so is just "stunning" them.
>
> Why is stunning out of question? Stunned Klingons could be disarmed
> by simple redshirts, and sent to Fed prison camps as a more "humane"
> alternative. OTOH, TOS shipboard stunning phasers may not exist
> for real in TNG.
It doesn't seem so; the only times we've seen ground bombardment (Time's
Arrow), Picard ordered a PhoTorp bombardment; seems like overkill, but he might
have been a bit annoyed at the time.
There is the problem of disarming them all before any of them wake up; heavy
stun only seems to last an hour or so. It takes time to strip those bastards out
of their armor and gear (since the only unarmed Klingon is a naked one...and
not even always then).
> >Since I must obtain the resources, and it is currently controlled
> >by the Klingons, ousting and destroying them is part of the
> >mission.
>
> This is the part I disagree with. Ending Klingon control is neces-
> sary, yes. Destroying them, I don't think so. Even Klingons do
> surrender when facing impossible odds - only very stupid (or
> Fed-trained :) ) Klingons believe in "honor to the death" when more
> can be obtained by staying alive.
True; you always try to accomplish your objective with as few injuries/deaths
as possible (this may be why the Feds use Marines; orbital strikes are just too
lethal, while ground combat is likely to yield many more injuries than deaths).
> >
> >This is the hardest of the three. Basically I need to know how the
> >indiginious population feels about the Klingons. Is there a resistance
> >movement? Are they pacificists? Are they Orgainians who are only interested
> >in observing us trained monkies preform?
>
> It is assumed that the people do not like Klingon occupation, and
> have asked for help from the Feds, but their emigrant government
> has made it clear that the population shall not be harmed. If
> the Feds can't do it without endangering the citizens, they
> will refuse to give the Li2 to them. They will align with the
> Klingons if that is the safest alternative.
"Shall not be harmed"; if this is absolute, I tell the emigrant government to
go take a leap and go find another planet with Li2 resources. I cannot think of
*any* scenario where I can retake the planet without *any* possibility of the
natives being injured/killed. It's just not going to happen.
> Any resistance is assumed to be futile :)
>
> >Assuming that the indiginious
> >population is post atomic-pre stellar and do not appreciate being
> >treated like servants [a lot of fan-fiction/pro fiction about the
> >Klingons states that the K's tend to treat conquered planets as
> >"servent-races" -- much as the British did in Africa,India and North
> >America in the 18th and 19th century] then it may be possible to obtain
> >the dylithium without the use of more than orbital fire support
> >for indiginious troops armed and given a crash-course in Federation
> >military doctrine by the in comming Fleet.
>
> Sounds nice but very un-TNG. I also rank this the most difficult
> scenario, but I believe there is greater danger to the population if
> the Feds initiate a massive ground war. My preferred choice would be to
> surprise-bomb the garrisons and orbital defences, assumed that the
> Klingons do not use "civilian shields" (in TNG, they wouldn't).
> After that, inform them that any attack against the civilians will
> lead to punishment bombings against the remaining garrisons,
> where isolated Klingons will die most dishonorably. Amidst the
> confusion, begin mass transports of the civilians off the planet's
> dangerous areas, leaving the Klingons even more vulnerable.
I think that this is the most dangerous scenario as well; you've got an uppity
emigrant government trying to tie the field commanders hands, a tactically
dangerous scenario on the ground, and my two most powerful weapons (the Marines
and my Capital ships), are both crippled by the large civilian populace.
Whether the Klingons would use "Civilian shields" is up for debate; while they
might not consciously set up troops in every household, they are likely to be
using various community facilities to garrison their troops; City Hall can be a
powerful image of control when you set up your planetary governor in it,
police/security stations work as well for you as they did against you, hotels
are great places to garrison officers and troops, etc. TOS klingons, obviously,
won't give a good goddamn; the natives lost the battle, and so are obviously
"Kuvesla" (fit only for servitude). Either era are likely to enact some rather
nasty countermeasures against reistance/attack; a few dirty nukes buried under
various cities with fail-safe warheads (needs to receive an "all-Clear" signal
every ten minutes or it goes off, so if you blast the base commander the bombs
all go off, or he can set off individual weapons as well; this setup also
disallows communication jamming, as well as making any resistance that much
more unlikely.
They are also going to be using "Kuve" (Vassal servants/slaves) for various
menial tasks around their bases. This makes it difficult to just bomb them
(especially with overseers from the emigrant government looking over my
shoulder).
> Holding the necessary balance of terror to protect the civilians
> would be a long and tedious job, but the Feds could tilt the
> balance little by little, until the Klingons had no hostages,
> most of their leaders had been kidnapped by transporters or isolated
> by threats of pinpoint orbital bombardment, and Federation
> blockade weapons (climate changes, comm jamming, gagh ranch
> sabotaging, prune juice poisoning) begin to have an effect. Time
> would be on Fed side, if they could get hold of some stored Li2 at
> the opening moments of the attack. The rest could be force-labor-mined
> by the Klingons!
Using the Klingons to mine the resources would doubtlessly be a violation of
the Seldonis IV convention (Chain of Command), the Geneva Convention, and
various other human rights/prisoner of War rights conventions and treaties.
(never mind that the Klingons wouldn't think a moment before chaining up the
Federation soldiers; we're Star Fleet, and we're better than that).
Time may not be on the Federations side; if the Klingons got off a message (or
the base commander doesn't give his weekly subspace "all clear", there is
likely to be a Klingon taskforce on it's way; after all, they need the Li2 as
well.
> If you can demonstrate superior force, I bet even Klingons will
> accept blackmail - as long as you do not call it that. Just make
> sure you have very good psychologists formulating your threats.
Klingons seem to react badly to threats; they tend to regard them as
challenges, rather than threats. And object lessons just make them madder.
> >If the population is pro-Klingon, I see no other way to get the
> >resources than a full scale invasion of the planet. This requires
> >ground forces, you cannot hold real-estate by remote control, no
> >matter how advanced your VR and cybernetic commo links are.
>
> But why would you need to hold it? It suffices to CONTROL it.
>
> >Invasion of a pro-Klingon planet would probably be a desaster for
> >any but the full resources of the Federation. As has been pointed
> >out several times before, unfriendly personell on the ground can
> >make it mighty hot for invaders ....
>
> This is a very good reason not to send any invaders in the first
> place. They are just targets down there. Fight against orbital
> defence weapons, they are your main adversary. The planetside
> troops can not harm you if these defences are down and the factories
> manufacturing them destroyed. After that, you CONTROL the planet.
> No need to occupy it.
>
> Don't go in mininig the Li2. Force the Klingons to do it. Force
> them to leave the population alone for long enough for you to
> secure them from Klingon aggression. *Then* move in to destroy or
> imprison the Klingons.
But if they are Klingon Vassals/sympathisers, they are unlikely to *want* to be
secured from "Klingon Aggression", and are going to resent your "saving" them.
You have now brought the enemy, effectively, into your own base camp (your
starship(s). This is a very bad place to be in.
There are also many questions about verification, things likely that "sorry
Federation Asshole, no crystals mined this week; just can't find any; and those
ones we found last week; they were faulty; they all wrecked out during
refinement...too damn bad, Varool" <cuts off viewer, and laughs loudly>
> A starship is a very effective blackmail weapon...
Only if the Klingon Commander doesn't say "Go ahead, bomb us, and all these
Kuvesla, Federation Varool", knowing quite well that 95%+ of all StarFleet
Captinas wouldn't be able to give the order, because they are "soft and weak,
and they...care, for these worthless Tokhe Straav <"willing slaves">), and it
is better to die with honor than to be taken to a Federation Death Camp, where
he will be tortured for the secrets of the Klingon Empire. (of course, there is
no Death Camp, but /He/ doesn't know that).
Besides, does blackmail *really* sound like a Federation tactic (especially
against a civilian populace, even if it is hostile)? Especially when the most
powerful threat you have is genocide?
> >and if you start such
> >a project you have to keep it up, there would be no way to turn
> >back after committing 100,000 to a quarter million troops to an
> >invasion.
>
> True. But a starship threatening you from orbit can withdraw whenever
> it wishes, return if it wants, and you have no say if your defences
> have been eliminated. How to fight a zero-casualties campaign? By
> refusing to allow the enemy to FIGHT it!
> >>Scenario three:
> >>
> >>The Romulans in Unification II managed to fool E-D and got through to
> >>Vulcan, occupying large cities and holding Vulcans hostage. They have
> >>no defences to speak of against starships, but do have ground combat
> >>equipment, and can use Vulcan replicators for resupply.
> >>
> >>You have to free the hostages.
> >
> > You will have to do what the Vulcan Government wants. From a
> >military point of view, I think the only way you've got a prayer is
> >to bring two marines for every invader, beam down simeltaniously and
> >stun everyone in sight, Vulcan, Romulan, Cat, Dog, or M'guto!
>
> Seems like the only alternative, and requires a lot of the
> famous O'Brien transporter magic to work. A job for a large special
> antiterrorist force, no doubt. Goes way beyond normal grunt stuff.
Ie, a job for the Federation Marines, rather than vanilla Security troops. The
Romulans are going to be well entrenched (and I would take the "no
anti-Starship weapons" line from Intelligence with a grain of salt; even
assuming I've wiped out their transports, it's entirely possible for them to
have brought/dismounted from the ship some anti-ship weapons), equipped for a
strike/seige (lots of support weapons), and are difficult to differentiate
(from orbit) from other Vulcanoids, even before any special tricks are
undertaken/countermeasures employed.
> >Then assuming this is accomplished with even minimal surprise
> >[doubtful - but one can always hope] you can go about the business
> >of untangling the Romulan "Supermen" from their Vulcan hostages and
> >calling up the Romulan Preator to come pick up these
> >"Varools"....because you KNOW the Romulan Government is going to
> >claim this is a rogue Tel She-arr <sp?> operation.
> >[If you've got a better spelling for the Romulan CIA,
> >I'd be indebted to you for a brief E-mail at Pwr...@aol.com]
>
> I have seen Tal Shiar, with an optional ' between the words.
The Encyclopedia spells it Tal Shiar, with no ' or - (and certainly not
Tal-Sh'iar, which would conflict with a Marvel copyright).
> I'm afraid I can't comment on these, since this post would become way too
> long. But I'm sure Brian will.
Well, Brian won't, but Scott might.... :-)
> Your points here were well made, but you still support sending troops
> to hold territory. Be my guest, but remember that the best way to beat a
> Klingon is to wage peace with him - he'll be annoyed to hell if he has
> no targets to fight against.
"Waging Peace" only works against people who aren't likely to go *find* a
target to beat up. The best way to beat him (as was proven), is to prove
yourself as honorable as he is, and out produce/out economy him (preferably
without ruining your own; the biggest difference between the Klingon/Federation
cold war, and the Western Powers(USA)/USSR cold war is the Feds managed to do
the former without doing the latter.
Scott Taylor
Timo S Saloniemi
>In <3pptra$b...@nntp.hut.fi> tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi writes:
>
>> >In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
>> >
>> >Oh, I'm sure they (marines) do (exist). Here's a phrase I like :
>> >"Machines (read the starship) may take the glory, but men take
>> >the real-estate". There are just somethings
>> >a starship can't do, and that's capture planets. Sure they can waste them
>> >from orbit, but that is hardly a satisfactory conclustion. Besides, from
>> >our experirences in Viet Nam we should all understand that you can't bomb
>> >everyone into submission. You have to take real estate, one acre at a
>> >time.
>>
>> capture the planet's natural resources, simply *blackmail* the population
>> with weapons that can kill 90% of them (ST has those weapons). Better yet,
>> blackmail them with weapons that alter their climate or prevent communi-
>> cations and transport or make ice-cream manufacturing impossible. You
>> only need time to force the majority of the population into submission.
>
>The question is time, and the backbone/capability to back up your threats.
>Capability implies not only technological, but moral, ethical, and value
>judgements as well.
>
clip clip clip:
(an expensive production facility that you can not bomb, and the enemy
knows it; plus another example that warns of fallout and pollution
effects)
Quite true. But there are several targets you can threaten even in
areas full of fragile equipment. For example, you can use the afore-
mentioned climate-altering weapons against the population, to wear
them out and to demoralize them. "Carpet-bombing" all the wheat
out of the ground without making a single bombhole is extremely
effective. No doubt Klingons would go for the "agent orange" effect
at the same time, threatening with birth defect weapons or the
kind - but the Feds may well have the technology to safely destroy
food-crops without affecting the population directly. These weapons
work slowly, but can be used humanely, yet destructively, when
the population tries to call your bluff. With good propaganda, the
slow but inescapable destruction can be made clear to the folks
below, delivering a stronger punch than any direct bombings would.
The point about the slowness of this method is well put. But I
doubt you could get any better results by using Marine assaults.
These would also destroy vulnerable production facilities, or
at least could not effectively stop the enemy from destroying
them. If your mission is to reach goal A, then either limit
the possibility of the enemy preventing this (tell them "No
self-destructs, please, or we'll kill exactly 39% of your
population") or make the enemy do A ("Surrender the facility to us
and transfer the antimatter to our holds, or live to see how everyone
else dies").
Slow threats give less chance for a moment's heroics and force
the enemy to live with his decisions. Direct assaults may well
INCREASE the enemy's morale, but horrible threats with sub-scale
demonstrations are not likely to do that.
>> You can take real estate one planet at a time, without firing a single
>> shot, if you have superior weapons of blackmail. The only thing you
>> are vulnerable to is counterblackmail.
>
>"For when you are requested, to pay up or be molested, you will find it better
>policy to say:
> "We never pay anyone Dane-Geld, no matter how trifling the cost"
> "for the end to that game is oppression and shame"
> "and the nation that plays it is lost, lost, lost"
> "the nation that plays it is lost."
> "Dane-Geld" Leslie Fish and Rudyard Kipling
>
>Black mail only works on those willing to submit
The trick being, of course, to make the people believe they are willing
to submit. Divide and conquer; make the civilians know they will suffer
from the coming food shortages even before the shortages begin, and blame
their government. Propaganda is everything, if you have such a high-
presence propaganda weapon as a starship at your disposal.
And make sure that the first thing you do is to completely discredit
their equivalent of Kipling :)
>Scott Taylor
Dave Wythe
> There's one important thing to remember about ground troops: they're the
> only units that can hold ground. True, artillery (and spaceborne
> platforms) can pound a hilltop halfway to oblivion (or maybe all the way
> to oblivion if photon torpedoes actually ACTED like antimatter-tipped
> weapons <grin>) Nevertheless artillery lacks finesse; it's
> indiscriminate. Napoleon may have said that 'artillery is the queen of
> the battlefield' and it's well-known that artillery is more than passing
> neccessary to win a battle. Nevertheless, no single branch of the
> military -- Infantry, Cavalry (armor), Artillery (in this case including
> starships), Aviation -- can win a battle. Ships cannot hold ground, and
> neither can Air units (or space units such as starships.) Neither can
> artillery. Cavalry can help to take it, but heavy weapons platorms are
> notoriously easy targets when they're on the defensive; just ask any
> trooper who has set up a modern-era Dragon missile. Only infantry can
> take ground /and hold it./
The question here has to be how in an interstellar conflict would you define
the word "ground". Arguably <and from what you have written> ground could be
defined as the planet surface however I consider it to be equally plausible to
define ground as that area of space in which the major conflict is occuring.
The system itself rather than the planets which constitute that system. In such
a scenario it is entirely possible for a starship to hold ground <maintain
control of the system> and equally possible for a starship to either gain or
lose control of the ground <the system again>. In an interstellar conflict the
battleground becomes much wider than who holds a single planet let alone a
hilltop, or a city, or even a country on a planet. Or even the planet itself.
The only exception to this rule would be if it were a major planet within the
sector such as Terra, Vulcan, Andor, Kronos, Romulus or Cardassia Prime where
the political effects of control or loss of a single planet would have a great
bearing on the outcome of the war. Think interstellar conflict think macro not
micro......
> One more thing -- a platoon of Fed marines, in a jungle
> wilderness, will be a lot harder to find that we think. The Feds might
> not have cloaking devices, but I would bet they have some sort of SCM
> (Sensor Counter Measures) that their troops are equipted with. All in
> all, I would say that ground troops, when used against mission-specific
> objectives (such as destruction of a massive ground-based space-defense
> phaser installation, to allow a starship to approach a planet) would be
> critical to any campaign's success, though they would most likely be used
> in an 'unconventional' warfare role.
Well here I agree with you but then I have always seen more practical value in
a small elite force operating planetside rather than a full counter-invasion
army/fleet. <In fact such forces are canon so I wouldn't argue against them
even if I wanted to>. Such a force wouldn't even need to destroy the
installation itself it would simply have to disable the shields long enough for
a well-aimed phaser blast from a starship.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Login for Mike Grello
|> In <3pptra$b...@nntp.hut.fi> tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi writes:
|>
|> > >
|> > >In a previous article, Da...@wythe.demon.co.uk (Dave Wythe) says:
|> > >
|> > >Oh, I'm sure they (marines) do (exist). Here's a phrase I like :
|> > >"Machines (read the starship) may take the glory, but men take
|> > >the real-estate". There are just somethings
|> > >a starship can't do, and that's capture planets. Sure they can waste them
|> > >from orbit, but that is hardly a satisfactory conclustion. Besides, from
|> > >our experirences in Viet Nam we should all understand that you can't bomb
|> > >everyone into submission. You have to take real estate, one acre at a time.
|>
|>
|> Scott Taylor
"Besides, from our experiences in Viet Nam" and the soviet experience in
Afghanistan and Chechnia (?), "we should all understand that" in the case of
people unwilling to submit, the Marines ain't gonna movem either. The
difference is, you don't flush a whole lot of your own guys down the crapper
from space. If they surrender, they surrender, if not... next planet.
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
writes:
> In article <1995May29....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, BRNP...@db1.cc
Ahh yes, the old "Vietnam proves troops are useless theory"
BZZT! Thank you for playing, try again.
If the American forces had been sent in to *win*, and hadn't been micromanaged
from Washington DC, and had been *volunteers*, instead of draftees who did
*not* want to be there (volunteers might not either, but they at least have
more initiative to be there than a draftee), Vietnam would have been a very
different story. (I've heard estimates as low as two months, even with only
factors one and two).
As it was, the VietCong (and the NVA regulars) did *not* win the war; public
opinion at home and media opposition did (how many NVA and VietCong where lost
in the Tet Offensive? versus how many American and South Viet regulars? and
this was a *loss* on the part of the Americans?)
The war in Afghanistan were a similiar story; a fight being micromanaged from
Moscow, using troops who were woefully undertrained and drastically under
initiatived. Moscow couldn't (or didn't) supply enough troops to actually clean
the mountains out (or the right kind of troops; I'm not sure how much Spetsnaz
activity was involved in Afghanistan). Also, a large portion of the victory was
again media related, and was based on the support of the Mujhaddein (sp?) by
the CIA (Stingers go a *long* way towards evening the odds).
The war in Chechnya is awful, ineptly handled, brutal, and bloody, but the
Russians *are winning* it. The Chechen capital (what's left of it) is firmly
under Russian control (or that's what I'd last heard; not much news of it in
America these days; the OJ trial is apparently more important that that brutal
war...bahhh), and the Chechen rebels are off in the hills hiding and getting
shot at a lot.
Wars against even the most hardened and sneaky of opponents can be won if;
1; Forces of the "aggressor" are sent in with the policy of "winning the war",
not "holding action", not "gradual escalation", not "any other tactic".
2; Field commanders must be exactly that; field commanders. The war must be
fought from the front line area, not from some capital many "miles" away,
where, no matter how sophisticated the briefings or the information, the
picture of the war is still incomplete. Overall policy, and general strategies
can be made from home; but battlefield tactics, and operational strategies must
be dictated from a sight on hand. (Johnson once boasted that an outhouse didn't
get flattened in Vietnam unless he approved it...Moron.)
3; Troops must be highly trained, skilled, and motivated; enlistees, rather
than draftees. (I am *not* accusing any individual Vietnam Vet of not having
been any of those; but there was a pattern of drug abuse, officer fragging,
insubordination, etc. that is endemic of draftees rather than enlistees).
4; Yeah, spin control, and even outright manipulation of the media, is a
loathsome, but necessary, thing. A media allowed free reign on the battlefield
will always send home the most graphic, violent, and sensationalistic shots
they can find; hey, ratings baby, it's candy everyone wants (thanks, 10,000
maniacs). If all the public sees is negative images of the war (flames from
peaceniks saying that everything about war is negative will be shot, then sent
to /dev/null; Yes, everything about war is negative; but the results are
sometimes positive, and this makes it a regrettably necessary thing), they are
going to think the war is going badly *even when it isn't*, and are going to
want to pull out (or surrender, if the invadees).
With the first three things (and moderate and temperate use of the fourth), and
proper equipment and support, even the most hardened and dug in, resolute
forces can be taken.
Also, there are often times you can't just say "okay, next planet"; that planet
behind you can now be a staging ground from which their"troops" can attack your
rear and staging areas. Also, you are likely to be attacking that planet for a
*reason*; it has resources or land that you need, which may not be handily
available elsewhere.
Scott Taylor
ch...@utdallas.edu
Distribution:
BRIAN J. PFEIFER (BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
> > from space. If they surrender, they surrender, if not... next planet.
> Also, there are often times you can't just say "okay, next planet"; that
> planet behind you can now be a staging ground from which their"troops"
> can attack your rear and staging areas. Also, you are likely to be
> attacking that planet for a *reason*; it has resources or land that you
> need, which may not be handily available elsewhere.
Hence, the reason that both the Federation and Romulans have tried to
develop metagenic weapons. (Amazing, how this all comes back to Star
Trek, isn't it?) With a metagenic weapon, it destroys anything alive, by
destroying its DNA, and after its work is done it destroys itself, as
well. Conceptually, this is like the old "N" bomb, where people would
die, but buildings would be left completely intact.
-- Chuck Knight
P.S. This peacenik would like to remind you that, though war often
achieves desirable goals, can the goals truly justify the means? A
century ago, soldiers fought soldiers, and both groups were fighting each
other, consciously. Today, we strategically bomb _cities_, resulting in
the deaths of civilians who are, in fact, noone's enemy. War is bad
enough...but it is this haphazard killing that truly disgusts me.
Akela
>any finesse when it carpet-bombs your ground troops out of the surface.
Simple, really: 'finess' is described as 'flexibility' in this context.
Sure, carpet bomb the plateau, drop a couple dozen photorps -- but you
procede to make that ground useless.
HOWEVER, and I'm breaking parliamentary procedure here by arguing against
myself, but so what? <grin> It's entirely possible that at least one war
in the Star Trek universe, early in its development (possibly the first
war between the Federation and the Klingons?) saw the last use of
traditional ground troops. Presumably, these were rapid-deployment force
marines. Presumably, shipborne weapons were used. (This is your marine
brigade. This is your marine brigade under fire from an orbiting Klingn
cruiser. HISSS cracklecrackleSNAP Any questions?) Presumably, the
troops did not last long. Obviously we have seen a major change take
place in conventional military thinking sometime in the past of the ST
universe....
>a) What is "holding ground"? If it means preventing the enemy from
>using it, ships can do it easily. If it means allowing your own
>forces a free use of the ground, ships can do it when available in
>sufficient numbers to completely keep away the enemy.
Obviously, 'holding ground' is no longer sought after in military
campaigns. We have seen a shift from 'ground holding' to 'ground
denial,' basically: 'If I can't have this piece of real estate, neither
can you!' and plants a warbird or starship in orbit above said real
estate. Ground troops just become targets.
>All other ships
>can defend themselves while attacking ground forces - and they
>are completely outside the reach of enemy ground troops. Space
>is a perfect place for fire support platforms.
This is probably what spelled the death for ground troops in large
numbers -- literally and historically. I suppose even the best howitzer
can't reach an orbiting starship, much less do much against it.
So, what does this add up to? Obviously there are small units of elite
troops for highly mission-specific roles. There is nothing that says the
Romulan troops being sent to Vulcan were not specially trained volunteers
for that mission. I will concede the point, however, that ground troops
are a thing of the past in the ST universe, if not for practical reasons
than certainly for historical ones. This means that, sometime in the
past, someone got the bright idea of lobbing a full-yield photorp at a
marine brigade. ever since then, marines have probably been seen to be
more of an expense than was warranted.
>You can see that there will be no marine brigades in Star Trek, for
>budgetary reasons if not for logic.
Well, folks, a first: somebody was actually convinced to change their
mind on Usenet! <grin> Seriously, all things considered -- including
the presumed brutality of the Romulan War and the tragic first contact
between the Federation and the Klingon Empire -- it is highly unlikely
that ground troops survived for very long.
Akela
BRIAN J. PFEIFER <BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>Another arguement *for* Marines... they are not as indiscriminate as a phaser
>blast from orbit, or a Pho-Torp.
>
>Scott Taylor
:looks a little confuzzledly at the .sig and at the name in the addy, then
shrugs.
That's true; the marine is a LOT less indiscriminate. If it was
up to me I would see a reintroduction of marines into the armed forces of
the Alpha Quadrant. However, it's occurred to me why we haven't seen any
marines: I believe that the Romulan War (between Earth and Romulus,) the
Federation-Klingon war, and perhaps a score or more other conflicts that
we haven't seen, possibly predating the Federation.... all these wars saw
the widespread use of shipborne weapons used against ground targets.
Maybe the relatively idealistic Federation would have been the last power
to use those tactics, but a desperate on-scene commander, about to see a
precious dilithium mining world overrun by Klingon warriors, might have
said 'heck with it' and opened up on the troop positions from orbit. We
thus see a shift from the ground-troop-intensive concept of 'ground
control' to one of 'ground denial,' much much easier and economic to plop
a starship in orbit over key real estate, or send a ship like the Defiant
down into the atmosphere to toast any troops trying to enter an area.
Presumably, these wars in the past were so brutal that it became
impractible to field ground troops: why use them when one good photorp
can wipe out a regiment? We can also imagine that marines were also no
longer used due to the development of metagenic biophages, and other,
just-as-nasty bios and chems.
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> edu>
> Distribution:
>
> BRIAN J. PFEIFER (BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
> > > from space. If they surrender, they surrender, if not... next planet.
>
> > Also, there are often times you can't just say "okay, next planet"; that
> > planet behind you can now be a staging ground from which their"troops"
> > can attack your rear and staging areas. Also, you are likely to be
> > attacking that planet for a *reason*; it has resources or land that you
> > need, which may not be handily available elsewhere.
>
> Hence, the reason that both the Federation and Romulans have tried to
> develop metagenic weapons. (Amazing, how this all comes back to Star
> Trek, isn't it?) With a metagenic weapon, it destroys anything alive, by
> destroying its DNA, and after its work is done it destroys itself, as
> well. Conceptually, this is like the old "N" bomb, where people would
> die, but buildings would be left completely intact.
Actually, the Federation, Romulans, Ferengi, and all other major powers
*banned* the development, production, or distribution of metagenic weapons
long ago (pg 202, Encyc). The Cardassians were rumored to be developing a
new Metagenic weapon (Chain of Command), but this was merely a ruse to
capture Jean Luc Picard, who was to be a major command figure in the sector
in the event of a Cardassian invasion.
Metagenic weapons are , imho, a weapon too horrible for even the Romulans;
it not only wipes out all "sapient" life on a planet, but *all* life; right
down to a microbe. This has the effect of ruining the planet as a Class M
planet; unless reseeded (and *damn quickly*), the planet will quickly lose
the Oxygen in it's atmosphere as it reacts with other materials and chemically
bond with them. And Class M planets are *rare*, and truly valuable.
> P.S. This peacenik would like to remind you that, though war often
> achieves desirable goals, can the goals truly justify the means? A
> century ago, soldiers fought soldiers, and both groups were fighting each
> other, consciously. Today, we strategically bomb _cities_, resulting in
> the deaths of civilians who are, in fact, noone's enemy. War is bad
> enough...but it is this haphazard killing that truly disgusts me.
Sometimes, the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate; ask the Jews if
we (the Yanks) should have entered WWII. No soldier (at least no *sane* one)
really wants war (yeah, we may look forward to some *aspects* of it; there is
no more powerful adrenaline rush, and adrenaline is more addictive than
cocaine, for example); *We* are the ones most likely to die. But we also
understand that there is sometimes no other choice worth considering.
Timo S Saloniemi
>>or ship with phaser X's? If some fool fights with ground troops,
>
>There's one important thing to remember about ground troops: they're the
>only units that can hold ground. True, artillery (and spaceborne
>platforms) can pound a hilltop halfway to oblivion (or maybe all the way
>to oblivion if photon torpedoes actually ACTED like antimatter-tipped
>weapons <grin>) Nevertheless artillery lacks finesse; it's
But how does finesse help in "holding ground"? The enemy does not need
any finesse when it carpet-bombs your ground troops out of the surface.
>Ships cannot hold ground, and
>neither can Air units (or space units such as starships.) Neither can
>artillery. Cavalry can help to take it, but heavy weapons platorms are
>notoriously easy targets when they're on the defensive; just ask any
>trooper who has set up a modern-era Dragon missile. Only infantry can
>take ground /and hold it./
This is just the part that simply does not seem true any more in the
Trek universe.
a) What is "holding ground"? If it means preventing the enemy from
using it, ships can do it easily. If it means allowing your own
forces a free use of the ground, ships can do it when available in
sufficient numbers to completely keep away the enemy.
b) Heavy weapons not good at defence: this is true now but not in
Trek. The equivalent of propelled artillery in Trek seems to be
the tiny Defiant with fixed-forward weapons. All other ships
can defend themselves while attacking ground forces - and they
are completely outside the reach of enemy ground troops. Space
is a perfect place for fire support platforms.
>All in
>all, I would say that ground troops, when used against mission-specific
>objectives (such as destruction of a massive ground-based space-defense
>phaser installation, to allow a starship to approach a planet) would be
>critical to any campaign's success, though they would most likely be used
>in an 'unconventional' warfare role.
Agreed. But a company of Marines would be too big a unit for most
campaigns. What fits the above description is a small elite force
team with all the heavy equipment carried by starships or transported
down as needed.
>Akela
>"Reality is subjective"
Yes, but imagination, when in the form of a TV show, is objective:)
You can see that there will be no marine brigades in Star Trek, for
budgetary reasons if not for logic.
Timo Saloniemi
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> In article <3r0v61$4...@nntp.hut.fi>,
> Timo S Saloniemi <tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
> >But how does finesse help in "holding ground"? The enemy does not need
> >any finesse when it carpet-bombs your ground troops out of the surface.
>
> Simple, really: 'finess' is described as 'flexibility' in this context.
> Sure, carpet bomb the plateau, drop a couple dozen photorps -- but you
> procede to make that ground useless.
Forever and ever... or at least long enough that *your* species isn't going to
care by the time it's worth anthing again...
(images of all the races in David Brin's "Uplift" series shaking their heads
in horror)...
> HOWEVER, and I'm breaking parliamentary procedure here by arguing against
> myself, but so what? <grin> It's entirely possible that at least one war
> in the Star Trek universe, early in its development (possibly the first
> war between the Federation and the Klingons?) saw the last use of
> traditional ground troops. Presumably, these were rapid-deployment force
> marines.
> Presumably, shipborne weapons were used. (This is your marine
> brigade. This is your marine brigade under fire from an orbiting Klingn
> cruiser. HISSS cracklecrackleSNAP Any questions?) Presumably, the
> troops did not last long.
I'm not real sure that's the way it went (is it "honorable" to use shipborne
weapons on a foe willing to engage in ground combat? I don't think so (even
if it is tactically intelligent). More likely some Vulcan commander, armed only
with high energy lasers and nuke tipped missiles on his Daedalus class cruiser,
and faced with a battalion of Klingon Marines on the ground, gave the order to
wipe them out (as the only "logical" decision)...then got his ship to safety
and resigned his commission in anticipation of his court martial.
It seems *incredibly* unethical to utilize the weaponry available to a starship
commander against ground targets (this is like using strategic Nukes against
a tank division; and if the unit is already in a city....). Does it happen?
certainly. Is it all that common? I don't know: in all of the footage we've
seen it happen three times (discounting the use of phasers as drills or mining
systems): in "Piece of the Action" (phasers against the Iotian gangsters), STV
(wiping out "God", with an amazingly underpowered Pho-Torp), and in "Time's
Arrow (pt2) (Pho-Torp strikes against the Devidians, presumably killing them
all...hmm, isn't Genocide against one of the General Orders?). Usually, this
has required some kind of preperation ahead of time (Kirk orders Scotty to
reset one of the phaser banks for ground barrage, as I recall, and all of the
uses of the phasers in TNG for attacks/uses against ground targets (as cutting
tools, mining drills, etc), has required a period of time while Geordi sets up
the programs.
> Obviously we have seen a major change take
> place in conventional military thinking sometime in the past of the ST
> universe....
>
> >a) What is "holding ground"? If it means preventing the enemy from
> >using it, ships can do it easily. If it means allowing your own
> >forces a free use of the ground, ships can do it when available in
> >sufficient numbers to completely keep away the enemy.
What about the people already *on* the ground; the ones who owned the planet
before you decided to try and annex it? They are doubtless going to at least
resent you're presence...
> Obviously, 'holding ground' is no longer sought after in military
> campaigns. We have seen a shift from 'ground holding' to 'ground
> denial,' basically: 'If I can't have this piece of real estate, neither
> can you!' and plants a warbird or starship in orbit above said real
> estate. Ground troops just become targets.
Again, I can't see the Feds engaging in this kind of "scorched earth"
policy. (it's fairly clear what the purpose of that starship is if an
overwhelming force enters the system/nearby space; wipe out the planet as
a valuable target, then run like hell.) And for the Klingons, this is just
silly; what fun is hanging in orbit around a planet with an arsenal of planet-
crackers, when one can either be;
a; out hunting Federation Cruisers (and shooting at them)
b; down on the surface cracking defender heads
Romulans, on the other hand, are unethical enough to find this a preferred
method of combat (waiting for all of the Rihanhaphiles to flame me...).
> >All other ships
> >can defend themselves while attacking ground forces - and they
> >are completely outside the reach of enemy ground troops. Space
> >is a perfect place for fire support platforms.
I can easily see ground troop armor units including grav based anti-orbital
phasers and mini-torp launchers (equipped with high powered ECM, ECCM, and
shields, making them hard to hit, and likely to survive a hit or two).
> This is probably what spelled the death for ground troops in large
> numbers -- literally and historically. I suppose even the best howitzer
> can't reach an orbiting starship, much less do much against it.
>
> So, what does this add up to? Obviously there are small units of elite
> troops for highly mission-specific roles. There is nothing that says the
> Romulan troops being sent to Vulcan were not specially trained volunteers
> for that mission. I will concede the point, however, that ground troops
> are a thing of the past in the ST universe, if not for practical reasons
> than certainly for historical ones. This means that, sometime in the
> past, someone got the bright idea of lobbing a full-yield photorp at a
> marine brigade. ever since then, marines have probably been seen to be
> more of an expense than was warranted.
Until the next ground war occured, where the Federation was caught flatfooted
because they had no ground troops (I'm sorry, Empires of any kind *have* to
have troops; the threat of orbital bombardment may get you surrender, but it
doesn't get you submission or cooperation; you need someone to go down and
control the population of the planets you've captured.)
> >You can see that there will be no marine brigades in Star Trek, for
> >budgetary reasons if not for logic.
>
> Well, folks, a first: somebody was actually convinced to change their
> mind on Usenet! <grin> Seriously, all things considered -- including
> the presumed brutality of the Romulan War and the tragic first contact
> between the Federation and the Klingon Empire -- it is highly unlikely
> that ground troops survived for very long.
Sorry, I'm still not seeing it...
(besides, from a purely practical viewpoint; no ground troops is *bboring*;
having a ground forces unit of some kind adds *many, Many* storylines that
aren't available in the "orbit the planet, threaten the populace, if they don't
surrender, bomb them back to the hunter-gatherer stage" world).
Scott Taylor
(still looking for a *real* account)
Chung, Peter W.
>In <akelaD9...@netcom.com> ak...@netcom.com writes:
>
>> In article <3r0v61$4...@nntp.hut.fi>,
>> Timo S Saloniemi <tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
>It seems *incredibly* unethical to utilize the weaponry available to a starship
>commander against ground targets (this is like using strategic Nukes against
>a tank division; and if the unit is already in a city....). Does it happen?
>certainly. Is it all that common? I don't know: in all of the footage we've
>seen it happen three times (discounting the use of phasers as drills or mining
>systems): in "Piece of the Action" (phasers against the Iotian gangsters), STV
>(wiping out "God", with an amazingly underpowered Pho-Torp), and in "Time's
>Arrow (pt2) (Pho-Torp strikes against the Devidians, presumably killing them
>all...hmm, isn't Genocide against one of the General Orders?). Usually, this
>has required some kind of preperation ahead of time (Kirk orders Scotty to
>reset one of the phaser banks for ground barrage, as I recall, and all of the
>uses of the phasers in TNG for attacks/uses against ground targets (as cutting
>tools, mining drills, etc), has required a period of time while Geordi sets up
>the programs.
>
There is one more time... "A Taste of Armeggeddon". Kirk holds
Eminiar VII literally hostage with the phasers of the Enterprise.
Even with ground-based disruptor cannons, the Eminiars were
unable to prevent the Enterprise from positioning herself to
carry out General Order 24. This would suggest that Starfleet
is not above blasting the planetary troops if the circumstances
warranted it.
The Chanteur
: Yes, but imagination, when in the form of a TV show, is objective:)
: You can see that there will be no marine brigades in Star Trek, for
: budgetary reasons if not for logic.
The closest we ever got was probably Colonel West of ST VI fame. Since
"Colonel" was not a 'naval' rank, it goes to figure that he must be in an
organization which utlizes 'army' rank - and given the nature of his
mission, Marines would be a very likely possibility.
--
: Benjamin Chee __,--=====-.__ "For I dipt into the future,
: "The Chanteur" _________,--'_,--'/_-__-___`--._ Far as human eye could see,
: {======>________,._.-------------' Saw the vision of the world,
: ``---._____/ And all the wonder that would be."
: <chee...@iscs.nus.sg> -- Alfred Lord Tennyson, 'Locksley Hall'
BRIAN J. PFEIFER
> In article <1995Jun7.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, BRNP...@db1.cc.rochester.edu (BRIAN J. PFEIFER) writes...
> >In <akelaD9...@netcom.com> ak...@netcom.com writes:
> >
> >> In article <3r0v61$4...@nntp.hut.fi>,
> >> Timo S Saloniemi <tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>It seems *incredibly* unethical to utilize the weaponry available to a
>>starship
>>commander against ground targets (this is like using strategic Nukes against
>>a tank division; and if the unit is already in a city....). Does it happen?
>>certainly. Is it all that common? I don't know: in all of the footage we've
>>seen it happen three times (discounting the use of phasers as drills or mining
>>systems): in "Piece of the Action" (phasers against the Iotian gangsters), STV
>>(wiping out "God", with an amazingly underpowered Pho-Torp), and in "Time's
>>Arrow (pt2) (Pho-Torp strikes against the Devidians, presumably killing them
>>all...hmm, isn't Genocide against one of the General Orders?). Usually, this
>>has required some kind of preperation ahead of time (Kirk orders Scotty to
>>reset one of the phaser banks for ground barrage, as I recall, and all of the
>>uses of the phasers in TNG for attacks/uses against ground targets (as cutting
>>tools, mining drills, etc), has required a period of time while Geordi sets up
>>the programs.
> >
>
> There is one more time... "A Taste of Armeggeddon". Kirk holds
> Eminiar VII literally hostage with the phasers of the Enterprise.
> Even with ground-based disruptor cannons, the Eminiars were
> unable to prevent the Enterprise from positioning herself to
> carry out General Order 24. This would suggest that Starfleet
> is not above blasting the planetary troops if the circumstances
> warranted it.
I had forgotten this one, but the fact is he never *uses* those weapons; it is
possible he was merely bluffing (Kirk was rather famous for the bluff). As for
the effectiveness of the Eminian weaponry; hell, they were still lobbing
atomic weapons (or simulations of them) at their opposites. I'm not surprised
their disruptors were ineffective (remember, the Constitution class was
*tough*; they were built as warships first, and explorers second, rather than
the other way around).
(Kirk might not have been bluffing...he was always rather concerned about his
own skin...and was also famous for bending/breaking the General Orders almost
on a whim. I'm not sure as the actions of Kirk would be representative of all
of StarFleet, just as those of Picard shouldn't be representative of his era's
Captains)
Scott Taylor
JAMES DIXON
-> Message-ID: <3r390c$p...@nuscc.nus.sg>
->
-> Timo S Saloniemi (tsal...@vipunen.hut.fi) wrote, and I quoth ... :
-> Yes, but imagination, when in the form of a TV show, is objective:) :
-> You can see that there will be no marine brigades in Star Trek, for :
-> budgetary reasons if not for logic.
->
-> The closest we ever got was probably Colonel West of ST VI fame.
-> Since "Colonel" was not a 'naval' rank, it goes to figure that he
-> must be in an organization which utlizes 'army' rank - and given the
-> nature of his mission, Marines would be a very likely possibility.
Which also applies to the SSD (Special Security Division) of "Death's
Angel"... The SSD and Star Fleet Marines seem to have a lot in common...
--- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0220
* Origin: The Dx Connection Bbs Teaneck New Jersey (1:2604/142)
Steve Cheng
<snip>
> The closest we ever got was probably Colonel West of ST VI fame
On the other hand, in one of the DS9 episodes (It was the one where
Garak had some Cardassian medical problem from his days with the Order)
He mentions that he was in the "Cardassian Mechanized Infantry."
While Garak does lie frequently, the best lies are those based on the
truth so they probably have an army.
It seems likely that the Cardassian Union possesses a number
of soldiers, trained for ground combat, equipped with armored personnel
carriers (hence Mechanized Infantry).
Furthermore, the Bajoran Provisional Gov't was seen to have a militia
force in the recent episode Shakaar(?), which the Kai dispatched to
quell the uprising/thefts of machinery.
Besides the ground combat element, the US Marine Corps is also deployed
on Navy vessels to provide an on-board security detachment. If every
Starfleet post and ship had a Marine detachment, they probably wouldn't
have half the problems with terrorists and rebels. Taking over or
running around on a Galaxy class vessel would be like the PLO or Red-
Brigades taking a USN Aircraft carrier, or a Brit Invincible-type.
Steve Cheng
Comments, Criticisms,
heck, flame me if you must.
Akela
Steve Cheng <st...@umich.edu> wrote:
> Besides the ground combat element, the US Marine Corps is also deployed
>on Navy vessels to provide an on-board security detachment. If every
>Starfleet post and ship had a Marine detachment, they probably wouldn't
>have half the problems with terrorists and rebels. Taking over or
>running around on a Galaxy class vessel would be like the PLO or Red-
>Brigades taking a USN Aircraft carrier, or a Brit Invincible-type.
Sure, Starfleet ships have such detachments -- they're called
Security. <grin> Seriously, while we all pound on the redshirts a lot
(they DO seem to be considered awfully expendable by the writers) there
would be no reason for starships to have both a dedicated Security
department AND a marine detachment. I would hazard to guess that, since
we do not have any indication of a Starfleet Marine Corps (outside of
Colonel West of STVI) Security fills this role -- and there quite likely
exists some sort of dedicated ground-action 'assault infantry'
detachments within Starfleet Security. These units would fulfil force
recon and commando roles -- since Starchips do not normally
undertake these roles, they would not normally carry these detachments.
As for Colonel West, well... who knows? It's tempting to say
he's a Starfleet Marine.
By the way, am I the oly one who has noticed a correllation
between the name of Colonel West and modern-era Colonel North? It seems
an awful big coincidence that both are colonels of (presumably) marines,
and both have names taken from compass points. <grin> Just a healthy
dose of conspiracy to lighten your day.
--
Dave Wythe
st...@umich.edu "Steve Cheng" writes:
> On the other hand, in one of the DS9 episodes (It was the one where
> Garak had some Cardassian medical problem from his days with the Order)
> He mentions that he was in the "Cardassian Mechanized Infantry."
> While Garak does lie frequently, the best lies are those based on the
> truth so they probably have an army.
> It seems likely that the Cardassian Union possesses a number
> of soldiers, trained for ground combat, equipped with armored personnel
> carriers (hence Mechanized Infantry).
Undoubtedly both the Cardassians and the Romulans and probably the Klingons
have a full standing military. However these forces are in the main used to
invade planets where the tech level is significanly lower than that say on
either the home planets or on Terra, Vulcan, Andor etc. The value of ground
forces when subjecting such a planet would be infinitely greater than that when
in combat against a high tech political entity such as the UFP.
> Furthermore, the Bajoran Provisional Gov't was seen to have a militia
> force in the recent episode Shakaar(?), which the Kai dispatched to
> quell the uprising/thefts of machinery.
The militia on Bajor is little more than the terrorists provided with an
official title and a few uniforms <note Kira here. One minute she's
assasinating collaborators on Terach Nor the next she's a major!>.
> Besides the ground combat element, the US Marine Corps is also deployed
> on Navy vessels to provide an on-board security detachment. If every
> Starfleet post and ship had a Marine detachment, they probably wouldn't
> have half the problems with terrorists and rebels. Taking over or
> running around on a Galaxy class vessel would be like the PLO or Red-
> Brigades taking a USN Aircraft carrier, or a Brit Invincible-type.
I would have to say here that I think security is in fact the on-board security
element that you are refering to. <It's time to reel out the security jokes
guys>. If some of the storylines in TNG are anything to go by it's easier to
take control of a Galaxy Class vessel than it is an airliner.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
> The closest we ever got was probably Colonel West of ST VI fame. Since
> "Colonel" was not a 'naval' rank, it goes to figure that he must be in an
> organization which utlizes 'army' rank - and given the nature of his
> mission, Marines would be a very likely possibility.
Following on from ST:VI I am quite ready to acknowledge that Star Fleet Marines
are canon. However where the argument lies is not in the existence of the
Marines but rather in their numbers and their role within the ST universe. I am
prepared to accept that the Star Fleet Marines are probably no more than 1,000
in number and that their primary role is covert missions either for the UFP or
in support of Star Fleet spaceborne action. But I don't subscribe to the tens
of thousands of them running counter-invasions of occupied planets.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Dave Wythe
>>a) What is "holding ground"? If it means preventing the enemy from
>>using it, ships can do it easily. If it means allowing your own
>>forces a free use of the ground, ships can do it when available in
>>sufficient numbers to completely keep away the enemy.
> Obviously, 'holding ground' is no longer sought after in military
> campaigns. We have seen a shift from 'ground holding' to 'ground
> denial,' basically: 'If I can't have this piece of real estate, neither
> can you!' and plants a warbird or starship in orbit above said real
> estate. Ground troops just become targets.
I think that firstly it is important to define just what exactly "holding
ground" is in the context of interstellar warfare. Within the scenario of a
UFP/Romulan or UFP/Cardassian conflict ground <as we know it> would no longer
be the surface of a planet. It would become entire systems and possibly
even sectors. The ground based soldier simply became outmoded as the arena
moved from invading countries on a single planet to warfare for control of
regions of space.
>> All other ships
>> can defend themselves while attacking ground forces - and they
>> are completely outside the reach of enemy ground troops. Space
>> is a perfect place for fire support platforms.
> This is probably what spelled the death for ground troops in large
> numbers -- literally and historically. I suppose even the best howitzer
> can't reach an orbiting starship, much less do much against it.
They also became increasingly impractical. Consider the fact that in order to
recapture <reinvade> a planet occupied by the enemy you first have to move your
troops to the planet in question. So how many troops do you need in order to
retake the planet ? 10,000 ? 20,000 ? 50,000 ? A Warbird decloaking off the
port bow while you are in transit from point A to planet B could do a great
deal of damage. So once it became clear that you could lose a fair percentage
of your ground forces before they had even made it to the planet I think the
death knell for the Fed Marine was sounded.
Regards
Dave Wythe
Fraser Hannah
Question: what is the mission of a group of infantry? Answer: whatever
you tell them to do. This is not a frivolous statement; examine Robert
Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" for a consideration of the point of
ground troops in a Space-Naval universe. First of all, as many
contributors to this thread have already pointed out, starships have
basically two options for capturing territory: 1. complain until the
enemy goes away; 2. melt the territory to radioactive glass.
Infantry, on the other hand, can capture the area, or simply destroy the
buildings, or kill enemy troops only (leaving civilians untouched), or
whatever their mission is to be. To misquote Heinlein, "no-one's ever
told us to go in and kill all left-handed redheads in an area, but we
could". So the Marines (i.e. infantry carried by naval vessels...sounds
about right, unless transporter beams are getting a LOT better range)
are used for more subtle objectives. Consider the U.S. invasion of
Grenada (or Panama or whatever) when they didn't actually bother
invading the whole country, just the government buildings. Clever, eh?
An interesting objection was also raised about transporting marines to a
planet, and how crummy it would be to be attacked about then. Well,
yes, but I suspect marines would be able to deploy in other ways then
transporter beams, like relatively big shuttle-craft, or perhaps a whole
lot of really tiny ones. (Although there would certainly be a use for
transporter deployments, if tactically possible: say a squad of marines
materializes in the enemy command post. Useful? )
The security forces may well have a specific "ground-deployment" or
pseudo-infantry branch, but consider the difference between Military
Police and Infantry. Both useful, but while M.P.'s would be good, say,
for peacekeeping, regular Infantry would be superior for their own
special missions.
Gil Teitelbaum
to capture land. Simply set Phasers on heavy stun with a wide burst and
presto - everyone is unconscious (see "A Piece of the Action" from TOS).
-Gil
Dave Wythe
fha...@cln.etc.bc.ca "Fraser Hannah" writes:
> It seems to me that we are potentially missing a basic point here.
> Question: what is the mission of a group of infantry? Answer: whatever
> you tell them to do. This is not a frivolous statement; examine Robert
> Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" for a consideration of the point of
> ground troops in a Space-Naval universe. First of all, as many
> contributors to this thread have already pointed out, starships have
> basically two options for capturing territory: 1. complain until the
> enemy goes away; 2. melt the territory to radioactive glass.
There are more options in fact:
3. Obtain control of the system thereby isolating the enemy force on the planet
below. Considering that the only practical reasons for invading a planet
would be to either gain a strategical advantage over the enemy, plunder the
natural resources or damage the moral of the enemy it could be said that in
such a scenario the strategical advantage would be lost, the natural
resources could not be used <except on the planet itself> and moral would be
be boosted simply by seeing the enemy out of the system. And don't forget
we are talking *entire* planets here. That would require tens of thousands
of men to invade and hold <unless the planet was at a very low tech level>
in order to invade and hold. That's also tens of thousands of men sitting on
their backsides effectively wasted because the enemy has severed their lines
of communication thereby immediately devaluing the worth of the planet.
4. Attack strategic points on the planet using precision phaser firing.
PhoTorps are not the only option for a star ship attacking a planet surface
and we have in fact seen such phaser firing on a number of occasions <not
always as a weapon of war>.
5. Threaten the planet with PhoTorps. A far more effective weapon I would have
assumed once the lines of communication between the invaders and whatever
passed for a central command had been severed.
6. Support local terrorist action with weapons etc. and provide a base of
operations for such forces. This could include using sensors to monitor
troop movements on the planet below.
> Infantry, on the other hand, can capture the area, or simply destroy the
> buildings, or kill enemy troops only (leaving civilians untouched), or
> whatever their mission is to be. To misquote Heinlein, "no-one's ever
> told us to go in and kill all left-handed redheads in an area, but we
> could". So the Marines (i.e. infantry carried by naval vessels...sounds
> about right, unless transporter beams are getting a LOT better range)
> are used for more subtle objectives. Consider the U.S. invasion of
> Grenada (or Panama or whatever) when they didn't actually bother
> invading the whole country, just the government buildings. Clever, eh?
An interesting point. However the question has to be asked: During an
interstellar conflict just what exactly consititutes "government buildings". I
would have said that Terra <the home of the UFP and Star Fleet Command> and
Romulus <the home of the Romulan Senate> and also Cardassia Prime <home of the
Central Command and the Obsidian Order> would be analogous here. Kronos <the
home of the Klingon High Council> would also count. So following your argument
any interstellar conflict would revolve around control of these planets
<although arguably other planets could be captured and used as staging points
etc>. I would have thought that any attempt to capture any of these planets
would be fought and won <or lost> in space along time before the first soldier
set foot on soil.
> An interesting objection was also raised about transporting marines to a
> planet, and how crummy it would be to be attacked about then. Well,
> yes, but I suspect marines would be able to deploy in other ways then
> transporter beams, like relatively big shuttle-craft, or perhaps a whole
> lot of really tiny ones. (Although there would certainly be a use for
> transporter deployments, if tactically possible: say a squad of marines
> materializes in the enemy command post. Useful? )
I think perhaps that you have misunderstood the point here. I was refering not
to the transportation of Marines planetside from orbit but rather the transport
of Marines from the staging point <which could quite easily be in another
sector of the quadrant> to the actual planet in question. That said the actual
transportation of the Marines from orbit to the planet surface would in itself
be yet another problem. Star Fleet would certainly need to have control of the
system and would also need to be able to move them to the planet surface
quickly enough for them to be able to deploy and start counter-invasion
operations. Any dely <or of course successful anticipation by the enemy which I
would think would not be difficult> could also result in hundreds of men being
taken out before they had a chance to even fire a shot.
> The security forces may well have a specific "ground-deployment" or
> pseudo-infantry branch, but consider the difference between Military
> Police and Infantry. Both useful, but while M.P.'s would be good, say,
> for peacekeeping, regular Infantry would be superior for their own
> special missions.
I have always considered "special" missions and also the existence of a Marine
Corps in order to carry out such missions as completely different to the
question of Fed Marines as a standing army requiring its own fleet of ships
etc. On the one hand we are talking about maybe two thousand highly specialised
soldiers and on the other possibly 100,000 or more men which in effect
consititute a standing army. Highly impracticable during peace time and of
dubious <if any> value during an interstellar conflict.
Regards
Dave Wythe