(Warning: I tend to use traveller as an idea source for other games,
so don't end up actually playing or running trav that much, but ...)
>> On another hand - a planetary assault may take place WITH THE CONSENT
>> of the defender - if an attacker finds himself faced with an apparently
>> impenetrable defence belt, he may just give up the idea of an assault
>> and accelerate a few medium sized asteroids at the target planet. Thus a
>> situation similar to a battle of Maldon may arise - the defender
>> granting battlespace to the attacker.
>The whole assumption in this discussion is that for some reason, the attacker
>can not/does not want to destroy the defender totally in this manner. (Why
>was such a tactic never used during any of the Frontier Wars, by the way?)
>Otherwise, if the attacker finds himself faced with an unbeatable defence
>at any stage, he can just give up, take off and nuke the planet from orbit.
>> ...
>Fine art? Either the attacker wins, or the defender wins. If the defender
>wins, the attacker brings up the asteroid. End of defender's story.
Wars have been fought for many reasons, but history often tends to
show that the underlying causes of the conflicts are often economic.
The other reason can probably be summed up as "ethical" reaons.
A better way to examine most warfare in the imperium might be to
consider it as economic warfare.
By this I mean that a war is fought to gain the economic
capabilities of the target system/planet; such capabilities as
manufacturing complexes, mining sites, more advantageous jump-route
position, a better starport etc. At this level, the war might be
considered more of a "extremely hostile" corporate takeover, rather
than a war over (say) ideological differences. Massive
planet-bombardment assaults wouldn't work too well, as they would
destroy what the attackers set out to acquire, or turn the people who
know how to run the equipment against the attackers.
IMHO, this type of warfare precludes the "take off and nuke the
planet from orbit" solution because it will not be be advantageous to
do so. Trade embargos and other loss of revenue to the attacking
planet/system might be the result of such action, as nearby systems
are apalled by the attacker's action. Even non-ecomomic (aka
"ethical") military action might be taken against this system
in an effort to prevent such an occurence from happening again. Even
this action can be considered economic to an extent -- other systems
don't want to be nuked.
I'm not so sure as to what form an actual "economic" war would take,
but I rather think it would be preceded by vast intelligence and
sabotage operations against the target system's military and ruling
organizations, followed by a strike to remove remaining defense
installations. This would be followed by troops and intra-atmosphere
craft to mop up remaining forces and to hold the ground. Resistance
by the populace would tend to be determined by the differences between
the two cultures -- if the attackers operate their systems as giant
slave-chains, I would forsee massive resistance and guerilla activities
taking place. (Hmm, I wonder if this means that the type of
war (economic/ethical) to be fought depends upon the difference in
goverment between the two groups -- the wider the difference, the more
harsh the war will be???)
This has gone a bit behind my original economic/ethical warfare debate,
and I'm starting to get into a gray area, so I'll stop here and
see what people think about this.
bolo
Joe Burger University of Wisconsin-Madison Computer Systems Lab
arpa: [email removed] uucp: {backbone}!uwvax!bolo