Re: More planetary defenses

From: [email removed] (Joe Burger)
Adrian Hurt wrote:
> >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.
>
>   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.

If we're considering action within the Imperium, all bets are off.  There's
a thing called the Imperial Rules of War to consider.  These rules aren't
written down anywhere, because officially the Imperium doesn't approve of
any war within its borders.  Unofficially it tolerates very limited warfare
as being a quick release of tension and resolution of conflict, as opposed
to long, drawn out economic warfare - which I would define as sanctions and
other interruptions of interstellar trade, and which are even worse for the
Imperium as interstellar trade is its lifeblood.

So, the Imperium will tolerate limited warfare.  That's how mercenaries make
their living.  It doesn't tolerate excessive off-world interference - in
other words, if the invader is capable of taking on the whole planet, it
will probably have to take on the Imperial forces shortly afterwards.

I was under the impression that the invasions being discussed would either be
part of the Frontier Wars, or take place well away from the Imperium (and
probably any other large interstellar organisation).

- - --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]