Digest Number 79

You want a war from space.

First you take out the full satellite network. No exceptions. That
will ground pretty much all military and commercial airtrafiic. A 10 m
concave mirror and a good telescope could do this.

Then you start lobbing rocks at the major cities. Take out 20-30% of
the population straight away. Next target industrial area using the
same method. Take out 2/3 of the economy.

If they haven't asked for surrendered at this point start targeting
their strategic allies with the same. Make the rest of the world
pressure them into surrender.

You see you only need troops on the ground if you plan to conquer and
stay. If you plan to annihialate without regard to ever taking over a
country their is no reason to keep ground troops.

This of course assumes a fair bit of independance in space.

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "bill t" wrote:
> >
> > I realize what you are saying, but everyone seems to be hung up on
> the
> > legal issues. The fact is there are no legal issues, because no
one
> > can enforce them. If anyone tries to enforce the treaty they may
end
> > up on the losing end of a war with the people who built the space
> > structures.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> Bill,
>
> I don't think that everybody is hung up on the legal issues, it's
> just one of many threads but it is an important one. We live a
world
> of laws and they can kill a project if you don't take them into
> account. However you are wrong in saying that there are no legal
> issues because nobody can enforce them. (Before I start I know that
> there are more than two ways but for my argument I'm looking at two)
> Consider the two ways that a habitat can be built, with the backing
> of a nation state and without such backing, by a private company.
> The way that it is built and how the items are launched are not for
> the moment important. If you build the structure with material
> hauled up from Earth and you do not arm it with weapons of mass
> destruction there is no issue with the treaties beyond inspection to
> ensure you are not in violation and things to do with obligations.
> However if you plan on using non-terrestrial materials, then you run
> into problems with the treaties. Let's say that you have the
backing
> of a nation state and are using Lunar materials to do the building,
> most countries will not be interested in what you are doing but
> certain people in them may be, you could be cutting into their
> markets or something. For whatever reason they decide to take issue
> with you and take you to court, good luck, they will need it, there
> is no single court that can do anything, except in the country you
> launch from or you are based in. Given that you can move, this is
> something that you can avoid but if they can convince a nation state
> to take action, then you have a different situation. If the country
> you launch from or are based in or are registered in, is a signatory
> to the treaty, they can be ordered by UN resolution or by internal
> courts or the international court, to stop you from launching. So
> let's say that you have the local president in your pocket and he
> refuses to do anything and you just keep on doing what you want. It
> is possible for sanctions to be imposed and if they are really
> serious they can start a war. So let's assume that the worst has
> happened and you now find yourself along with your national ally at
> war with other countries, what are your options? Certainly you hold
> the high ground and this is where you want to be but as the
Americans
> have found out, you really can not win a war without putting feet on
> the ground, air wars are only the start and can not be the finish.
> The reluctance of the US to risk casualties on the ground has
> resulted in farcical situations in recent years, this is not to cast
> doubt on the courage or intelligence of the US military, just the
> politicians who give them orders.
>
> Sitting in orbit with your big rocks you will find yourself in the
> position of the man who wants to demolish his house but only has a
> nuclear weapon. Certainly you could destroy all life on Earth or
> maybe even just in that country but that will not accomplish your
> goal and I'm not sure how you can confine the effects of orbital
> bombardment to a given area, not really, space based weapons tend to
> be all or nothing, they wipe out cities but can't kill a single
> solder. Life in an orbital habitat, like life in any nation on
Earth
> will be dependent on trade with the outside, you want to sell to the
> people of the world, not turn them into ash. In the past a military
> commander only had to worry about what his opponent was up to and
> what he could do, today he also has to worry about what the news
> media is saying and what happens when the polls go against him.
> Bullets are less important than headlines and trade balances.
>
> Besides you assume that you are the only one in orbit, what is to
> stop others from having a weapons platform up there that they can
> point at you, if you can launch large masses to orbit, chances are
> they can too or they can fall back to older but cruder methods. You
> may think you are safe up in your orbital fort, where nobody can hit
> you and you can hit them at will but it would be an illusion. A few
> years ago I was talking to a person who was considering how to
attack
> an armoured car, his job was to make such a car safe and to do that
> he thought about how to attack one and them designed defences to
> counter them. He was of the opinion that his latest design was as
> strong as it could be without becoming something more than a car and
> that it could survive an attack long enough to exit the area. After
> seeing what he had done I had to agree with him, until I realised
> that while the car was as strong as possible, the weak link was the
> driver, he didn't have a hyper-sapiens to drive for him, so I asked
> what happed if somebody threw paint over the windows, how would the
> driver see to get the car out of the area? He has since solved that
> problem (pardon me if I don't say how) but your habitat fighting a
> war against somebody on the ground is just like that, if they can't
> attack you they will attack your people or at lest their minds and
> emotions as well as your bank accounts, in a war, technical
> superiority does not guarantee victory, just ask anybody who fought
> in Vietnam. One last point, if you were the one and only with the
> ability to put up a large mass into orbit and you were sitting up in
> space with a gun to the head of the world saying, leave me alone or
> I'll shoot, soon it turns to, buy my goods or I'll shoot and then,
do