John, Nah I don't need any examples about successful counter insurgencies.
I've spent most of my past twenty years specializing in both fomenting
and defeating insurgencies.... ;-) And frankly the thought of
conducting either a planetary scale counter-insurgency OR a planetary
scale insurgency operation are both juicy propositions to me.
First off, about conducting a successful counter insurgency against someone
who's occupying their planet. There are a large host of reasons for making
this a difficult proposition. I know you could think of them just as easy as
I.
One is the sheer size of the endevour. A huge amount of resources would be
needed. The planet is a big place. Lots of places for the insurgents to hide
as LONG as they have support of the people. As far as a the counter isurgency
having the planet balnketted with sensords from orbit or whatever. Then I have
to believe that similar sensoir defeating technolgies will keep pace, as his
been teh history of warfare with any technological or operational development.
As far as outside resources go, they already have the resoruces of their whole
planet. If given any bit of thought to the prospect, they could have
squirrelled away any number of vast amounts of supplies and weapons.
Again either side could argue that with suffiicient resources, they could
attain their objectives. I'm just saying DO NOT dismiss the power of a palnet
to conduct an insurgency all on it's own. It's not like a country which may
not have suffiecient resopurces. A home or well established colony world,
could have everything it needs to sustain itself.
And what if it doesn't? If it has any allies at all, key equipment or supplies
could still be inserted, blockade or not. How easy would it be in the FT
universe for example to put a tight clamp down on solar system say the size of
ours? Ships could be slipped through and insertions made. Heck there are
already rules for cloaking. Speical insertion vehicles, specialists along the
line of current day U.S. 1st Special operations wing of TF 160, would make a
living doing just that. Blockade or no.
I'm just saying, don't discount the potential for a conducting a successful
insurgency given the right situation. And you know what, regardless of whether
it would ultimately be successful of not, there are many that would undertake
it anyway. Would you just roll over?
I always get embroiled in these discussions on here (foolishly I suppose)
because people come up with these knee jerk statements made without IMO
putting much though to the practicalities behind them. I'm not syaing that
you, John, do this as I think you make pretty good sense about a lot of stuff.
Some recent and past examples...(paraphrasing here) Oh once we gain orbital
superiority it's all over for the planet, they might as well roll over. We'll
just use robots or AI in the future, it'll be superior to man. You can't
conduct a successful insurgency on a planet. and so on
I say don't discount any possibility.
Anyone who's been in the military probably has the experience of having had to
carry out stupid plans made by officers that have had these
kinds of ill thought-out ideas. Or maybe it's just me because we get
used for some damn dangerous things, be it training or live. Just some
examples:
"Oh let's have them infiltrate the enemies headquarters and implant a sensor
so we can momintor commo in the TOC." (Sure lets have our three guys penetrate
a division TOC, surrounded by teh division and guarded by an MP company.)
"Well they're SEALs they can be parachuted into the ocean, they're expert
swimmers." (4 guys drown in ten foot waves)
"Oh they're SEALs lets have them attack the airfield and shoot the tires off
off the President's airplane so he can't escape". (4 guys killed in an
abortive raid)
Well I've got to guard this power station so I'll just station one platoon at
the power station and have the rest of the company humping the hills in the
110 degree heat so as to catch any infiltrators (half teh company is out with
heat exhasution and we stillblew the thing up).
I won't even get into the larger policy miscalculations of what was supposed
to be sure things like Somalia, Barbarossa, etc etc. Never take anything for
granted and never underestimate anything.
Oh no, I'm driifffttiing...............aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh <plop>
> You wrote:
> One is the sheer size of the endevour. A huge amount of resources
Depends on settlement patterns and population densities. If I've got
settlers concentrated about 40% in/around a major urban center centered
on a spaceport, and another 40% within a couple hundred miles of that urban
center, then the question arises as to whether that remaining 20% (of whom
only a few will have the 'revolutionary conciousness' to support the
insurgents appropriately) can supply enough food and hiding places to the
insurgents?
What's the transport infrastructure look like? If it's centralized and
limited, then interdicting the guerilla's mobility may be easier. During the
Boer Wars, once the Boers lost their mobility due to the blockhouse networks,
the war was all over but the mopping up.
Cultural factors--If the planet were inhabited by Afghans or
Montagnards I'd nuke it from orbit. Inhabited by Frenchmen, and I'd have no
problems going in. Some cultures have a much higher tradition of resistance to
outside intervention. Others roll over and whimper to please whoever holds the
whip.
On and on and on... I'd love to run or participate in a campaign of this type.
..
as a the >counter isurgency having the planet balnketted with sensords from
orbit >or whatever. Then I have to believe that similar sensoir defeating
>technolgies will keep pace, as his been teh history of warfare with any
>technological or operational development. As far as
It may not be a matter of sensor limitations, but of trained and skilled
analysts. I know people have been making all sorts of claims about computors
and pattern recognition. But noticing the little
out-of-place things that scream to an experienced analyst "This is
camoflage" is never going to be a computor's strong suite.
outside resources >go, they already have the resoruces of their whole planet.
If given any >bit of thought to the prospect, they could have squirrelled away
any >number of vast amounts of supplies and weapons.
But most of the resources of a colony would be raw materials with little
manufacturing ability, and that likely concentrated in a few major centers
which can be easily controlled.
The second point is interesting. There are a number of variables. First, does
the earlier owning government encourage this? Second, do they organize this
stockpiling? If it's on private initiative, do they do like modern US
survivalists and stock a wild variety of private
firearms with no thought to long-term ammunition resupply,
standardization, communications gear, logistic assets, and basically
everything except small arms? Are heavy weapons or crew-served weapons
included? A mortar in every villiage is enough to make me want to nuke from
orbit.
> Again either side could argue that with suffiicient resources, they
Again, it's a question of which world? Albion could--but then again
Albion isn't likely to fall. If it's Research Colony XS-319 with a
populations of 500 scientists and 50,000 support personell and
long-term colonists, then effective resistance is less likely.
> And what if it doesn't? If it has any allies at all, key equipment or
Depends on which scale you are using. If Earth is a 6" ball then it's fairly
easy to blockade it. If it's "table edge" sized, then you're screwed.
insertions >made. Heck there are already rules for cloaking. Speical insertion
>vehicles, specialists along the line of current day U.S. 1st Special
>operations wing of TF 160, would make a living doing just that. Blockade >or
no.
One thinks it will be well-nigh impossible to stealth an atmospheric
reentry. Analogy--you may be invisible, but if you do the cannon-ball
into my swimming pool, I damn sure am going know something is up.
> I'm just saying, don't discount the potential for a conducting a
No.
> Anyone who's been in the military probably has the experience of
Ah, well, I've watched an E-4 bluntly inform an infantry company
commander that if he didn't do things our way, then we would find something
more important to do than bother with giving his company engineer support.
Jackass didn't listen, and found himself with no Engineers for the remainder
of the exercise. Corporal Luther's perspective was that if the infantry was
that stupid in combat we'd all have been dead and he wouldn't have any
Engineer support anyway.
> "Well they're SEALs they can be parachuted into the ocean, they're
Oops. Of course, if the SEALs didn't believe their own propaganda then their
commander wouldn't have gone ahead with the mission.
John,
You raise a number of interesting points. obviously, everything is situation
specific. Also the more developed the colony is (where it's almost a homeworld
in its own right. themore chance it has to support its own guerilla campaign.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> The second point is interesting. There are a number of variables.
I suppose if we can at the universe as it exists in GZG. Many planets, many
competing governments, wars small and big occasionally breaking out. It's
possible that colonies worlds, at some point, adopt local defense along teh
Finnish or Norwegain or Swiss model, of local militia with weapons, and
operational plans which can be put into action
quickly. They also have the advantage of knowing that help _will
probably_ come sooner rather than later.
I think that this model has a better chance of survavability than the US
survivalist mnodel, even if those individuals could hold out longer they would
be a bit less coordinated and organized to effct the enemy operations on a
global scale.
> Depends on which scale you are using. If Earth is a 6" ball then it's
Good point. I take it that you are wondering how this translates to the game
table.
> One thinks it will be well-nigh impossible to stealth an atmospheric
Depends on the coordination of factors. Even a planet like earth is
experienceing hundreds of falling objects a day. many burn up in the
atmosphere. This is the kind of background noise that makes insertion of small
(VW bug) size packages and smaller possible. Also are teh Gs (Guerillas in SF
parlance) waiting for the stuff at the right place and time?
Also what are they key items needed by the Gs? If the planet has a well
established infrastructure, this could be small but highly valuable items.
Small peices of key technology, (Special commo gear, encryption devices or
sensors), hard top produce offworld medicines, the occasioanl advisor or
technical expert.
Dropping pallets of Hw ammo or whatever is a nmore difficult porosition to be
sure!
> Ah, well, I've watched an E-4 bluntly inform an infantry company
Yes to some extent that's the advantage to being "attached". They potentially
have less control over you than if your a line doggie. You can always say
"FUBID" (Fuck you buddy, I'm detached) <g>
> insertions >made. Heck there are already rules for cloaking. Speical
1st
> Special >operations wing of TF 160, would make a living doing just
> into my swimming pool, I damn sure am going know something is up.
I dunno for sure, but I'm thinking a lot of things enter our orbit (meteors
etc) and end up hitting earth or burning up, but I don't think we track them
and I think a meteor shower would make great cover for the insertion of a
team. Or an assault drop for that matter. And I'm not sure if I agree with
your comment on not being able to stealth a ship for such capability. No one
thought you could stealth a surface naval vessel, but the US Navy has a pretty
impressive one right now. And the future max extend this to orbital entry
vessels. They tend to glow red because they come in so fast, but if you have
Grav drives, you may well be able to come in at a slow rate such that you
don't get the hull heating and you don't glow
- and your UltraBlack(tm) hull absorbes all incoming energies to not
present a radar signature or heat signature. Just saying it could be done.
/************************************************