From: nuny@bid.nes   
      
   On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 1:56:05 AM UTC-7, elie....@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   (snip to the crash)   
      
   > So, once again, seas are not a good parallel to space here.   
      
     It has to be said again:   
      
     This is another point some folks seem to keep forgetting while blue-skying   
   (black-skying?) how space warfare will work. There are *no* fully applicable   
   parallels in past forms of warfare, despite the fact that *some* elements of   
   *all* past forms will    
   apply. In space you can't just drop anchor to loiter at a constant distance   
   from something or do a lot of other things tactically that are dead simple in   
   an ocean.   
      
     That's why I said that passive sonar is a better analog for space warfare   
   detection techniques. Better, not perfect.   
      
     The logistical considerations of strategic planning in particular are to me   
   the greatest difference.   
      
     In really Olden Days it was feasible for a land army to leave home   
   butt-naked and expect to be able to feed *and* arm itself on the way to a   
   battle by foraging.   
      
     Later, it was feasible to build frighteningly flimsy seagoing craft and sail   
   great distances, surviving on fish and rainwater (supplemented by the odd bit   
   of starch and fruit from islands).   
      
     In space foraging is much more limited- you have to bring your frigging AIR   
   with you as the most basic example. Even the assumption that the first few   
   asteroids you encounter will make good mass-driver ammunition is risky.   
      
     (Loitering is simply impossible except for rare cases like Lagrange points   
   and those will surely be closely monitored and defended if not continuously   
   occupied *because* they're the rough equivalent of high ground. Orbiting   
   doesn't quite count because    
   your weapons' required delta-vee/time-to-target keeps changing.)   
      
     In the face of that, to me stealth becomes a relatively minor tactical   
   consideration. That's not to say that it won't be *a* consideration, just that   
   it won't be paramount in strategic planning.   
      
     I find that to be somewhat depressing because I favor the military   
   philosophy of Sun Tzu over that of von Clausewitz. Campbellian battles between   
   huge fleets of ships each trying to out-endure the other guy seems like the   
   depressingly most likely    
   scenario, over clever positioning of fast, minimalist forces that can "win"   
   without actually fighting. I'd love to be proven wrong...   
      
      
     Mark L. Fergerson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)