The Stars Our Destination

[AlexanderHowl]

My thinking is that establishing military bases in uninhabited systems would allow for a 'defense in depth' strategy. In addition, enemy states would have to send large forces to destroy each base or risk suffering counterattacks from starships stationed at the military bases. Since defense is cheaper than offense in GURPS, due to the cost of FTL drives and STL drives, each base could have substantial defenses at a fraction of the cost of a comparable battle group.

Of course, the exact capabilities of the military bases would depend on the investment by the polity. If each base possessed 100,000 military personnel and an equal number of civilian personnel, they could each support the equivalent of an aircraft carrier battle group. If each base possessed 1,000 military personnel and an equal number of civilian personnel, they would be hard pressed to support the equivalent of an FFG.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

My thinking is that establishing military bases in uninhabited systems would allow for a 'defense in depth' strategy.

I could see the populace, government, opposition and military leaders, not to mention the personnel stationed there, questioning the wisdom of commiting vast amounts of resources to guarding empty, uninhabited, undeveloped star systems, on the off-chance that a terrorist cell might want to utilise it.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

My thinking is that establishing military bases in uninhabited systems would allow for a 'defense in depth' strategy. .

It is really difficult to set up your FTL system in such a way as for that approach to make a lick of sense. Defense in depth is a land war strategy. You don't do it in the air and you don't do it at sea. The closest we've come to seeing it done at sea is the Pacific War where the Japanese tried it using occupied islands and, of course it didn't work because the Americans simply sailed past securing only those islands necessary to create a logistical chain on their way to the place that actually mattered.

If you have your mobile elements divided up between tens of thousands of worthless rocks then you are simply inviting defeat in detail and slowing down your reaction time when it comes to responding to attacks on the places that actually matter. The smart thing to do is to put your major military bases near the places that actually matter. Which is to say, in the same system. Lesser military outposts are probably only worthwhile placed along traffic corridors between said places that actually matter, mostly so they can provide repair services to vessels that get a flat tiger on the way...assuming that the ships can't just make a single hop from significant place to significant place.

Now it is true that in certain settings you can have the technological capability to produce detection perimeters that will let you spot FTL intruders from light years away so you may want to actually create a network to give you lots of forewarning that guests are coming so you can break out the good china. But even in a safetech setting not automating that makes little sense. You'd have to be very retrotech to require a full facility for that. Even then you'd space them widely and probably without even bothering on putting them in a system rather than in deep space.

[doctorevilbrain]

What do you mean a flat tiger?

[mr beer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

mostly so they can provide repair services to vessels that get a flat tiger on the way

Originally Posted by doctorevilbrain

What do you mean a flat tiger?

Like a flat tire but furrier and more troublesome to connect to pressurised air.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by mr beer

Like a flat tire but furrier and more troublesome to connect to pressurised air.

And not to be confused with a flat tigger, which sadly is no longer bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun, fun.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by mr beer

Like a flat tire but furrier and more troublesome to connect to pressurised air.

Quite right. It's a reference to an obscure joke story in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Story.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Quite right. It's a reference to an obscure joke story in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Story.

I'm not sure what Asimov has to do with it. Unless I'm thinking of a different old science fiction story and the idea has been used twice. The story is "Flat Tiger", by Gordon R. Dickson. It appears in the March 1956 issue of Galaxy Magazine. I read it because the story before it, "A Gun for Dinosaur", came up on this forum.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'm not sure what Asimov has to do with it. Unless I'm thinking of a different old science fiction story and the idea has been used twice. The story is "Flat Tiger", by Gordon R. Dickson. It appears in the March 1956 issue of Galaxy Magazine. I read it because the story before it, "A Gun for Dinosaur", came up on this forum.

Oh no, that's the one.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by ericthered

When patrolling your nearby empty stars for enemy spies, pirates, smugglers, terrorists, and other undesirables, you get 80% of the benefit for a much lower cost if you patrol it instead of settling it.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

My thinking is that establishing military bases in uninhabited systems would allow for a 'defense in depth' strategy. In addition, enemy states would have to send large forces to destroy each base or risk suffering counterattacks from starships stationed at the military bases.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It is really difficult to set up your FTL system in such a way as for that approach to make a lick of sense. Defense in depth is a land war strategy.

What are we talking about, exactly?

I thought we were discussing a region ruled by a single polity that had to quell local brush fires, rebellions, piracy and insurgencies. 'Defense in depth' seems like a complete waste of resources for that- you'd be better off devoting your budget to patrols and counterintel.

But now we're talking about a total war between vast galactic empires? Yeah, it depends on the type of FTL. Perhaps FTL is short range and requires gas giant refuelling every couple of light years, then all those empty systems become strategic assets and launch pads for assaults- it's war in the Pacific. In that case, indeed, garrisoning everything you can afford to is necessary.

But they're two completely different scenarios.