Don't build Death Stars, build astromechs.

[dworkin]

A rather odd article here.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Hm...to approach this from the fictional or the real perspective? Truly the phenomenon that is Star Wars has achieved cultural saturation.

Right, let's start at the geeky end of the pool. The author is worryingly right when he makes the connection between the project and the style of management it requires, and fosters; dark lords build death stars, the two do go together- that kind of overgrown ego tries to make that kind of mark on the world- "requires pathological styles of maangement", I like that line.

That kind of ego is not always the best- is in fact cripplingly bad- at grasping reality, so the theory goes, which is why in real life as in the fiction that imitates/highlights it, massive showpiece-style intimidation programs so often turn out to have fatal flaws. (Got to admit, this bit made me think of Arthur Harris, Jackie Fisher.)

The Death Star had a perfectly adequate antifighter defence- Hundreds if not thousands (Wookie number, 7,200)- of it's own small craft- which should have been gross overkill against any scale of fighter attack the enemy could mount. It was destroyed by chain of command procedure, the being (Tarkin) at the top of the chain of command being too stupid, arrogant and full of himself to order a full sortie.

The paper makes the point that the mentality that relies on superweapons is almost invariably childish, arrogant and overconfident enough to guarantee they will be poorly used and relatively cheaply countered- ripe targets for asymmetric warfare.


So far, so good- where I disagree is in the idea that simpler and more basic is therefore better. Oh, and some of the analogies and similes he uses to draw the comparison are clumsy, artificial and forced as all fuck.

In fact, I'd say that given the utter lack of prizes not made of oblong hole for second place in war, technological progress makes the push to quality over quantity inevitable, and technocracy inevitable in the wake of that. And there is no way back. Once into that mode of thinking and program management, simple and robust is no longer an option- human sacrifice on the scale of casualties simple and robust is likely to sustain against expensive and sophisticated is certainly not an option.

Whether it's culturally or politically possible to go back to an older style of program management- if he even knows that he means that, actually- I doubt, both aspects. Whether it's possible to, oh, replace America's armoured vehicles with an updated version of the M4 Sherman, which if he's not suggesting it isn't obvious- flat out no. Not realistic.

I'd love to see an example of the kind of solution he thinks might work, but the article's too full of geek references to draw any kind of real world example and suggestion from. Oh, and he's obviously never heard the term "character shields". The droids got away with a hell of a lot more than they "realistically" should have because of hero factor, and they're overrated accordingly- which undermines the premise.

[YT300000]

If you look at the Death Star as a theatre-range weapon system, an advanced missile or bomber, then the author has many strong points. In a real-world context, he's absolutely right. But since this is the PSW forum... if you look at the Death Star like the Manhattan Project, a secretly-built superweapon that when deployed [would have] almost immediately ended the war under threat of total annihilation, it's a different matter altogether. The various armed forces branches do not have to share a single plane, because there are still tens of thousands of those being built - the Death Star is something else entirely.

[PainRack]

With regards to astromechs, he was using a tongue in cheek approach to describe complementary synergy that's prevalent in the new 4th generation military.

Instead of a newer super plane like the F-22. think datalinks and better radars. Stuff that can be shared across multiple platforms, small, simple stuff that works together to enhance the whole. He just didn't express it that well.

[VarrusTheEthical]

If I were to apply the crux of the Colonel's argument to the Galactic Empire, don't wast money on death star, instead spend it to make the rest of the Imperial military better as a whole. Some improvements I could think of include shielding for TIE fighters, better equipment and training for stormtroopers, and incremental improvements to Star Destroyers.

[Eternal_Freedom]

For the resources needed for a Death Star you could do a lot more than incremental increases. I don't now precisely how many Executor's you could build for the DS1, but I would bet it's a very large number.

As for TIE fighter shielding, they can do that already, but it seriously hurts performance apparently. They could build TIE Defenders but they are waaay more expensive and generally not needed for simple patrols.

[Adam Reynolds]

One other important element that seems to be missed by this article is the true purpose of the Death Star, cracking planetary shields. If it were not for this purpose, the Death Star would be an extremely ineffective weapon. However, when using it for this function it is the only system with enough raw power to defeat shields without the use of subterfuge or the long sieges that took up much of the end of the Clone Wars. It is likely that this was the reason the Imperial Navy agreed to proceed with the project.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Imperial Navy compliance probably had more to do with a certain force-choke happy Sith Lord.

I think the Death Star's construction in the first place had as much to do with Palatine's ego as it did with any practical use.

And while we're speaking of practical, wouldn't a scaled down weapon that, while not powerful enough to blowup a planet, be enough to punch through the shields and scrag the shield generators make more sense?

[StarSword]

And while we're speaking of practical, wouldn't a scaled down weapon that, while not powerful enough to blowup a planet, be enough to punch through the shields and scrag the shield generators make more sense?

Yeah, like a Super Star Destroyer that had a superlaser to bring down planetary shields... Oh, wait.

[Batman]

A weapon that was developed by downscaling the Death Star superlaser. Feel free to show they had the means to do that before actually having built one and monitored it in action.

Besides, the Empire has had the ability to ruin planets through a planetary shield ever since the appearance of Torpedo Spheres (and unshielded planets long before that). What made the Death Star so terrifying (you do remember it was supposed to be a terror weapon, right?) was that it could not only get through the strongest available planetary shields, it could not only not just render the planet a lifeless ball of molten rock but turn it into an asteroid field, but it could do so in a matter of seconds with a single shot.

[StarSword]

They didn't need to downscale the Death Star superlaser. Rather, the Death Star superlaser was upscaled from previous models, such as those mounted on LAAT gunships, SPHAT walkers, etc. And even before AotC was released, we already knew the Death Star wasn't the first superlaser.

Superlasers are not new technology; Mon Mothma described the original Death Star's superlaser as "the most powerful superlaser ever constructed" rather than "a new weapon known as a superlaser" (ref. Soldier for the Empire). This indicates that superlasers have been constructed before, but on a smaller scale.

The Eclipse- and Sovereign-class warships are just variations on a theme.

[Connor MacLeod]

Why are we assuming "comptent and practical design" is the first requirement of the Death STar per se? The thing is a giant moon sized sphere with engines and a giant radar death ray dish built in (cue no handrail meme here). I'd say that 'practical' is probably not first priority. Intimidation maybe. A logistics-heavy weapon that is effectively unassailable by any "current" SW force yes. But "practical superweapon?" no.

Of course that also begs the question of why "superewapon" = "conventional military weapon" to begin with as well...

[Batman]

They didn't need to downscale the Death Star superlaser. Rather, the Death Star superlaser was upscaled from previous models, such as those mounted on LAAT gunships, SPHAT walkers, etc. And even before AotC was released, we already knew the Death Star wasn't the first superlaser.

Superlasers are not new technology; Mon Mothma described the original Death Star's superlaser as "the most powerful superlaser ever constructed" rather than "a new weapon known as a superlaser" (ref. Soldier for the Empire). This indicates that superlasers have been constructed before, but on a smaller scale.

The Eclipse- and Sovereign-class warships are just variations on a theme.

Presupposes that you can up AND downscale arbitrarily. Its entirely possible that prior to the first Death Star, there were engineering difficulties that had to be overcome before they could build a planetary shield defying superlaser. DS1 showed them how to do it, thus they could do it on a smaller scale afterwards.

[Stark]

Even if they had the technology to be capable of it, if they hadn't done the engineering for it they could have been many years away from actually building one. The superlaser is obviously not a new concept, but just as obviously it has been many decades since anyone build one into a starship.

[PainRack]

There is a problem with viewing the Deathstar as a hugely expensive boondoogle.

Its not. The Empire did pour several sectors of resources into it, but it had over a thousand sectors. It already had a huge starfleet that could take over the role of invading or destroying a shielded planet.

If anything, the Deathstar purpose should be seen more akin to the nuclear bombers replacing the thousands of bomber stream of WW2.

One COULD argue that the Deathstar resources could be poured into other roles, such as patrolling spacecraft to secure the stars and systems. However, despite rampant rebel activity, there isn't enough data to show that anti- piracy or other conventional roles were being neglected due to the construction of the Death Star.

[Darth Tanner]

However, despite rampant rebel activity, there isn't enough data to show that anti- piracy or other conventional roles were being neglected due to the construction of the Death Star.

Although not expressly stated as because of the constructions of the death stars the novel Allegiance shows us that post Yavin the Emperor expressly forbid Imperial fleet elements from engaging in anti piracy actions to dedicate all resources on anti rebel operations. Planetary governments alone had to deal with the pirates, without Imperial support.

The Eclipse- and Sovereign-class warships are just variations on a theme.

They are also the result of massive post death star construction research projects. Even the actual death star needed a prototype constructed before they could get everything working. Superlaser tech might not be new but building it on this scale certainly is.

We also have no actual evidence of the power levels of the SSD super lasers. There might be claims of 1/5 to 1/8 and such but as far as I know we never see it fire to actually gauge its power or its ability to penetrate planetary shields.

[Zanfib]

I don't think palpatine wanted more than one death star. I think he was planning on using the Death Star as an unassailable fortress from which he could rule the Galaxy.

Due to his force powers, Palpatine had very little to fear from conventional assasination. If someone wanted to kill him it would take an army or orbital weapons. Making his home on a completed Death Star would effectively neuter both threats. The only thing that could meaningfully threaten him would be another Death Star (hence why he would not want more than one).

[Galvatron]

And while we're speaking of practical, wouldn't a scaled down weapon that, while not powerful enough to blowup a planet, be enough to punch through the shields and scrag the shield generators make more sense?

Yeah, like a Super Star Destroyer that had a superlaser to bring down planetary shields... Oh, wait.

I think this old thread covered that ground pretty well already.

[Ford Prefect]

Of course that also begs the question of why "superewapon" = "conventional military weapon" to begin with as well...

It's an analogy. He's critiquing a mentality which prefers overcomplicated and overblown 'solutions' to problems.

[Guardsman Bass]

Of course that also begs the question of why "superewapon" = "conventional military weapon" to begin with as well...

It's an analogy. He's critiquing a mentality which prefers overcomplicated and overblown 'solutions' to problems.

Is that mentality really at work with regards to the Death Star? It's a fairly straightforward approach to a pair of security problems: keeping the systems in line after the final dissolution of the Imperial Senate, and cracking planetary defenses to avoid the equivalent of the "Outer Rim Sieges" in the Clone Wars. Sure, it's complex and expensive, but then so are the delivery systems for nuclear weapons (such as bombers and ICBMs) in real life (and I think the comparison between those and the Death Star is useful).

Why are we assuming "comptent and practical design" is the first requirement of the Death STar per se? The thing is a giant moon sized sphere with engines and a giant radar death ray dish built in (cue no handrail meme here). I'd say that 'practical' is probably not first priority. Intimidation maybe. A logistics-heavy weapon that is effectively unassailable by any "current" SW force yes. But "practical superweapon?" no.

EU aside, the first Death Star may have been gigantic simply due to the engineering requirements - I hesitate to call it "impractical". The second Death Star (which is much more massive) is a different matter.

[Ford Prefect]

Is that mentality really at work with regards to the Death Star? It's a fairly straightforward approach to a pair of security problems: keeping the systems in line after the final dissolution of the Imperial Senate, and cracking planetary defenses to avoid the equivalent of the "Outer Rim Sieges" in the Clone Wars. Sure, it's complex and expensive, but then so are the delivery systems for nuclear weapons (such as bombers and ICBMs) in real life (and I think the comparison between those and the Death Star is useful).

The Death Stars huge black holes of wasted money. It's all well and good to say 'well Tarkin managed to justify it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer' but the fact remains that they cost a lot of money and achieved precisely one crime against humanity between them. That's a failure of organisation, which is what he's actually talking about. He's not really talking about the Death Stars, he's talking about, I don't know, F22s or something. The 'Death Star' and 'Artoo' analogies are just that: analogies about different principles of organisation.

I mean you can justify the F22 ('it's vital so we can maintain our rapidly deteriorating position as world cultural hegemon'), but the fact remains that it's cost about forty quadrillion megabucks and has achieved some neat cameo appearances in the Transformers films. He's critiquing the system which produced the F22 over something more practical.