Space Colony Warfare

[Zor]

This is something i was wondering about for some time but i would like some assistance in it.

Lets say within the next 2 centuries earth has developed on the lines of the UC Gundam Universe, not with the Mobile Suits, Minovsky particles and other things like that, but on the lines of Space Colonization. Hundreds of millions of people have recently moved to hundreds of O'neill Cylinders. As well, Space Elevators/advanced Launchcraft/whatever has made getting up into space easy and cheep. Because of this, there are concerns of someone attacking and seizing control of one of said stations.

Now here is the main thing, Assuming that some shit hits the fan abord one or more of the Space Colonies, how do we deal with it using military force? Note that these colonies support large populations (into the millions each) so simply nuking the hell out of them if something happens is not an option in many scenarios, how does one launch assaults to take/retake Colonies?

Zor

[Vehrec]

In space, Infantry are the weapons of conquest and missiles are weapons of destruction. Barring point defense, the best way to destroy anything in space is lots of guided objects moving real fast, fast enough and you don't even need warheads. On the other hand, infantry are just about the only units that will be practical in space, because of the basic nature of the Colonies themselves. It's a lot easier to get humans into a large structure than say tanks or other mechanized units. Also, it would probably be much harder to secure an area where tanks can be brought aboard than a smaller airlock.
On the other hand, attacking a space colony is urban warfare at about as bad as it can get. You can't use heavy weapons too close to the skin of the colony, or you'll kill everyone. Your enemy is probably dug in, and in the words of Sun Tzu, 'on death ground.' If you ever want to see how hard men can fight, back them into a corner. Massive casualties would be likely to say the least. Maybe we should create robots for this.
But I'm not inventive. Let's hear what others have to say.

[Nyrath]

I fear that the situation is like C.J. Cherryh's DOWNBELOW STATION. It is terribly undramatic. Since the lowest class of warship could annihilate any orbital colony using only its secondary weapons in about two seconds flat, orbital colonies instantly surrender whenever a warship shows up.

Orbital colonies are exceedingly fragile.

An alternative is like a chess game between grand masters. Such masters will make a few moves, examine the board, and one will resign since it is obviously a checkmate in fifteen moves. So the enemy fleets will maneuver against each other with little combat, waiting for the other to make one little mistake, then lunge in, forcing the other to surrender without a shot being fired. Kind of like two karate masters circling each other.

[Cao Cao]

Do the Earth forces have space superiority, or do the colonies maintain a space fleet of their own?

Assuming the passage to the rebel colony is unimpeded, I imagine the threat of force against these vunerable structures would be enough. Even if not I'd guess teams could be sent to take over control centers, shut down power, halt the colony's rotation and generally make life aboard absolute hell until the colonists surrender.

[BloodAngel]

Space Colonies would most likely have a shitload of strong armor inside and around the Colony area, to prevent any chance of a "hull breach" from happening. Since that's the case, heavy weapons such as artillery won't damage the inside of the Colony too much, but such weapons would need to be regulated. Invading a colony without breaching the Colony area would be difficult, as you'd have to first gain control of the docking areas, and most likely the Colony military would have that place pretty heavily secured. You'd also have to avoid hitting that area too hard, too, because destroying the dock would cause a hull breach to the part of the Colony area that is attached to the dock, unless the Colony engineers were smart and included an isolation door to seal that area off, in which case you'd need to destroy the Colony anyway to get in. Then once you finally secure the docking area, you'd have to also secure the power plants and systems control areas to secure Colony functions, and from then on you could pretty much play God with the people inside as you have control of their life support systems at the same time. No real need to fight inside the Colony, unless you need an extra level of control.

So, I agree with infantry being the viable solution. Unless you don't care about the Colony itself, whereoff one could just fire a few nukes at one spot and turn the whole Colony into a vacuum.

[Tasoth]

Aside from just blasting the orbital colonies out of the sky, a specops team being inserted with the most secrecy as can be mustered and then pumping a very potent and concentrated less-then lethal gas into the main air supply would work, there by incapacitating the populus. It'd be a bitch to do something like that, but you do it right and you can suppress the entire colony.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Now here is the main thing, Assuming that some shit hits the fan abord one or more of the Space Colonies, how do we deal with it using military force? Note that these colonies support large populations (into the millions each) so simply nuking the hell out of them if something happens is not an option in many scenarios, how does one launch assaults to take/retake Colonies?

Zor

Simply threatening to put a hole in a colony would usually be enough to bring it back into line. You don't need nukes when a mass-driver will punch a small, clean hole into whatever you need to put a hole in. Target the colony's solar arrays/microwave power reciever/whatnot. Threaten to shoot holes into those. They have to be un-armored and extremely exposed by their very nature. Let's see how long a colony can function without power.

Failing that, threaten to knock holes in their water/propellant storage/life-support/food storage/spacecraft docking facilities. This is sortof like putting the colony under siege, except the colony has to fix the holes you shoot in it, otherwise everybody suffocates.

If you're patient, you can threaten to bolt a rocket motor onto the station, or start pelting it with a series of low-velocity collisions which will alter its orbit, either casting it off into deep-space . . . or if it's already in solar orbit, drop it toward the Sun, where they will eventually cook, or further away from the Sun, where the colony's solar arrays will be less effective.

And if all else fails, fuck it, nuke them till they glow. There may be millions of people living in space, but there'll still be billions upon billions of people living on Earth. Plenty more where those came from, if you're sufficiently ruthless.

Basically a space colony is fucked ten ways from Sunday. Even if you add in some wank-tech, like energy shields, or you arm the colony with weapons . . . the colony can't actually avoid your fire if you kick those mass-driver rounds up fast enough, so even if the colony is defended, the situation will always grossly favor the aggressors.

[Zor]

Aside from just blasting the orbital colonies out of the sky, a specops team being inserted with the most secrecy as can be mustered and then pumping a very potent and concentrated less-then lethal gas into the main air supply would work, there by incapacitating the populus. It'd be a bitch to do something like that, but you do it right and you can suppress the entire colony.

Unfortunatly for most O'neill Cylinder type colonies that is not an option as the air is being recylced by the Plants inside the ship, especially on agricultural colonies.

Zor

[RedImperator]

If someone decides to take down a colony, it's going down. The hull will be thick enough to survive micrometeor impacts, and there will be a layer of some kind of hydrocarbon to absorb charged particle radiation, but that won't do dick against a nuclear weapon or a swarm of largish meteors flung directly at it at a high relative velocity.

As for armoring it, forget it. First of all, these things will be expensive enough without bolting on millions of tons of deadweight. Second, they're going to have huge skylights in order to let sunlight in, because it would be stupid and prohibitively expensive to light the interior of one with artificial light.

It goes without saying you can't move one out of the way.

As for capturing one, that's easy too. Knock a big hole in it. Everyone inside will have to take shelter, and you can send marines in space suits through the hole to secure the place. A local military to ward off invasion is pointless. The bad guys can turn off the air. If you attach rockets to the outside, you can turn off the gravity, too. No need to even bother trying to capture main engineering or the control center.

As for defending them with a space fleet, not a good option either. Your space colonies can't move. They're huge fragile targets in predictable orbits, and the bad guys can park as far away as they like and throw rocks until they break something. And that's assuming there aren't surface based missiles that can reach the habs from Earth. The fleet would have to be extremely aggressive in neutralizing threats, or have some first rate defenses to neutralize incoming fire--and the other side can always just throw bigger rocks.

In any kind of realistic setting, space habitats are completely defenseless. One imagines there would be treates in place to protect them and lay down a definition of what's legal and what's not when attacking them, and one side would be reluctant to attack another's colonies because then his own would be legitimate targets for retaliation. What would ultimately save the colonies is that they have no military value whatsoever. There's no point capturing them because they're huge defensive liabilities with no offensive capability. They control no chokepoints, and they won't be needed as docks or resupply points for warships because the warships will be designed to operate without depending on giant flying targets for safe harbor. Habitats will likely be net consumers of resources from Earth, or at best be self-sufficient and not supplying crucial material to Earth or anywhere else, and if they are, there will be redundant facilities in less vulnerable locations. And at any rate, the space elevator you need to economically get whatever the habitats produce to the ground will be cut in the opening hours of the fight.

[NoXion]

Give the colonies powerful shield generators to protect them and inertial dampeners so they can't simply be knocked out of orbit. Then give them guns. Lot and lots of guns.

This is of course if you don't care about them being halfway realistic ( I certainly don't). If realism is a factor, or if shield and inertial dampener technology doesn't exist, then I suggest you have the colonists strike first, strike fast, and concentrate all efforts at neutralising enemy space capability, with particular emphasis on their warships. Once you've neutralised all spaceborne resistance, you now have your enemies at the bottom of a gravity well. Not good for them.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Give the colonies powerful shield generators to protect them and inertial dampeners so they can't simply be knocked out of orbit. Then give them guns. Lot and lots of guns.

This is of course if you don't care about them being halfway realistic ( I certainly don't). If realism is a factor, or if shield and inertial dampener technology doesn't exist, then I suggest you have the colonists strike first, strike fast, and concentrate all efforts at neutralising enemy space capability, with particular emphasis on their warships. Once you've neutralised all spaceborne resistance, you now have your enemies at the bottom of a gravity well. Not good for them.

This still doesn't mitigate the fact that a space station is a target that just sits there. A patient enemy can simply lob kinetic-kill projectile after kinetic kill projectile, or nuke after nuke. Or even train lasers on a colony. Even one defended with wank-tech. It can't exactly get out of the way of enemy fire, and a colony with wank-tech will probably be shot at with equally wanked-out missiles from really, really far away.

[NoXion]

This still doesn't mitigate the fact that a space station is a target that just sits there. A patient enemy can simply lob kinetic-kill projectile after kinetic kill projectile, or nuke after nuke.

At least, until a friendly fleet comes along and kicks the enemy's ass. The point of defences is to buy time in order for help to come, and the colony's guns will also be wearing the enemy fleet down. The colony doesn't have to expend energy moving, so it has more to devote to the guns and shields.

It can't exactly get out of the way of enemy fire, and a colony with wank-tech will probably be shot at with equally wanked-out missiles from really, really far away.

That's why you include anti-missile weapons in the arsenal of the colony.

[RedImperator]

Give the colonies powerful shield generators to protect them and inertial dampeners so they can't simply be knocked out of orbit. Then give them guns. Lot and lots of guns.

Since this thread presumes we're discussing something within shouting distance of reality, we can dismiss this possibility right off the bat. This would get silly in a hurry anyway, because there's no rational basis for determining whether the attacker or defender has the advantage. In a later post, for example, you posit anti-missile defenses to ward of missile swarms, but that presumes the handwavium which allows intertial dampers and energy shields doesn't allow for missiles which are too fast and maneuverable to target with anti-missile defenses. You have no basis for making that assumption because there is no definition of what this imaginary technology can or can't do.

This is of course if you don't care about them being halfway realistic ( I certainly don't). If realism is a factor, or if shield and inertial dampener technology doesn't exist, then I suggest you have the colonists strike first, strike fast, and concentrate all efforts at neutralising enemy space capability, with particular emphasis on their warships. Once you've neutralised all spaceborne resistance, you now have your enemies at the bottom of a gravity well. Not good for them.

Unfortunately for this tactic, weapons will have limited ranges compared to ships (theoretically a missile's range is infinite, but practically once it's used up its maneuvering propellant, it can be avoided, shot down at leisure, or allowed to loop around in whatever eccentric orbit it ends up in until it crashes somewhere harmless), and ranges against unpredictably moving targets will be considerably shorter than those against predictably moving ones. The enemy can park his ships in the sweet spot where your odds of hitting him are remote but his odds of hitting you are good, and bombard you at will.

[NoXion]

This would get silly in a hurry anyway, because there's no rational basis for determining whether the attacker or defender has the advantage. In a later post, for example, you posit anti-missile defenses to ward of missile swarms, but that presumes the handwavium which allows intertial dampers and energy shields doesn't allow for missiles which are too fast and maneuverable to target with anti-missile defenses. You have no basis for making that assumption because there is no definition of what this imaginary technology can or can't do.

Inertial dampeners would be useless for missiles because they need to keep their inertia, not remove it. Shields might be useful on a missile but only to a limited degree because of their small size and consuequent small size, not to mention that a shield would be dead weight taking up room that could be taken up by a bigger warhead etc.

I don't see how it follows.

[NoXion]

Shields might be useful on a missile but only to a limited degree because of their small size and consuequent small size,

Shit, that should say "consequent limited power"

[Patrick Degan]

Siege warfare. None of these colonies will be entirely self-sufficient; supplies still have to come in. Cut off the supply flow, punch the odd hole or three through the shell, and it's a mere question of time. In that case, combat essentially boils down to space fleets either investing a colony or interdiction of the enemy force.

[RedImperator]

This would get silly in a hurry anyway, because there's no rational basis for determining whether the attacker or defender has the advantage. In a later post, for example, you posit anti-missile defenses to ward of missile swarms, but that presumes the handwavium which allows intertial dampers and energy shields doesn't allow for missiles which are too fast and maneuverable to target with anti-missile defenses. You have no basis for making that assumption because there is no definition of what this imaginary technology can or can't do.

Inertial dampeners would be useless for missiles because they need to keep their inertia, not remove it. Shields might be useful on a missile but only to a limited degree because of their small size and consuequent small size, not to mention that a shield would be dead weight taking up room that could be taken up by a bigger warhead etc.

I don't see how it follows.

You mean you can't figure out how a device which allows you to magically ignore inertia might be useful in a missile? In an environment where, under normal Newtonian rules, you have to expend propellant every time you want to change direction because there's no friction to counteract inertia?

And hey, what if this doodad which can take inertia away can also generate it from out of nowhere? It's no less scientifically ludicrous, after all. Maybe the missiles have a reverse intertial damper which instantly boosts them to 99% lightspeed.

Maybe they can add and subtract inertia at will, and the missiles can stop and go and make 90 degree turns at a hair's breadth below lightspeed or drift in slow and quiet and invisible until they're inside your reaction range and then leap to relativistic velocity instantly?

As for shields, if you can keep energy from coming in, you can keep it from going out. That includes visible light, infrared, radio signals from your guidance radars. And how about that, now the missiles have near-perfect stealth, even if the shields aren't that useful for stopping weapons fire.

Now do you see how pointless this game is? For every technology you invent out of whole cloth, I can devise an alternate use for it. And if you try to define the handwavium so that it always favors you, why would anybody else want to play?

[NoXion]

Now do you see how pointless this game is? For every technology you invent out of whole cloth, I can devise an alternate use for it. And if you try to define the handwavium so that it always favors you, why would anybody else want to play?

Because you're the author, and you get to decide what is and isn't scientifically possible in a given universe?

For instance, one could have it so that removing inertia is piss easy but adding it impossible. You don't have to describe the "science" behind it unless you want to bore your audience with technobabble, simply state what is and isn't possible.

Similiar deal with shields.

[Patrick Degan]

Now do you see how pointless this game is? For every technology you invent out of whole cloth, I can devise an alternate use for it. And if you try to define the handwavium so that it always favors you, why would anybody else want to play?

Because you're the author, and you get to decide what is and isn't scientifically possible in a given universe?

For instance, one could have it so that removing inertia is piss easy but adding it impossible. You don't have to describe the "science" behind it unless you want to bore your audience with technobabble, simply state what is and isn't possible.

Similiar deal with shields.

You're missing his point. Every technological application immediately implies its counter. Mechanical principles work both ways. And as I've had to remind some people on occasion, the only real challenge presented by the Flashy Toys is an engineering problem to be solved. Nothing more.

[Ender]

toss a box of ball bearing out the airlock. Holes will be small enough that you don't destroy the station, but a suficient number widespread enough that air will leak out. Civillians should be in the radiation storm cellars unless they are being used as human shields. In that case, just go for a siege. Starve them out.

[Patrick Degan]

toss a box of ball bearing out the airlock. Holes will be small enough that you don't destroy the station, but a suficient number widespread enough that air will leak out. Civillians should be in the radiation storm cellars unless they are being used as human shields. In that case, just go for a siege. Starve them out.

Another vote for siege warfare.

[RedImperator]

Now do you see how pointless this game is? For every technology you invent out of whole cloth, I can devise an alternate use for it. And if you try to define the handwavium so that it always favors you, why would anybody else want to play?

Because you're the author, and you get to decide what is and isn't scientifically possible in a given universe?

For instance, one could have it so that removing inertia is piss easy but adding it impossible. You don't have to describe the "science" behind it unless you want to bore your audience with technobabble, simply state what is and isn't possible.

Similiar deal with shields.

Yes, the author can arbitrarily define whatever limits he likes for his technology. However, we're not writing a book here, we're having a discussion, and in this context, you cannot arbitrarily define technological abilities however you like. I'm sure you can come up with a perfectly balanced mix of offensive and defensive capabilities that allow heavily armed space fortress habitats. I can too. I can also come up with a mix which causes space habitats to crumple like beer cans if the enemy looks at them funny. The point is, in this discussion, about the possible tactics in a war involving space habitats, you cannot whip up handwavium out of thin air and say "X will allow Y because I say so".

EDIT: And by the way, your limits on inertial dampers still allow me to accelerate a missile to near lightspeed for almost no energy expenditure. Inertia isn't just what keeps an object in motion in motion, it keeps an object at rest at rest. So now my skyscraper sized missile has the rest inertia of a grain of sand, requiring an insubstantial amount of propellant to accelerate. And it carries a technobabble energy warhead which will instantly destroy your space habitat without needing any kinetic energy.

[SWPIGWANG]

If it is "gloves on" warfare, the bigger question is the society and issues of politics. What is allowed is not fixed after all.

Though I should note that at that tech level, MAD is relatively easy....

[speaker-to-trolls]

I'd imagine space colony/earther warfare would usually take the form a cold war rather than a hot one, particularly if there are a lot of hostile colonies. As has been pointed out, a space habitat is incredibly fragile, Earth could essentially spit at it and bring it down. However, any terrestrial city the space colony decides to target is essentially sitting on the muzzle of a giant mass driver, provided the space station has a firing mechanism and a sufficiently large mass to fire out of it (an asteroid the size of a house eould cause as much damage as a reasonably sized nuke, if I recall correctly). Admittedly it would still be harder for the space station since it would need a larger mass than its enemy, but all it needs is a decently sized drone ship set on a collision course of New York and Earth is going to think twice about blasting it out of the sky.

[Winston Blake]

How the colony can win:

1. For god's sake, make it a 'closed' type without giant windows.

2. Call in any friendly warships available. This includes any you've got floating around nearby for this exact scenario.

3. Make normal-operations solar panels, comms, radiators, etc retractable into armoured housings. You might want to invest in some liquid-droplet radiators (the only kind that can be armoured, from Atomic Rocket).

4. Massive power generation. If you're over 30 km long and the enemy ship is, what, a few hundred metres long, then you can have a bunch of fusion reactors bigger than his entire ship.

5. Mount shitloads of defenses. You're not going anywhere, so mass penalties don't apply, and you've got plenty of space. Use your uber power generation to feed a point-defense system that would make Babylon 5 look like a monkey punching itself in the face.

6. Mount shitloads of weaponry. A balanced mix of powerful and accurate (i.e. long range) weapons. You want to turn that fierce warship into a dagger-wielding dwarf dancing in the distance as you silently stroke your sniper scope and sabre scabbard.

In other words, the colony has to be designed from the ground up (so to speak) to survive attacks. Such overengineering would be extremely costly, so it's likely that only a military installation could be expected to be at this level.