A Logic Question About the Future of (Space) Warfare

[McC]

Assuming we ever develop warships intended for space travel, is a Star Wars styling of things even probable? Are one-man fighters launched from capital ships crewed by thousands realistic, or is it more likely that automation, cyber-organic interface devices, and nanotechnology will advance to the point where a single person can control the complex subprocesses that make up a space vessel? Will the modern conception of carriers carry over from sea to space, or will we instead rely on much smaller robotic devices launched from equally smaller vessels, again controlled by a single (or maybe just a handful) of individuals?

Basically, what do you imagine the far-off future of space warfare looking like?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Cool as Star Wars is, I suspect that any space wars will be automated. Space is too hostile, and humans are energy hungry mass wasting resource hogs. That, after all, is why we have a horde of satellites but never more than 1 or 2 manned stations.

In my view, space wars will consist a a few bulky ships or stations with humans on board ( or less bulky ships with cyborgs or downloaded human minds ) controlling a swarm of much smaller, faster A.I driven weapons. Even if A.I. never equals human abilities, the nature of space travel ( and the economics of von-neumann machines ) means I can field hundreds or thousands of life-free warcraft for every manned craft the opposition has. "Quantity Has A Quality All It's Own".

[Zero]

Is there any actual reason that anybody would want to have a war in space? It would be costly, and I don't really see what would be gained by either side. Are there any practical benefits to battle in space that I'm missing?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Is there any actual reason that anybody would want to have a war in space? It would be costly, and I don't really see what would be gained by either side. Are there any practical benefits to battle in space that I'm missing?

Fights over resources, wars of conquest and ideological/theological disputes come to mind. Since when did people need a rational reason to fight ?

[Zero]

Is there any actual reason that anybody would want to have a war in space? It would be costly, and I don't really see what would be gained by either side. Are there any practical benefits to battle in space that I'm missing?

Fights over resources, wars of conquest and ideological/theological disputes come to mind. Since when did people need a rational reason to fight ?

People don't, but as you stated, most wars in space would be automated, so the only apparent loss here to either side would be the price of whatever automated thingy you put up in the sky to fight. If you didn't have one, would you lose any practical advantages over real resources? What resources exist in the void?

People don't need a rational reason to fight, but I see no reason at all that warfare will expand to space at all... it just doesn't make any bloody sense to me, but I'm almost sure I'm missing something.

[Lord of the Abyss]

People don't, but as you stated, most wars in space would be automated, so the only apparent loss here to either side would be the price of whatever automated thingy you put up in the sky to fight. If you didn't have one, would you lose any practical advantages over real resources? What resources exist in the void?

People don't need a rational reason to fight, but I see no reason at all that warfare will expand to space at all... it just doesn't make any bloody sense to me, but I'm almost sure I'm missing something.

Space is full of resources - untapped, unclaimed ones like asteroids.

As far as reasons - people don't get along. As soon as two groups have territorial claims in space, they will have something to fight over.

[McC]

Not to mention the fact that from orbit, it's a simple matter to annihilate any city you please. Excellent bombardment position.

But in any case, for the sake of discussion, take the "why are we fighting in space anyway?" question out of the picture. I'm curious about how such combat would take place, should the need exist.

[wolveraptor]

Suppose there's a colony on Ganymede that has seceded from Earth. Earth sends its war fleet over because Ganymede (and possibly the other Jovian colonies) will have a planetary defense system in place. If you can keep war off the ground, you keep it away from civillians and the infrastructure.

Of course any warships that contain humans won't have those spacious hallways that waste so much room, but rather a network of suction tubes that suck you from room to room. Of course, there would be some precautions necessary to prevent boarders from sabotaging the equipment, for example tossing a grenade down the chutes.

Or, if they have Treknowanktastic teleporters, that's good too.

[Zero]

Space is full of resources - untapped, unclaimed ones like asteroids.

As far as reasons - people don't get along. As soon as two groups have territorial claims in space, they will have something to fight over.

I do agree, people don't get along. We tend to kill each other off. As to the asteroid piece... it still doesn't make sense. You can't take something like an asteroid simply by occupying the space around it, so you'd really only want to be able to board the asteroid, and do the fighting once you've boarded. In this reguard, the furthest I can see space warfare as going is to the point where we can destroy any kind of turret defenses they may create near whatever entrance they have, but even these may not largely be necessary if the occupants of the asteroid have complete controll over the only entrance to the asteroid.

What other resources do you mean? I really am interested in the practicality of space warfare, but I've never really had a good chance to know what may/may not be possible/reasonable.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Of course any warships that contain humans won't have those spacious hallways that waste so much room, but rather a network of suction tubes that suck you from room to room. Of course, there would be some precautions necessary to prevent boarders from sabotaging the equipment, for example tossing a grenade down the chutes.

Telepresence would be even more efficient.

[Zero]

Suppose there's a colony on Ganymede that has seceded from Earth. Earth sends its war fleet over because Ganymede (and possibly the other Jovian colonies) will have a planetary defense system in place. If you can keep war off the ground, you keep it away from civillians and the infrastructure.

Of course any warships that contain humans won't have those spacious hallways that waste so much room, but rather a network of suction tubes that suck you from room to room. Of course, there would be some precautions necessary to prevent boarders from sabotaging the equipment, for example tossing a grenade down the chutes.

Or, if they have Treknowanktastic teleporters, that's good too.

Why would Ganymede have a defense system in place in outer space, where there's nothing and no one to protect in space, and massive expenses involved for it to actually cover a reasonable portion of the skies? You can't really defend a point in space because there's too many places that somebody can attack from... practically infinite. For something with as much surface area as a planet, or even a small moon, defense seems something that would either be REALLY FUCKIN EXPENSIVE, or more simply, impractical.

[Zero]

Not to mention the fact that from orbit, it's a simple matter to annihilate any city you please. Excellent bombardment position.

But in any case, for the sake of discussion, take the "why are we fighting in space anyway?" question out of the picture. I'm curious about how such combat would take place, should the need exist.

Sorry. Hadn't read this thread yet. I'll shut up now, or maybe start another topic if/when I choose to.

[Surlethe]

Assuming we ever develop warships intended for space travel, is a Star Wars styling of things even probable? Are one-man fighters launched from capital ships crewed by thousands realistic, or is it more likely that automation, cyber-organic interface devices, and nanotechnology will advance to the point where a single person can control the complex subprocesses that make up a space vessel? Will the modern conception of carriers carry over from sea to space, or will we instead rely on much smaller robotic devices launched from equally smaller vessels, again controlled by a single (or maybe just a handful) of individuals?

Basically, what do you imagine the far-off future of space warfare looking like?

How far off? A century? A thousand years? A million years?

In a century, we'll probably be just starting to expand into space with stations and possibly a base on the Moon (and maybe one on Mars); I would think we'd have satellites shooting each other and possibly assisting in ground combat with space-launched bombs and lasers for targeting (maybe).

In a millennia, we'll probably have expanded throughout the solar system, and will be fighting territorial wars over resources. Space combat will probably include:

a) Robotic/remote controlled starships (think pilots back on the mothership sitting in front of video game consoles)

b) Large carriers/capital ships (to concentrate firepower in one place, essentially to fulfill the same function as aircraft carriers), and the accompanying escorts.

c) I can see, weapons-wise, mass drivers, nuclear weapons, and industrial-strength lasers.

d) Lots of AI. Everywhere. Possibly even fighting our wars for us.

e) Perhaps no combat will take place on the field, but rather at a distance where reaction time losses balance safety.

In a million years, humans will probably have populated the galaxy with independent colonies, and possibly have harnessed the energy requirements to travel between starsystems through wormholes (if fickle GR allows); I therefore expect for us to be able to control exotic particles, and the only differences I see from a-e above are in terms of size and power, and possibly new weaponry involving space and time (hell, if we can make an interplanetary wormhole, what if we could open up a wormhole in the middle of our enemy's ship?

[Sea Skimmer]

One-man start fighters have always stuck me as being the most suicidal weapon ever, especially with anything like realistic technology. They'd just be sitting ducks, devoid of the advantages and situations that make them effective in an atmosphere

[Zero]

I would think that if there were ever going to be actual space warfare, it would have to consist primarily of offensive abilities. Attacking the enemy is possible, since you can search for your enemy, but defense when you can be attacked from literally all directions doesn't seem feasable. Because of this, I'd imagine cloaking technology would be quite important, but may be quite difficult considering the heat signature your propulsion systems would likely generate. Perhaps an artificial gravity engine would become something we would all want... if it's possible, it would probably be the most commonly used propulsion system. Heat cloaking technologies and perhaps a kind of chameleon thingy would be a good idea.

As for what kinds of new interesting thingies we'd make to kill enemies with... I don't got a goddamned clue.

[wolveraptor]

Why would Ganymede have a defense system in place in outer space, where there's nothing and no one to protect in space, and massive expenses involved for it to actually cover a reasonable portion of the skies?

I already addressed that. The point is to take them out before they reach the ground, where they can do a helluva lot more damage.

If Earth had the numerical superiority to spread all of their fleet such that ships would be approaching Ganymede from every direction, then the moon is fucked anyways. What's more likely is that a fleet of ships will try to land at one point on the moon's surface. So, Ganymede's own fleet will head them off, before they can land.

You can't really defend a point in space because there's too many places that somebody can attack from... practically infinite. For something with as much surface area as a planet, or even a small moon, defense seems something that would either be REALLY FUCKIN EXPENSIVE, or more simply, impractical.

Why would anyone need to defend the entire surface area of a planet? No body is going to approach the planet/moon from all directions at once. Especially when large portions of the planet/moon are uninhabited. Imagine an alien fleet attacking the South Pole. Gee, that'd hurt.

[/quote]

[Zero]

Why would anyone need to defend the entire surface area of a planet? No body is going to approach the planet/moon from all directions at once. Especially when large portions of the planet/moon are uninhabited. Imagine an alien fleet attacking the South Pole. Gee, that'd hurt.

Because even if the enemy won't approach from all directions, you can't be certain of which direction your enemy WILL approach from, and typically, even if you do spot your enemy before he can actually land, things can't get from place to place very quickly on the scale you'd be talking about if an enemy could attack from any arbitrary point in space, so you'd need people at the ready within enough space to actually deal with an incoming threat.

[Patrick Degan]

Capships and drones. One beam-weapon (maybe) and for the most part KI weapons and missiles on the capships. I don't see manned starfighters fitting into any remotely realistic space-combat scenario, and space warfare is more likely to be along the lines of submarine v. submarine duels. I also don't see mile-long battleships or anything carrying more than a crew of 75 ever being built. Actual wars might not materialise, but piracy might be a problem requiring military action.

[LadyTevar]

While it would be nice to think that we'd be using AIs and remote drones to do our fighting for us, I think it will be no different from the wars we hold today.

Why? Because Tech is expensive. You can outfit a helluva lotta soldiers for the price of some of the tech we have now.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Why? Because Tech is expensive. You can outfit a helluva lotta soldiers for the price of some of the tech we have now.

Except that sooner or later, some form of self-replicating machines will be built. Design them so they can build other things besides themselves, and our present industrial economy rules go out the airlock.

It'll be more like the internet; what costs are the rights to own a copy ( unless you steal it ). Even the raw materials won't cost much, since there are so many resources floating around out there; not to mention that future machines are likely to be made out of cheaper, more common elements like carbon. If the mining is automated, the price goes down even further.

Also, equipping one soldier will be far more expensive. He'll need a spacecraft, vac suit, and all sorts of stuff just to function.

[Exonerate]

While it would be nice to think that we'd be using AIs and remote drones to do our fighting for us, I think it will be no different from the wars we hold today.

Why? Because Tech is expensive. You can outfit a helluva lotta soldiers for the price of some of the tech we have now.

But training is expensive too. In fact, I believe that the current US Army prefers to lose equipment than personnel that they've spent years investing in. Same reason we use UAVs now - they can perform many roles ranging from assassination to recon without the need for a pilot on-board.

Why would anyone need to defend the entire surface area of a planet? No body is going to approach the planet/moon from all directions at once. Especially when large portions of the planet/moon are uninhabited. Imagine an alien fleet attacking the South Pole. Gee, that'd hurt.

Because you need to defend your population centers and industrial areas. Assuming that you're fighting an enemy determined to raze you to the ground, they only need to sneak a few ships past your defenses. Unless there's some way to counter large numbers of nukes, railguns, etc, you're in big trouble. Space is large - it's very, very hard to defend in 3 dimensions.

[Junghalli]

I've given some thought on this subject in my own SF universe, which I try to keep relatively hard SF, here's what I can give you.

Space warfare would most likely be sort of like a cross between submarine and air combat. Expect most battles to be fought over distances of at least hundreds of thousands of kilometers. Long range missiles (nuclear or kinetic) are the most plausible weapons. If you want to be a little more speculative you can go into things like particle beams. As in air combat the best defense will be to not get hit, so radar jamming will probably be used widely. After that hull armor may help, but really nothing realistic is going to save you from a missile going at thousands of km/sec and carrying a nuclear warhead if it hits you. Remember that in space you need to invest as much energy in slowing down as in speeding up. Battle manuevers will likely be intricate dances around local gravity wells and celestial bodies. Actually intercepting an enemy will be impossible, there will be no silly Trek Walls of Battle. The ships will fire from each other at long distance, and continue moving all the time as they do so.
The "feel" of the battle will be very much like submarine warfare. The enemy is just going to be blips on your radar screen, and most of the time your only warning when you get hit is when the ship disintegrates around you. Battles will probably happen at a fairly sedate pace taking into account the amount of time it would take to manuever at that distance and the time the missiles will take to cross the distance between the ships. Battles like the one in the opening scene of ROTS may look cool but they have very little in common with what a real space battle would probably look like.

As for starfighters like Luke's X-wing, in a space battle they would be flying coffins. The value of a fighter lies in its ability to transcend the two-dimensional nature of ground combat, something that any space battleship will do by default. Personal fighters would be nothing more than very tiny corvettes, and probably useless.
What they would be useful for is making surgical strikes against planetside installations. An orbiting spacecraft would be a lousy tactical weapon for many reasons (foremost the fact that its weapons will probably be so powerful they'll obliterate everything in the immediate region of what they hit, which is great for carpet bombing but not so good when you want to take out the army base but not the city right next to it). Then when the army lands the troops will need air support, and orbiting spacecraft are even lousier at that, for much the same reasons.
Look at the bombing of the Cardassian installation on Bajor in Steve's Anatomy of a War fanfic, it's a pretty good description of how small craft would probably be used in a space war. Of course, he also presents them as effective killers of capships, which is probably somewhat unrealistic, but he is writing within the Star Trek universe which has highly unrealistic space combat.

Is there any actual reason that anybody would want to have a war in space? It would be costly, and I don't really see what would be gained by either side. Are there any practical benefits to battle in space that I'm missing?

Let's say you want a planet that somebody else has already claimed and put a colony on.
The first logical thing to do is to send an army to take the planet over. But when the enemy sees your troop transports coming they'll shoot them out of the sky with things like ground based missiles and armed sattelites. So you'll want to have your troop transports escorted by armed spacecraft. And of course once you have your army landed you can use those spacecraft to keep the enemy from reinforcing the planet, for which he will probably want to send all the reinforcement and resupply convoys likewise escorted.

[Junghalli]

Ghetto edit. Something to remember when designing your space warships is that realistically (energy shields are not a realistic technology) given the probably high standards of future targeting systems and the destructiveness of the weaponry the effectiveness of a warship will likely lie primarily in how many times it can fire before it is itself targeted and destroyed. I would recommend giving it as many missile launchers as possible, and generally designing it to empty its missile load as quickly as possible.

[wolveraptor]

Because even if the enemy won't approach from all directions, you can't be certain of which direction your enemy WILL approach from, and typically, even if you do spot your enemy before he can actually land, things can't get from place to place very quickly on the scale you'd be talking about if an enemy could attack from any arbitrary point in space, so you'd need people at the ready within enough space to actually deal with an incoming threat.

Detection equipment would be able to tell us about the approaching fleet of 250 cruisers long before they enter the planet's atmosphere. You act as though the first warning people would have of an impending invasion is the flare of the entering ships. We can detect the movements of asteroids millions of miles away; we, therefore, can detect large fleets of ships.

[tharkûn]

Of course any warships that contain humans won't have those spacious hallways that waste so much room, but rather a network of suction tubes that suck you from room to room. Of course, there would be some precautions necessary to prevent boarders from sabotaging the equipment, for example tossing a grenade down the chutes.

Where in hell do you save space, mass, or ANYTHING by having this suction system? Getting a large enough pressure differential to actually suck a human being is going require quite hefty vacuum pumps and the system is shot utterly to hell once someone starts shooting very small holes into it. KISS. The is nothing wrong with us yeah good old legs or hand holds for most movement. If you really need to move quickly you just get a cart or have a conveyor belt drive the handholds.

Telepresence would be even more efficient.

Relativity bites waiting hours for your commmands to be input is going to be completely impractical without sufficiently advanced AI that you don't need telepresence. If you are close enough to be telepresent in real time, you most likely are close enough to be shot at by long range missiles or somesuch.

Most likely space combat is going to be a game of who can get off an accurate volley on the other guy first, so I'd expect the ships which actually go into combat will be as cheap of platforms (in terms of blood and treasure) as are practical. Things like divisibility of force, longer sensor baselines, etc. would drive down ship size.