Take the planet........

[harbringer]

Since there hasn't been any real discussion lately I am putting a scenario to the test

The trek and Imperium or republic (at the time of AOTC) have ambassadors held by a primative culture that sits on mineral wealth and has basic defenses, they have star fighter like ships with nuclear warhead missiles (think some of the similar defenses the us had against russian bomber fleets) and know the technology of their enemies, they hope to get for the release of the ambassador (who posses sensitive information including that the world is indeed extremely valuble) large amounts of technical information and examples of which, plus the materials to bootstrap production of war equipment. You have been told no BDZ as the planet (even if the ambassador isnt) is very valuble.


As a federation captain you have the enterprise or similar, other powers have the equivilant.

As Imperial you have a star destroyer with full compliment including ties and other equipment and an emperors hand (special agent for those not in the know)

As Republic you have two acclamators fully equiped and the presence of a jedi knight and padawan (you can choose any but I expect Obi Wan and Anakin)

You may not -

BDZ though strictly limited bombardment is fine
Use biological weapons (slaves/workers will be needed)
Transport anything other than limited numbers of people

The rebellious planet has a fully activated army including all fighters manned all personel considered essential in areas that prevent transporting. Armoured verhicles are considered equivilant to what is currently available with a regular army fully deployed. The Ambassadors are held on different sides of the planet and neither side may use diplomacy to combine resources with the other side (they BOTH REALLY WANT the planet)

[Batman]

Unless the planet has a ludicrously low population both parties are essentially screwed. You CAN'T forcefully affect the doings of an entire planetary population with the resources of a handful of starships without using excessive amounts of force.

[harbringer]

Thats why it is gunboat diplomacy use the force required to get the result and get the people to see they could be a lot worse off without you... in terms of brute force no you can't get them to go along. I was sort of hoping for something a little creative though

[Darth Tanner]

But other than turning a few large cities to ash and ruling by fear of orbital destruction there is no way either faction is going to be able to take control of the planet. The Feds have NO land troops to occupy the planet and the Star Destroyer only has around 10,000 land troops, which is barely enough to occupy a city. Not to mention the political reality that the Federation would not be willing to use force to actually occupy an entire planet.

Even with wiping out the top population centers and completely annihilating this planets ability to make war from orbit there is still going to be a need for massive occupation forces.

For the empire the only option is to wipe the planet clean and move in their own people & equipment to extract raw materials themselves.

The Feds have no hope in hell, although their probably better off extracting it by just beaming the stuff up without telling anyone or setting up their little covert spy/monitoring bases as long as this planet doesn't have the tech to discover them.

I don't see what use adding special force troops like Jedi or Hands is going to be for the objective of taking control of the planet, other than assassinating enemy leadership which is of limited real practical use. The only real objective the given forces could achieve is to land a strike force to rescue the captive ambassador but this achieves nothing towards the goal of taking the planet and from what you've said about the planets military capacity is going to be expensive in lives and equipment.

[Isolder74]

Are we forgetting about the Imperial Garrison base(s) and the AT-AT's on board. the Imps and their armor do have what they need for surgical strikes on the ground troops of the planet with their Tie Bombers.

one way to get what they want could be a commando raid to extract their ambasador. once he is out of danger they have all the time in the world to play army

[Bounty]

"Hay guys, it's the Federation captain here. Say, are you familiar with holoporn yet? No? Well, come up here for a test and if you like it, we'll trade a few hundred of these for oh...say...that ambassador you're holding."

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And because the Feds don't like bioweapons, they won't use 'em. Hell, maybe they'll do a Friendship One and send a probe with information on antimatter tech (if they don't already have it) and hope that the natives will cause the same sort off accident and wipe themselves out. Feds move in, offering medical aid to the few survivors and if they don't like it, well they don't have much choice (whether they try that depends how long quickly they want to take the planet).

Either ST or SW would probably extract the ambassador using a commando team, SW will probably use Delta Squad, being AOTC-era, I've no idea if ST have any named commando squads.

[CaptHawkeye]

The Elite Force perhaps. But they aren't canon.

[PeZook]

Wait - am I supposed to rescue the Ambassador, take the planet, or both?

Because, you know, this is both ridiculously easy. On the Imperial side:

1) Jump into orbit, destroy their anti-space defences. Demand the Ambassador get released, or horrible things will happen to their civilization. If they don't release the ambassador, attempt to bid for time or pull any other shit, destroy a major industrial center - like an oil refinery. If they still refuse, destroy a major population center. If they are stubborn, destroy their entire infrastructure and let them start starving to death.

Oh, make sure you broadcast on an open channel, so that the populace knows their government is stubbornly refusing to co-operate with a vastly superior oponent.

2) Demand complete surrender of their military assets. Landing forces are to seize any C&C centers, gather as much intel as possible, demolish the site and extract. Also, I seize their government/governments and make sure they are completely discredited. You know, drag their dirt out and do the whole propaganda schtick.

3) Wait for reinforcements while blockading the planet. Once reinforcement arrive, seize all major sites, industrial center, et al. Treat the population fairly well - no excesses, and this includes massacring entire villages in response to inevitable guerilla warfare. You have the ultimate high ground and mobility, so use it.

4) Complete take over.

If the Enterprise tries to interfere, demand they fuck off. If they don't feel inclined to do so - seize the ship or destroy it.

[Patrick Degan]

The planet in question doesn't have anything that could cope with either Acclimators or a stardestroyer. The Enterprise might be in for a fight from the planetary defence fighters but can hold out or easily escape.

Of the three powers, only the Empire has both the firepower and the ruthlessness to force a surrender from the planetary government by means of selective orbital bombardment. The Republic force has the firepower and strikeforce to extract the ambassadors and raid key strategic points if a follow-up invasion is going to be carried out, but lack the ruthlessness and manpower to achieve any larger goal. The Federationists may possibly extract the ambassadors, but certainly do not have the force to take the entire planet.

[PeZook]

Of the three powers, only the Empire has both the firepower and the ruthlessness to force a surrender from the planetary government by means of selective orbital bombardment. The Republic force has the firepower and strikeforce to extract the ambassadors and raid key strategic points if a follow-up invasion is going to be carried out, but lack the ruthlessness and manpower to achieve any larger goal. The Federationists may possibly extract the ambassadors, but certainly do not have the force to take the entire planet.

Democracies can be ruthless too, if the planet is important enough. Militarized Old Republic of the Clone Wars era certainly can do planetary invasions with all the carnage involved.

They would just try to limit civvie casualties a bit more than the Empie, so we'd see more propaganda. A LOT more propaganda.

Extracting the ambassadors would be extremely easy for the Republic. Just send your Jedi to negotiate for his release.

Results guaranteed

[Patrick Degan]

Democracies can be ruthless too, if the planet is important enough. Militarized Old Republic of the Clone Wars era certainly can do planetary invasions with all the carnage involved.

They would just try to limit civvie casualties a bit more than the Empie, so we'd see more propaganda. A LOT more propaganda.

Neither the stardestroyer nor the pair of Acclimators carry sufficient manpower or supplies to successfully prosecute the invasion and conquest of the entire planet. The difference is that the stardestroyer captain would go right for the orbital bombardment solution to force the planet's surrender, which is why they would succeed where the Republic would fail in achieving both objectives with the available forces in the OP.

[PeZook]

Neither the stardestroyer nor the pair of Acclimators carry sufficient manpower or supplies to successfully prosecute the invasion and conquest of the entire planet. The difference is that the stardestroyer captain would go right for the orbital bombardment solution to force the planet's surrender, which is why they would succeed where the Republic would fail in achieving both objectives with the available forces in the OP.

They'd just have to go smartly about it. I can easily see the Republic blasting the planet's infrastructure to bits piece by piece while broadcasting propaganda end engineering local uprisings against the planetary government. They have enough men to support any insurrection, and their Jedi operatives would come in quite handy. My plan would be to try and whip up popular outrage on the planetary government holding a foreign ambassador hostage. Play it up like this:

"We are a huge interstellar nation and want nothing more than to live in peace. Yet, your government has imprisoned our ambassador and is demanding a ransom for his release! You see, we are a reasonable people, but if your government won't release our ambassador, we will be forced to declare war, and there is nothing you can do to stop us. Do you want war with us? Why should we wage war, when we can live in peace?"

If done right, the public should demand they release the ambassador to you. If they don't, you have an excuse to start blasting their military bases and factories. Soon, industrial goods will start to run out, and when the populace sees they really can't win, and the government will still refuse to yield to your demands, you'll get a popular insurrection quickly. Just support it with clonetroopers, weapons and orbital strikes, and then set up a puppet government using existing structures.

As before, the Feds get told to fuck off and keep their hands off the planet.

[Patrick Degan]

Neither the stardestroyer nor the pair of Acclimators carry sufficient manpower or supplies to successfully prosecute the invasion and conquest of the entire planet. The difference is that the stardestroyer captain would go right for the orbital bombardment solution to force the planet's surrender, which is why they would succeed where the Republic would fail in achieving both objectives with the available forces in the OP.

They'd just have to go smartly about it. I can easily see the Republic blasting the planet's infrastructure to bits piece by piece while broadcasting propaganda end engineering local uprisings against the planetary government. They have enough men to support any insurrection, and their Jedi operatives would come in quite handy. My plan would be to try and whip up popular outrage on the planetary government holding a foreign ambassador hostage. Play it up like this:

"We are a huge interstellar nation and want nothing more than to live in peace. Yet, your government has imprisoned our ambassador and is demanding a ransom for his release! You see, we are a reasonable people, but if your government won't release our ambassador, we will be forced to declare war, and there is nothing you can do to stop us. Do you want war with us? Why should we wage war, when we can live in peace?"

If done right, the public should demand they release the ambassador to you. If they don't, you have an excuse to start blasting their military bases and factories. Soon, industrial goods will start to run out, and when the populace sees they really can't win, and the government will still refuse to yield to your demands, you'll get a popular insurrection quickly. Just support it with clonetroopers, weapons and orbital strikes, and then set up a puppet government using existing structures.

As before, the Feds get told to fuck off and keep their hands off the planet.

The problem with your suggestion is that the two ambassadors would be dead long before the Republic forces would have affected sufficient destruction to allow their relatively small force to prevail against the combined military forces of the planet or convince the government to negotiate for terms.

Whereas the Imperial captain would simply state that until the Empire's two ambassadors are released and the planetary government surrenders their world, a city an hour would be destroyed; punctuating the point by hitting the first target the second the captain closes communication.

[Patrick Degan]

The other problem with the suggested approach is that until actual destruction is applied, the Republic commander's communique would be regarded as nothing more than empty rhetoric. It would demonstrate nothing, and as is the case in drama, it's far better to show, not tell. The same principle applies in war.

[PeZook]

The other problem with the suggested approach is that until actual destruction is applied, the Republic commander's communique would be regarded as nothing more than empty rhetoric. It would demonstrate nothing, and as is the case in drama, it's far better to show, not tell. The same principle applies in war.

Then make a big show out of demanding to release the ambassador in 24 hours, and then blasting their military to bits from orbit when the stupid fucks refuse. It would require a commander who can manipulate public opinion well.

And why would the ambassador be dead? If the planetary government is even halfway rational, they will cling to their only trump card as much as possible. If they're loony dictatoriships, on the other hand (as they probably are, seeing that kidnapping these ambassadors was the stupidest idea ever), then modify the plan and hit the location he's being held in with commandos, and then support an insurrection (because there's bound to be one in this case).

As I wrote, it would simply take a commander with a different set of skills. The ISD can do it far easier, of course, but that level of ruthlesness is not required, per se.

[Patrick Degan]

The other problem with the suggested approach is that until actual destruction is applied, the Republic commander's communique would be regarded as nothing more than empty rhetoric. It would demonstrate nothing, and as is the case in drama, it's far better to show, not tell. The same principle applies in war.

Then make a big show out of demanding to release the ambassador in 24 hours, and then blasting their military to bits from orbit when the stupid fucks refuse. It would require a commander who can manipulate public opinion well.

Unfortunately, you win wars by conquering the people more so than destroying armies, and decidedly more so than taking land or cities. We blasted the Iraqi military to bits in two wars but unfortunately did not convince the Iraqis that we're God as far as they're concerned. The present insurgency is the price we're paying as a result.

And why would the ambassador be dead? If the planetary government is even halfway rational, they will cling to their only trump card as much as possible. If they're loony dictatoriships, on the other hand (as they probably are, seeing that kidnapping these ambassadors was the stupidest idea ever), then modify the plan and hit the location he's being held in with commandos, and then support an insurrection (because there's bound to be one in this case).

There won't be time before the ambassadors are killed either by government soldiers or by incidental fire in trying to extract them. Hostages lose their value if it becomes clear that the other side is not going to bargain and instead is attacking in force. By contrast, in the Imperial situation, it would become very rapidly clear that live hostages are the only things keeping their entire society from being annihilated. Which is why the Imperials have the advantage in this situation.

And what motivates an insurrection? Revolutions aren't spontaneous affairs but the result of sociopolitical pressures building up over time. Trying to make one from the ground up? How many years does the Republic have to see their effort bear fruit?

[PeZook]

Unfortunately, you win wars by conquering the people more so than destroying armies, and decidedly more so than taking land or cities. We blasted the Iraqi military to bits in two wars but unfortunately did not convince the Iraqis that we're God as far as they're concerned. The present insurgency is the price we're paying as a result.

You blasted the iraqi army to bits and fucked up the aftermath. Furthermore, the difference between the Iraqis and the US is an order of magnitude less than what we're seeing here.
Plus, there's the whole religious angle and the retarded idea to bring democracy to Iraq.
In this case, blast the military bases, decapitate the government, and then have the new one keep peace with what resources they have left. No democratic elections, no disbanding the police and army and other admin structures.

It's not guaranteed to work, if only because the Imperial solution is so much simpler, but it can be done with enough perseverence, skill and time.

There won't be time before the ambassadors are killed either by government soldiers or by incidental fire in trying to extract them. Hostages lose their value if it becomes clear that the other side is not going to bargain and instead is attacking in force. By contrast, in the Imperial situation, it would become very rapidly clear that live hostages are the only things keeping their entire society from being annihilated. Which is why the Imperials have the advantage in this situation.

Typically, when hostages loose their value, they are released, rather than killed - that is, if the hostage-taker is even remotely rational. Killing them provokes retaliation, after all, and in this case it has the potential to be an exceptionally bloody retaliation. I will concede that if the hostage-takers are psychotic and unstable, the Republic may loose the ambassador - but so may the Empire.

And what motivates an insurrection? Revolutions aren't spontaneous affairs but the result of sociopolitical pressures building up over time. Trying to make one from the ground up? How many years does the Republic have to see their effort bear fruit?

If you have a psychotic dictatorship like this one, you are almost guaranteed to find a group that would love to overthrow the current government, but lack the manpower, weapons and/or organization to actually do anything. You have two Acclamators full of clones and weapons, and a pair of Jedi to organize things on the ground. Of course, I'm not denying it would take a long time to actually stabilize the planet enough for it to bear fruit, since a puppet government would still need to secure it's power.

How about decapitating the planetary government with your Jedi and then simply replacing it? It occured to me that in a dictatorship, it may just be enough. After all, you're after the planet's mineral wealth, not it's people. If they mine for you, why should the Republic bother how they are governed?

[Master_Baerne]

The Republic force has the firepower and strikeforce to extract the ambassadors and raid key strategic points if a follow-up invasion is going to be carried out, but lack the ruthlessness and manpower to achieve any larger goal. .

I have to disagree with the last bit. While the Republic is not utterly heratless, they have all the manpower they need. The GAR managed to fight a pan-galactic war against battle droids that are churned out by the millions each day. Manpower is not an issue for any galactic goverment, at least for the scale of battle we're talking about.

[PeZook]

I have to disagree with the last bit. While the Republic is not utterly heratless, they have all the manpower they need. The GAR managed to fight a pan-galactic war against battle droids that are churned out by the millions each day. Manpower is not an issue for any galactic goverment, at least for the scale of battle we're talking about.

I was referring to lack of manpower in this scenario. It's pretty obvious the Republic could easily invade and take the planet if they put their hearts into it, but your task force as specified in the OP couldn't.

[Master_Baerne]

Sorry. My mistake, you're perfectly correct.

[Patrick Degan]

Unfortunately, you win wars by conquering the people more so than destroying armies, and decidedly more so than taking land or cities. We blasted the Iraqi military to bits in two wars but unfortunately did not convince the Iraqis that we're God as far as they're concerned. The present insurgency is the price we're paying as a result.

You blasted the iraqi army to bits and fucked up the aftermath. Furthermore, the difference between the Iraqis and the US is an order of magnitude less than what we're seeing here.
Plus, there's the whole religious angle and the retarded idea to bring democracy to Iraq.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "analogy"? The principle is the same whether the scales are the same or not.

In this case, blast the military bases, decapitate the government, and then have the new one keep peace with what resources they have left. No democratic elections, no disbanding the police and army and other admin structures.

And how do you accomplish all this without a large enough occupation force to enforce the Republic's edicts, or having totally demoralised the population beforehand?

It's not guaranteed to work, if only because the Imperial solution is so much simpler, but it can be done with enough perseverence, skill and time.

Again, how does the Republic force maintain control over a population which vastly outnumbers it unless they're actually going to go ahead and start blasting cities from orbit? With any invasion, time is against the attacker unless he's able to bring overwhelming force to the battlefield and keep pouring it in until the enemy is broken.

There won't be time before the ambassadors are killed either by government soldiers or by incidental fire in trying to extract them. Hostages lose their value if it becomes clear that the other side is not going to bargain and instead is attacking in force. By contrast, in the Imperial situation, it would become very rapidly clear that live hostages are the only things keeping their entire society from being annihilated. Which is why the Imperials have the advantage in this situation.

Typically, when hostages loose their value, they are released, rather than killed - that is, if the hostage-taker is even remotely rational. Killing them provokes retaliation, after all, and in this case it has the potential to be an exceptionally bloody retaliation. I will concede that if the hostage-takers are psychotic and unstable, the Republic may loose the ambassador - but so may the Empire.

I think there's a handful of Russian parents who might have a word with you on that one. And this is still assuming that the Republic is able to justify a full-scale war over the lives of two ambassadors in the first place; a question which has been left unanswered so far in this thread.

And as for the Empire, the lives of their ambassadors would not be what drives them to conquer a resource-rich planet, since they're not going to bother with looking for a legal pretext for war. It's just one more detail with which to threaten the natives.

And what motivates an insurrection? Revolutions aren't spontaneous affairs but the result of sociopolitical pressures building up over time. Trying to make one from the ground up? How many years does the Republic have to see their effort bear fruit?

If you have a psychotic dictatorship like this one, you are almost guaranteed to find a group that would love to overthrow the current government, but lack the manpower, weapons and/or organization to actually do anything. You have two Acclamators full of clones and weapons, and a pair of Jedi to organize things on the ground. Of course, I'm not denying it would take a long time to actually stabilize the planet enough for it to bear fruit, since a puppet government would still need to secure it's power.

By that logic, there should be a revolutionary movement active in North Korea right now, but there isn't. There should have been one against Pol Pot in Cambodia, but there wasn't. There should have been one in China against Mao during the Cultural Revolution, but there wasn't. As George Orwell phrased it, the masses never revolt of their own accord, and not simply because they are oppressed. And I will remind you that the full troop complement of the two Republic ships still is vastly outnumbered by the planetary army.

How about decapitating the planetary government with your Jedi and then simply replacing it? It occured to me that in a dictatorship, it may just be enough. After all, you're after the planet's mineral wealth, not it's people. If they mine for you, why should the Republic bother how they are governed?

Decaptiating the government is the absolute worst move that you could make, since there would then be no authority to tell the military to stand down. Sort of why we didn't annihilate the Japanese government in World War II with either atomic bomb and never intended to.

[PeZook]

You blasted the iraqi army to bits and fucked up the aftermath. Furthermore, the difference between the Iraqis and the US is an order of magnitude less than what we're seeing here.
Plus, there's the whole religious angle and the retarded idea to bring democracy to Iraq.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "analogy"? The principle is the same whether the scales are the same or not.

But difference in capability

And how do you accomplish all this without a large enough occupation force to enforce the Republic's edicts, or having totally demoralised the population beforehand?

By putting an ambitious general from the ruling caste into power instead of the current government and having him enforce peace with what's left of his army. You don't need to torch all of it, just starfighter bases and perhaps armored units and their machine shops. I'm not even sure that destroying the military would be necessary to enact this kind of regime change, but it would be useful to blast their starfighter forces at least, so that your new buddy doesn't get any strange ideas.

Again, how does the Republic force maintain control over a population which vastly outnumbers it unless they're actually going to go ahead and start blasting cities from orbit? With any invasion, time is against the attacker unless he's able to bring overwhelming force to the battlefield and keep pouring it in until the enemy is broken.

But the goal here is to secure the mineral wealth of the planet, which doesn't require anything else than having a co-operative dictator in place. There is a question if you can find the right dictator, of course, but he will keep the peace using the exact same thing the former government did - his army. Rebelling units can be torched from orbit.

I think there's a handful of Russian parents who might have a word with you on that one.

In Bieslan, the school was rigged with explosives which were detonated during the raid by russian forces - most likely, it was an accidental detonation. The hostages were still valuable when that raid started.

In nearly all hostage rescue situations, hostage-takers try to deal with attacking commandoes instead of immediately killing the hostages, because once hostages are dead, the attackers can pretty much level the building (or planet, in this case). Hostages die due to crossfire, detonations, etc. - cases when they are hosed by terrorists the moment something funny starts happening are almost nonexistent.

And this is still assuming that the Republic is able to justify a full-scale war over the lives of two ambassadors in the first place; a question which has been left unanswered so far in this thread.

They're not, since they only sent two Acclamators. I'm not advocating an invasion with those, because I know full well it would be suicide. Their objectives are to get their ambassadors back and gain access to mineral wealth of the planet.

And as for the Empire, the lives of their ambassadors would not be what drives them to conquer a resource-rich planet, since they're not going to bother with looking for a legal pretext for war. It's just one more detail with which to threaten the natives.

Agreed.

By that logic, there should be a revolutionary movement active in North Korea right now, but there isn't. There should have been one against Pol Pot in Cambodia, but there wasn't. There should have been one in China against Mao during the Cultural Revolution, but there wasn't.

I'm not talking about the masses, I'm talking about people trying to take over. It may be a clique of generals wanting a piece of the pie, it may be the dictator's second-in-command, any number of things. Pol-Pot was overthrown by his own comrades, and it's likely that North Korea is not actually ruled by Kim Dong Il, but by his generals who command the army and thus have the real power.

And in this situation, you have two orbiting starships full of resources and a pair of Jedi you can use to put someone like this in power instead of the currently ruling cabinet/psycho dictator. The difficulty would of course depend on the exact way the planet is run.

Decaptiating the government is the absolute worst move that you could make, since there would then be no authority to tell the military to stand down. Sort of why we didn't annihilate the Japanese government in World War II with either atomic bomb and never intended to.

The US during WWII didn't really have a capability to replace the honchos of Imperial government with someone more partial to the US, but did did regime change on other countries without having to occupy them. I suppose, again, that is depends heavily on how exactly the planet is governed.

[PeZook]

Shit, didn't preview good enough:

You blasted the iraqi army to bits and fucked up the aftermath. Furthermore, the difference between the Iraqis and the US is an order of magnitude less than what we're seeing here.
Plus, there's the whole religious angle and the retarded idea to bring democracy to Iraq.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "analogy"? The principle is the same whether the scales are the same or not.

But difference in capability matters in that you can blow up an Abrams and kill american soldiers, but you can't really oppose orbiting starships able to simply wipe out any significant concentration of forces. Add to this the fact the Republic won't be dismantling the planetary government and trying to rebuild it, but rather use existing resources after perhaps blasting military units not necessary for keeping peace planetside, like armor and starfighters. I don't have a doubt civil war may erupt, but it will be fought by the natives with Republic support, not the other way around.

[Patrick Degan]

You blasted the iraqi army to bits and fucked up the aftermath. Furthermore, the difference between the Iraqis and the US is an order of magnitude less than what we're seeing here.
Plus, there's the whole religious angle and the retarded idea to bring democracy to Iraq.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "analogy"? The principle is the same whether the scales are the same or not.

But difference in capability matters in that you can blow up an Abrams and kill american soldiers, but you can't really oppose orbiting starships able to simply wipe out any significant concentration of forces. Add to this the fact the Republic won't be dismantling the planetary government and trying to rebuild it, but rather use existing resources after perhaps blasting military units not necessary for keeping peace planetside, like armor and starfighters. I don't have a doubt civil war may erupt, but it will be fought by the natives with Republic support, not the other way around.

Theoretically, the Iraqis can't oppose a nuclear-armed superpower able to blast every one of their cities off the map within a half-hour. The problem is that unless you are actually willing to do that, there is no way you can convince the population that resistance is futile. And you seem to be contradicting yourself about not dismantling the planetary government when you'd earlier spoke of decapitating it. And just why would the natives welcome a foreign invader in the first place? Another blithe assumption you leap to in order to make your scenario work which lacks logical supports.

And how do you accomplish all this without a large enough occupation force to enforce the Republic's edicts, or having totally demoralised the population beforehand?

By putting an ambitious general from the ruling caste into power instead of the current government and having him enforce peace with what's left of his army. You don't need to torch all of it, just starfighter bases and perhaps armored units and their machine shops. I'm not even sure that destroying the military would be necessary to enact this kind of regime change, but it would be useful to blast their starfighter forces at least, so that your new buddy doesn't get any strange ideas.

Careful, those same assumptions are what led the United States into its current misadventure in Iraq and the Soviets into their misadventure in Afganistan. We can see how those actually worked out, however. You also assume that the starfighters will remain nicely bunched together in a few convenient locations to be blasted in a shock-and-awe strike.

Again, how does the Republic force maintain control over a population which vastly outnumbers it unless they're actually going to go ahead and start blasting cities from orbit? With any invasion, time is against the attacker unless he's able to bring overwhelming force to the battlefield and keep pouring it in until the enemy is broken.

But the goal here is to secure the mineral wealth of the planet, which doesn't require anything else than having a co-operative dictator in place. There is a question if you can find the right dictator, of course, but he will keep the peace using the exact same thing the former government did - his army. Rebelling units can be torched from orbit.

What prevents a rebellion against a puppet dictator imposed by a foreign power? What ensures that the military will automatically shift allegiance to the new regime? And how does the Republic justify before its senate and the people back home a war which was carried out against a world which presented no threat to it and for which no justification exists other than two ambassadors being held hostage? I will remind you that 53 hostages were not enough to move the United States into declaring war on Iran back in 1979 and two hostages would be far less justification for anything on the scale of an actual war of conquest, which is what the effort would have to become.

I think there's a handful of Russian parents who might have a word with you on that one.

In Bieslan, the school was rigged with explosives which were detonated during the raid by russian forces - most likely, it was an accidental detonation. The hostages were still valuable when that raid started.

In nearly all hostage rescue situations, hostage-takers try to deal with attacking commandoes instead of immediately killing the hostages, because once hostages are dead, the attackers can pretty much level the building (or planet, in this case). Hostages die due to crossfire, detonations, etc. - cases when they are hosed by terrorists the moment something funny starts happening are almost nonexistent.

Granted that the truth of Beslan remains murky. The fact remains that the terrorists had rigged the building with explosives and were perfecty prepared to start killing hostages and may have done so when the battle broke out. More relevant examples would be Black September, the Palestinian group which did murder 11 Israeli members of their Olympic team in Munich, 1972; the Ma'alot hostage massacre carried out by the DFLP in 1973; the Khartoum Embassay incident of 1973 also carried out by Black September. Which is why, in addition to the danger from crossfire, most hostage incidents are resolved through negotiation rather than armed force. It should also be kept in mind that hostages are likely to be killed if the hostage-takers perceive they've got no way out and nothing to lose.

And this is still assuming that the Republic is able to justify a full-scale war over the lives of two ambassadors in the first place; a question which has been left unanswered so far in this thread.

They're not, since they only sent two Acclamators. I'm not advocating an invasion with those, because I know full well it would be suicide. Their objectives are to get their ambassadors back and gain access to mineral wealth of the planet.

The problem is that the military force the Republic is bringing to the situation is insufficient to achieve the former and far too large and unwieldy to achieve the latter. They can get the hostages with a pair of Jedi and a small commando unit, maybe. They're not going to conquer the planet. Unless of course they're willing to adopt strategies which the Empire wouldn't blink an eye about implementing. Like orbital bombardment.

By that logic, there should be a revolutionary movement active in North Korea right now, but there isn't. There should have been one against Pol Pot in Cambodia, but there wasn't. There should have been one in China against Mao during the Cultural Revolution, but there wasn't.

I'm not talking about the masses, I'm talking about people trying to take over. It may be a clique of generals wanting a piece of the pie, it may be the dictator's second-in-command, any number of things. Pol-Pot was overthrown by his own comrades, and it's likely that North Korea is not actually ruled by Kim Dong Il, but by his generals who command the army and thus have the real power.

The problem is that the new regime is no more likely to become partners with a foreign force anymore than the old one. And if they're already inclined to overthrow the government and have made their preparations to do so, they don't need outside help in the first place as they've already got the forces and weaponry to achive that aim.

And in this situation, you have two orbiting starships full of resources and a pair of Jedi you can use to put someone like this in power instead of the currently ruling cabinet/psycho dictator. The difficulty would of course depend on the exact way the planet is run.

See above.

Decaptiating the government is the absolute worst move that you could make, since there would then be no authority to tell the military to stand down. Sort of why we didn't annihilate the Japanese government in World War II with either atomic bomb and never intended to.

The US during WWII didn't really have a capability to replace the honchos of Imperial government with someone more partial to the US, but did did regime change on other countries without having to occupy them. I suppose, again, that is depends heavily on how exactly the planet is governed.

No, the United States didn't do so because the only people who had the authority to actually tell the military to surrender were the Imperial government. The other people were of the "fight to the death" camp. And the Americans' experiments with regime change have not proven to be long-term successes. A few in fact have been quite disasterous failures.