Take the planet........

[PeZook]

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.

Things is, the Iraqis can always attack America unless they completely close their borders and build walls around their country, while rebels planetside will literally have no hope of doing anything against the Republic.

And you seem to be contradicting yourself about not dismantling the planetary government when you'd earlier spoke of decapitating it.

I spoke of decapitating it without dismantling the administration, police, army, etc. so that you can replace the head with someone more willing to cooperate. This is what I mean by "decapitate the government"

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.

Why would the natives have a say in things? You just need an ambitious dictator who will release your ambassadors and give access to the planet's mineral wealth. In exchange, he gets Republic support in the form of orbital battle platforms, and later maybe even weapon shipments.

The worst thing that can happen is a civil war which your dictator loose. It still has a higher chance of success than trying to occupy the planet with two Acclamators, and much higher than doing nothing.

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.

The best thing here is that the Republic isn't actually risking it's own troops, but the natives. I grant you that there is always a chance of this regime change idea failing, but an invasion with such pitiful forces is guaranteed to fail and cost a lot of precious clonetroopers.
If you want to carry out your orders as task group commander, this is the only way you have at least a modest chance of achieving your objectives.

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.

I suppose they may be dispersed around civilian bases and field landing sites, but they still can't actually muster a defence with those. To counter this, the Republic may destroy civilian airports as well as military ones, and splash any fighters that try to take off from field sites. I will grant you that if their fighters are dispersed, it won't have quite the same effect as annihilating their force in one strike.

What prevents a rebellion against a puppet dictator imposed by a foreign power?

Nothing, except security institutions already in place. The whole plan is a gamble, and I never said it was guaranteed to work - it depends on choosing the right man, for example.

What ensures that the military will automatically shift allegiance to the new regime?

The military is not a problem, because any unit that tries to take action against the new dictator will be blasted from orbit or by a force of LAATs.

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?

Well, they already sent two Acclamators and ordered their commander to get the ambassadors back and secure access to the planet's mineral wealth. The ROE also doesn't ban the commander from using force.

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.

Yes, if the new puppet dictator fails to actually secure his newfound kingdom, the Republic would have no other choice but to mount a full-scale invasion. But what other approach would your propose for the task group commander, who has to carry out his orders to the best of his ability?

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

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.

Yes, all of this is true. However, in all cases the hostage takers were:
1) Non-national entities, and
2) Backed into a corner by an armed assault, with absolutely nothing to lose

Hostages held by nation-states (even the loonier ones) are much more likely to be released when they loose their worth, because unlike a terrorist organization, a nation-state is a clear target for the other nation's military. Iranian hostages were released, American citizens in the embassy in Cambodia were allowed to evacuate, etc.

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.

This is true, which is why a commando raid to get the ambassadors back would be a last resort.

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.

They don't actually need to conquer tha planet! The Republic wants the planet's minerals (let's call the "space oil"), not it's territory or people. If they were unwilling to actually commit a larger force to do this, the only remotely plausible idea to secure space oil is to try and make the planet cooperative. If negotiations can do this, cool. If not, your only option is to replace the government/dictator with someone more partial to you, or use Imperial approach which will probably get you court-martialled on the spot. I suppose it all depends on exactly how valuable space oil is, and if your superiors are willing to risk a PR nightmare and generating a potential future enemy. I'd first send a report with my idea and see if they give me a go-ahead.

The problem is that the new regime is no more likely to become partners with a foreign force anymore than the old one.

Well, his complete cooperation is impossible to secure, and he'll probaby be plotting behind the Republic's back all the time. Then again, if the Republic treats him fairly, he may lay low and govern his new fiefdom. This and a possible rebellion against him are the two biggest uncertainties in the entire scheme.

Of course, you can always threaten to send your Jedi to get him if he misbehaves.

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.

Orbital fire support can make the following civil war pretty short, however, or at least give a tremendous advantage to the conspirators. This is pretty big point the Republic can make. It again depends on the exact nature of the tensions.

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.

Yes, exactly. There was no-one who could be put in the position of necessary authority (so that he'd be able to surrender the Army) and who would at the same time be of the "we should surrender" camp. Basically, you'd have to replace the whole general staff and all higher officers. So if the planet's political situation is similar, you may forget about my proposal, I agree.

And the Americans' experiments with regime change have not proven to be long-term successes. A few in fact have been quite disasterous failures.

Others turned out OK from the perspective of American goals and interests at the time, so it's possible to do, even if the probability of success is not very high.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Things is, the Iraqis can always attack America unless they completely close their borders and build walls around their country, while rebels planetside will literally have no hope of doing anything against the Republic.

And just what can the Iraqis attack America with? Their non-existent air force? Their equally non-existent navy? Their also non-existent strategic rocket forces? The Iraqis have no hope of doing anything against America just as the planet in question has no hope of attacking the Republic. Their population, however, can resist an occupation force on their own home ground.

I spoke of decapitating it without dismantling the administration, police, army, etc. so that you can replace the head with someone more willing to cooperate. This is what I mean by "decapitate the government"

No, to decapitate a government means literally to annihilate its leadership, not simply to replace them. Evidently you do not understand just what the term actually means. And you don't even get that opportunity to replace the existing government unless you force a formal surrender. Otherwise, you've set up nothing more than a puppet regime which needs a screen of foreign tanks to protect it from the population it's been imposed on. To imagine that it will work out otherwise is nothing more than wishful thinking which has no basis in reality, as the examples of Iraq and Afganistan are bearing out.

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.

Why would the natives have a say in things? You just need an ambitious dictator who will release your ambassadors and give access to the planet's mineral wealth. In exchange, he gets Republic support in the form of orbital battle platforms, and later maybe even weapon shipments. The worst thing that can happen is a civil war which your dictator loose. It still has a higher chance of success than trying to occupy the planet with two Acclamators, and much higher than doing nothing.

Ah, raw colonialism. You do realise that this proved a failed experiment in reality, don't you? Not only did the expense of colonies never balance out with the return, the natives were always an endless source of trouble for the colonial establishments. But I forget, you seem to be indulging wishful thinking here.

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.

The best thing here is that the Republic isn't actually risking it's own troops, but the natives. I grant you that there is always a chance of this regime change idea failing, but an invasion with such pitiful forces is guaranteed to fail and cost a lot of precious clonetroopers.
If you want to carry out your orders as task group commander, this is the only way you have at least a modest chance of achieving your objectives.

I will ask the questions again, since you seem determined to ignore them: what guarantees that either a new dictator will prove so pliable to outside control? What guarantees that the planet's military will cooperate? What guarantees that there will not be a revolt against the new regime? And how does the Republic keep its puppet on the throne without either a large occupation force to back him up or by blasting cities wholesale to cow the natives into submission?

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.

I suppose they may be dispersed around civilian bases and field landing sites, but they still can't actually muster a defence with those. To counter this, the Republic may destroy civilian airports as well as military ones, and splash any fighters that try to take off from field sites. I will grant you that if their fighters are dispersed, it won't have quite the same effect as annihilating their force in one strike.

Ah, so the Republic commander will decide to attack civilian targets after all. Exactly what evidence can you bring to the table here to indicate this level of ruthlessness on the part of Republic military officers? You seem to be confusing them with the Imperials.

What prevents a rebellion against a puppet dictator imposed by a foreign power?

Nothing, except security institutions already in place. The whole plan is a gamble, and I never said it was guaranteed to work - it depends on choosing the right man, for example.

More wishful thinking. Shall we review the number of successful revolutions or resistance movements which have occured in history despite existing security institutions in place to supposedly obviate against this danger? Furthermore, you keep clinging to the fantasy that all it takes is one "right man" to ensure success in such a venture. Hate to tell you this, but the United States thought the same way in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan, and the Soviets thought the same way in their own Afganistan misadventure. All failures.

What ensures that the military will automatically shift allegiance to the new regime?

The military is not a problem, because any unit that tries to take action against the new dictator will be blasted from orbit or by a force of LAATs.

Yes, we thought superior airpower would win the day in Iraq and Afganistan as well. The Soviets made the same mistake as well going into Afganistan. Hasn't stopped an ongoing resistance against the occupation forces in both countries, however. The only way to impose control in the end is with boots on the ground, and two Acclimators don't carry the requisite manpower for the job.

And what happens if the rebel force which is to be blasted from orbit happens to be in the capitol and proximate to the dictator's HQ compound or too close to any number of strategic points groundside which the Republic force can't afford to lose to maintain control? Please try to actually think through your assumptions instead of simply spewing them forth as established facts.

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?

Well, they already sent two Acclamators and ordered their commander to get the ambassadors back and secure access to the planet's mineral wealth. The ROE also doesn't ban the commander from using force.

That is not an answer to the question. The Chancellor would still have to justify the mission to the senate and the people, and the senate could vote to cut off the funding for the operation and direct the Chancellor to recall the strike force. The people could well figure that two ambassadors are not worth the price of a war nor that attacking a planet which is of no conceivable threat to the Republic is at all justifiable. So again, how would the Republic government justify launching a war against a helpless planet over a hostage crisis involving only two persons?

Again, you seem to be confusing the Republic with the Empire.

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.

Yes, if the new puppet dictator fails to actually secure his newfound kingdom, the Republic would have no other choice but to mount a full-scale invasion. But what other approach would your propose for the task group commander, who has to carry out his orders to the best of his ability?

Here's a concept you seem unable to grasp: the mission is essentially undoable to begin with barring the use of the sort of ruthless tactics and implementation of wholesale destruction and mass death which would be SOP for the Empire. The Republic commander does not have the requisite forces available to ensure success in a military campaign, he cannot guarantee a pliant puppet regime, nor could he adequately support a new government given that he already lacks the force necessary to carry out a planetary invasion. The only way for him to win in this scenario is to do what is politically impossible for the Republic but not for the Empire. Which is simply to blast whole cities and slaughter millions of people outright to intimidate the population into submission.

Hostages held by nation-states (even the loonier ones) are much more likely to be released when they lose their worth, because unlike a terrorist organization, a nation-state is a clear target for the other nation's military. Iranian hostages were released, American citizens in the embassy in Cambodia were allowed to evacuate, etc.

And you may notice that in all of those instances, the crises were solved through either diplomatic measures or a quick commando raid to effect rescue. Given the expenditure of resources and treasure involved in a full-scale war, the reasons for taking that sort of national committment have to be on a far greater scale than a hostage crisis. We did not even consider going to actual war against either Iran or Cambodia even in a worst-case scenario. And it was negotiation, not the threat of war, which got the Americans released from Teheran.

BTW, you're a bit confused about the Cambodian crisis: the hostages there were the crew of the freighter S.S. Mayaguez, who were still aboard their ship and not in an embassy compound. They were rescued by a U.S. Navy boarding party and that was the end of the matter once they were retrieved.

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.

This is true, which is why a commando raid to get the ambassadors back would be a last resort.

Let's try this again: in what you are proposing in your argument, the Republic is either attempting a large-scale military attack (with insufficient force to secure the planet) or an impromptu coup backed by the troop contingent of the Republic task force. Under those circumstances, the regime is already backed into a corner. They will be able to send an order to have the two ambassadors killed long before any commando force gets to them. A commando raid, on the other hand, is more likely to succeed if an otherwise peaceful condition exists in which the current regime is not perceiving that its very survival is under imminent threat. And if otherwise peaceful conditions exist, the chance for a peaceful resolution also exists, which means negotiations will likely get the two ambassadors back without even the necessity of a commando raid. Of course, that also means zero justification for a full-scale war, not that one was available to begin with over only two hostages.

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.

They don't actually need to conquer tha planet!

They do, actually, but you keep ignoring the implications of your logic.

The Republic wants the planet's minerals (let's call the "space oil"), not it's territory or people. If they were unwilling to actually commit a larger force to do this, the only remotely plausible idea to secure space oil is to try and make the planet cooperative. If negotiations can do this, cool. If not, your only option is to replace the government/dictator with someone more partial to you, or use Imperial approach which will probably get you court-martialled on the spot. I suppose it all depends on exactly how valuable space oil is, and if your superiors are willing to risk a PR nightmare and generating a potential future enemy. I'd first send a report with my idea and see if they give me a go-ahead.

And once again: what guarantees that either a new dictator will prove so pliable to outside control? What guarantees that the planet's military will cooperate? What guarantees that there will not be a revolt against the new regime? And how does the Republic keep its puppet on the throne without either a large occupation force to back him up or by blasting cities wholesale to cow the natives into submission? Furthermore, just how does the Republic commander know who to trust and whether or not conditions are actually ripe for a coup d'etat in the first place? This isn't a strategy that can be formulated and executed on the fly. You can't simply make up regime-change as you go along and base everything on the hope that you're going to get it right first time.

The problem is that the new regime is no more likely to become partners with a foreign force anymore than the old one.

Well, his complete cooperation is impossible to secure, and he'll probaby be plotting behind the Republic's back all the time. Then again, if the Republic treats him fairly, he may lay low and govern his new fiefdom. This and a possible rebellion against him are the two biggest uncertainties in the entire scheme.

Which is why it is more likely, not less likely, to fail.

Of course, you can always threaten to send your Jedi to get him if he misbehaves.

Once again, you seem to be confusing the Republic with the Empire. Furthermore, the Jedi Council would never support such a scheme in the first place and cannot be forced to do so, given that they exist upon their own authority within the Republic in the first place.

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.

Orbital fire support can make the following civil war pretty short, however, or at least give a tremendous advantage to the conspirators. This is pretty big point the Republic can make. It again depends on the exact nature of the tensions.

And this is based on... what, exactly?

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.

Yes, exactly. There was no-one who could be put in the position of necessary authority (so that he'd be able to surrender the Army) and who would at the same time be of the "we should surrender" camp. Basically, you'd have to replace the whole general staff and all higher officers. So if the planet's political situation is similar, you may forget about my proposal, I agree.

A situation which is more, not less, likely in this scenario as well.

And the Americans' experiments with regime change have not proven to be long-term successes. A few in fact have been quite disasterous failures.

Others turned out OK from the perspective of American goals and interests at the time, so it's possible to do, even if the probability of success is not very high.

No they have not. Just about every one of the dicatatorships we've put into place over the years have fallen. Any success has been short-term at best, and the price this country has paid and continues to pay in ongoing regional distrust if not outright emnity in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East has complicated trade, diplomatic, and military efforts around the world tenfold. Iran would not now be a problem for the United States were it not for our having backed the Shah for twenty years and any advantage we enjoyed under that regime then has certainly been negated in full since the Revolution. It would not have been a problem at all had we not taken the course of action you advocate in this thread.

[PeZook]

And just what can the Iraqis attack America with? Their non-existent air force? Their equally non-existent navy? Their also non-existent strategic rocket forces? The Iraqis have no hope of doing anything against America just as the planet in question has no hope of attacking the Republic.

What I meant was terrorist strikes, kidnapping American citizens, things like these. I'll admit though that ultimately it's not that significant.

No, to decapitate a government means literally to annihilate its leadership, not simply to replace them. Evidently you do not understand just what the term actually means.

Yeah, I probably don't, but I explained what I meant.

Ah, so the Republic commander will decide to attack civilian targets after all. Exactly what evidence can you bring to the table here to indicate this level of ruthlessness on the part of Republic military officers? You seem to be confusing them with the Imperials.

It's not like the Republic is such a nice and cuddly entity. They care about civilian casualties, and thus won't blow up cities wholesale, but when you disperse your military aircraft to civilian airports (and presumably move their munitions and support equipment there) you just made the airport a valid military target. You can blast it without endagering many civilians, too, if you broadcast a warning, say, 48 hours beforehand. The military will move it's fighters, of course, but then they get shot down.

However, this is irrelevant seeing as you convinced me my plan doesn't have much of a chance to work.

More wishful thinking. Shall we review the number of successful revolutions or resistance movements which have occured in history despite existing security institutions in place to supposedly obviate against this danger?

Yeah...I tried to find cases of revolutionary movements being supressed by dictators, but it seems there are none. All of them have survived and continue causing problems, or won whatever it was they wanted - at least from my research it seems so. So I concede.

Furthermore, you keep clinging to the fantasy that all it takes is one "right man" to ensure success in such a venture. Hate to tell you this, but the United States thought the same way in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan, and the Soviets thought the same way in their own Afganistan misadventure. All failures.

To be honest, I didn't claim it was enough to "ensure" success. In my last post, I wrote clearly that I thought the chance of this actually succeeding was slim - just higher than an outright invasion. But you convinced me that it's just not worth undertaking with the problems that would cause in the long run, I didn't think this through.

Yes, we thought superior airpower would win the day in Iraq and Afganistan as well. The Soviets made the same mistake as well going into Afganistan. Hasn't stopped an ongoing resistance against the occupation forces in both countries, however.

Guerillas is one thing, you asked about the army which is another. The Republic certainly has the capability to destroy large organized units from orbit, leaving the opposition to guerilla warfare in cities.

And what happens if the rebel force which is to be blasted from orbit happens to be in the capitol and proximate to the dictator's HQ compound or too close to any number of strategic points groundside which the Republic force can't afford to lose to maintain control? Please try to actually think through your assumptions instead of simply spewing them forth as established facts.

Yeah, I didn't really think that units stationed in cities may rebel, which was a dumb mistake on my part.
Obviously, if it happens that way the plan is doomed to failure.

That is not an answer to the question. The Chancellor would still have to justify the mission to the senate and the people, and the senate could vote to cut off the funding for the operation and direct the Chancellor to recall the strike force. The people could well figure that two ambassadors are not worth the price of a war nor that attacking a planet which is of no conceivable threat to the Republic is at all justifiable. So again, how would the Republic government justify launching a war against a helpless planet over a hostage crisis involving only two persons?

How is it not an answer to the question? You got handed two Acclamators and told to go and secure this planet. While the it is almost undoable, it seems your (as in: the commander's) leadership already feel they can justify using this amount of force before the Senate, as they didn't prohibit you from using force. Sure, the Chancellor may catch flak for it later, especially if you botch the attempt to take control, but it's not important right now.

Again, you seem to be confusing the Republic with the Empire.

Being a Republic doesn't prohibit a country from being an agressive expansionist power, just not as homicidal as the Galactic Empire.

Here's a concept you seem unable to grasp: the mission is essentially undoable to begin with barring the use of the sort of ruthless tactics and implementation of wholesale destruction and mass death which would be SOP for the Empire. The Republic commander does not have the requisite forces available to ensure success in a military campaign, he cannot guarantee a pliant puppet regime, nor could he adequately support a new government given that he already lacks the force necessary to carry out a planetary invasion. The only way for him to win in this scenario is to do what is politically impossible for the Republic but not for the Empire. Which is simply to blast whole cities and slaughter millions of people outright to intimidate the population into submission.

Yes, it appears my plan is not very robust. Conceded.

And you may notice that in all of those instances, the crises were solved through either diplomatic measures or a quick commando raid to effect rescue. Given the expenditure of resources and treasure involved in a full-scale war, the reasons for taking that sort of national committment have to be on a far greater scale than a hostage crisis. We did not even consider going to actual war against either Iran or Cambodia even in a worst-case scenario. And it was negotiation, not the threat of war, which got the Americans released from Teheran.

Well, on further thought, it does seem the two objectives given in the OP are somewhat contradictory for the Republic.

BTW, you're a bit confused about the Cambodian crisis: the hostages there were the crew of the freighter S.S. Mayaguez, who were still aboard their ship and not in an embassy compound. They were rescued by a U.S. Navy boarding party and that was the end of the matter once they were retrieved.

Ah, right. Sorry about that.

Let's try this again: in what you are proposing in your argument, the Republic is either attempting a large-scale military attack (with insufficient force to secure the planet) or an impromptu coup backed by the troop contingent of the Republic task force. Under those circumstances, the regime is already backed into a corner. They will be able to send an order to have the two ambassadors killed long before any commando force gets to them. A commando raid, on the other hand, is more likely to succeed if an otherwise peaceful condition exists in which the current regime is not perceiving that its very survival is under imminent threat.

Yes, I can see what you're getting at. It's true a commando raid would have a higher probability of success in peaceful conditions.

And if otherwise peaceful conditions exist, the chance for a peaceful resolution also exists, which means negotiations will likely get the two ambassadors back without even the necessity of a commando raid. Of course, that also means zero justification for a full-scale war, not that one was available to begin with over only two hostages.

Well, I was under the impression that the OP specified military force was an available option for the Republic as well, should the task force commander decide it was necessary.

Furthermore, just how does the Republic commander know who to trust and whether or not conditions are actually ripe for a coup d'etat in the first place? This isn't a strategy that can be formulated and executed on the fly. You can't simply make up regime-change as you go along and base everything on the hope that you're going to get it right first time.

I think this kills my argument right here, since I didn't fully consider the amount of time and preparation any coup d'etat would require. Two Jedi won't be enough to acquire that kind of information, and you don't have any more intelligence resources to use. So it's Jedi or brutal strenght, with nothing in between.

Yeah, I think I agree the coup d'etat plan was hare-brained to begin with.

Which is why it is more likely, not less likely, to fail.

Again, I never said it was a very likely scheme. Though it's probability is so close to zero it's probably not worth it anyway, as I wrote above.

Once again, you seem to be confusing the Republic with the Empire. Furthermore, the Jedi Council would never support such a scheme in the first place and cannot be forced to do so, given that they exist upon their own authority within the Republic in the first place.

Agreed, it wouldn't be much of a threat if your new puppet knew the Council would never agree to an assassination.

A situation which is more, not less, likely in this scenario as well.

Depends on the exact political make-up of the planet, but I agree counting on the planet having a government that's in perfect condition for a coup is not a very good plan.

No they have not. Just about every one of the dicatatorships we've put into place over the years have fallen. Any success has been short-term at best, and the price this country has paid and continues to pay in ongoing regional distrust if not outright emnity in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East has complicated trade, diplomatic, and military efforts around the world tenfold. Iran would not now be a problem for the United States were it not for our having backed the Shah for twenty years and any advantage we enjoyed under that regime then has certainly been negated in full since the Revolution. It would not have been a problem at all had we not taken the course of action you advocate in this thread.

Conceded. Long term consequences would make this escapade not worthwhile.

Also, they may create resentment and unwilingness to cooperate with the Republic amongst the populations of more than one planet. This little pissant shithole is not very important, but if one industrialized system joins the Separatists because of this, the loss will be very significant indeed.

In conclusion: Outside of a few minor points, I agree my plan is unworkable, and if it did suceed due to ideal conditions and a genius task force commander, it would cause long-term consequences that go against the Republic's national interest.

[harbringer]

This is more like afghanistan when the coalition went in than Iraq, while the planet is a democracy it is obvious that there are internal problems for the government otherwise you wouldnt be in this situation. In a way it mirrors the birth of the empire under palpatine (deliberately so) just on a minor scale and outside forces.

You are ment to do your best to fulfill both objectives but mistakes like accidently targeting the turbolasers on the ambassador can happen (you would have to come up with a how this might be believed though)

Lastly Im sure the federation would try impersonating someone, I have put this in another thread but to my sensibilities there would be major problems for them otherwise (especially if those nasty people on the star destroyer discovered this).

[Jericho Kross]

Imperials could send a shuttle [with an escort] take someone of importance [like their leaders family] or a bunch of there civilians. Demand return of the ambassador or one captives is killed every 60 seconds. Send this on all communication devices [radio,t.v.,ect].If they fail to respond the capive is killed [while still being watched or heard] restart timer. As this is happening the shuttle contiues to take captives. Problem solved.

[Jericho Kross]

sorry I misspelled captive

[harbringer]

Jericho, I see you missed the point of the expedition.... ie. mining the planet. You have just given everyone who might have sided with you the best excuse to say we surrender please come and sign a peace treaty get your ambassador - while we blow your brains out with a large amount of lead. Forget mining the planet the feds will just laugh as you just did their job for them, then enjoy synth-ahol in the rec room, you now need a fleet to come and "adjust planetry attitude" instead of the one ship that was needed.

Oh by the way after Vader and Palpie were finished they didnt need to write a condolance letter home you had no family either. Thus the down side of playing the Imperial

[PeZook]

Jericho, I see you missed the point of the expedition.... ie. mining the planet. You have just given everyone who might have sided with you the best excuse to say we surrender please come and sign a peace treaty get your ambassador - while we blow your brains out with a large amount of lead. Forget mining the planet the feds will just laugh as you just did their job for them, then enjoy synth-ahol in the rec room, you now need a fleet to come and "adjust planetry attitude" instead of the one ship that was needed.

Oh by the way after Vader and Palpie were finished they didnt need to write a condolance letter home you had no family either. Thus the down side of playing the Imperial

This is why the Imperials shouldn't pussyfoot around like that. They will demand the ambassador is released and complete surrender of the planetary authority to Imperial rule. If the planet refuses, one city gets destroyed. The demand is retransmitted. If they refuse again, another city is pasted. Continue until they give in. And if they try to take any imperials hostage, they risk millions of their own. After all, the Empire can replace workers with droids if they need to, and don't have a million political problems with this tactic that the Republic would have.

[Jericho Kross]

My post is a very good way to get a surrender. Not only is it spreading your point across it is also a good way destroy there moral. Just imagine seeing your family getting murdered were everyone can watch.

The best part is the public backlash [providing use of propoganda]. Riots and even civil war may happen because of this. This is what should be aimed for. If a civil war begins it may also hurt there military or give the Imperials someone more willing to give the ambassador back.

If needed a land invasion would be easy [provided propoganda and forces on board the destroyer]. Normalization of the world[ what was there goal too] giving them the ability to mine better [jobs] making a prosperous planet. If there is any negative effects the normalization and agressive assimilation would soon end any rebellious thoughts

[Darth Tanner]

I don't see how abducting and murdering a few dozen citizens is going to intimidate the planetary government never mind start a civil war.

From the US experience in Iraq the insurgents taking hostages, murdering them on the internet and then hanging the corpses from a bridge has done nothing to damage the US military presence in Iraq or the political will to stay the course. No planet wide government is going to submit to foreign rule solely over a hostage scenario, hell governments don't even pay out small sums of cash to kidnappers.

It may well have damaged the US general publics view of the war but that is irrelevant, and thats in a democracy, it'll mean even less to a military dictatorship. In this case your risking your land troops on these commando raids to secure hostages, and thats working on the assumption threat your shuttles can penetrate whatever air defenses they have not to mention their aircraft, potentially giving the planet even more hostages (if their the family of senior politicians their going to be heavily guarded)

The only Imperial option is still to demand the ambassador back or face getting a couple of cities removed from the map.

From world history direct military occupation has never worked for any length of time, its expensive and pisses of the local population. To add the planet to the Empire, either wipe aside all life and start again or convince sufficient amount of the domestic power base (industrialist/aristocracy/religious leaders ect) that joining the empire is a good thing, which should be pretty easy considering the tech/economic advantage they bring, and the planet will occupy itself and provide much more revenue. It worked for Rome, it worked for London, it worked for Washinton and it shall work for Coruscant.

[(name here)]

Has everyone forgotten about the satellites doubtless in orbit around the planet? the republic could threaten to destroy the satellites to force a surrender. there would be no direct casualties from such an attack because satellites are unmanned, but if you destroy the weather satellites many people would die from late warnings about, say, a category five hurricane. it isn't as simple to replace destroyed satellites as you may think because the debris would be a navigation hazard.

[Batman]

Has everyone forgotten about the satellites doubtless in orbit around the planet? the republic could threaten to destroy the satellites to force a surrender.

So? They could threaten orbital bombardment with impunity.

there would be no direct casualties from such an attack because satellites are unmanned, but if you destroy the weather satellites many people would die from late warnings about, say, a category five hurricane.

IOW they'd be STILL causing tons of civilian casualties. Either they're up for that or they're not. Not that humanity hasn't made do for millenia WITHOUT those satellites, and the limiting factors on desaster prevention/mitigation have mainly been groundside anyway so the government of said planet might very well risk that.NOW what?

it isn't as simple to replace destroyed satellites as you may think because the debris would be a navigation hazard.

Actually the debris (assuming there would BE any given that Wars spaceborne weapons tend to vaporize targets several thousand times the size/mass of modern-day weather satellites effortlessly, using point-defense guns) is mostly a non-factor compared to the difficulty (or more accurately cost) of getting a satellite into orbit with modern-day launch systems in the first place.

[Darth Tanner]

But again simply inflicting minor levels of inconvenience on a planet (no weather report on the local news, missing Sky TV, half a dozen people abducted and murdered) is not going to force a planetary government to surrender its sovereignty to an occupying power. Its all going to increase political pressure on the domestic government but a planet wide government is going to be pretty stable to simply exist in the first place, its not going to abdicate over a little discomfort for the common people.

[Jericho Kross]

Not just civilians but high ranking parts of the goverment and military[and with all posibility family members]. I also said the use of propaganda to help start rebellion. Propoganda would not only make there leaders look bad but the Imperials may show the gain of joining the Empire. The goverment would also have a hard time denying they have ambassador [also making them look bad] due the initial fact that the Empire is there and through imperial databases. In kiddnapping the ambassador in a way they did declare war.

The way I see it the moral backlash, the fact the goverment did take the ambassador, Imperial propoganda, a little truth , and advantages the Empire could give should sway the population. With a 'little' tug may push the population to revolt.

I chose this way so the Imperials could take there planet intact with less opposition to Imperial rule and no nasty side effects of orbital bombardment and full invasion

[Aaron]

Starting a rebellion usually entails exploiting a pre-existing insurgency or political opposition. What would a political party benefit from going from political activism to violent action literally overnight? Presumably with little to no weapons or training.

[Darth Tanner]

But still all you've done is destabilise the planets government, assuming it falls as a result of the propaganda campaign the new government is not going to be somehow willing to surrender themselves to the orbiting Star Destroyer, they may give the ambassador back but if they do that more or less cancels out any moral victory achieved through the propaganda campaign and your back where you started at except you've wasted a few years distributing propaganda and murdering individual citizens.

Much quicker to reign down fire.

[Jericho Kross]

DBZ the planets cities would get it done quicker but would take awhile to get everything back in order [you have just destroyed a few cities and caused polical and enviromental problems]. I chose to keep it's main structure intact to reap all the benifets. Rebellion would take a while I agree but 9700 stormtroopers will have a hard time securing the planet and planatary supporters would help. You don't want to spread your numbers out to thin. Another option is to send the Hand to get the ambassador

[LITNDARC]

The task is impossible and not worth the waste.
With the forces you are given and the three tasks at hand ,no way it's going to happen.

[(name here)]

the thing is that the republic might be willing to to destroy the communication, spy, weather, space scanning, and other satellites as opposed to say four cities. the point about the destruction of weather satellites is that it would cause lots of causalities indirectly, but it might be easier to persuade people to accept them. the other point is that they can force the government to surrender without anyone dieing.

Actually the debris (assuming there would BE any given that Wars spaceborne weapons tend to vaporize targets several thousand times the size/mass of modern-day weather satellites effortlessly, using point-defense guns) is mostly a non-factor compared to the difficulty (or more accurately cost) of getting a satellite into orbit with modern-day launch systems in the first place.

point taken on the weapons, but they could ram satellites with shielded fighters. by debris i mean shrapnel. the impact with metallic micrometeorites that had been satellites could destroy or disable replacement satellites.

[Patrick Degan]

the thing is that the republic might be willing to to destroy the communication, spy, weather, space scanning, and other satellites as opposed to say four cities. the point about the destruction of weather satellites is that it would cause lots of causalities indirectly, but it might be easier to persuade people to accept them. the other point is that they can force the government to surrender without anyone dieing.

That would do exactly jack and shit toward convincing the planetary government to surrender. A little inconvenience and some possible indirect deaths from late weather warnings does not demonstrate a power which can simply overwhelm the entire planet. They can already do that on their own with their weaponry. They'll find ways to reestablish the global communication nets, fall back on secondary measures, and accept a few hurricane or tornado deaths months down the line and tell the orbiting Republic commander to go fuck himself and that any more hostile action will likely get their ambassadors killed.

[LITNDARC]

I see that everyone has blatantly forgotten about the other objective.
What about the other force you have to take out before you even get to the planet????
Does everyone think the other force is just going to lay down while you take all the reward???

[PeZook]

I see that everyone has blatantly forgotten about the other objective.
What about the other force you have to take out before you even get to the planet????
Does everyone think the other force is just going to lay down while you take all the reward???

What force? The Enterprise?

Oh please...
The only challenge here is getting the planet. If the Enteriprise tries to interfere, the Empire will simply destroy it, while the Republic will either blast it or seize it.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

When it comes to intimidating the population, rather than destroying cities, instead your force targets large, important landmarks that the destruction of which will have relatively few casualties but still be high-profile, and then saying "the next attack will destroy a city". Would that have a similar effect?

I'm thinking of pulverising, say a large mountain for example.

[Jericho Kross]

Good idea.

[PeZook]

I'm thinking of pulverising, say a large mountain for example.

I think this would fuck up the planet far, far worse than simply obliterating a city. But the good thing about smashing an urban center is that it absolutely proves to the populace that yes, you are perfectly willing to kill millions in order to get your way, which makes any attempt at armed resistance pointless. After all, if you win and liberate your planet from the occupant, he will just retreat to orbit and destroy your civilization.

On the other hand, if the planetary government knows anything about the Republic, they will be inclined to not believe such threats. Which is why the Republic really has no way of forcing themselves upon the planet.