Is hard scifi space war possible?

[sirocco]

And as for the use of asteroids as weapons - Mining them for conventional weapons is all well and good, except that that inevitably leads you into a fair fight.

As opposed to a fight where you start off at an inherent disadvantage because your weapon is a piece of shit? No one is going to let themselves collide with an asteroid, idiot, unless you have it accelerated to relativistic speeds. The very fact that asteroids can be used to destroy biospheres means that they WILL be tracked, and anyone you might want to target with this stupid tactic WILL see it coming from light seconds away LONG before it hits anything.

will he be able to destroy it on time? (I'm assuming that in hard scifi, a planet can't be moved freely...)

[Formless]

And as for the use of asteroids as weapons - Mining them for conventional weapons is all well and good, except that that inevitably leads you into a fair fight.

As opposed to a fight where you start off at an inherent disadvantage because your weapon is a piece of shit? No one is going to let themselves collide with an asteroid, idiot, unless you have it accelerated to relativistic speeds. The very fact that asteroids can be used to destroy biospheres means that they WILL be tracked, and anyone you might want to target with this stupid tactic WILL see it coming from light seconds away LONG before it hits anything.

will he be able to destroy it on time? (I'm assuming that in hard scifi, a planet can't be moved freely...)

Well, an asteroid is a fairly big target. Actually, what you should be asking is if he can get out of the way on time. Most of the ideas that have been flying about for dealing with the real world danger of asteroid strikes are about diverting the asteroid's trajectory, for example.

[sirocco]

will he be able to destroy it on time? (I'm assuming that in hard scifi, a planet can't be moved freely...)

Well, an asteroid is a fairly big target. Actually, what you should be asking is if he can get out of the way on time. Most of the ideas that have been flying about for dealing with the real world danger of asteroid strikes are about diverting the asteroid's trajectory, for example.

What about launching multiple asteroids?
At least, depleting the enemy's means of defense is a good way to start the war (and quickly finishing it)

[Formless]

will he be able to destroy it on time? (I'm assuming that in hard scifi, a planet can't be moved freely...)

Well, an asteroid is a fairly big target. Actually, what you should be asking is if he can get out of the way on time. Most of the ideas that have been flying about for dealing with the real world danger of asteroid strikes are about diverting the asteroid's trajectory, for example.

What about launching multiple asteroids?
At least, depleting the enemy's means of defense is a good way to start the war (and quickly finishing it)

Why not just launch multiple conventional spacecraft? There is no advantage to launching an asteroid, and in fact if the only weapon onboard the asteroid is the asteroid's own mass then a conventional spacecraft is far more dangerous and capable of defending itself to boot. As I already mentioned, asteroids are a prime source of resources, so its likely they are exactly what people will be fighting over or using to make more practical weapons, NOT throwing at each other. That's just silly.

[sirocco]

I think that it still comes to that simple question : what would be a reason for a hard scifi war ?
Maybe we can find something that could make use of asteroids as weapons...

[Formless]

I think that it still comes to that simple question : what would be a reason for a hard scifi war ?
Maybe we can find something that could make use of asteroids as weapons...

Resource disputes? A reaction against someone trying to take power by force? Ideology? All of those are classic casus belli that aren't likely to disappear in the foreseeable future.

[sirocco]

I think that it still comes to that simple question : what would be a reason for a hard scifi war ?
Maybe we can find something that could make use of asteroids as weapons...

Resource disputes? A reaction against someone trying to take power by force? Ideology? All of those are classic casus belli that aren't likely to disappear in the foreseeable future.

And for that they won't be ready to spare a 100 asteroids (in our own solar system, there's at least 200 000 of them) ?

[Blayne]

Haven't read through the whole thread yet so apologies if any of this has been said already.

Technically hard scifi space battles is possible although you may need to write it 20 minutes into the future, I'm writing my own story right now infact using this although its also Alternate history (so space USSR vs space NATO) to justify a few things.

But you need to remember to keep a close eye on your propulsion system, you'll need something nuclear powered or fusion powered at about 50% effiency to make trips within a reasonable amount of time, that almost no fighting at all will probably occur in "deep space" and as mentioned in the third post or so 99% of combat will be based around orbits.

Other things to keep an eye on is that anything fast enough to travel through space quickly is also capable of being a weapon in of itself, almost any and all shortcut technologies even if plausible will have disasterous applications if your reckless.

[Junghalli]

I think that it still comes to that simple question : what would be a reason for a hard scifi war ?

In an interstellar setting:

(1) For some reason you're worried that the other party may attack you*, and you figure you're more likely to win if you attack them than if you wait for them to attack you, so you attack them.
(2) Ideology.
(3) Resources, but only under certain specific circumstances (see the discussion between me and Formless about a page back).

That's pretty much it.

* Note that this doesn't just mean you're worried about an immediate attack. It can also encompass logic like this: "There's a planet with a Stone Age race on it. There's some small possibility they may eventually evolve into a force that would attack me. If I quietly slip a very slow Von Neumann into a neighboring system and have it build a beer-can sized ship which isn't recognizable as one of my designs, and use that to deliver a virus to the planet that will wipe out that race, I can head off that possibility and the risks involved are even lower than the risk that the Stone Age species will eventually attack me. Therefore I will do that."

[Formless]

I think that it still comes to that simple question : what would be a reason for a hard scifi war ?
Maybe we can find something that could make use of asteroids as weapons...

Resource disputes? A reaction against someone trying to take power by force? Ideology? All of those are classic casus belli that aren't likely to disappear in the foreseeable future.

And for that they won't be ready to spare a 100 asteroids (in our own solar system, there's at least 200 000 of them) ?

Yes, because they are far more valuable for their material which can be processed into weapons like bullets and other technology than as oversized projectiles that can't hit anything with a brain.

[sirocco]

And for that they won't be ready to spare a 100 asteroids (in our own solar system, there's at least 200 000 of them) ?

Yes, because they are far more valuable for their material which can be processed into weapons like bullets and other technology than as oversized projectiles that can't hit anything with a brain.

Even though you may win a new solar system full of them and no one to share it with ?
At best you may stale your enemy long enough to establish a stronghold.

[Formless]

And for that they won't be ready to spare a 100 asteroids (in our own solar system, there's at least 200 000 of them) ?

Yes, because they are far more valuable for their material which can be processed into weapons like bullets and other technology than as oversized projectiles that can't hit anything with a brain.

Even though you may win a new solar system full of them and no one to share it with ?
At best you may stale your enemy long enough to establish a stronghold.

Do I have to go back over why throwing an asteroid at someone is a far inferior tactic to shooting and killfucking them with bullets, lasers, and nukes? My whole point is that it WON'T win you a whole solar system you dolt! Your enemy will outgun you if you try this moronic tactic!

[sirocco]

So it's a better solution to face him a Mexican standoff ?
I don't know about you but I prefer avoiding any confrontation where I could lose valuable soldier. If needed I'd even rigged the asteroid so that it blows into multiple little rocks that will therefore be less easy to destroy. At least less easy than bullets or nukes a "light second away".
As long as I am not sure that I outgun my enemy 10 to 1 I will avoid any direct fight

[Formless]

*Facepalm* Okay, lets take this one at a time.

So it's a better solution to face him a Mexican standoff ?

Where are you getting "mexican standoff" out of all of this? For that to happen both sides have to be roughly equal in power and intelligence. As has been noted, stealth as we know it may not be possible in space, but subterfuge isn't out of the question. You seem to think this will be like a game of chess, when in reality it will probably be somewhat more like poker.

I don't know about you but I prefer avoiding any confrontation where I could lose valuable soldier.

Then automate your combat craft. The idea that combat craft will necessarily be commanded by human passengers is a science fiction cliche, but does not necessarily reflect reality.

If needed I'd even rigged the asteroid so that it blows into multiple little rocks that will therefore be less easy to destroy.

But you won't hit anything. Trying to hit other spacecraft with an asteroid, even a fragged one, is as stupid as ramming tactics, and many of the same reasons. Like the fact that there is no stealth and the other guy will just get out of the way. The only time you would throw asteroids at a target is against planets when you don't care if it is mass destruction. Otherwise, nukes are far better at destroying spacecraft, and create a much larger area of death when they explode because of all the radiation.

At least less easy than bullets or nukes a "light second away".

You apparently do not appreciate the concept of "overkill." At a light second you would be killing people with lasers, NOT projectiles. But in any case, you can accelerate a tungsten bullet to much higher speeds much quicker than you can accelerate an asteroid, which makes it plenty destructive and harder to dodge than a massive hunk of rock you would have to be blind not to spot from thousands of miles away.

As long as I am not sure that I outgun my enemy 10 to 1 I will avoid any direct fight

When your weapon of choice is literally rocks, I can't blame you.

[Blayne]

Hey, remember rock beats laser!

Anyways, in space in a planetary war as an interstallar war is infeasible with current theoretical physics assuming the hard scifi requested extends to propulsion, but anyways a hard scifi space war would be most plausible between a planet and the colonies in a system, earth and mars is a good example because our orbits are relatively close to each other, 180 days with chemical rockets and 2 days with a theoretical nuclear propolsion system.

As to why there would be a war any reason could do even a dumb reason because its truth in television many wars like WWI were started for stupid reasons but any 'good' reason would probably possession of shiny green rocks, maybe space petrol reserves if the planet's oil is gone, as long as you have 2 factions it could just be a matter of escalating tensions that got off with a spark at the wrong time.

If two factions are equal in strength and technology then who wins or lose will depend upon doctrines and the skill of available officers it will all come down to strategy.

[Formless]

Hey, remember rock beats laser!

Or... not.

[sirocco]

*Facepalm* Okay, lets take this one at a time.
Same to you

So it's a better solution to face him a Mexican standoff ?

Where are you getting "mexican standoff" out of all of this? For that to happen both sides have to be roughly equal in power and intelligence. As has been noted, stealth as we know it may not be possible in space, but subterfuge isn't out of the question. You seem to think this will be like a game of chess, when in reality it will probably be somewhat more like poker.

Am I the only one that read the first post ?

2) There is at least rough technological parity between the various sides. I'm thinking of the traditional epic fleet battle, not the first planet to develop FTL travel and shields killing everything in its path. The technology doesn't have to be exactly identical, but it shouldn't be a case where one side has engines that are 100x as efficient (naturally revealed at a critical point in the plot). Advantages and disadvantages are fine, but they should be subtle: for example, Earth might have better focus on their lasers (and therefore better range), while Mars might have more fuel-efficient engines (and therefore better delta-v for the same hull mass), but the differences are not decisive.

Call it chess or poker or whatever, but them knowing roughly what was coming to there may lead to a "Shoot him before he shoots me"

I don't know about you but I prefer avoiding any confrontation where I could lose valuable soldier.

Then automate your combat craft. The idea that combat craft will necessarily be commanded by human passengers is a science fiction cliche, but does not necessarily reflect reality.

I do agree on that. Since I am going to use war machine with limited crew after my rock throwing little game. Call me old-fashioned but fully automated craft are also a scifi cliché. Hence let's settle for half-automated half-crewed, with seasoned soldier in the ship that are not affected by the communication time lag (except if you want us to go to war with the future Moon inhabitants?)

If needed I'd even rigged the asteroid so that it blows into multiple little rocks that will therefore be less easy to destroy.

But you won't hit anything. Trying to hit other spacecraft with an asteroid, even a fragged one, is as stupid as ramming tactics, and many of the same reasons. Like the fact that there is no stealth and the other guy will just get out of the way. The only time you would throw asteroids at a target is against planets when you don't care if it is mass destruction. Otherwise, nukes are far better at destroying spacecraft, and create a much larger area of death when they explode because of all the radiation.

The thing you may not have understood is that I am the attacker here, the one that is going to go directly for the home planet of my enemy. Did you really think that in a battle ship vs ship, I would take the time to go look for a rock to throw at the other guy? Seriously?

I intend to go for the planet and cause mass destruction and I will use such a devious plan because I hope that there will be some survivors. Why ? Imagine you are in a battlefield and your best friend is ten meters from his leg. Would you let him die like that or try to help him? With the latter I just got 2 soldiers out with 1 bullet!

At least less easy than bullets or nukes a "light second away".

You apparently do not appreciate the concept of "overkill." At a light second you would be killing people with lasers, NOT projectiles. But in any case, you can accelerate a tungsten bullet to much higher speeds much quicker than you can accelerate an asteroid, which makes it plenty destructive and harder to dodge than a massive hunk of rock you would have to be blind not to spot from thousands of miles away.

in a ship vs ship battle why not? as long as it works, it's fine with me.

As long as I am not sure that I outgun my enemy 10 to 1 I will avoid any direct fight

When your weapon of choice is literally rocks, I can't blame you.[/quote]

Thank you.

[Blayne]

Hey, remember rock beats laser!

Or... not.

Those are some nifty special effects for the 1970's or is this the special edition?

[montypython]

One thing I've always observed is that if sentients have a will to fight, even in deep space, they will find a way to do so, however crazy things may turn out...

[Formless]

So it's a better solution to face him a Mexican standoff ?

Where are you getting "mexican standoff" out of all of this? For that to happen both sides have to be roughly equal in power and intelligence. As has been noted, stealth as we know it may not be possible in space, but subterfuge isn't out of the question. You seem to think this will be like a game of chess, when in reality it will probably be somewhat more like poker.

Am I the only one that read the first post ?

2) There is at least rough technological parity between the various sides. I'm thinking of the traditional epic fleet battle, not the first planet to develop FTL travel and shields killing everything in its path. The technology doesn't have to be exactly identical, but it shouldn't be a case where one side has engines that are 100x as efficient (naturally revealed at a critical point in the plot). Advantages and disadvantages are fine, but they should be subtle: for example, Earth might have better focus on their lasers (and therefore better range), while Mars might have more fuel-efficient engines (and therefore better delta-v for the same hull mass), but the differences are not decisive.

Call it chess or poker or whatever, but them knowing roughly what was coming to there may lead to a "Shoot him before he shoots me"

Actually, that's a problem I happen to have with the OP. Very few wars are ever fought between factions of equal power. The last time it happened was WWI, and guess what? It was fought to a standstill! Wars are usually won due to factors set before the war ever starts, such as intelligence, geography, infrastructure, allies, the societies' willingness to go through with it, etc.. However, we usually only ever find out which factors were important after the war is over, so we tend not to think about it. If we are to use an analogy to a game, I would think its something more like trading card games like Magic: the Gathering: the key to winning is often in the metagame, being able to assemble a deck with a good strategy in mind, with some elements of luck and finance involved which decides what kind of cards you can afford, and knowing what strengths you as a player have so you can be ready for actual play. If we want to speculate about space war logically, especially interstellar war, we must discard this stupid assumption that all sides must be equal in every way because it simply does not reflect reality, nor would it in fact lead to effective drama in fiction as you have noted.

Besides, you yourself are trying to suppose a situation where one side is trying to imbalance the playing field by resorting to an unconventional tactic (throwing asteroids at people). Don't complain to me that I am the one who is ignoring the stipulations in the OP.

I don't know about you but I prefer avoiding any confrontation where I could lose valuable soldier.

Then automate your combat craft. The idea that combat craft will necessarily be commanded by human passengers is a science fiction cliche, but does not necessarily reflect reality.

I do agree on that. Since I am going to use war machine with limited crew after my rock throwing little game. Call me old-fashioned but fully automated craft are also a scifi cliché. Hence let's settle for half-automated half-crewed, with seasoned soldier in the ship that are not affected by the communication time lag (except if you want us to go to war with the future Moon inhabitants?)

Uh, no. What fiction have you been reading where the combat spacecraft are fully automated and do not have human crew members aboard? I fully understand that its a dramatic conceit to ensure that human characters get to have screen time, but it simply does not make sense. We already have armed predator drones flying over our enemy's heads, and artificial intelligence is only going to improve from here, so there really is no reason besides dramatic conceit to have humans fighting on the front lines in space. In troop transports or in police craft, maybe, but the front line warships will almost certainly be drones.

So yes, you are being old fashioned.

The thing you may not have understood is that I am the attacker here, the one that is going to go directly for the home planet of my enemy. Did you really think that in a battle ship vs ship, I would take the time to go look for a rock to throw at the other guy? Seriously?

That was what the guy whose idea you are defending was going for, yes. I take it you understand how stupid that is?

I intend to go for the planet and cause mass destruction and I will use such a devious plan because I hope that there will be some survivors. Why ? Imagine you are in a battlefield and your best friend is ten meters from his leg. Would you let him die like that or try to help him? With the latter I just got 2 soldiers out with 1 bullet!

That's great, but there are situations where mass destruction isn't the best option, if its an option at all. Like I told Khoryos, we didn't use nukes in Iraq or Afghanistan. Your strategy wouldn't work if you are fighting a popular insurgency, or where you are trying to capture certain resources (like, say, food or arable land-- hey, its entirely possible war's could still be fought over something so simple!) or infrastructure intact.

At least less easy than bullets or nukes a "light second away".

You apparently do not appreciate the concept of "overkill." At a light second you would be killing people with lasers, NOT projectiles. But in any case, you can accelerate a tungsten bullet to much higher speeds much quicker than you can accelerate an asteroid, which makes it plenty destructive and harder to dodge than a massive hunk of rock you would have to be blind not to spot from thousands of miles away.

in a ship vs ship battle why not? as long as it works, it's fine with me.

In ship vs ship combat your opponent will be on the lookout for ship sized objects approaching the battlezone as a rule so that they won't be surprised when their enemy brings in reinforcements. Asteroids are more than ship sized, and more massive as well. Nuclear missiles have less inertia to haul around, so they will be more maneuverable, and fill a volume of space with radiation much larger than themselves; and you can just spam bullets to make it difficult to dodge them all. Asteroids don't have these advantages. As I keep telling you, it doesn't work, and that's the problem.

As long as I am not sure that I outgun my enemy 10 to 1 I will avoid any direct fight

When your weapon of choice is literally rocks, I can't blame you.

Thank you.

FYI I was being ironic.

[sirocco]

OK let's start over :

1- while full-automated ships have shown to be effective in Irak and Afghanistan, reliance on technology have been detrimental when preventing terrorism. Which is why I doubt that drones can be the only mean of fighting in a hard scifi war. Because they have their own weaknesses which are different from human beings'. Hence an association should be made. Maybe remote operators. Or one-manned ships.

2- I never believed in conquest. because you will surely end with insurgency, rebellions, civil wars and so on. In a planet vs. planet war, I really think that it would be stupid. But well, if it is for the sake of relocating some of your citizens on a new world , why not? Colonization somewhat worked on Africa and Asia.

3 - I like your multiple-head-nuclear-missiles idea but I have just got new ideas : since asteroids can be used as heat sinks, once you have mined for valuable materials, you can build a base and park your ships inside. The opponent will know that something's coming but not what it is exactly.

[Nyrath]

1- while full-automated ships have shown to be effective in Irak and Afghanistan, reliance on technology have been detrimental when preventing terrorism. Which is why I doubt that drones can be the only mean of fighting in a hard scifi war.

Well, the way I see it, this only applies if there is a space warfare equivalent to terrorism suppression. Offhand I cannot think if any such cases.

2- I never believed in conquest. because you will surely end with insurgency, rebellions, civil wars and so on.

That sort of depends upon your technological assumptions. If your tech base includes brainwashing machines capable of processing the conquered population in a reasonable amount of time, you won't have to worry about insurgency, rebellions, and civil wars. They will teach their children to be good citizens of your empire, and it will become self-sustaining.

3 - I like your multiple-head-nuclear-missiles idea but I have just got new ideas : since asteroids can be used as heat sinks, once you have mined for valuable materials, you can build a base and park your ships inside. The opponent will know that something's coming but not what it is exactly.

Well, there is the small matter of mounting huge enough engines to move the asteroid around. The opponent will probably know what's inside because they will watch your ships travel to the asteroid, and watch them insert themselves. Asteroids are probably better as orbital fortresses.

[Sheridan]

I haven't replied here because I didn't think I had much to add. However, in Sirocco's defense, there is at least one circumstance where "throwing rocks" becomes not only feasible, but desirable.

Heinlein's famous novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has it right: if you don't have nukes or other high technology weapons, rocks are the next-best orbit-to-ground WMDs. They're common, cheap, and leave no lingering radiation for quite a bit of boom. Now, that's not to say that nukes aren't better ship-to-ship weapons (though, personally, I always liked the "can full of tungsten/DU nails on maneuvering jets" approach: it's relatively cheap and lets you use the delta-v of the firing ship relative to the target ship as part of the imparted energy), nor that this works in anything but a Luna-to-Earth scenario (or, perhaps, a Phobos- or Deimos-to-Mars scenario). However, in those very specific circumstances, it isn't a bad idea.

Also, while AI may become a staple of our society by the time that we develop (relatively) cheap interplanetary travel, it may be that humans won't trust them for kill/no-kill decisions on their own. Heck, we have enough trouble trusting each other, let alone some machine that may or may not think like a human. There may be no stealth in space, but there is likely to be EW, and you really don't want to be the nation that built an AI that decides a passenger liner is really an enemy troopship trying to sneak past under a false IFF transponder. Sure, the same thing occurs with troops--however, they can be disciplined individually to cut the blame to their mother country (mind you, this also assumes that AI will be a long time--if ever--in gaining equal citizenship and rights as their organic counterparts).

I could definitely see a small, crewed "mothership" that is, essentially, a missile boat carrying "brilliant" (but not full self-aware AI) missiles that require a final kill/no-kill decision from the operators before impact or detonation. They may carry small drones for atmospheric or ground use as well; the MOOSE system or something similar would be easy enough to adapt to remote drones (plus, you wouldn't have the same sort of "oops" factor if you lost a nonsentient drone instead of a human during insertion).

Assuming that insurgency wars/capturing infrastructure as opposed to total war is the wave of the future (which I'm not quite ready to call just yet; every war that I've studied in history started out with the assumption that it would be just like the last, and that has not been the case with most), then yes, Formless has very good points about the use if WsMD and the relative strengths of the players. It is rather unlikely that two different nations will have exactly the same forces, and (unless your PR people don't give a damn about public opinion) WsMD are really overkill when hunting insurgents.

[Junghalli]

1- while full-automated ships have shown to be effective in Irak and Afghanistan, reliance on technology have been detrimental when preventing terrorism. Which is why I doubt that drones can be the only mean of fighting in a hard scifi war. Because they have their own weaknesses which are different from human beings'. Hence an association should be made. Maybe remote operators. Or one-manned ships.

That depends on how good your AI is. Drones have serious limitations today because we don't have the computer technology to make them very smart yet. IIRC currently we can make them about equivalent to insects in terms of the intelligence they have on their own, anything more you need remote human control, which carries its own problems. But unless computer technology stagnates for some reason this will probably change in the future. Theoretically there's no reason you couldn't eventually build drones as smart as human soldiers, or smarter.

Also, while AI may become a staple of our society by the time that we develop (relatively) cheap interplanetary travel, it may be that humans won't trust them for kill/no-kill decisions on their own. Heck, we have enough trouble trusting each other, let alone some machine that may or may not think like a human. There may be no stealth in space, but there is likely to be EW, and you really don't want to be the nation that built an AI that decides a passenger liner is really an enemy troopship trying to sneak past under a false IFF transponder. Sure, the same thing occurs with troops--however, they can be disciplined individually to cut the blame to their mother country (mind you, this also assumes that AI will be a long time--if ever--in gaining equal citizenship and rights as their organic counterparts).

Of course, if we're talking about a society with superintelligent AI there you have to consider the military effectiveness cost of putting something as slow and stupid as a fleshy human in such a critical place in your command loop. In some situations this may be a non-trivial consideration.

[sirocco]

That depends on how good your AI is. Drones have serious limitations today because we don't have the computer technology to make them very smart yet. IIRC currently we can make them about equivalent to insects in terms of the intelligence they have on their own, anything more you need remote human control, which carries its own problems. But unless computer technology stagnates for some reason this will probably change in the future. Theoretically there's no reason you couldn't eventually build drones as smart as human soldiers, or smarter.
Of course, if we're talking about a society with superintelligent AI there you have to consider the military effectiveness cost of putting something as slow and stupid as a fleshy human in such a critical place in your command loop. In some situations this may be a non-trivial consideration.

I may be old-fashioned again but I doubt future humans to rely so easily on AI. I believe that if we can make machines smarter we will make humans more smarter so that they can keep up.
Drones will surely be used for war, space exploration and exploitation primarily, maybe to help people do harsh jobs but remember that :
"A machine that can solve a problem 4 billions time faster than any human can also make a 4 billion more stupid blunder than said human."
Artificial Intelligence may be created, but Artificial Common Sense will be trickier to achieve.

And if a problem happens, people will need a someone (a human of course) to blame.