The real question is, "What Happens to Trek AFTER...?&q

[Coyote]

Okay, so it's a given that in a one-on-one slugfest between the SW galaxy and the ST continuum, the forces of Star Wars emerge victorious. It matters not if you slice it by brute firepower, tactics, or old-fashioned attrition, the end result is Star Destroyers parked in orbit over Earth, Romulus, Cardassia, etc...

So really, the question is not "Could Trek stand up to the Empire" or "Could TRek at least make the battle hurt really really bad?" but rather, once the battle is over and the molten droplets of once-proud Starships hurtle into the nearest convenient gravity well, then what?

I could see the Federation trying to join the Rebellion. They would see the Rebels as kindred spirits, while the Rebels would see the Federation personnel knocking at their door as naive but enthusiastic puppies that might, after some reality checks, make decent grunts and fodder. The Romulans and Cardassians would try to suck up to the Empire and end up essentially as toadies for them.

The Klingons that remained would probably try to join the Rebellion as well, at least for the chance to do battle against the Empire. The Rebs, IMO would hand them blasters and point them in the right direction and write them off. The Borg would be wiped out to the last nano-infant. The Jem'Hadar? They would end up as slave shock troops for the Empire or as mid-level bouty hunters working for the Hutts. The Founders would have to fit in with the other changelings we've seen in SW.

But seriously, given the mentality of the Trek universe, once the shooting was over, what would these species really do? Let's face it, this is EARTH we're talking about, and while the Federation and StarFleet may be a bunch of Politically Correct weenies, our history has still produced some damn fine warriors. Is it possible even that the people of Earth would stage a coup and overthrow the Federation power structure and actually JOIN the Empire voluntarily?

[Vympel]

"I could see the Federation trying to join the Rebellion. They would see the Rebels as kindred spirits, while the Rebels would see the Federation personnel knocking at their door as naive but enthusiastic puppies that might, after some reality checks, make decent grunts and fodder"

Would they? I don't know to be honest. The Rebel Alliance doesn't strike me as similar to the UFP AT ALL.

"But seriously, given the mentality of the Trek universe, once the shooting was over, what would these species really do? Let's face it, this is EARTH we're talking about, and while the Federation and StarFleet may be a bunch of Politically Correct weenies, our history has still produced some damn fine warriors. Is it possible even that the people of Earth would stage a coup and overthrow the Federation power structure and actually JOIN the Empire voluntarily?"

Possibly. Remember the Galactic Empire is a human civilization- but then again Federation citizens have been so indoctrinated with how 'ideal' (in the words of Doc Crusher) their society is ...

[Coyote]

"I could see the Federation trying to join the Rebellion. They would see the Rebels as kindred spirits,

Would they? I don't know to be honest. The Rebel Alliance doesn't strike me as similar to the UFP AT ALL.

Well, yeah-- the Feds would see the Rebels: multispecies alliance, where non-humans hold rank and power, battling against the oppressive speciesist Empire... as far as the Feddies are concerned these are kin, from Starfleet's point of view.

But yeah, the Rebels would not see it that way at all. I think the Rebels would see the Federation as a bunch of, well, naive weenies. I mean, here come these straggling remnants, wearing pajamas and carrying little boxes, talking up a PC blue streak. They'd appreciate the eagerness and see the merit in the idealistic values, but they'd still shake their heads sadly and wait for the cherry-bustin' sizzle of blaster bolts to start waking these clowns up to reality.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

I doubt the Rebel Alliance will even consider to accept the Feds, or for that matter, any AQ ex-governments. The AQ will be *liability* for the rebels. I mean, what do you expect from an ally whose ships cannot even keep up with yours in FTL travel? Not to mention those weak shields, unstable warp cores, and pathetic ship design.

The rebels are planning a co-ordinated strike against an Imperial base:
Admiral Ackbar: Our target is the Imperial space station orbiting Jupiter. Calamari Cruisers and Nebulon-B Frigates will arrive first and engage the guarding ISDs, then, fifteen minutes afterwards, the Galaxy-Class Cruisers and Romulan Warbirds should arrive and go for the space station.
Captain Picard: What do you mean, FIFTEEN MINUTES???
Admiral Ackbar: ::suddenly realized:: Ooohhhh... my apologize, I forget it takes **weeks** for your ships to reach the space station....

[Vympel]

Their ships are pretty much a right off. The only way you could make them competetive is to ... hey I got an IDEA!!!

Remember the tugs from X-Wing and TIE Fighter? We clip them on to Feddie ships (it'll require more than one- since tugs seem to be limited to moving around cargo containers and smaller) and presto! instant hyperdrive. It'll be slow in comparison to pretty much anything in Star Wars but at least it won't take them forever to go places.

[Solid Snake]

I can only see the Free Federation joining the rebels. The Commie pissants would accept Imperial Rule very easily.

[Cal Wright]

It would seem that if you follow human nature, and the way that most societies here on Earth act, that they would not take an Imperial ass pounding, nor Imperial rule lightly. So it would seem that at least the core of the UFP would want to join the Rebel Alliance. As far as thier ships go, they would just have to be staged close by and be backup for any Rebel ships. As for the Klingons, just think of them as smaller, weaker, stupider Wookiees. Perhaps after a few bar fights and ripped arms, the Rebels would let the Klingons enter if for nothing more than to help root out Imperial presence around Kronos. The Romulans and Cardassians would just play lackeys to the Empire, that's a given. Romulans maybe questionable, but the Cardassians showed straight up in DS9 that they will just lay down and be ruled. Gul D Kat (sp) was the real reason they turned from the Dominion because he got fucked over. Other than that though. Also, the ESB Radio Drama stated that Star Wars ships actually leave the galaxy. I don't know for sure if they can enter other galaxies or that part would work but it would seem they wouldn't need a wormhold, it would just be useful. Either way, after the Empire shows up and takes over, there will be more blood shed.

[Evil Jerk]

Given an Imperial conquest in the AQ, there would be no Federation, I'd imagine it would be broken up an put under provinicial Imperial rule, it's unifying governmental structures dissolved, so what we would have left is the individual races of the former UFP and what they'd do.

Frankly, I think Fed members are being over-estimated, most of them appear to be meek obedient citizens who are conditioned to obey authority and what it says no matter what, especially humans (I don't care what Weyoun says, Weyoun is an idiot) and there's no reason why the majority of them wouldn't obey facist Imperial rule over communist Fed rule.
I believe Vulcan would never resist (it's illogical, after all), Earth wouldn't either, and the others would probably fall into line too.
The frontier colonies full of more independant minded people wouldn't really rebel either, they resent the UFP anyway and the Empire wouldn't be interested in ejecting them from their worthless rocks like the Cardies tried with the Maquis.

But.. assuming a significant portion of the occupied AQ tried to join the Rebellion (assuming it still exists), like others say, they would be a burden unless of course they waited a very long time until Imperial technology is widely distributed in the AQ.

[NecronLord]

Tarkin / grand moff of milky way

stabs communicator on desk.

Send in the clowns.. i mean send in the cardassian and romulan admirals

[Guest]

I don't really see the Empire leaving much of a back bone to form a resistance. Look at the state of earth after WW3. An attack from the combined Imperal Fleet would kill off all main protagonists the Feddies could offer up. plus look at the Zeno Phobia of the UFP. all the ppl in top jobs are human.

[Isolder74]

There would still be some population to resent Imperial rule. And if The Fed's capitulate likje would be expected after the Imps bomb San Fransisco then there would be alot of Fed loyalists stilll runing around to annoy the ISO

[Patrick Degan]

It would seem that if you follow human nature, and the way that most societies here on Earth act, that they would not take an Imperial ass pounding, nor Imperial rule lightly.

Hate to have to tell you this, but human nature is for the most part the opposite. The Danish, Dutch, Austrian, Belgian, French, Czechoslovak, Balkan, and even Polish populations largely acquiesced themselves to Nazi rule, the resistance movements notwithstanding. The peoples of Eastern Europe tamely submitted to Soviet rule for 45 years. And nobody who got rolled over by the Mongol hordes really tried to challenge them either. The Aztecs and Incas surrendered to the Spanish and the Indians to the Americans. Nobody with any common sense or a survival instinct throws themselves away fighting a hopeless battle. That's human nature.

So it would seem that at least the core of the UFP would want to join the Rebel Alliance.

From what we see in the episodes, the population of Earth passively acquiesced themselves to Admiral Layton's brief military dictatorship in "Paradise Lost" and the crew of the Enterprise surrendered en-masse to a Ferengi boarding party of six in the TNG episode "Rascals". Most of the Federation's human population are sheep. And as has been pointed out by somebody else, the Vulcans would consider resistance illogical and also submit to the Empire.

So much for the core of the UFP.

As far as thier ships go, they would just have to be staged close by and be backup for any Rebel ships

As target and spoofing drones, perhaps. Even compared to the worst of the Rebel Alliance's inventory, Starfleet ships are junk.

As for the Klingons, just think of them as smaller, weaker, stupider Wookiees. Perhaps after a few bar fights and ripped arms, the Rebels would let the Klingons enter if for nothing more than to help root out Imperial presence around Kronos.

This of course is assuming that the Klingons wouldn't decide to ally themselves with the Empire and enlist themselves as their enforcers. And let's not have any nonsense about the Klingons resisting the Empire to the death, shall we? We already know that they'll throw themselves on the mercy of a more powerful race or nation if they see their own interest in doing so (re: The Undiscovered Country).

The Romulans and Cardassians would just play lackeys to the Empire, that's a given. Romulans maybe questionable, but the Cardassians showed straight up in DS9 that they will just lay down and be ruled.

The Romulans and Cardassians will acquiesce themselves readily enough to the New Order.

Either way, after the Empire shows up and takes over, there will be more bloodshed.

Probably a lot less bloodshed than you imagine. If the Empire offers the opportunity to eliminate the twin threats of the Dominion and the Borg, most Alpha Quadrant races would deem that good enough reason to support the New Order right there. Life under the Empire promises to be a better prospect than life under either of those powers. Beyond that, I don't see the Rebel Alliance gaining many useful recruits and certainly no useable technology from any of the AQ races.

[HemlockGrey]

..certainly no useable technology from any of the AQ races.

Dunno. Transporters, if fitted on Rebel ships, might be good for knocking out unshieled stuff, and they'd help with logistics.

[Patrick Degan]

Dunno. Transporters, if fitted on Rebel ships, might be good for knocking out unshieled stuff, and they'd help with logistics.

Transporters are well known for vulnerability even to ordinary magnetic fields and inability to penetrate dense materials, so as a weapons delivery system it would be very limited. And as a cargo-mover, it can't haul up more material in one run than a large repulsorlift transport and freighter.

[Evil Jerk]

..certainly no useable technology from any of the AQ races.

Dunno. Transporters, if fitted on Rebel ships, might be good for knocking out unshieled stuff, and they'd help with logistics.

Assuming the Rebels would trust such unreliable, untrustworthy technology (personally I wouldn't even trust it with my luggage),.

[HemlockGrey]

Well, for that matter, neither would I.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Because the Federation people are so peaceful, being under Imperial rule wouldn't be so easy for them. But, sooner or later, they'll get used to it. After taking over the Federation, the Imperials would probably crush opposition to them. Then, the only problem is those omnipotent beings...

[Coyote]

Many good points are brought up here, but I want to clarify that StarFleet and the UFP have been effectively smashed-- that there would be NO StarFleet ships left to oppose, even the little Defiant class frigates would be trashed. Essentially, the remnants of the Federation-- humans and aliens alike-- would basically come in small teams or even as individuals in the Rebel cause.

I still think that many ex-Feds would support the Rebellion. The Feds are used to statist rule, but that rule is admittedly gentle and species-tolerant. The Empire is definitely not a cuddly teddy-bear government and seems very humanocentric. If you rub sheep the wrong way long enough, sooner or later a few rams will emerge among them. Not EVERYONE was happy under UFP rule, there were the Maquis, and Kirk's crew in TOS still had some mettle to back up their ideals-- and TOS was only, what, 75 years before TNG?

So, no, the Feddies would come to the Rebels as any recruits. They'd not be inducted as full crews and placed in charge of reactors and ion artillery batteries; they'd become just another source of grunts-- resigned to life on the bottom of the totem pole, but sopping their consciences with being at the bottom of the totem pole of the righteous side (species-tolerant Rebels seeking 'freedom'). The big problem for the ex-Feds would be if the Rebels won and ushered in true freedom of a type the Feds are not accustomed too-- the freedom to fall on your ass and pick yourself up by your own bootstraps.

And I still think the Klingons would mostly end up as enforces for various Hutt factions. They're slightly more agreeable than Gamorreans.

[paladin]

The Aztecs and Incas surrendered to the Spanish and the Indians to the Americans.

After putting up a fight!!!

[Patrick Degan]

The Aztecs and Incas surrendered to the Spanish and the Indians to the Americans.

After putting up a fight!!!

The Aztecs put up virtually no fight whatsoever. The conquistadores' muskets and horses convinced most of them that they were dealing with gods. Moctezuma himself lost his morale just from the appearance of a comet before the arrival of Cortez.

The Inca resistance was marginal at best, and the Spaniards had no problem subduing them within a year.

The North American indian tribes put up more of a resistance for several decades —and were decimated for their trouble. After the Ghost Dance Rebellion failed and the Nez Perce were finally cornered in Idaho and forced to surrender, there was no more resistance to the U.S. Army. The survivors went meekly to the reservations.

The brutal reality is that in the end, they gave in. All of them.

[Master of Ossus]

Not to say that you're wrong, Patrick (you're absolutely right), but there were a few other factors in the Aztec conclusion that the Europeans were Gods. There were a few similarities in their clothes, armor, and coincidental physical details that also helped to convince them. And some of their tribes did put up a fight, although the majority of them did quickly join with the Spaniards while they sacked the Aztec empire.

The Incas did not put up much of a fight, and the Indians did not do so either, but the analogy is flawed, anyway. A better example would be how many of Rome's early enemies voluntarily surrendered without ANY fight because they were guaranteed Roman citizenship. There would, undoubtedly, be some members of the UFP who, upon hearing of the Rebellion, supported it, but the majority would not risk their own lives for their ideals. That is something only a tiny fraction of the populace is willing to do.

[tharkûn]

First off let's say you are right and 99.99% of the population decides not resist (remember this is with historical precedence) ... you are still talking about millions of people willing to die for their cause. When your population base is in the billions ... even the lunatic wackos are a sizeable group.

Next off as far as resistance goes ... cap ships and technology are largely irrelevant. Some SF ships could go run and hide in places like the badlands, the depths of space, etc. these would be largely ineffectual though, limited to either very weakly defended targets or hulls to be retrofitted with new technology. In either event some ships would certainly survive ... most would be utterly worthless.

The big thing in resistance is the number of people willing to do very dangerous things. Gaurds can be killed by garroting, knives ... even rocks from slings or off tall structures. And that is just the dirt simple crud. Start mixing in explosives, sniper rifles (which we have seen in ST), etc. and you do NOT want to be in the occupation forces. For instance the feddie resitance armed a suicide bomber with a kilotonne bomb gets into an imperial compound ... good bye everyone inside. Given the amount of antimatter in SF you have plenty to use on such missions ... not to mention old fashioned nukes and fun bioweapons.

As to the Aztecs not putting up a fight ... what the frik are you smoking?

First off the Azetcs were not fighting the spaniards alone ... long before Tenochtitlan fell the Spaniards had allied (annexed) with Tlascala, anyone who says that the Spanish beat the Aztec's is a moron ... the Spanish followed a tradition that was old when Rome used it ... ally with some of the locals against other locals they hate (not to mention that the Aztecs had been fighting all sorts of internal strife before) Cortes was then ambushed at Cholula, more troops down the drain. After kidnapping Montezuma the Aztecs forced the Spanish to flee a fortified position due to the severe losses inflicted. After FLEEING Tenochtitlan Cortes was faced with an Aztec army which almost bled the Spanish and their allies out, Cortes made a desperate cavalry attack against the enemy standard. When the standard went down the Aztec army (which by all accounts was winning the battle) rapidly lost morale and fled. All told the vast majority of Cortes army to attack Tenochtitlan ended up dead.

All of this of course ignores the fact that after Cortes finished his retreat, received reinforcements, and then went back to Tenochtitlan with reinforcements ... the city withstood months of seige and would have still kicked the crap out of the Spaniards excepting one little thing:

Small Pox

Its pretty damn hard to resist or fight when people are dropping like flies from disease.

In short not only did the Spanish have better tech and presumed godhood; the battle was also one using native cannon fodder and even that would have failed without massive death toll run up in the small pox epidemic.

But maybe that was just a fluke? Let's try the Incas.

Well let's see Huascar and Atahualpa had fought a 3 year civil war about who should rule. Pizzarro then kidnapped Atahualpa, fortified his position, and eventually killed his hostage. The Inca's assembled an army in excess of 200,000 soldiers to fight the Spanish, but the civil war coupled with disease allowed the Spaniards to hold. The Incas retreated when the logistics became untenable and continued violent resistance from the Andes until 1572 (note *40 years* after the Spanish conqueored the Incan Empire).

The single biggest reason the Europeans steamrolled the New World was SMALLPOX and other diseases. This is true for the North American Indians, as well as the Latin American Indians. When your population is cviolently contracting resistance is much harder. Further one would note that the percentage of resistors (hundreds of thousands in open revolt in a society in the millions) is quite high. If the feddies worked at even a similar percentage ... then the Imps are looking at high troop loss or obnoxious troop deployments.

Further if the Imps actually went out and BDZ'ed or DS'ed a single planet you can bet that many more people would join the resistance, civillian atrocities do not lead to lessoned resistance support. Sanity stops many people from taking up arms in resistance, however if a good 30 friends of yours were killed in what you view as an unwarrented attack ... you are much more likely to revolt. Love, emotion, etc. make people do stupid things.

Lastly we are forgetting one other little fact ... the feddies are used to a "utopia" where people can do whatever and still get fed. Social services does not seem to be that high on the Imperial Order's to-do-list. You are likely going to see feddies starving, out of work, etc. as suddenly they are out of jobs and society is strained like after any war. Underground organizations always have very high recruitment rates just after war ... from the communists to the Russian Mafia after the break-up ... change dislocates people and you have more people with little/nothing to lose.

All told the feddies, at the section 31 types, would be terrorists from hell. They have no qualms about xenocide, no qualms about suicide missions, and no qualms about harming the innocents. They also have access to kilo(mega) tonne bombs, bioweapons, chemical weapons (which are readily created in replicators ... its all just C, O, N, S, and H ... right?) and other fun toys. Transporters do have their uses ... like beaming Imperial officers *out* of unsheilded locations (you can't maintain high alert, full jamming 24/7, especially if you go bar hopping) and into resistance hands, beaming bombs into hard to access places (like internal cavities not man accessible), and maybe even beaming poison around.

All told conquest of the AQ is not likely worth any economic gain (which is your major goal here) ... it will require hundreds of million of troops (if not more) to hold (going by real world figures ... in Kashmir you have 1 soldier per 4 adult males or something ... and the terrorists still can kill).

In short the only way in hell the Empire would even bother to set up shop in this backwater hell would be if the Emperor wanted to conqueor it for some unknown reason. It certainly is not worth the manpower investment requirements (nutcases with bioweapons and thermonuclear equivalent bombs have this bad thing about raising the cost of rebuilding the place and getting some return). Much more likely is the Imps come in, kick some ass, and then set up a client state. That way its not their men who get killed when the whackos start suicide bombing ... and you can still exploit whatever you intended to exploit (assuming the Imps are thinking about this rationally).

[Patrick Degan]

First off let's say you are right and 99.99% of the population decides not resist (remember this is with historical precedence) ... you are still talking about millions of people willing to die for their cause. When your population base is in the billions ... even the lunatic wackos are a sizeable group.

And the basis for this assertion is...? You still cling to the idea of legions of "lunatic whackos" willing to die for the Cause long after the war is hopelessly lost. Nevermind that this is contrary to every example of history.

Next off as far as resistance goes ... cap ships and technology are largely irrelevant. Some SF ships could go run and hide in places like the badlands, the depths of space, etc. these would be largely ineffectual though, limited to either very weakly defended targets or hulls to be retrofitted with new technology. In either event some ships would certainly survive ... most would be utterly worthless.

If most of the starfleets have been wiped out, the surviving ships will be of zero use. Therefore this is not a factor in any realistic equation.

The big thing in resistance is the number of people willing to do very dangerous things. Gaurds can be killed by garroting, knives

Assuming those knives can cut through stormtrooper armour...

even rocks from slings or off tall structures.

Assuming there are no guards on the roofs or securecam observation, that is.

And that is just the dirt simple crud. Start mixing in explosives, sniper rifles (which we have seen in ST), etc. and you do NOT want to be in the occupation forces.

Occupation forces have dealt with incipient terrorism for time immemorial. It's one of the hazards of the army life, and every soldier knows this. Snipers have had zero effectiveness in dislodging occupying armies.

For instance the feddie resitance armed a suicide bomber with a kilotonne bomb gets into an imperial compound ... good bye everyone inside.

Ah... you're hoping that Imperial security will be as incompetent as the security at Logan Airport, and that the surrounding population won't mind having fallout dumped on them. Pardon me, but I don't think that will win popular sympathy for the resistance.

Given the amount of antimatter in SF you have plenty to use on such missions ... not to mention old fashioned nukes and fun bioweapons.

Naturally, supplies of antimatter will be unguarded and easily accessible. Oh, and where are the old fashioned nukes supposed to come from? The Federation doesn't have any in their inventory. And bioweapons tailored for humans are more likely to affect the surrounding civilian population than stormtroopers wearing NBC armour.

As to the Aztecs not putting up a fight ... what the frik are you smoking?

I don't smoke. I have to wonder what funny mushrooms you might be ingesting, however.

First off the Azetcs were not fighting the spaniards alone ... long before Tenochtitlan fell the Spaniards had allied (annexed) with Tlascala, anyone who says that the Spanish beat the Aztec's is a moron ... the Spanish followed a tradition that was old when Rome used it ... ally with some of the locals against other locals they hate (not to mention that the Aztecs had been fighting all sorts of internal strife before)

How the Spaniards defeated the Azetcs is immaterial. And the fact that they were able to enlist local allies only further undermines your entire argument.

Cortes was then ambushed at Cholula, more troops down the drain. After kidnapping Montezuma the Aztecs forced the Spanish to flee a fortified position due to the severe losses inflicted. After FLEEING Tenochtitlan Cortes was faced with an Aztec army which almost bled the Spanish and their allies out, Cortes made a desperate cavalry attack against the enemy standard. When the standard went down the Aztec army (which by all accounts was winning the battle) rapidly lost morale and fled. All told the vast majority of Cortes army to attack Tenochtitlan ended up dead.

The Aztecs still lost. They fled the field. Within three years of Cortez' landing, the Aztec Empire was no more.

All of this of course ignores the fact that after Cortes finished his retreat, received reinforcements, and then went back to Tenochtitlan with reinforcements ... the city withstood months of seige and would have still kicked the crap out of the Spaniards excepting one little thing: Small Pox Its pretty damn hard to resist or fight when people are dropping like flies from disease.

Again immaterial. The Aztecs lost the war and afterward never attempted to resist their conquerors. The fact that the Spanish accidentally brought a bioweapon along with them makes no difference in the final outcome. And if on the other hand the Spaniards knew exactly what they were doing in regards to smallpox infection, then my case is all the stronger for it. The surviving Aztecs submitted to Spanish rule and never dared rise up against their conquerors. Historical fact, whether you like it or not.

In short not only did the Spanish have better tech and presumed godhood; the battle was also one using native cannon fodder and even that would have failed without massive death toll run up in the small pox epidemic.

And this supports your argument how...?

But maybe that was just a fluke? Let's try the Incas. Huascar and Atahualpa had fought a 3 year civil war about who should rule. Pizzarro then kidnapped Atahualpa, fortified his position, and eventually killed his hostage. The Inca's assembled an army in excess of 200,000 soldiers to fight the Spanish, but the civil war coupled with disease allowed the Spaniards to hold. The Incas retreated when the logistics became untenable and continued violent resistance from the Andes until 1572 (note *40 years* after the Spanish conqueored the Incan Empire).

So...in the end, the Spaniards conquered the Inca Empire contemporaneously with the Aztecs, which incipient resistance failed to dislodge, and the surviving Incas reconciled themselves to Spanish rule. Do please tell us how this supports your argument.

The single biggest reason the Europeans steamrolled the New World was SMALLPOX and other diseases. This is true for the North American Indians, as well as the Latin American Indians. When your population is cviolently contracting resistance is much harder. Further one would note that the percentage of resistors (hundreds of thousands in open revolt in a society in the millions) is quite high. If the feddies worked at even a similar percentage ... then the Imps are looking at high troop loss or obnoxious troop deployments.

1. By the time the British got involved on the North American continent, they knew of the low native resistance to European diseases and incorporated biological warfare into their strategy. You're only opening the door ever wider to examples of deliberate ruthlessness on the part of technologically superior occupation forces and the inadequacy of partisan resistance with no outside support to alter the outcome.

2. The Americans also employed biowarfare the same way the British did —giving the Indians smallpox-infected blankets for the winter. Again, how the conquest is achieved is immaterial.

3. You also overlook the fact that the Spaniards, the British, and ultimately the Americans did not face legions of resistors. They dealt with them one group at a time. They had the patience, personnel, and hardware to wipe out each rebellious tribe as they came up. And afterward, the survivors meekly went into the reservations. Again, fact of history —whether you like it or not.

Further if the Imps actually went out and BDZ'ed or DS'ed a single planet you can bet that many more people would join the resistance, civillian atrocities do not lead to lessoned resistance support.

And just how much resistance did we face in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Sanity stops many people from taking up arms in resistance, however if a good 30 friends of yours were killed in what you view as an unwarrented attack ... you are much more likely to revolt. Love, emotion, etc. make people do stupid things.

A fact which is utterly immaterial to the question of how successful incipient terrorism from widely scattered bands of fanatics will be in dislodging an occupation army which is in complete command of native territory and is not having to fight a foreign power simulteneously and therefore will not have to contend with a resistance which is receiving foreign aid.

Lastly we are forgetting one other little fact ... the feddies are used to a "utopia" where people can do whatever and still get fed. Social services does not seem to be that high on the Imperial Order's to-do-list.

Funny, but I don't recall seeing civilians in breadlines or concentration camps in any of the Star Wars movies. Point of fact, Imperial authority seemed to have very little impact upon day-to-day life within the Empire, and Bespin certainly gives us a gauge to the level of creature-comfort and convenience to be found within the SW galaxy even during the rule of Palpatine. Luke Skywalker mentions how little money he could get for his landspeeder because of the appearance in the market of a new model landspeeder in ANH, so the free market system seems to be up and running quite nicely in their society. And in any case, comfort level hardly is enough on its own to spark a rebellion.

You are likely going to see feddies starving, out of work, etc. as suddenly they are out of jobs and society is strained like after any war.

Such as we do not see in the SW movies and as was not the case in Rome's conquests of the ancient world.

Underground organizations always have very high recruitment rates just after war ... from the communists to the Russian Mafia after the break-up ... change dislocates people and you have more people with little/nothing to lose.

Ah, such as in Japan after we rolled in or in East Europe after the Soviets rolled in...oh, that's right. There were no resistance movements in those conquered countries, were there?

All told the feddies, at the section 31 types, would be terrorists from hell. They have no qualms about xenocide, no qualms about suicide missions, and no qualms about harming the innocents.

All of which will only bolster civilian support for the Imperials, and occupation armies have dealt with "terrorists from hell" for time immemorial. Unless their nation is on shaky political ground for maintaining their conquest, the occupation forces have usually responded quite efficently and ruthlessly to such "problems", until the terrorists are all dead.

They also have access to kilo(mega) tonne bombs

And the canon evidence for this is...?

bioweapons, chemical weapons (which are readily created in replicators ... its all just C, O, N, S, and H ... right?) and other fun toys.

Any and all of which are perfectly subject to analysis and counter. Or you assume that the Imperials won't have scientists and military engineers along with the army.

Transporters do have their uses ... like beaming Imperial officers *out* of unsheilded locations (you can't maintain high alert, full jamming 24/7, especially if you go bar hopping) and into resistance hands, beaming bombs into hard to access places (like internal cavities not man accessible), and maybe even beaming poison around.

And, what's to prevent the Imperials setting up electromagnetic jamming sufficent to cover an entire planet? A simple magnetic shield deployed over the gulag at Rura Penthe was sufficent to prevent any attempts at beaming into or out of the Klingon prison compound and a large area surrounding it on the planetary surface. Really, this is hardly a challenge to Imperial engineering or tactical planning.

All told conquest of the AQ is not likely worth any economic gain (which is your major goal here) ... it will require hundreds of million of troops (if not more) to hold (going by real world figures ... in Kashmir you have 1 soldier per 4 adult males or something ... and the terrorists still can kill).

Why the conquest is being carried out is not important in this equation, and if anything, a new galaxy with inhabitable worlds, resources, and industrial populations which can be assimilated into Imperial society are economic assets in and of themselves. Furthermore, the Empire has hundreds of millions of troops and even more war droids to call upon. And again, incipient terrorism is an occupational hazard (pun intended) for armies of occupation and has been dealt with for time immemorial with varying degrees of ruthlessness and political indoctrination of the general populace. Without outside support, terrorism and resistance movements have zero chance of prevailing in the long term and most often even in the short term.

In short the only way in hell the Empire would even bother to set up shop in this backwater hell would be if the Emperor wanted to conqueor it for some unknown reason.

Which is tediously immaterial to the fact of the conquest. How you love to drag irrelevancies by the tonne into this discussion.

It certainly is not worth the manpower investment requirements (nutcases with bioweapons and thermonuclear equivalent bombs have this bad thing about raising the cost of rebuilding the place and getting some return).

You really imagine that this is a challenge to a society capable of building moon-sized battlestations within timeframes of six months?

Much more likely is the Imps come in, kick some ass, and then set up a client state. That way its not their men who get killed when the whackos start suicide bombing

Hate to tell you this, but even "client states" have considerable manpower support from the conquering power, often establish and train comparable armies and security forces, and establish whatever other mechanisms are necessary to maintain their presence and the security of their satellite government. I need only point out the examples of the Warsaw Pact armies and secret police forces and the Japan Self Defence Forces as evidence. They also aren't likely to be dislodged by isolated whackos carrying out the odd suicide bombing or two.

and you can still exploit whatever you intended to exploit (assuming the Imps are thinking about this rationally).

And your assumption, for some bizarre reason, is that they wouldn't be thinking rationally about the situation. I hate to have to point this out, but the myth of the Mad Dictator launcing wars for the Hell of It is exactly that —a myth. No war is ever launched without a reason behind it and without concrete, achievable goals behind the conquest. You have a lot of romantic notions about war and partisan resistance/terrorist movements which have no correlation with reality, and these fatally damage your argument.

[tharkûn]

And the basis for this assertion is...? You still cling to the idea of legions of "lunatic whackos" willing to die for the Cause long after the war is hopelessly lost. Nevermind that this is contrary to every example of history.
The number of suicide bombers in Palestine relative to the populace as a whole. The number of French resistance fighters relative to the populace as a whole. The number of EDES/ELAS Fighters relative to the population as a whole. The number of ETA terrorists relative to the population as a whole. The number of IRA terrorists relative to the population as a whole. Look it up ... in the course of human history there have ALWAYS been a small fringe of whackos. If the feddies have even half of the historical number then you are talking about millions of nutcases.

If most of the starfleets have been wiped out, the surviving ships will be of zero use. Therefore this is not a factor in any realistic equation.
Except of course for their use as:
1. Antimatter supply.
2. Bioweapons labs.
3. Transporters.

They can't hope to win in open engagement, they can be used in a resistance movement.

Assuming those knives can cut through stormtrooper armour...
You mean like Ewok arrows? Aim for the joints.

You mean when you target off duty soldiers? Wait till the troops get off duty and visit the local bar/brothel and kill them there. Soldiers do not stay in full combat gear 24/7.

Assuming there are no guards on the roofs or securecam observation, that is.
Oh yes let's put 5 guards on every roof on round the clock patrol for every planet ... yes that's not going to require obscene amounts of troops to be deployed

Security cams only matter if the Imps can catch on to what you are doing and react before you kill someone.

Ah... you're hoping that Imperial security will be as incompetent as the security at Logan Airport, and that the surrounding population won't mind having fallout dumped on them. Pardon me, but I don't think that will win popular sympathy for the resistance.
1. Fallout does not occur just because its a kilotonne bomb. Daisy-cutters do not generate fallout ... it is all dependant on how you generate that amount of firepower.
2. The surrounding populace will be screwed, but historically resistance movements HAVEN'T GIVEN A DAMN. When you burn occupation food stores its the surrounding populace that starves. How many examples of local resistance which lead to hideous casualties for the surrounding populace and the resistance fighters didn't give a damn do I need to cite?
3. Imperial security is not omniscient. Let's say you do get caught 4/5 times ... so what you just do it 5 times. There is no such thing as perfect security. If you have thousands of suicidal nutjobs and you have bombs for them all ... eventually 1 gets through.

Occupation forces have dealt with incipient terrorism for time immemorial. It's one of the hazards of the army life, and every soldier knows this. Snipers have had zero effectiveness in dislodging occupying armies.
Resistance ITSELF is useless at dislodgin occupation armies ... what you are doing is raising the cost of occupation. How many dead stormies is the AQ worth? How many additional troops will you have to train, employ, and equip to do whatever it is the occupation forces were doing before?

The point is not to drive them out ... its to make the cost in blood and dollars higher.

Naturally, supplies of antimatter will be unguarded and easily accessible. Oh, and where are the old fashioned nukes supposed to come from? The Federation doesn't have any in their inventory. And bioweapons tailored for humans are more likely to affect the surrounding civilian population than stormtroopers wearing NBC armour.

Naturally supplies of anti-matter would exist on those few starships which escape escape destruction and capture. Naturally the feddies use fusion reactors which can be converted into bombs (the only difference between a reactor and a bomb is what the egineer wants it to be). Naturally the feddies have loads of fusile material (here's a hint fusion bombs are powered by deuterium ... any idea how many tonnes of dueterium there are in the oceon) and your "blasting cap" is readily attainable with *any* power source (including conventional explosives and small amounts of anti-matter). It's not like the information on fusion bombs has been expunged from the library.

And bioweapons tailored for humans are more likely to affect the surrounding civilian population than stormtroopers wearing NBC armour.
Right, only if you were a moron and deployed the bioweapon ina stupid manner. Your population is sequestered ... the empire's is not. All you need to do is get a bioagent onto an *outbound ship* and the empire is in much worse shape than you are. Further get this through your frikking head ... troops do not wear combat armor 24/7.

How the Spaniards defeated the Azetcs is immaterial. And the fact that they were able to enlist local allies only further undermines your entire argument.
No it doesn't. My point is that beating down and holding down large numbers of people requires large troop deployments. The Spanish accomplished this by using local troops as cannon fodder. There has never been an occupier who has more than marginal control of their occupied territory who did not deploy significant amounts of troops.

The Aztecs still lost. They fled the field. Within three years of Cortez' landing, the Aztec Empire was no more.
Yes, the mighty small pox.

Again immaterial. The Aztecs lost the war and afterward never attempted to resist their conquerors. The fact that the Spanish accidentally brought a bioweapon along with them makes no difference in the final outcome. And if on the other hand the Spaniards knew exactly what they were doing in regards to smallpox infection, then my case is all the stronger for it. The surviving Aztecs submitted to Spanish rule and never dared rise up against their conquerors. Historical fact, whether you like it or not.
BS. Look at the Hidalgo and Morales revolts. Hundreds of thousands took up arms in open revolt, and went on killing rampages against the criollos and metizos. They managed to capture the second largest city in New Spain.

Spain maintained peace in New Spain through the use of massive slave labor and religious indoctrination ... neither of which the Empire allegedly practices. Even then the populace was willing to go open revolt.

And this supports your argument how...?
That you cannot subjugate a large body of people without a large force of troops. The numerical advantage of the Aztecs would have allowed them to resist Spanish invasion en perpetuity had they not been killed and weakened by disease.

So...in the end, the Spaniards conquered the Inca Empire contemporaneously with the Aztecs, which incipient resistance failed to dislodge, and the surviving Incas reconciled themselves to Spanish rule. Do please tell us how this supports your argument.
That:
1. A sizeable percentage of the populace did resist and did so for decades.
2. Again the natives did not reconcile themselves to Spanish rule ... we see them going into open revolt under Bolivar.

Fringe groups do resist occupation. They rarely dislodge the occupiers, but they do increase the cost of occupation. The question is how many resources is the Empire willing to put into holding essentially worthless territory?

1. By the time the British got involved on the North American continent, they knew of the low native resistance to European diseases and incorporated biological warfare into their strategy. You're only opening the door ever wider to examples of deliberate ruthlessness on the part of technologically superior occupation forces and the inadequacy of partisan resistance with no outside support to alter the outcome.
By the time the British got into North America the Native population had already been shot to hell and back by disease. Whalers (fishermen?) landed on Cape Cod not too long before the Pilgrims came to Plymouth ... by the time the British try their hand at empire building they population is *significantly* reduced.

Next up the British did not occupy native lands ... they simply evicted the inhabitants. Rather than trying to control huge territories of native population (which requires large troop deployments), they simply held small enclaves and slowly pushed the frontier west.

2. The Americans also employed biowarfare the same way the British did —giving the Indians smallpox-infected blankets for the winter. Again, how the conquest is achieved is immaterial.
Again the Americans did not subjugate the population ... they evicted them. It's much easier to run people out at gunpoint rather than rule over them without massive troop deployments.

3. You also overlook the fact that the Spaniards, the British, and ultimately the Americans did not face legions of resistors. They dealt with them one group at a time. They had the patience, personnel, and hardware to wipe out each rebellious tribe as they came up. And afterward, the survivors meekly went into the reservations. Again, fact of history —whether you like it or not.
You also ignore the fact that they took decades and centuries to conqueor the land. In the British modle they simply evicted the various tribes ... not send soldiers to rule the tribes. In the Spanish modle you used indoctrination, slave labor, and there were open revolts which did evict the Spanish (see Bolivar).

And just how much resistance did we face in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
That would be because the Americans did NOT conqueor Japan. Japan was turned into a client state ... same as Germany.


A fact which is utterly immaterial to the question of how successful incipient terrorism from widely scattered bands of fanatics will be in dislodging an occupation army which is in complete command of native territory and is not having to fight a foreign power simulteneously and therefore will not have to contend with a resistance which is receiving foreign aid.

Dislodgin is IRRELEVANT the point is to increase the cost of occupation. If it cost so many imperial credits to position your troops, so many to train new recruits, and so many to equip them ... it doesn't take long for the occupation not to be worth doing.

Funny, but I don't recall seeing civilians in breadlines or concentration camps in any of the Star Wars movies. Point of fact, Imperial authority seemed to have very little impact upon day-to-day life within the Empire, and Bespin certainly gives us a gauge to the level of creature-comfort and convenience to be found within the SW galaxy even during the rule of Palpatine. Luke Skywalker mentions how little money he could get for his landspeeder because of the appearance in the market of a new model landspeeder in ANH, so the free market system seems to be up and running quite nicely in their society. And in any case, comfort level hardly is enough on its own to spark a rebellion.
Yes of course we don't have various hellholes out there in imperial territory its not like the lower levels of the CAPITAL PLANET are not abandoned by the government.

Social services have NOTHING TO DO with capitalism. Capitalism can work without social services and it can work with them. Just because you have a working market economy does NOT mean you have working social services capable of feeding millions of communists who just got put under the Imperial boot.

And in any case, comfort level hardly is enough on its own to spark a rebellion.
"Let them eat cake"

Most rebellions are sparked by comfort level; very, very few are made up of people living the good life. From the French Revolution to the Communist Revolutions to the Latin American Revolts ... revolutions occur when people think their comfort level will go up after the revolt.

Such as we do not see in the SW movies and as was not the case in Rome's conquests of the ancient world.
So let's see you have millions of feddy scientists who enjoyed the life of the elite, now everything they studied is essentially worthless. You had all sorts of starfleet officers who are now out of a job. Rome was not a huge change in technology levels. Roman technology was *very* similar to that of the surrounding countries. Where it differed ... it only effected a VERY small portion of the populace. The majority of the society was agrarian, and they weren't put out of jobs.

Ah, such as in Japan after we rolled in or in East Europe after the Soviets rolled in...oh, that's right. There were no resistance movements in those conquered countries, were there?
Those were not conqueored countries ... those were CLIENT STATES. That is the whole point of setting those up ... it minimizes resistance.

All of which will only bolster civilian support for the Imperials, and occupation armies have dealt with "terrorists from hell" for time immemorial. Unless their nation is on shaky political ground for maintaining their conquest, the occupation forces have usually responded quite efficently and ruthlessly to such "problems", until the terrorists are all dead.
All dead, sure whatever. How long did they try that approach in N. Ireland? Palestine? Basque country? With the Kurds? Against the Black Hand?

Most terrorists movements don't die even if they don't enjoy popular support. The IRA were little more than thugs, yet they maintained their numbers. The more you go out and kill people the more people are willing to call them matyrs. The effective way to deal with terrorists is to infiltrate, disrupt, and propogandize them into oblivion. Further you give in on some of their demands (the more reasonable ones) and they cease to have a valid function.

And the canon evidence for this is...?
1 gram of antimatter produces 44 kilotonnes with matter annihilation. Let's say we have 10% efficiency ... yep that is kilotonne range. I'm told a GCS holds 400 tonnes of anti-deuterium. How many kilotonne bombs can you make with that again?

Any and all of which are perfectly subject to analysis and counter. Or you assume that the Imperials won't have scientists and military engineers along with the army.
WHO CARES? The point is to force them spend resources to counter them. The goal is not dislodge the troops ... its to make keeping them there damn expensive.

And, what's to prevent the Imperials setting up electromagnetic jamming sufficent to cover an entire planet? A simple magnetic shield deployed over the gulag at Rura Penthe was sufficent to prevent any attempts at beaming into or out of the Klingon prison compound and a large area surrounding it on the planetary surface. Really, this is hardly a challenge to Imperial engineering or tactical planning.

Large area, my ass. Kirk manages to WALK out of the effected area. First off we have seen the feddies transport through sheilds and other EM effects, hell Earth ALREADY has a magnetic feild they jump through every time they transport on earth. Next up we have seen transporters work even through designed transport inhibitors with some simple tags (STI). Generating large B feilds over a planet would be a bad thing for all your electronics as you move through said B feild ... Lenz's law can be a bitch.

Why the conquest is being carried out is not important in this equation, and if anything, a new galaxy with inhabitable worlds, resources, and industrial populations which can be assimilated into Imperial society are economic assets in and of themselves. Furthermore, the Empire has hundreds of millions of troops and even more war droids to call upon. And again, incipient terrorism is an occupational hazard (pun intended) for armies of occupation and has been dealt with for time immemorial with varying degrees of ruthlessness and political indoctrination of the general populace. Without outside support, terrorism and resistance movements have zero chance of prevailing in the long term and most often even in the short term.
Yes and how much will these new worlds contribute to Emperial GDP? Who cares if they have millions of troops ... they are already busy doing something else (this is why Israel has to mobilize the reserves to fully occupy Palestine). The point is not to dislodge the troops ... its to make them not worth the cost of keeping them there.

You really imagine that this is a challenge to a society capable of building moon-sized battlestations within timeframes of six months?

You really think building a moon size battlestation for six months requires anywhere near the manpower to occupy billions of people for years/decades assuming they assimilate?

Hate to tell you this, but even "client states" have considerable manpower support from the conquering power, often establish and train comparable armies and security forces, and establish whatever other mechanisms are necessary to maintain their presence and the security of their satellite government. I need only point out the examples of the Warsaw Pact armies and secret police forces and the Japan Self Defence Forces as evidence. They also aren't likely to be dislodged by isolated whackos carrying out the odd suicide bombing or two.
The whole point of training local armies is to get yours out. You recruit locals so they are the ones expending manpower, paying the blood price ... not you. Further populations are much less prone to violenet resistance against their own people. Your troops are just nameless oppressors, local recruits are friends of friends, relatives, etc.

No war is ever launched without a reason behind it and without concrete, achievable goals behind the conquest. You have a lot of romantic notions about war and partisan resistance/terrorist movements which have no correlation with reality, and these fatally damage your argument.
Yes you want to exploit something. To do this you are either in for the long haul, excepting large losses, hoping to eventually assimilate the natives ... or you are slowly encroaching. If you take the former then whatever you plan on exploiting had better be worth the cost, this is why Britian lost the Empire ... it wasn't worth the cost of maintaining. If you take the latter ... then you will not be occupying all enemy territory overnight.

The goal of resistance is not to dislodge troops (that is revolution), it's to make the cost of keeping those troops present inordinately high.

[Evil Jerk]

If the feddies have even half of the historical number then you are talking about millions of nutcases.

Even though all but a couple of the Feddies are meek, obedient citizens who do what they're told, no matter who's telling them?
Did we ever hear of any resistance on Dominion occupied Betazed?

Security cams only matter if the Imps can catch on to what you are doing and react before you kill someone.

And then they can find out who you are, track you down, find your little resistance cell and kill you all..

3. Imperial security is not omniscient. Let's say you do get caught 4/5 times ... so what you just do it 5 times. There is no such thing as perfect security. If you have thousands of suicidal nutjobs and you have bombs for them all ... eventually 1 gets through.

And that 1 may come years apart.
How many terrorist attacks has the U.S. suffered?
How many would it suffer if it wasn't so complacent?

Resistance ITSELF is useless at dislodgin occupation armies ... what you are doing is raising the cost of occupation. How many dead stormies is the AQ worth? How many additional troops will you have to train, employ, and equip to do whatever it is the occupation forces were doing before?

Assuming any casualties due to terrorism will be at all significant, throughout the ages, terrorism has most affected the CIVILIANS, not the military. The fanatics will just be killing their own and getting more and more hated for it.

Naturally supplies of anti-matter would exist on those few starships which escape escape destruction and capture. Naturally the feddies use fusion reactors which can be converted into bombs (the only difference between a reactor and a bomb is what the egineer wants it to be). Naturally the feddies have loads of fusile material (here's a hint fusion bombs are powered by deuterium ... any idea how many tonnes of dueterium there are in the oceon) and your "blasting cap" is readily attainable with *any* power source (including conventional explosives and small amounts of anti-matter).

You credit the Feds with far too much resourcefulness, and you're just assuming the would use weapons of mass destruction just like that.

It's not like the information on fusion bombs has been expunged from the library.

Who knows, the information on mortars, tanks, combined arms, saftey in general, etc. seems to have been expunged from theirs..

Right, only if you were a moron and deployed the bioweapon ina stupid manner. Your population is sequestered ... the empire's is not.

Why would they be sequestered? Maybe the Empire wants them right out in the open, nice human shields.

Fringe groups do resist occupation. They rarely dislodge the occupiers, but they do increase the cost of occupation. The question is how many resources is the Empire willing to put into holding essentially worthless territory?

They wouldn't lose much.

Yes of course we don't have various hellholes out there in imperial territory its not like the lower levels of the CAPITAL PLANET are not abandoned by the government.

Uh, you mean the parts no-one wants to live in because it's all dark and gloomy?

Social services have NOTHING TO DO with capitalism. Capitalism can work without social services and it can work with them. Just because you have a working market economy does NOT mean you have working social services capable of feeding millions of communists who just got put under the Imperial boot.

They don't need to feed them, because it won't be any different than before, they just need to keep the core worlds happy, and that doesn't really need any damn social services.
It will be as it's always been. Earth and co. grow fat while the colonies starve.

So let's see you have millions of feddy scientists who enjoyed the life of the elite, now everything they studied is essentially worthless.

They could maintain their positions by helping to integrate the new Imperial technology to their civilisations.

You had all sorts of starfleet officers who are now out of a job.

No, they'd be dead or recruited as a proxy police force.

Rome was not a huge change in technology levels. Roman technology was *very* similar to that of the surrounding countries. Where it differed ... it only effected a VERY small portion of the populace. The majority of the society was agrarian, and they weren't put out of jobs.

They didn't have enw construction techniques? They didn't build vast cities? They didn't run around taking land as use it to grow grapes for wine?

All dead, sure whatever. How long did they try that approach in N. Ireland? Palestine? Basque country? With the Kurds? Against the Black Hand?

In those cases, the terroism was against weak or unreasonable governments, doesn't compare.

WHO CARES? The point is to force them spend resources to counter them. The goal is not dislodge the troops ... its to make keeping them there damn expensive.

The Empire can field millions of troops, far beyond the resources of AQ armies to disrupt, let alone AQ terrorists.

Yes and how much will these new worlds contribute to Emperial GDP? Who cares if they have millions of troops ... they are already busy doing something else (this is why Israel has to mobilize the reserves to fully occupy Palestine). The point is not to dislodge the troops ... its to make them not worth the cost of keeping them there.

Piddling Fed resistance would not do that, stop comparing the Empire to our planet's small tin pot nations.

Yes you want to exploit something. To do this you are either in for the long haul, excepting large losses, hoping to eventually assimilate the natives ... or you are slowly encroaching. If you take the former then whatever you plan on exploiting had better be worth the cost, this is why Britian lost the Empire ... it wasn't worth the cost of maintaining. If you take the latter ... then you will not be occupying all enemy territory overnight.

The goal of resistance is not to dislodge troops (that is revolution), it's to make the cost of keeping those troops present inordinately high.

Come on, the Empire held sway over most of it's galaxy, no doubt experiencing a lot of resistance along the way not to mention the Rebellion, and you say the cost of holding one section of a smaller galaxy would be too high for them? Ha!