StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The concept of taking an entire planet's oceans up into orbit intrigues me in another way seperate from the enormity of the undertaking itself- what exactly could one expect to happen to the planet if said transport were to simply evacuate its bay while in a low orbit?

Tanasinn wrote:The concept of taking an entire planet's oceans up into orbit intrigues me in another way seperate from the enormity of the undertaking itself- what exactly could one expect to happen to the planet if said transport were to simply evacuate its bay while in a low orbit?

Biblical Flood. Mind you, it's a whole fleet of transports, not one transport.

Shouldn't there be an easier way of doing this OCean thing? Maybe we are thinking wrong on this.

Couldn't you 'syphon' up the water intop orbit, freezing it as you puleld it from the planet,. untill the entire Ocean was in orbit as a single Iced Comet. The attach drive engines and a Hyperdrive to it and presto!

Black Ice. Up to 7800 m long, 1.21 billon metric tons. Note that one should be able to easily build a vastly larger ship with the same forcefield bubble technology, given the size of the shield that enclosed DSII. Just a huge engine and the rest is collapsable force fields. Not a bad idea for cheap transport. It also gives a hint of the idiot-proof level of SW shields, because, just imagine one of those bubbles popping and spilling out a hundred million tons cargo in space... the scavs will have a busy day!

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Shouldn't there be an easier way of doing this OCean thing? Maybe we are thinking wrong on this.

Couldn't you 'syphon' up the water intop orbit, freezing it as you puleld it from the planet,. untill the entire Ocean was in orbit as a single Iced Comet. The attach drive engines and a Hyperdrive to it and presto!

The energy requirement doesn't change at all, nor does the size of the "ships" required; it only changes the nature of the ship hulls.

FTeik wrote:
Imperial Evakmar-transports carry entire Army-Corps around.

I looked for a bit more info on this ship and a Corps is only about 69000 troops of which about 49000 were front line. Disappointing considering "a single Corps was regarded as a sufficient force to reconquer a planet that had thrown off Imperial rule—typically, in the face of odds of more than four to one."
I don't know if anyone else considers it minimalism but I sure do. Hell Bush is sending nearly 49000 ADDITIONAL troops to secure a city (not quite all 50k are going to Baghdad), let alone a planet.

How DARE you bring those pesky real-world numbers in here. 3 million cones was apparently plenty to win the Clone Wars so naturally 50,000 is more than sufficient to take one one measly planet

Batman wrote:How DARE you bring those pesky real-world numbers in here. 3 million cones was apparently plenty to win the Clone Wars so naturally 50,000 is more than sufficient to take one one measly planet

Actually even to those idiots that would be literally contraidcting themselves further.

Given we know that more then 10,000 planets have ceded from the Republic, with 3,000,000 clones....well they can only secure about 60 planets.

Not saying it makes any sense, but even they can't use that warped logic with their own warped contradicting it.No, they could, but it's funny to break down their viewpoint.

What is funny to think about has Traviss ever once told us how only 300 soliders secure a planet, when no army could do that to a city? I suspect the answer would at least garner a laugh.

Actually thinking about it, might it be possible (the Corps securing a planet, not the 3 mil clone BS) if scanning technology is good enough to find any form of advanced weaponry? Admittedly I'm going by the movies, but I note that the rebels didn't hide themselves and their equipment among the trillions of people on populated planets, but instead tried to hide on out of the way planets.

Could that be due to there being a problem with hiding weapons etc? If the US had a way of detecting weapons from orbit they'd have Baghdad secured in no time. Yes it leaves IEDs etc, but little red dots coming up on a screen for every house with an AK or RPG, or even a bullet, would certainly make things 1000x easier for them.

If the Empire starts bombarding the planet from orbit (heedless of the civilian casualties, as opposed to the US nuking Iraq), a small force might do for mop-op operations against what organized resistance would be left.

PayBack wrote:Actually thinking about it, might it be possible (the Corps securing a planet, not the 3 mil clone BS) if scanning technology is good enough to find any form of advanced weaponry? Admittedly I'm going by the movies, but I note that the rebels didn't hide themselves and their equipment among the trillions of people on populated planets, but instead tried to hide on out of the way planets.

That might have had something to do with there being trillions of beings on the planets that might give them away even accidentally and building/estabilshing a base under those circumstances being quite noticeable.
Where do you think it is easier to secretly establish a Rebel Outpost-the Gobi desert, or downtown New York?

Could that be due to there being a problem with hiding weapons etc?

I rather suspect that's more due to it being hard to hide from that many people, especially ig you want to establish a base worth mentioning.

If the US had a way of detecting weapons from orbit they'd have Baghdad secured in no time.

Think again.

Yes it leaves IEDs etc, but little red dots coming up on a screen for every house with an AK or RPG, or even a bullet, would certainly make things 1000x easier for them.

No it wouldn't. Not without a LOT more manpower they ain't got.

If the people in New York sympathised with me, I'd spread my people out throughout New York. Gee what's harder to find, a big rebel base sticking out like dogs balls in a desert, or insurgents hidden by sympathisors among millions of civilians?

And I think you're wrong. If the US could pinpoint every weapon, yes they could secure Baghdad with the troops they have. Hell the very fact 90% probably have weapons cached means you not only remove the weapons but a large number of insurgents or sympathizers. Those remaining throw together an IED... bang a squad of marines knock down their door withing a few minutes.

At the very least yes it WOULD make it 1000x easier for them.

PayBack wrote:If the people in New York sympathised with me,

And this is a given because? Note that ALL it takes is for one of them NOT to to blow your cover.

I'd spread my people out throughout New York. Gee what's harder to find, a big rebel base sticking out like dogs balls in a desert, or insurgents hidden by sympathisors among millions of civilians?

The former, because hundreds if not more of those civilians are likely to turn you in for a quick buck whereas they have to find out which frickin desert you're IN and THEN have to find your bloody base. And a lot among those millions of people aren't civilians to begin with, but Police Officers and such, who tend to report things to their higher-ups.

And I think you're wrong. If the US could pinpoint every weapon, yes they could secure Baghdad with the troops they have.

As evidenced by?

Hell the very fact 90% probably have weapons cached

As evidenced by?

means you not only remove the weapons but a large number of insurgents or sympathizers.

As evidenced by?
You know where WEAPONS are. That doesn't mean you know they are INSURRECTION weapons. So you have to find out which weapons are legitimate, which aren't, and which are definite insurrection. Have fun trying that in Iraq.
Okay, you now have a weapon stash. So what? That gets you the guys who were going to use them how? That stash was possibly put there either without the knowledge of all the occupants in the first place or under threat. So how many collaborators does that get you?
But let's assume for a moment there are people HOLDING those weapons, and they're bad guys. There's ALSO people there NOT holding weapons, a lot of the women and children. So how do you get the ones without the others?
Then there's the million other things the US troops have to do, enemy troops and equipment coming in over the boarders, technically legit arms that aren't, are but wind up missing, technically are but belong to collaborators, and that's just the top of the iceberg.
Being able to detect weapons straightforward other than being shot at would be a boon to the US troops no doubt, but not within Holonet distance of a 1000fold increase of efficiency.

Batman wrote:and this is a given because? Note that ALL it takes is for one of them NOT to to blow your cover.

I'm working on the assumption that the majority of people disliked the Empire. Not a particularly crazy assumption I would think. And if you're spread out among the population, it would take more than one. However it WOULD only take one in your group to give away your whole base.

The former, because hundreds if not more of those civilians are likely to turn you in for a quick buck whereas they have to find out which frickin desert you're IN and THEN have to find your bloody base. And a lot among those millions of people aren't civilians to begin with, but Police Officers and such, who tend to report things to their higher-ups.

Ah yes true, just like in Vietnam and Iraq? Or any other insurgency where the problem was telling the insurgents from the civilians? Compared to the ease with which terrorist training camps have been found and bombed. Or perhaps I'm bringing in my damn real world examples again?

As evidenced by?

Well it's a matter of opinion isn't it, as it hasn't been done, and the technology doesn't exist, but I'm not going to concede it's not possible just because I can't prove it is. I said "I THINK you're wrong. And I THINK if the US could pinpoint every weapon, they could secure Baghdad with the troops they have." It can't be proven, but non existence of proof is not proof of non existence. Especially as it's only a theory. To be quite honest I'm not even sure why you're jumping on this like a little pit bull... or why you do all the other times you've jumped on non important posts other people have made, like you have something to prove.

As evidenced by?

lol you like that phrase don't you.. you don't really say anything yourself just keep crying out for evidence of someone else's opinion. Ok I promise if I get intelligence that proves 90% of the insurgents in Iraq have weapons stashed, I'll post it here. However at this point in time it's conjecture though I thought that would have been obvious.

As evidenced by?

You know where WEAPONS are. That doesn't mean you know they are INSURRECTION weapons. So you have to find out which weapons are legitimate, which aren't, and which are definite insurrection. Have fun trying that in Iraq.
Okay, you now have a weapon stash. So what? That gets you the guys who were going to use them how? That stash was possibly put there either without the knowledge of all the occupants in the first place or under threat. So how many collaborators does that get you?
But let's assume for a moment there are people HOLDING those weapons, and they're bad guys. There's ALSO people there NOT holding weapons, a lot of the women and children. So how do you get the ones without the others?
Then there's the million other things the US troops have to do, enemy troops and equipment coming in over the boarders, technically legit arms that aren't, are but wind up missing, technically are but belong to collaborators, and that's just the top of the iceberg.

Lol you don't know they're insurrection weapons? So that RPG is there because he belongs to a club? Sure possession of AK's etc is cultural, but are you telling me whenever US troops break into a house, they determine whether or not the owners have a legitimate reason for them before carting them off?

And yes there are people not holding weapons, but having lost the weapons they had stashed elsewhere they have to attack US troops with forks and spoons. There are weapons coming over the border? No there aren't as the huge mass of little red dots on your screen crossing the border gives you a little hint that perhaps you might want to intercept those people.

Being able to detect weapons straightforward other than being shot at would be a boon to the US troops no doubt, but not within Holonet distance of a 1000fold increase of efficiency

As evidenced by?

PayBack wrote:
Lol you don't know they're insurrection weapons? So that RPG is there because he belongs to a club? Sure possession of AK's etc is cultural, but are you telling me whenever US troops break into a house, they determine whether or not the owners have a legitimate reason for them before carting them off?

I read in Time that each Iraqi family is allowed to have on AK and one magazine each. Anything beyond that is confiscated, in theory anyways.

Yes which makes things very simple, if you have two, you're arrested and the guns confiscated, however if you were already suspected, I think even that one would be taken. Note I said I THINK it would be taken, I have no proof and don't wish to get into a fucken debate over it.

As a matter of fact, the Empire does have the technology to detect, identify, and track firearms all over an entire world, as seen in "A Princess Alone!" (Marvel, 1979). Details are not clear as to how it operates, but the Tagge Weapons Detection System installed on Metalorn enabled Governor Corwyth to do precisely that from a central control room, from which he could "detect unauthorized arms or explosives" anywhere on the planet (and instantly know when a stormtrooper's weapon was "no longer in authorized hands," thanks to the System's pulse beat sensors).

(A somewhat similar surveillance system set up by Commodore the Lord Tion on Ralltiir in "Princess... Warrior" (Dark Horse, 2003) enabled him to eavesdrop instantaneously on the Princess Leia of Alderaan's conversation from across the city, with no more specific selector than "I particularly want to be informed of everything said by Her Highness, Princess Leia.")

As it happens, XaLEv's calculated figure of 5.4 m^3 per soldier would mean that a LH-1740 control core could (in theory) accommodate in excess of 12 million soldiers (Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections states that the LH-1740 has some 66 million cubic meters of cargo space, to say nothing of its berthing spaces for 60,000 "trade representatives"). A Rendili StarDrive container train like IFA Black Ice, with its 100 million cubic meters or so of cargo space, could carry around 19 millions, while a Loronar field secured container vessel (FSCV), which is known from the Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition to transport as much as 5.36 billion cubic meters of cargo, could accommodate 993 millions or so.

To give a clearer idea of the vast size of the Empire's merchant navy, consider Mr. Wong's calculations on the Empire's forcible dehydration of Gholondreine- :

Even if the transport fleet was composed of a million ships, each vessel would have had to carry 1.4 trillion tons of water! The density of water is roughly 1 metric ton^3, so each ship would have needed at least 1.4 trillion cubic metres of cargo space. If the transports were cylindrical in shape, they had to be 5 km in diameter and at least 71 km long to have that much internal space! Even if each ship took 1000 round trips, the operation would have required a million-ship fleet of vessels measuring 1 km in diameter and 1.8km long.

Now, then, it would take about 261 Loronar FSCVs to transport 1.4 quintillion tons of water. The Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition states that each Sector Group's support fleet has only around 500 ships, of which only 125 are FSCV (125 FSCVs could transport up to 670 billion tons of water). Assuming, then, that FSCVs do not make up the vast bulk of the support fleet's shipping volume, it should only take two support fleets to accomplish the dehydration of an Earth-like world. Now consider that each SectGru is equipped with one support fleet, and consider further that the Galactic Empire has "thousands" of SectGrus. Even if the Imperial State controls only 2,000 SectGrus, it would require less than 1% of the Imperial State's fleet auxiliary to dehydrate an Earth-like planet.

Consider further that a fleet auxiliary is only those ships owned and operated by a state's defense establishment; it does not include ships owned and operated by the state itself, or privately owned and operated shipping lines and tramp freighters. That is to say, the transport of 1.4 trillion tons of water would require substantially less than 1% of the total cargo space of the Empire's merchant marine, which includes such enormous shipping giants as the Tagge Company, Xizor Transportation Systems, Red Star Shipping Lines, the Baron d'Asta's companies, and the Baobab Merchant Fleet.

Simply put, the transport of millions or even billions of soldiers is a trivial task to an economy and defense establishment the size of the Empire's. The only aspect of such an operation that might realistically pose any sort of challenge would be the orderly embarkation and debarkation; more than likely a rapid deployment of such a sizeable force from a single transport is impracticable.

As for the local population's support for the Empire, well... that is another story.

Publius wrote:As a matter of fact, the Empire does have the technology to detect, identify, and track firearms all over an entire world, <snip>

Cheers, that answers my question. I assume certain bounty hunters etc may have counters but it would certainly make it hard to hide large numbers of weapons and semi trained rebels.

PayBack wrote:

Batman wrote:and this is a given because? Note that ALL it takes is for one of them NOT to to blow your cover.

I'm working on the assumption that the majority of people disliked the Empire.Not a particularly crazy assumption I would think.

But not a given, either, as the average citizen apparently didn't suffer all that much under imperial rule. And besides that leaves BILLIONS who'd blow your cover for personal gain, out of fear or due to misplaced loaylty for the empire.

And if you're spread out among the population, it would take more than one. However it WOULD only take one in your group to give away your whole base.

It doesn't take a single one of your people because with a population that dense you CAN'T build a base like that without people noticing.

The former, because hundreds if not more of those civilians are likely to turn you in for a quick buck whereas they have to find out which frickin desert you're IN and THEN have to find your bloody base. And a lot among those millions of people aren't civilians to begin with, but Police Officers and such, who tend to report things to their higher-ups.

Ah yes true, just like in Vietnam and Iraq? Or any other insurgency where the problem was telling the insurgents from the civilians?

I must have missed the part were both Vietnam and IraQ where dense urban environments. You know, like those trillion inhabitants worlds would be.

Compared to the ease with which terrorist training camps have been found and bombed. Or perhaps I'm bringing in my damn real world examples again?

I notice a distinct lack of examples. And your cynicism meter needs tuning.

As evidenced by?

Well it's a matter of opinion isn't it, as it hasn't been done, and the technology doesn't exist, but I'm not going to concede it's not possible just because I can't prove it is. I said "I THINK you're wrong. And I THINK if the US could pinpoint every weapon, they could secure Baghdad with the troops they have." It can't be proven, but non existence of proof is not proof of non existence.

Yes it is.

As evidenced by?

lol you like that phrase don't you.. you don't really say anything yourself just keep crying out for evidence of someone else's opinion. Ok I promise if I get intelligence that proves 90% of the insurgents in Iraq have weapons stashed, I'll post it here. However at this point in time it's conjecture though I thought that would have been obvious.[/quote]
Conjecture is usually based on something. Yours is based on? Because if it ISN'T, it's not conjecture, it's baseless assumptions.

As evidenced by?
You know where WEAPONS are. That doesn't mean you know they are INSURRECTION weapons. So you have to find out which weapons are legitimate, which aren't, and which are definite insurrection. Have fun trying that in Iraq.
Okay, you now have a weapon stash. So what? That gets you the guys who were going to use them how? That stash was possibly put there either without the knowledge of all the occupants in the first place or under threat. So how many collaborators does that get you?
But let's assume for a moment there are people HOLDING those weapons, and they're bad guys. There's ALSO people there NOT holding weapons, a lot of the women and children. So how do you get the ones without the others?
Then there's the million other things the US troops have to do, enemy troops and equipment coming in over the boarders, technically legit arms that aren't, are but wind up missing, technically are but belong to collaborators, and that's just the top of the iceberg.

Lol you don't know they're insurrection weapons? So that RPG is there because he belongs to a club? Sure possession of AK's etc is cultural, but are you telling me whenever US troops break into a house, they determine whether or not the owners have a legitimate reason for them before carting them off?

No, they don't. And they can't afford to. That's part of the problem you moron. I'm still waiting for you to show how they can do that with the available manpower in the first place.

And yes there are people not holding weapons, but having lost the weapons they had stashed elsewhere they have to attack US troops with forks and spoons.

Because they can't possibly be civilians.

There are weapons coming over the border? No there aren't as the huge mass of little red dots on your screen crossing the border gives you a little hint that perhaps you might want to intercept those people.

Because the absolutely need to come in millions at a time, can't possibly trickle in, and could under NO circumstances be disguised as legitimate.

Being able to detect weapons straightforward other than being shot at would be a boon to the US troops no doubt, but not within Holonet distance of a 1000fold increase of efficiency

As evidenced by?

YOU made the claim, hotshot. You provide the evidence. Show us that with weapon detectors the US forces now in Iraq could do the job that under the current circumstances, 140,000,000 soldiers would be able to do.

Well you made an absolute mess of that post but lets see...

I'm sorry yes, billions would know, because if you hide your insurgents amongst the population, you make sure the entire population knows about it. We should send you to Iraq to oppose the Americans and that certainly WOULD help the US win.

"It doesn't take a single one of your people because with a population that dense you CAN'T build a base like that without people noticing. "

No idiot I was referring to your idea of having a base out in a desert somewhere, with all your eggs in one basket.. one bad egg and your basket gets bombed to hell and gone.

"I must have missed the part were both Vietnam and Iraq where dense urban environments. You know, like those trillion inhabitants worlds would be. "

Well it's subjective but some would call Iraq a dense urban environment... certainly not on the scale of Imperial cities but the bigger the city and the more people, the easier it is to hide. As evidenced by? Common fucking sense.

"I notice a distinct lack of examples" Well I could spend time looking for examples of terrorist training camps being bombed.. but guess what, I can't be fucked. You wanted this "debate" not me and to be honest it's not worth making the effort for.

"No, they don't. And they can't afford to. That's part of the problem you moron"

lol you verify what I say and call me a moron at the same time? Classic. Good so we agree that the legitimacy of weapons is not determined before confiscation. Doesn't it seem obvious then that the ability to detect all weapons would be devastating to the insurgency?

"Because they can't possibly be civilians"

Yes they could.. but so you've taken weapons off civilians... it's not like they're making a big effort to win hearts and minds as it is. Or that when their own weapons dry up the insurgents wouldn't possibly go stealing them from civilians aye.

"Because the absolutely need to come in millions at a time, can't possibly trickle in, and could under NO circumstances be disguised as legitimate. "

Yes they're going to trickle in millions of weapons a few at a time? And that's not going to hurt? Especially considering an alarm goes off whenever 2 or more of them end up in the same building.

"YOU made the claim, hotshot. You provide the evidence. Show us that with weapon detectors the US forces now in Iraq could do the job that under the current circumstances, 140,000,000 soldiers would be able to do."

Sorry my "as evidenced by?" comment was me taking the piss... I'm sure it was obvious to everyone else here. It's not possible to prove it, and you know very well it isn't. Oh and I didn't realise nonexistance of evidence was evidence of non existance. I'll remember that as it means I can disprove a hell of a lot.

But it's also not important. Get over it. I know you see the grown ups winning real debates and want to play too, but you constantly jump on people for expressing opinions on mundane subjects asking proof like you matter. You don't. You're probably too dense to realise there's a difference between coming in here and saying "I think the federation would kick the empires arse" withouth backing it up and saying "I think the ability to detect all weapons would help the US in Iraq 1000x. The later is obvious conjecture and not defensible with proof. However it's not worth crying over either. I've seen you do it a million times and even when you make a dick of yourself the other guy concedes because they can't be fucking bothered replying to your 100 part essay of everything they say.

However if I'm corrected by someone who matters, and you do have to defend every single opinion you express, I'll be more careful with my posts in future.

PayBack wrote:Well you made an absolute mess of that post but lets see...
I'm sorry yes, billions would know, because if you hide your insurgents amongst the population, you make sure the entire population knows about it.

We're NOT talking about hiding individual insurgents among the population, genius. We're talking about esteblishing an actual base with actual infrastructure and actual [/i]resources[/i]. Have fun trying to hide that in the middle of a metropolis.

"It doesn't take a single one of your people because with a population that dense you CAN'T build a base like that without people noticing. "
No idiot I was referring to your idea of having a base out in a desert somewhere, with all your eggs in one basket.. one bad egg and your basket gets bombed to hell and gone.

And tons of bad eggs in a city where there's tons of more troops available is better how? So who's going to give away the Hoth base, pray tell?

"I must have missed the part were both Vietnam and Iraq where dense urban environments. You know, like those trillion inhabitants worlds would be. "
Well it's subjective but some would call Iraq a dense urban environment...

In the city centers. Those trillion inhabitant worlds are megacity OVERALL. Not that I recall the Iraqi guerillias using much in the way of even light vehicles. You know, unlike the rebels. Leave alone warships. You know, like the rebels. All of which you have to hide in the middle of a city. You were saying?

certainly not on the scale of Imperial cities but the bigger the city and the more people, the easier it is to hide.

Individuals, yes. Infrastructure, no. And for large numbers of individuals, no again.

As evidenced by? Common fucking sense.

Wrong again.

"I notice a distinct lack of examples" Well I could spend time looking for examples of terrorist training camps being bombed.. but guess what, I can't be fucked.

IOW you have no case.

You wanted this "debate" not me and to be honest it's not worth making the effort for.

Concession Accepted.

"No, they don't. And they can't afford to. That's part of the problem you moron"
lol you verify what I say and call me a moron at the same time? Classic. Good so we agree that the legitimacy of weapons is not determined before confiscation. Doesn't it seem obvious then that the ability to detect all weapons would be devastating to the insurgency?

That's a big fat NO, you imbecile. Unless you want to confiscate ALL weapons including the ones used by your supposed allies.

"Because they can't possibly be civilians"
Yes they could.. but so you've taken weapons off civilians...

Have you actually bothered to read what I posted?

it's not like they're making a big effort to win hearts and minds as it is.

And that's one of the problems, again.

Or that when their own weapons dry up the insurgents wouldn't possibly go stealing them from civilians aye.

Why would they dry up?

"Because the absolutely need to come in millions at a time, can't possibly trickle in, and could under NO circumstances be disguised as legitimate. "
Yes they're going to trickle in millions of weapons a few at a time? And that's not going to hurt? Especially considering an alarm goes off whenever 2 or more of them end up in the same building.

NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE EVER ESTABLISHED TO BE THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Nice shifting of the goal posts, here. Okay, now you know every hut and tent in Irag that has a weapon. Shall we go over the manpower requirements again?

"YOU made the claim, hotshot. You provide the evidence. Show us that with weapon detectors the US forces now in Iraq could do the job that under the current circumstances, 140,000,000 soldiers would be able to do."
Sorry my "as evidenced by?" comment was me taking the piss... I'm sure it was obvious to everyone else here. It's not possible to prove it, and you know very well it isn't.

IOW you have.
No. Case. Whatsoever.

Oh and I didn't realise nonexistance of evidence was evidence of non existance. I'll remember that as it means I can disprove a hell of a lot.

I advise you to read the board rules, moron. If there is no evidence something exists, why should we assume it does?
SNIPPY
*Yawns*

"We're NOT talking about hiding individual insurgents among the population, genius. We're talking about esteblishing an actual base with actual infrastructure and actual [/i]resources[/i]. Have fun trying to hide that in the middle of a metropolis. "

No YOU are, I was comparing the two.

"And tons of bad eggs in a city where there's tons of more troops available is better how? So who's going to give away the Hoth base, pray tell? "

Oh so of course there's NO chance a rebel could every betray them to the empire.

"In the city centers. Those trillion inhabitant worlds are megacity OVERALL. Not that I recall the Iraqi guerillias using much in the way of even light vehicles. You know, unlike the rebels. Leave alone warships. You know, like the rebels. All of which you have to hide in the middle of a city. You were saying? "

Oh yes, sorry I forgot about warships.. just to clarify, there were how many Calamari Cruisers around Hoth?

"Individuals, yes. Infrastructure, no. And for large numbers of individuals, no again"

Ah so it's not easier to hide large numbers of individuals in larger cities than in smaller cities? Are you serious???

"Wrong again"

For someone constantly expecting evidence you make a lot of these statements while leaving me wondering why you think so.

"IOW you have no case. "

OMG you are a fucking pain in the arse. I wasn't making a fucking case dickhead. That was my point.

"Concession Accepted." Concession of what, that I haven't proven that terrorist traing camps get bombed? omg you're my hero. Don't accept it just yet, after work I'll find some instances.. just to upset you.

"That's a big fat NO, you imbecile. Unless you want to confiscate ALL weapons including the ones used by your supposed allies."

No you'd be that stupid, I on the other hand would find it simple to correlate operations of my allies with the weapons showing on my sensors. Genius.

"And that's one of the problems"

So what? It might be one of the problems but is totally irrelevant to the topic. The fact you agree they don't win hearts and minds shows it will not stop them doing what I said they do.

"Why would they dry up? "

Because my weapon find sensors have found them. Duh.

"NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE EVER ESTABLISHED TO BE THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Nice shifting of the goal posts, here. Okay, now you know every hut and tent in Irag that has a weapon. Shall we go over the manpower requirements again? "

Oh my fucking god there's something wrong with your brain. I was talking about if the US had sensors that could detect all weapons wasn't I? Remember, little red dots on a screen? I was saying it would make things so much easier for the US? For fucks sake.

"IOW you have.
No. Case. Whatsoever"

Well glory be and save us, I can't prove my opinion that being able to detect every weapon in Iraq you have a devastating impact on the insurgency. No one could. That's why it's an OPINION you fuckwit not a case. Please show me where I said I had a case? OMG no one dare come up with an opinion around Batman or you'll be spending half your life trying to prove it.

"I advise you to read the board rules, moron. If there is no evidence something exists, why should we assume it does? "

Now who's moving the goal posts you fucking dishonest shit. You said non existence of evidence was evidence of non existence. I never said it was ASUMPTION of existence you lying prick. If the board rules are they non existence of evidence is evidence of non existence then I'll accept it but I don't recall seeing it.

PayBack wrote:

FTeik wrote:
Imperial Evakmar-transports carry entire Army-Corps around.

I looked for a bit more info on this ship and a Corps is only about 69000 troops of which about 49000 were front line. Disappointing considering "a single Corps was regarded as a sufficient force to reconquer a planet that had thrown off Imperial rule—typically, in the face of odds of more than four to one."
I don't know if anyone else considers it minimalism but I sure do. Hell Bush is sending nearly 49000 ADDITIONAL troops to secure a city (not quite all 50k are going to Baghdad), let alone a planet.

The ISB qualifies that by saying that's for planets that have recently joined the rebellion as they are yet to garner support among the population - in other words, a corps can depose a government, and the world will come back on its own. Given taht we know that was a large chunk of the militaries job (keeping governors in line) it does in fact make sense.

Ah fair enough, I think also I've overestimated the amount the average joe disliked the Empire. From the end of III I sort of got the impression the very act of opposing the empire would instantly have the support of the population... but even if it did I guess it's not likely to be open support for fear of being slaughtered.

PayBack wrote:"We're NOT talking about hiding individual insurgents among the population, genius. We're talking about esteblishing an actual base with actual infrastructure and actual [/i]resources[/i]. Have fun trying to hide that in the middle of a metropolis. "
No YOU are, I was comparing the two.

Okay, let's try individual insurgents. City-tons of people who can potentially give you away. Desolate wilderness-not a single soul. Which one is safer, again?

"And tons of bad eggs in a city where there's tons of more troops available is better how? So who's going to give away the Hoth base, pray tell? "
Oh so of course there's NO chance a rebel could every betray them to the empire.

There's a hell of a lot LESS chance one of their own who needs access to long range communications will than one out of millions to trillions of civilians with ready access to public communications will. are you really this dense?

"In the city centers. Those trillion inhabitant worlds are megacity OVERALL. Not that I recall the Iraqi guerillias using much in the way of even light vehicles. You know, unlike the rebels. Leave alone warships. You know, like the rebels. All of which you have to hide in the middle of a city. You were saying? "
Oh yes, sorry I forgot about warships.. just to clarify, there were how many Calamari Cruisers around Hoth?

Hoth (which, I note, wasn't the ONLY rebel base) alone had Snowspeeders, X-Wings, light artillery, a heavy planetary ion cannon, theater shield generator, medium transports-care to hide those in a city?

"Individuals, yes. Infrastructure, no. And for large numbers of individuals, no again"
Ah so it's not easier to hide large numbers of individuals in larger cities than in smaller cities? Are you serious???

No, and obviously neither are you. it's easier to hide the AWAY from the cities ALTOGETHER. There IS such a thing as EMPTY WILDERNESS, you know.

"Wrong again"
For someone constantly expecting evidence you make a lot of these statements while leaving me wondering why you think so.

Not my fault you don't grasp basic logical concepts.

"IOW you have no case. "
OMG you are a fucking pain in the arse. I wasn't making a fucking case dickhead. That was my point.

You spend an awful lot of time on not making that case.

"Concession Accepted." Concession of what,

When you bring up a point and then say you can't be arsed to debate it, that's a concession. Learn to live with it. Learn to quote while you're at it.

"Why would they dry up? "
Because my weapon find sensors have found them. Duh.

And that means you are in a position do do something about that how?

"NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE EVER ESTABLISHED TO BE THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Nice shifting of the goal posts, here. Okay, now you know every hut and tent in Irag that has a weapon. Shall we go over the manpower requirements again? "
Oh my fucking god there's something wrong with your brain. I was talking about if the US had sensors that could detect all weapons wasn't I? Remember, little red dots on a screen? I was saying it would make things so much easier for the US? For fucks sake.

When it wouldn't, especially not by the factor you mentioned, thanks to them not having the manpower to do much of anything about it.

"IOW you have.
No. Case. Whatsoever"
Well glory be and save us, I can't prove my opinion that being able to detect every weapon in Iraq you have a devastating impact on the insurgency. No one could. That's why it's an OPINION you fuckwit not a case. Please show me where I said I had a case?

You continue arguing you're right a lot for someone who just stated an opinion. Guess what hotshot, when you claim your opinion is correct, you ARE making a case.

"I advise you to read the board rules, moron. If there is no evidence something exists, why should we assume it does? "
Now who's moving the goal posts you fucking dishonest shit. You said non existence of evidence was evidence of non existence. I never said it was ASUMPTION of existence you lying prick. If the board rules are they non existence of evidence is evidence of non existence then I'll accept it but I don't recall seeing it.

You claim something exists, YOU prove it. If you have no proof, the default assumption IS it doesn't exist. Sounds like evidence of absence to me.