Haven sector United against League

Ok.

Dead thread file.

hanuman wrote:There are all those independent single star system-polities between Haven and Manticore that are also part of the Haven Sector, but like Cthia said, except for many of them being members of the Manticoran Alliance, they do not really amount to much. The significant powers - the Manticoran Alliance and the Republic of Haven ARE united against the League in the Grand Alliance.

There is only more one party Between Manticore and Haven which should be mentioned in this conversation - Talbot. It has an SD capable yard and has an unknown number of SDs - most likely far less than 2 dozen, but they are probably Sphinx/Gryphon clones.

Talbot is way out of the way for the SL and <<24 conventional SDs is a speedbump for the SLN, but they are the only party in the Havenite wars not already mentioned which may field significant wallers.

hanuman wrote:There are all those independent single star system-polities between Haven and Manticore that are also part of the Haven Sector, but like Cthia said, except for many of them being members of the Manticoran Alliance, they do not really amount to much. The significant powers - the Manticoran Alliance and the Republic of Haven ARE united against the League in the Grand Alliance.

A good idea of what those small powers bring to the table in a war between Manticore + Haven against the SL would be to look at what Latin America brought to the allies in WWI. They provided a small number of troops, but mostly foodstuffs and other raw materials. They primarily help their trading partners just by existing.

Jonathan_S wrote:But there's still not enough manpower in the entire Haven sector to occupy and hold down the League after destroying their navy. The GDP of the systems of the League is still multiples of the GDP of the whole Haven sector; and the manpower discrepancy is even larger.

Does the GA need to occupy League systems? It takes months to build starships, and needs in-space infrastructure to build them. Small squadrons of GA ships should be able to make 'tours' round the League's major industrial systems, returning say, every six months. If they see naval ships being built, they deliver an ultimatum - "You blow it up, or we will" Repeat 'offenders' are warned "Stop building, or we will stop you building, by blowing up your infrastructure"

wyrm wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:But there's still not enough manpower in the entire Haven sector to occupy and hold down the League after destroying their navy. The GDP of the systems of the League is still multiples of the GDP of the whole Haven sector; and the manpower discrepancy is even larger.

Does the GA need to occupy League systems? It takes months to build starships, and needs in-space infrastructure to build them. Small squadrons of GA ships should be able to make 'tours' round the League's major industrial systems, returning say, every six months. If they see naval ships being built, they deliver an ultimatum - "You blow it up, or we will" Repeat 'offenders' are warned "Stop building, or we will stop you building, by blowing up your infrastructure"

Yeah so what would this accomplish besides making an SL bolthole inevitable, angering the League population, and sticking the GA with responsibility for defending the League systems since they won't let the League have the means to defend themselves. Your plan would basically make a second war inevitable.

Rogue, the bonds holding the League together are far too fragile to survive the kind of crisis we currently see developing. The League is going to shatter into a thousand and more pieces pretty quickly. THAT is what the Alliance wants. Sure, some parts of the disintegrated League will rejoin in multi system polities, but I cannot foresee the emergence of another polity that will even come close to presenting the same threat level and dominance as the League did before the Havenite wars. Once the League is gone and done for, I do not think the Alliance will care whether any of the new polities build modern fleets of their own or not.

hanuman wrote:Rogue, the bonds holding the League together are far too fragile to survive the kind of crisis we currently see developing. The League is going to shatter into a thousand and more pieces pretty quickly. THAT is what the Alliance wants. Sure, some parts of the disintegrated League will rejoin in multi system polities, but I cannot foresee the emergence of another polity that will even come close to presenting the same threat level and dominance as the League did before the Havenite wars. Once the League is gone and done for, I do not think the Alliance will care whether any of the new polities build modern fleets of their own or not.

I know that but what wyrm was suggesting the GA do looked to me like

1: the GA declaring that no one in League space is allowed to build a modern navy

2: that the GA smashes those former League systems that try to build modern navies.

To me this would lead to

1: The population of the League having massive amounts of resentment and anger towards the GA.

2: Systems in the League setting up Boltholes to get around the no modern navy allowed restrictions.

3: League systems secretly forging alliances

4: The League successor states coming out swinging and attacking the GA when their new fleets are ready.

Roguevictory wrote:

hanuman wrote:Rogue, the bonds holding the League together are far too fragile to survive the kind of crisis we currently see developing. The League is going to shatter into a thousand and more pieces pretty quickly. THAT is what the Alliance wants. Sure, some parts of the disintegrated League will rejoin in multi system polities, but I cannot foresee the emergence of another polity that will even come close to presenting the same threat level and dominance as the League did before the Havenite wars. Once the League is gone and done for, I do not think the Alliance will care whether any of the new polities build modern fleets of their own or not.

I know that but what wyrm was suggesting the GA do looked to me like

1: the GA declaring that no one in League space is allowed to build a modern navy

2: that the GA smashes those former League systems that try to build modern navies.

To me this would lead to

1: The population of the League having massive amounts of resentment and anger towards the GA.

2: Systems in the League setting up Boltholes to get around the no modern navy allowed restrictions.

3: League systems secretly forging alliances

4: The League successor states coming out swinging and attacking the GA when their new fleets are ready.

Okay, I understand now. This is actually relevant to the League Survival thread, but the 'Harrington Doctrine' simply does not foresee any widespread occupation of former League systems, so Wyrm is wrong. The Alliance's goal is the breakup of the League into more manageable polities, most of which will be too far distant to ever pose a threat to the Haven Sector. And I think the Alliance leadership is far too wise to ever fall into the trap that any attempt to occupy the League would pose. They know they don't have the resources, public support or for that matter, the moral right to do anything of the kind. Doing so would simply turn them into a new 'League'.

hanuman wrote:

Roguevictory wrote:
I know that but what wyrm was suggesting the GA do looked to me like

1: the GA declaring that no one in League space is allowed to build a modern navy

2: that the GA smashes those former League systems that try to build modern navies.

To me this would lead to

1: The population of the League having massive amounts of resentment and anger towards the GA.

2: Systems in the League setting up Boltholes to get around the no modern navy allowed restrictions.

3: League systems secretly forging alliances

4: The League successor states coming out swinging and attacking the GA when their new fleets are ready.

Okay, I understand now. This is actually relevant to the League Survival thread, but the 'Harrington Doctrine' simply does not foresee any widespread occupation of former League systems, so Wyrm is wrong. The Alliance's goal is the breakup of the League into more manageable polities, most of which will be too far distant to ever pose a threat to the Haven Sector. And I think the Alliance leadership is far too wise to ever fall into the trap that any attempt to occupy the League would pose. They know they don't have the resources, public support or for that matter, the moral right to do anything of the kind. Doing so would simply turn them into a new 'League'.

Another fact is, although the GA will be involved in the dissolution of the League, the GA does not want to be the villain of the piece, which any high-handed occupation or nodal response force structure will cause.

As such, The GA does not want to shatter the league by swinging 20 pound sledgehammers - it wants to be the rock the League trips over and shatters on in it's death throes. It then want to hold out it's hand to each piece and help them up - individually.

This cannot be achieved as the bully of the piece, they need to be perceived as stalwart and forthright, to be honest purveyors of truth as everything the former League members relied upon falls around them.

When the dust settles, Manticore and Haven want to be allied or friendly with as much of the former league as possible and be friendly/neutral with the rest. And this is just not possible with an overly aggressive stance.

Very true, Emile. If the Alliance goes the way of occupation and suppression of any attempt by post-League polities to modernize their military forces, they'll end up causing deep resentment and endless insurrection. They'll basically become a reincarnated 'League'. I think the Alliance leadership is wise enough to realize that it's better in the long run to lead by carrot rather than by stick. Speaking of, isn't that the second part of the 'Harrington Doctrine'?

I mean, the last thing the Alliance wants is to create a chaotic geopolitical environment in which no one is really secure, because eventually parts of the former League will inevitably succeed in building a navy capable of challenging the Alliance. And if the Alliance had poisoned the ground through occupation and suppression, those newly powerful successor states might just decide to take vengeance. So no, I do not foresee any kind of longterm or permanent policy of occupation being implemented by the Alliance.