GA-League War

GloriousRuse wrote:@ TLB. On the contrary. I'm against planet busting, and all for using the threat of planet busting to keep the war in the verge. Because it doesn't matter if you lose the verge war. You can always re-mobilize the core and come back later. For the GA to put you down long term, they need to come in to the core.

For everything else, I think it was Weber or one of his co-authors who said

"The rematch wouldn't be a war, it'd be a landslide."

Potato wrote:Explain how you will somehow convince people that an attack which does not produce civilian megadeaths is an Eridani Edict violation. Making statements completely disconnected from reality a la Baghdad Bob is the quickest way to destroy your own credibility. The Edict is pretty tightly proscribed as a part of the League constitution (it is not an interstellar law or treaty). Its provisions are clearly laid out in infodumps, and simply conducting combat operations does not even begin to approach the threshold needed to retaliate with genocidal counterattacks. Such grossly disproportionate responses are the quickest way to form resistance both internally and externally (aka nuking Argentina).

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

GloriousRuse wrote:@ TLB. On the contrary. I'm against planet busting, and all for using the threat of planet busting to keep the war in the verge. Because it doesn't matter if you lose the verge war. You can always re-mobilize the core and come back later. For the GA to put you down long term, they need to come in to the core.

For everything else, I think it was Weber or one of his co-authors who said

"The rematch wouldn't be a war, it'd be a landslide."

Again, the problem is that the other side can turn around and say the same thing. "Don't come to the Haven Sector"

It's not an effective deterrent if everyone has the capability to do it. There's a deterrent to the deterrent. It's a toothless argument, since no one can enforce it without also losing big.

tlb wrote:

Potato wrote:It is genuinely baffling that that the majority's opinion on this forum is that the first solution to any strategic situation is usually genocide.

How did you arrive at that being a majority opinion?

Potato wrote:It is genuinely baffling that that the majority's opinion on this forum is that the first solution to any strategic situation is usually genocide.

tlb wrote:How did you arrive at that being a majority opinion?

Potato wrote:The fact that people routinely suggest Edict violations, ways to bypass the Edict, and other sundry ideas as if inflicting civilian megadeaths is not abhorrent, to the point that even the author has commented that he is confused as to why people keep entertaining the idea.

GloriousRuse wrote:Fighting from the league side:

First step is that you make it diplomatically clear any strikes or invasion against the core will constitute an Eridani violation in your eyes, and that this will result in massive planet killing retaliation - justification only has to be good enough to fig leaf.

Combine that with an information campaign about neo-barbs looking to dismantle the EE and old terra if need be. Bluntly, the SLN has enough ships to ensure frac C missiles hit planets and since they are the guarantors of the EE to begin with, you enter a MAD scenario with the GA. Ultimately neither of you want to go “nuclear” because it’s horrible for both of you...but if it does go that way, you have a lot more real estate to lose.

But really, it’s about the threat. The threat keeps the GA on the frontier, and you can recover from any frontier defeat.

The rest is just using neo-barb aggression and threat to seize even more power for your directorates, then convincing the mandarins and trans solars that each of them stand to gain from massive war spending and modernization.

Let that play out for a few years, possibly offering a concessionary peace. Use the defeat to shock the rest of the politicos and population into accepting your spend plan, your dominance having so clearly been based on false assumption.

Come back in ten years and curb stomp the GA.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Nuking Argentina might have been bad PR, but Thatcher might have gotten away with it if the US and the USSR had been willing to accept it.

GloriousRuse wrote:But, just in case you don't believe me because - ironically, given we're talking about what people believe - it would suit you not to...well, here are some quotes from the most recent US Nuclear Posture Review. It's a public document.

"This review rests on a bedrock truth: nuclear weapons have and will continue to play a critical role in deterring nuclear attack and in preventing large-scale conventional warfare between nuclear-armed states for the foreseeable future. U.S. nuclear weapons not only defend our allies against conventional and nuclear threats, they also help them avoid the need to develop their own nuclear arsenals. This, in turn, furthers global security. "

Do you see riots in Chicago right now over the potential for starting a nuclear war to defend an ally against a conventional threat? Perhaps the members of NATO have sworn off the alliance because of this declaration that the US will go nuclear in a conventional war?

"U.S. nuclear capabilities cannot prevent all conflict, and should not be expected to do so. But, they contribute uniquely to the deterrence of both nuclear and non-nuclear aggression. They are essential for these purposes and will be so for the foreseeable future. Non-nuclear forces also play essential deterrence roles, but do not provide comparable deterrence effects--as is reflected by past, periodic, and catastrophic failures of conventional deterrence to prevent Great Power war before the advent of nuclear deterrence. In addition, conventional forces alone are inadequate to assure many allies
who rightly place enormous value on U.S. extended nuclear deterrence for their security, which correspondingly is also key to non-proliferation."

Looks familiar...

" However, deterring nuclear attack is not the sole purpose of nuclear weapons. Given the diverse threats and profound uncertainties of the current and future threat environment, U.S. nuclear forces play the following critical roles in U.S. national security strategy. They contribute to the:

› Deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack;

› Assurance of allies and partners;

› Achievement of U.S. objectives if deterrence fails; and

› Capacity to hedge against an uncertain future.

These roles are complementary and interrelated, and the adequacy of U.S. nuclear forces must be assessed against each role and the strategy designed to fulfill it."

There it is again. Deterrence of non-nuclear attack. But how can this be when...

"The United States remains committed to its efforts in support of the ultimate global elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons"

Turns out, that's for other people.

Also, the US promotes and is a signatory to the conventions that prohibit deliberate genocide, unnecessary suffering, indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and so forth. Indeed, it both backs and encourages that international order. And yet...

"China’s military modernization and pursuit of regional dominance have emerged as a major challenge to U.S. interests in Asia...

...The United States is prepared to respond decisively to Chinese non-nuclear or nuclear aggression. U.S. exercises in the Asia-Pacific region, among other objectives, demonstrate this preparedness, as will increasing the range of graduated nuclear response options available to the President."

Woah. We just admitted we would nuke China over matters of pacific territorial strategy. We who endorse the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, international law, and promote standards of human rights both in and outside of conflict.

Yet, somehow, I don't see allies jumping ship over the hypocrisy. Or riots in the street. Well, some of those, but mostly over quarantines.

Mind you China has 300+ nuclear weapons, at least some of which would get through and glass a good chunk of the western seaboard.

I mean, we could keep doing this, but once you're in the nuclear league - or for Honorverse, the league where the SL is not safeguarding you - the rules are whatever you say they are based on interests, fear, and calculation. And no, the moral outrage that would be expressed by a college freshman doesn't really matter.

------------

And as to "you c-frac us, we'll c-frac you", that's perfect. Because if both sides are terrified of being c-frac'd, then they fight a limited war. And so long as they fight a limited war, the SL can always spend it's way to victory in time.

GloriousRuse wrote:Except for, you know, that’s how deterrents work. After all, we have many powers capable of either destroying a rival nation or imposing shattering nuclear losses. And every one of them has a “Attacking the homeland means I nuke you” policy.

And wouldn’t you know it, we have yet to have one nuclear power invade another.

GloriousRuse wrote:Let that play out for a few years, possibly offering a concessionary peace. Use the defeat to shock the rest of the politicos and population into accepting your spend plan, your dominance having so clearly been based on false assumption.

Come back in ten years and curb stomp the GA.