The wealth-generating planet, Satan, was discovered in the Polesotechnic League period. In the later Imperial period:
"The defense of Satan became a major reason to garrison and colonize Sector Alpha Crucis." (p. 462)
A reason to colonize the sector: this is an important connection between the two periods.
When waging civil war against the Emperor, Admiral McCormac reasons:
the destruction of the Satanic factories would be an unacceptable economic loss for the Imperium;
therefore, the loyalists will probably avoid the planet;
therefore, Satan will probably be a safe sanctuary for his own rebel forces.
But, if nevertheless the loyalists do attack, then McCormac will certainly use Satan as a shield. Whether destroyed or only held by the rebels, Satanic products will be denied to the enemy.
17 comments:
The cost of an attack on Satan would be the cost of -repairing- the works there after the war.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And would it be unrealistic for both sides, the McCormac rebels and the Josipists, to tacitly agree to treat Satan as neutral territory to be gained by whoever won in space?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: no, it wouldn't be unrealistic... as long as neither side gained an advantage by that arrangement.
Eg., neither side in WWII (outside Asia) used poison gasses. Both had been convinced by their experience in WWI that, since both sides had them, there was no advantage to either in using them. It just upped the cost without affecting the outcome, so it was pointless except as a deterrent
One of the "Willie and Joe" cartoons shows them marching along a dusty summer road littered with abandoned equipment.
Joe remarks: "I see A Company got the new gas masks."
(Incidentally, this may have been a misunderstanding -- the Germans had nerve gas and assumed we did too, but we didn't. It was discovered by accident during research on insecticides, and the German chemical industry was more advanced that way at the time.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, I can see that, re Satan. The manufactories on Satan were worth not destroying as long as either side felt sure the other side would not thereby get an advantage.
Yes, I can see some weapons not being used if both sides in a war has them.
Ad astra! Sean
"Yes, I can see some weapons not being used if both sides in a war has them."
It looks like poison gas is a precedent for nuclear explosives in that way.
Kaor, Jim!
Except I believe it's too laate. E.g., despotic regimes like those of Iran and N Korea are working feverishly to build their own nukes. And I can't help wondering if an infuriated and frustrated Putin might finally use tactical nukes to break Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression.
Ad astra! Sean
Iran is the one I would be a bit worried about.
Someone near the top of that government *might* actually believe that dying in the rataliatory strike would make him a martyr and so get him into the best level of heaven.
I don't see anyone high in the N. Korean or Russian governments thinking that way.
Kaor, Jim!
Yes, there are fanatical Muslims who believe dying while waging jihad will get them to paradise. I can see some some in the thugocracy in Iran still thinking like that.
I do not exclude N Korea because I think Kim Jong Un just might be crazy enough to fire nukes at somebody: Japan, S Korea, the US, or even China!
Putin I consider somewhat more likely, esp. if he uses low yield tactical nukes. Such as might happen if the war with Ukraine starts going really badly for Russia.
Ad astra! Sean
Nuclear weapons make you immune to outright invasion aimed at regime overthrow. That's their primary value.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Meaning regime change would have to come from within a regime's territory.
But I thought low yield tactical nukes, such as neutron bombs, were designed for combat use?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, they were, and nobody ever used them, because the retaliation would be too dangerous.
Nuclear weapons can only be used against those who a) don't have them, b) who you're already fighting, and c) who have no powerful allies with access to nuclear weapons.
Only one instance so far of that -- Japan in 1945.
The "kicker" would be people in charge who genuinely didn't care if they and everyonen in their country died. That's not likely to be common, though.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Hmmmm, some additional thoughts:
A. Ukraine does not have nukes, but Russia does.
B. Russia is trying, incompetently, to conquer Ukraine. And so could, theoretically, use tactical nukes.
C. But Ukraine has, sort of, allies which has been giving Kyiv just enough aid to prevent a Russian conquest. That, so far, has been enough to stop Putin from using nukes.
I agree with your last comment. I don't think even Kim Jong Un is that crazy!
Ad astra! Sean
I've heard that we've made clear that in the event of their using any sort of nuclear weapons, we would launch conventional attacks on Russia, sinking their fleet, destroying their air force, and sending large ground forces into Ukraine to expel the Russians.
That would leave them a choice between accepting total defeat and blowing up the world.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Good, some of the people puppet mastering "Josip" have their heads screwed on right. I agree with that!
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Even so, I wonder, what if an infuriated and frustrated Putin, taking note of what an incompetent bungler "Josip" is, decides to use nukes in Ukraine, gambling the senescent dotard in DC won't do anything effective about that?
I hope not, but I'm sure some are worrying!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Don't overestimate the importance of a President in that scenario.
The bureaucrats military and civil would click into action, using plans that have been in preparation for some time now.
Putin knows roughly what's planned if he uses WMD, and that Russia couldn't fight back effectively; it would simply mean a swift, complete defeat rather than a slow, and (if he's very lucky) partial one.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I certainly hope you are right. The problem is, after the infuriating, ignominiously bungled Afghan bug out, I don't have much, if any, confidence in anyone around "Josip."
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment