The improvements in the M11 Mk2 are not only in the lighter guidance module, but also in the armor layout. The graphite aerogel nuke flash shield was moved to the outermost layer. This reduced the volume of the expencive silica aerogel layers, lowering the price to below 20c, without changing the effectivity of the armor much. The crossection was also reduced, allowing for less armor to be used with only little much loss in durability.
Police are the only thing that would qualify as anything close to infantry, but I think that would be akin to saying cars are technically the same as tanks.
Cars and tanks: all vehicles are "cavalry", in the same context as "infantry" is used in this thread. I only intended "extra vehicular", or "personal" combat and not to imply any institutions.
Thats hardly a good way to think about this. By this definition, anyone with a weapon intended for a fight, but not in a vehicle, is infantry. It means that, if I were to carry a knife with the aim to use it in self defence if necesarry, I would be considered "infantry". Further more, would a bouncer at a club, armed with a taser, not also be infantry? The context in which you use infantry in this thread is so loose, that it makes discussion practically impossible. I readily agree that a discussion about infantry in space should be about more than just the millitary branch of infantry, but it should not be as wide as personal combat. Also, you misinterpreted my analogy in the same sense. A car is to a tank (perhaps millitary wheeled vehicle would be a better analogy) what infantry is to armed personel in generall. Not all armed individuals are necessarily combatants (like competition shooters) and not all combatants are necessarily armed. Police are armed and trained very differently (this is true even for special units, like anti terror units) compared to millitary units. This is because the goals and limitations of the combat environment are generally very different from actuall combat. A very good example of this in modern terms are expanding projectiles. They are banned from military use, but are highly prevelant in law enforcement and are even mandatory for hunting in some cases. Another good comparision is police marksman rifles vs. millitary marksmans rifles. The reason, then, why I would exclude police from this discussion, is because the way a police force operates, and thus, the technology it uses, are more dependant on the legal, ethical and economical systems that surround it, rather than the necessities of combat. Predicting the relevant legal, ethical and economical systems is basically impossible and doesn't allow for a generall discussion (as any arbitrary technologies and tactics could be used by selecting apropriat systems). For this reason, I think a discussion about infantry in space should focus mainly on those combatants, for whom the primary motivation behind technology and tactics is what is possible (and viable to achieve their goals), rather than what is permitted (while the millitary is regulated in use of technology, they are only restricted in technologies and tactics, that cause significantly more harm to combatants and noncombatants than others for only little benefit).
Don't mind it. Whether those are some real racketeers or a government-sponsored terrorism or interdiction or whatever, nukes seemed like an needless overkill. Even governments don't arm every group of convenient 'liberty fighters' or 'volunteers' with nukes if they can avoid it.
Au contraire, I think warships, or at least military involvement, make a lot of sense in this scenario. If you think about it, this weapon platform hunting civilian shipping is a lot like a submarine hunting maritime shipping. Who do you think corporations will turn to after the first attacks? If mining asteroids becomes a significant part of national economy, that nation will build means to protect it. It is what happened historically, and I don't think there are any reasons for it to be different in this scenario. Not being able to protect vital economic interests from a drone some shithead placed out there really sends the wrong message to your rivals on Earth and to your own citizen. Have you heard of Cod Wars? Apparently, involved people in the UK are mad about that even today. Fittingly, after the outbreak of piracy at the beginning of this decade, navies of various nations got involved and the number of attacks, not to mention successful attacks, declined sharply after that.
Not to mention that in this case you can usually start investigating on Earth. Who proposed the deal? What kind of payment they required? Who made the hardware and how was it purchased? Regular investigation in other words.
I ask for your definition, if asteroid mining becomes a significant part of national economics wouldn't you say it would become sophisticated interplanetary trade/travel?
The moment asteroid mining becomes significant, is the moment it becomes more sensible to start prioritizing space stations over planets. Significant mining activity means that technology has advanced enough to allow for planet independant life support and like I said, it's significantly easier just to mine and use resources outside of gravity wells. That means stations clustered around high resource areas, all of them with laser defense grids tracking anything larger than a pebble within 100km. Not an ideal environment for piracy.
Infinite stealth in space violates one of the fundamental law of physics: thermodynamics. If you can hide all of your heat signature, you'll either get cooked or need some seriously huge heat sink (very, very huge), which should give you a few hours of stealth at best. Certainly not enough. Even if you cheat and put all the radiators in the shadows, look, that particularly black patch in the sky blocks background stars and CMB. It is an object!
Infinite is a straw man. One does not need "infinite" anything to have an effective technology as far as I can tell. Assuredly the crypsis of modern SSBN or stealth aircraft is no where near "infinite" but they are still quite "effective" despite being "finite."
The irony here is that, while “stealthy enough” may well be possible, it pretty much precludes human crew. Humans produce a lot of heat and the systems that are needed to support them even more. Anything cold enough to be missed needs to be basically inert.
Post by omnipotentvoid on Nov 6, 2017 17:02:14 GMT
It’s not about going full dyson. In order to rebel in any meaningful way, the rebelling entity would need to be resource independent from earth. If, by the time that happens, a comparable population lives on stations/ships, it is safe to assume that there is a significant investment in combat ships. Further more, the population of such a colony/outpost would then no longer be significant enough to warrant a grueling ground assault. This is especially true, considering the threat anyone capable of accelerating a significant mass into an interscept with earth technically poses. While planetary defense networks would probably eliminate any would be impactors, I think governments would probably slag anyone they have adequate reason to believe would send one their way. The only thing that really makes sense then, are covert ops and police. And by covert ops, I don’t mean special forces units, which serve many roles. Covert ops units in space would be highly specialized for covert ops and would probably be mostly noncombatants. Police are the only thing that would qualify as anything close to infantry, but I think that would be akin to saying cars are technically the same as tanks.
Post by omnipotentvoid on Nov 6, 2017 15:08:44 GMT
That argument relies on humanity colonizing mars to self sufficiency before going the Dyson sphere route. I highly doubt that’s going to play out like that however, since the technology for a self sufficient mars and a Dydon sphere are practically identical and resource gathering and building are easier and cheaper up the well than down one.
I'd like to see the most powerful nuke missile on the smallest missile. From eyeballing that curve thing in the nuke creation screen it seems like a large nuke should be able to wipe out everything in a fairly large radius. Slap one of those on a small enough missile (with enough dV) and "win button?"
The problem with nukes is that any ship that is armored to withstand main battery lasers on cap ships for any amount of time, will be virtually impervious to a nuke. This is because the radiation intensity of a nuke flash is far less then that of most lasers. The only reason nukes work against (my) missiles, is because they only have ablative anti laser armor at the front, leaving them vulnerable to nuke flashes from the side and rear.
Humans always find a way to adapt to fighting in their milieu. There is no question of whether there will be infantry in the future. The only questions concern doctrine, equipment and culture. People have been predicting the obsolescence of the fighting man since at least the 13th century.
Naturally, the fighting man will never truly disapear (on a timescale we are interested in). Humans evolved to be incredibly adaptive, effective and efficient over a period of, arguably, 4 billion years (around 252 million years if you want to consider just mammels). That human enginuity, as amazing as it may be, has been unable to find a better solution to the problems face on the battlefield in the 100,000 years it's been around is hardly surprising. The catch is that humans are only incredibly adaptive, effective and efficient in the environment they evolved the traits in. This is clearly seen in navel and arial combat. In space, human infantry will still be the go to for earth like environment, but since space as a whole is not earth like, they will not play much of a role in millitary conflict. Police (or occupation force), sure. Specialist millitary units, yes. Piracy/crime rings, very probably. Querrilla warfare, maybe. Mainstream millitary, definitely not.
I'd like to note that both McAfee and firefox tell me MatWeb is unsafe.
I'd like to point out McAfee is one of the worst rated Anti-Virus programs around. Firefox, iunnno.
Well, its the one I'm stuck with (and I haven't had any problems with it). Also, apparently firefox says the webpage/connection isn't configured properly and is thus unsafe. The specific problem I found is that the website doesn't have a valid safety certificate as far as firefox is concerned. The certificate is only valid for qepp.matweb.com (is that the same site?). McAfee has the same problem with the site.