Future Warfare

[LmThomas]

What do you guys think "near" future warfare will be like in space? (i.e. next 100-400 years) assuming we colonize a few star systems.

Specifically:

Will there be infantry?

Will we use bullets or lasers?

What would a planetary invasion be like?

Will we have "Shields"? If so could they be penetrated by anything? Would they lose energy as they are hit, as in star trek?

 

[Parson]

I might poke at your "near future" scenario. I doubt that we've colonized any star systems in a mere 4 centuries. Unless there is some answer to the speed limit of light. We'd have to have several generations of rocket upgrades and then a few centuries to fly to the nearer stars.

But....

I don't think infantry will ever be out of the war mix if there is any idea of using conquered territory for your own ends. If the battle is one of extinction, then we simply stand off and hurl rocks at where the enemy lives.

It is likely that some kind of projectile will be a weapon for another millennium or more, but I believe that lasers will be common. Both have some serious advantages in some situations.

It is very hard to speculate about a planetary invasion. It could even be cyber attack.

If there is star travel there will certainly be some sort of shielding, but energy shields are not at all likely on any kind of "short" time line.

 

[JoanDrake]

"Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein (and I cannot emphasize enough I mean the book NOT the movie) remains one of the best thought out examples of how you'd go about it if you wanted to keep something after you've done. Otherwise, Parson is right, just throw a few asteroids at it, like the Centauri did to Narn in B5.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Simple extinction, ala Ender's Game, would actually be just a waste, I believe. Particularly on the aggressor's side.


Infantry, I feel, would always be a must, regardless, however. The only way it wouldn't be would be to simply destroy the home world completely, and I simply don't see that as plausible. Even the term planetbuster doesn't conjure images of turning a planet into space dust.


Why would infantry be needed even in an extinction maneuver? The simple answer is this: Elimination squads. Even if you ruin a planet's surface, there almost has to be a scenario where the last few scattered are underground, or escape immediate ruination, surviving post apocalyptic style. And when that happens, the men and women on the ground would be the most efficient, fastest way of dealing with the remainders.


If it is to take resources, well, infantry would be the preferred choice for obvious reasons.

 

[Tower75]

What do you guys think "near" future warfare will be like in space? (i.e. next 100-400 years) assuming we colonize a few star systems.

Specifically:

Will there be infantry?

Will we use bullets or lasers?

What would a planetary invasion be like?

Will we have "Shields"? If so could they be penetrated by anything? Would they lose energy as they are hit, as in star trek?

Infantry? Yes. Take away all the bells and whistles of war, and it's essentially a game of take and hold ground, and deny the enemy. You will always need boots on the ground to do the job.

Bullets or Lasers? In my opinion, bullets. Good SciFi not withstanding, lasers are useless as individual weaponry. Bullets are simply the best projectile around. I can give you a better explanation if you want, but bullets do the job. In the future you're likely to see a lean towards caseless, lightweight, smart bullets, with a lot of circuitry packed into the rifle.

Planetary invasion? You could argue that the Romans took over the world, so did the British Empire, and so did the Nazi Party, sort of.

In my mind you don't need to "take over ze world!", you do what the Romans and any empire building nation does: You take over the capital cities and industrial towns, install your own administration in town halls and parliament, etc. and run the place. You don't need to take over the whole country, you don't have the men or the logistical resources to do that. There will always be resistance, but once you're in power, that's game over, really.

Shields? Tough one. I don't reckon there will be, no. You will need a lot, a lot, of power to project a coherent shield made of energy like in Star Trek. Makes more sense to be to simply armour-up.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I think robots and drones would play an increasing role, but, as the others above, that infantry would continue to be important. Drones are susceptible, perhaps, to cyber-attack and there's also the moral (and operational) concern about wholly autonomous war machines which has already led to serious calls for their prohibition.

Robots like the mule (which is fantastic) will help literally bear the burden for infantry, and I think thinks of that nature will become relatively commonplace within a few decades.

 

[JonH]

In the "near future" extra-planetary war will be between groups of humans based in the Solar System. It will be about the rights of those on other planets/moons/asteroids to govern their own affairs. It will pit the massive resources of the home planet against the gravity advantage of the few humans who will live offworld.

Even if we manage to colonise a few star systems -- which may be possible toward the end of the 400 year timescale -- I don't think interstellar war is on the cards.

 

[Toby Frost]

This is a big question, and it's hard to give a short answer. I would recommend the essay in Lee Brimmicombe-Wood's Aliens Technical Manual, which I think is now back in print. Whether it's technically correct, it certainly sounds convincing. My own suspicion is that powerful computers and robots will do virtually everything, assuming that technology continues to move forward and isn't banned under the Geneva Convention or as blasphemy, depending on who's in charge.

However, I agree that colonisation of other solar systems is very unlikely in 400 years. As for force shields and the like, I've no idea at all how they would work.

 

[tinkerdan]

As far as space travel in general we're going a lot slower than a lot of people might have predicted. One drawback is the cost of getting out there.

Planetary warfare could easily look the way it does today with the added advantage of any work that continues in drones. For the potential conditions you might have to think about present technology in space suits. They are pretty fragile in many ways yet for the harsh space environment they are working but not geared to war. There would have to be reasons to make those decisions to marry current personal armor with survivability in space. The necessity for that on the ground in some form of atmosphere would depend on how harsh that environment is.

All of that is moot next to trying to figure out what all the flak would be about. But that ties in with space exploration in general. I'm sure even in a hundred years we'll still be funding research for some higher goals, but realistically speaking true space travel isn't as likely to happen without the promise of some payback. There has to be some economical reason to go out there in enough mass to reach a state that would require thinking about warfare.

So I think that the actual world building is more important than the question of what type of warfare it will be. In fact I would guess that in order to come up with respectable weapons you first have to know what the environment is and what the stakes are and that will help decide how much research would be invested in warfare. With a solid idea of the worlds and world politics the weapons and warfare will likely sort itself out.

When desperate and in a hurry almost anything can be weapon-ized in short order. Who know even a hundred years from now; depending on whether there is any conflict up to that point: the whole battle off in space could be waged with spanners.

 

[Bowler1]

Will there be infantry?
Yes. Boots on the ground are hard to beat. They may be robot boots, but still boots.

Will we use bullets or lasers?
Yes to both. Bullets are affective and cheap. Lasers for space combat (no recoil) but maybe not so good in an atmosphere and possibly for spaceship only because of size. Unless they want to borrow my RAY GUNS, but I don't give them away easy.

What would a planetary invasion be like?
Depends on the planet I'd say.

Will we have "Shields"? If so could they be penetrated by anything? Would they lose energy as they are hit, as in star trek?
Not very likely. Shields in Star Trek are unrealistic for me (too much energy required for too little return) when systems already exist that work well. Such as gattling guns that can shoot down missiles and other technologies. Stealth when in space too, if you can't be seen you can't be shot - think submarines, but in space (space is big too, which is useful when hiding (peek-a-boo)).

Skip what you see on TV if you want realism.


As an aside. Every war is different for some unforeseen reason. Technology always plays a part but other factors always come into play and change the rules for that war. Vietnam and Afghanistan were both different to what the Generals expected, as good examples only. No conflict is the same, so you can add something to the mix that makes your war special, just make it believable.

 

[Sapheron]

So much of this depends on what technology you assume develops. 'Colonial wars' over other solar systems are likely to be impossible, or at least utterly impractical, without faster than light travel and communication of some kind, for example.

Energy shields would be equally silly, unless you develop some immense source of power like, perhaps, a big antimatter reactor. If you could mount one of those on a tank though, I guess you could supply the energy to nullify pretty much any form of attack (unless powered by an equally large source of energy).

Developments in artificial intelligence I think would also play a key role. If android soldiers could be produced, which could think and move to a similar efficiency to human soldiers (though out thinking some modern squaddies probably wouldn't be a challenge for the average pocket calculator...) then why would you use humans? They complain, they take time to grow and learn, their relatives complain if they're sent to their deaths... the problems are endless.

As for a planetary invasion, I suspect you could draw parallels to D-Day and the invasion of mainland Europe by the Allies in WW2. I imagine there would be a crucial an rather bloody moment when a weak point in the defences is overwhelmed by a massive sudden attack (or isn't, in which case the invasion would fail), and then once that battle is over more troops would be shipped in and it would simply be a war like any other (or rather, unlike any of them, but with a few similarities to some, what with most wars being different)

 

[LmThomas]

What do you guys think of plasma based weapons vs laser weapons?

 

[Bowler1]

What do you guys think of plasma based weapons vs laser weapons?

Pulling back a bolt that clicks and snicks into place, Bowler1 one winks - then blasts the hell out of the shooting range with a machine gun Rambo would be proud of. Ears ringing and with the smell of cordite in the air, I crack a smile the Cheshire Cat would be proud of. Maybe this helps answer your question. Would you like a go?

 

[Sapheron]

Plasma based guns have immense issues to overcome if they want to be functioning weapons. Getting something that doesn't naturally stay together to stay together, and something very hot to remain hot despite moving though a cold medium, and to propel something that isn't very easy to propel and get it to keep that momentum for long enough are all huge problems.

In comparison, we can pretty much make a working laser weapon today. They're just totally impractical compared to conventional weaponry.

So between the two the laser weaponry wins hands down.

 

[Mirannan]

I think neutral particle beams (particularly heavy atom beams, for several reasons) may work better in space combat than either lasers or missiles.

For ground use, autonomous weapons (all the way down to insect sized or maybe even smaller) may be the way to go.

Finally, although kinetic weapons and particularly relativistic ones (RKKVs) are potentially incredibly powerful for bombardment of planets and non-movable installations, they would probably tend not to leave much of any use afterwards. Don't chuck RKKVs at any planet you might want to use afterwards.

I once read something that really is a horror. Imagine an interstellar war. Now imagine 100-ton autonomous ramscoop drones with an acceleration of double-digit Gs, with a few lightyears of runup and which stop boosting (except for course correction) a few light-days from target.

I haven't done the sums, but... UGH.

 

[Spiegal]

What about warfare in space? The infantry, vehicles and equipment need to be shipped to a warzone meaning attacks on convoys would be a certainty.

I personally would predict a cross between submarine warfare and air superiority rolled into one. Beyond Visual Range weaponry being used while attempting to remain hidden from the enemy.

 

[tinkerdan]

Attacks would rely on knowing where they are at:

What about warfare in space? The infantry, vehicles and equipment need to be shipped to a warzone meaning attacks on convoys would be a certainty.

I personally would predict a cross between submarine warfare and air superiority rolled into one. Beyond Visual Range weaponry being used while attempting to remain hidden from the enemy.

In space maybe near the target -destination or near the port they leave from where you know you will find some of them.

In deep space they would have to be compelled to follow routes in order to be attacked otherwise its a whole wide... vacuum out there.

 

[Bowler1]

If you follow routes then a convoy system might be needed. But why follow routes? Space is big and generally dark once away from stars. What advantages are there in bunching together other than control and command (easier when your minion is close to hand). The only problem I can see is when you arrive at your destination point (or close to) and your hiding space becomes less and less. Then combining resources simply to attack and/or defend would come into play.

Fleet deployment in a star system would raise concerns for me too, when every rocky asteroid could be the space version of an IED. Even pebbles when moving fast are a problem. So getting to your target is only the start of your problems. At least on way to your target your travelling through empty space, in a star system, it won't be so empty.

I certainly think it would be submarine like warfare, but with instant death and no life boats. Stopping to pick up survivors would be a death sentence.

The point of space bombardment is a simple one. To conquer - no bombardment. To kill - drop all the rocks you can find on their little green alien heads and wipe them out, there are always more stars and planets that can be used to colonise.

There we go - strip a few layers back and already a few assumptions like convoy protection can be questioned - I have no idea either way if a fleet convoy system would be good or not.

 

[Mirannan]

One thing about space warfare is this: Several SF universes have FTL that only works at specific spots; the universe of Mote in God's Eye is one of them. If FTL works that way, then there are choke points that can be exploited.

 

[Spiegal]

Ahh Tinkerdan and Bowler, as insightful as always in these things! I really like the idea of spreading out a fleet once they are in 'open water' as it were. It makes a lot of sense too, I'll have to borrow this idea a little in my own stuff

Mirranan, they also have these jump points in Battletech as well with a nice twist on it. Once they reach the target point near either pole of a star they then have to use conventional thrusters to actually reach the system, taking several days of flight time. It really hits home how vast space is even with an FTL drive!