Civil War at TL F
- Thread starter daryen
- Start date
notagoodusername
SOC-13
Just because they have high-tech weapons of huge, horrible destruction wouldn't mean they would use them on each other. Weapons of mass destruction tend to wipe out populations and/or cities and resources, which in a civil war you tend to want to keep.
I think it would look a lot like a civil war at TL-8, but with many more small, high-tech commando actions and a lot of information warfare.
Shane
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Higher tech = greater precision?
A high tech battlefield could be one of surgical strikes against military targets and variou non-lethal technologies used against the civilian population. Add electronic warware against control systems and robotic factories and it all adds up to a "nice", "clean", "play by the rules" conflict.
The trouble is that civil wars tend to be an excuse to throw that rulebook out of the window.
A high tech battlefield could be one of surgical strikes against military targets and variou non-lethal technologies used against the civilian population. Add electronic warware against control systems and robotic factories and it all adds up to a "nice", "clean", "play by the rules" conflict.
The trouble is that civil wars tend to be an excuse to throw that rulebook out of the window.
Spinward Scout
SOC-14 5K
I would think that a Civil War would either be put down pretty fast at TL F or do some major damage to the planet. Fusion guns can pack a big punch. If it's a fair fight at TL F - not just one side with TL F tech - then when the talking is finished, it's a lot of grunts shooting big guns. If it's true TL F. You wouldn't see that much on a balkanized world, I would think. One faction would have better tech than another, most likely. And then you're looking at a situation like VietNam probably - or what we have now with the terrorist situation. Doesn't mean that one faction can't steal from the other, tho (or hijack).
Just my .02Cr
Scout
Just my .02Cr
Scout
Yes, I think the key point is whether or not the various sides are willing to play by the rulebook. If one side is playing by the rules, then you get to have a bit more precision and fewer non combatant casualties inflicted by that side.
However, if one side *isn't* playing by the rules, then I think that higher tech just means the side not playing by the rules has a greater chance to do more mass damage more easily.
As a comparison, think about a group of 20 terrorists with TL 2-3 tech vs TL 7. The TL 2-3 group basically has to kill people by hand or otherwise be right there to cause casualties. Raid a village, poison its water supply, that sort of thing. Still limited in scope.
A TL 7 group can, say, set of nuke devices in multiple places, put deadly communicable diseases onto planes so that they are spread gobally, etc. The same size group has the potential to have a much greater effect.
I'd expect the same, only magnified at TL F. Just imagine a group getting a hold of, say, a meson gun emplacement.
Ron
I'd say that sort of conflict would probably be characterized by a very long cold war, since all sides would be aware that open warfare could be The End. They'd be trying to position themselves to win with a knockout punch, or failing that to escalate the cold war's focus of competition until only one side can maintain.
An example of the first type is David Drake's "Draka" books - Earth is basically split between two cultures that can't coexist, and they both work to complete attacks that will wipe the other one out in one fell swoop (one side goes biological, the other one concentrates on infotech). An example of the second type would be the historical US-USSR cold war.
The cold war would undoubtedly heat up in some local areas, but both sides would normally be careful not to escalate it until they were ready to go all the way, or at least could bluff convincingly. Figuring out whether the other side is really ready or bluffing is all part of the world's realpolitik.
An example of the first type is David Drake's "Draka" books - Earth is basically split between two cultures that can't coexist, and they both work to complete attacks that will wipe the other one out in one fell swoop (one side goes biological, the other one concentrates on infotech). An example of the second type would be the historical US-USSR cold war.
The cold war would undoubtedly heat up in some local areas, but both sides would normally be careful not to escalate it until they were ready to go all the way, or at least could bluff convincingly. Figuring out whether the other side is really ready or bluffing is all part of the world's realpolitik.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
No, it has very uncivil(???) wars
Richard Saunders
SOC-12
Hello.
Balkanised worlds can have civil wars.
I would think that any civil war would never be fought by the book once one side starts to loose they will try anything to even up the odds again.
If you are willing to kill your brother, what do you care about strangers.
Remember the other side isn't human they are animals in a civil or any other type of war (this is what propaganda is for).
The winner writes the history books, so if you win your lilly white and they are as black as sin (they tortured prisoners, bombed cities, moved entire populations into concentration camps, But we didn't because we are NICE).
A person is kind and considerate, people are cruel and inhuman, and war anykind turns all into people.
Gets of soap box.
Bye.
Balkanised worlds can have civil wars.
I would think that any civil war would never be fought by the book once one side starts to loose they will try anything to even up the odds again.
If you are willing to kill your brother, what do you care about strangers.
Remember the other side isn't human they are animals in a civil or any other type of war (this is what propaganda is for).
The winner writes the history books, so if you win your lilly white and they are as black as sin (they tortured prisoners, bombed cities, moved entire populations into concentration camps, But we didn't because we are NICE).
A person is kind and considerate, people are cruel and inhuman, and war anykind turns all into people.
Gets of soap box.
Bye.
It is a common mistake that the other side is always made into monsters. Often neither side bothers. Soldiers don't shoot at "people"-they shoot at weapons platforms to which a person is unfortunatly a "necessary appendage". It is often good enough for the soldiers to know that good soldiers fulfill their
contracts;sometimes with an unspoken(or loudly proclaimed)"or else".
Propaganda takes many forms; in our era we are used to ideological wars. Many wars are simply diplomatic traffic jams and don't pretend otherwise. The soldier takes his pay and the ruler gets his soldiers and everyone is well, not "happy"-but accepting. Except the civilians who happen to be in the area.
Even a civil war can be like this. The American Civil War was no worse than the European average. Remember Johney trading his tobacco for Yankee Coffee? Of course that was an ideological war too and there was plenty of "propaganda". Which proves nothing except that wars come in all shapes and sizes.
contracts;sometimes with an unspoken(or loudly proclaimed)"or else".
Propaganda takes many forms; in our era we are used to ideological wars. Many wars are simply diplomatic traffic jams and don't pretend otherwise. The soldier takes his pay and the ruler gets his soldiers and everyone is well, not "happy"-but accepting. Except the civilians who happen to be in the area.
Even a civil war can be like this. The American Civil War was no worse than the European average. Remember Johney trading his tobacco for Yankee Coffee? Of course that was an ideological war too and there was plenty of "propaganda". Which proves nothing except that wars come in all shapes and sizes.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I think it's probably safer to say that both sides commit atrocities, that's the nature of war.
As to the average European War I assume you mean pre- WW1.
In which case read more about the civilian casualties (mass executions were carried out during the Peninsular War, for example), the rape and murder which was commonplace. The difference being there were no embeded reporters or morally sanctimonious victors trying to make the other side into monsters after the fact while failing to apply the same laws to their own troops.
War used to be a far more common form of statesmanship and as a result the horrors of war were ignored by the ruling classes, and very rarely reported on.
As to the average European War I assume you mean pre- WW1.
In which case read more about the civilian casualties (mass executions were carried out during the Peninsular War, for example), the rape and murder which was commonplace. The difference being there were no embeded reporters or morally sanctimonious victors trying to make the other side into monsters after the fact while failing to apply the same laws to their own troops.
War used to be a far more common form of statesmanship and as a result the horrors of war were ignored by the ruling classes, and very rarely reported on.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Oh by the way: the "winner" doesn't write the history books-Genghis Khan was the "winner" and the books were written by those he preyed upon.
Depends on whose books you read
The Chinese and Middle Eastern history books written after the conquest are probably very different to our European versions, but then while armies were smashed the hordes didn't settle in Europe to any great extent.
Don't forget, in the long run we won
Depends on whose books you read
The Chinese and Middle Eastern history books written after the conquest are probably very different to our European versions, but then while armies were smashed the hordes didn't settle in Europe to any great extent.
Don't forget, in the long run we won
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
What, as an extrapolation of this Idea, if the opposition really is not human? I know it is difficult for me to think of civil war without thinking of The Civil War, but what if it was an inter-species conflict confined to a Star System, with one side being native, and the other desiring control of the Star System for keeps? Would the rulebook be thrown away then?
daryen
SOC-14 1K
Good question, Baron.
Just for the record, the civil war I had in mind was human vs human on a recently (in the last 50 or so years) balkanized planet.
But that is a great question. Just look at Junidy with its Dandies vs human unrest. Just to make things more interesting, the Dandies can survive unaided in the planet's atmosphere. Humans cannot.
Just for the record, the civil war I had in mind was human vs human on a recently (in the last 50 or so years) balkanized planet.
But that is a great question. Just look at Junidy with its Dandies vs human unrest. Just to make things more interesting, the Dandies can survive unaided in the planet's atmosphere. Humans cannot.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
The political situation of that world would have to be in really rough shape... The quality of life that TL F brings leaves little to be dissatisfied about... what possible causes would there be? Religion? Morality or lack thereof?
Would the Articles of War even apply?
Great Topic, What?
Would the Articles of War even apply?
Great Topic, What?
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
In addition, if one goes by the T20 book, the population is a lot more educated at that level. I am a firm believer that smart people want to stay alive, and considering the raw destructive power of TL F weaponry, a planetwide civil war is an extreme turn of events to say the least... fascinating notion!
"I think it's safer to say that both sides commit atrocities, thats the nature of war"
There can be more or less atrocities depending on the situation and the character of the commander. The European average I spoke of was not a sort of martial utopia. It was simply reduced in the ammount of atrocities committed. And the Penensular War was an exception; it was part of an ideological war and raised more passions. Wars of power fought beteen mercenaries were less in that way.
The American Civil War had Sherman's March, and it had the law breaking down in places. On the other hand neither side commited mass genocide, and there were few local massacares. That is about the best that can be done and was remarkable for a civil war. And that was roughly the European average at the time.
Balkanised worlds can have thirty-years war types. Or they can have "european average" types. Or in-between.
Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned is "giant feuds" that is wars that go on for thousands of years because they have always gone on, and have no real reason-and thus cannot be stopped, only stiffled.
There can be more or less atrocities depending on the situation and the character of the commander. The European average I spoke of was not a sort of martial utopia. It was simply reduced in the ammount of atrocities committed. And the Penensular War was an exception; it was part of an ideological war and raised more passions. Wars of power fought beteen mercenaries were less in that way.
The American Civil War had Sherman's March, and it had the law breaking down in places. On the other hand neither side commited mass genocide, and there were few local massacares. That is about the best that can be done and was remarkable for a civil war. And that was roughly the European average at the time.
Balkanised worlds can have thirty-years war types. Or they can have "european average" types. Or in-between.
Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned is "giant feuds" that is wars that go on for thousands of years because they have always gone on, and have no real reason-and thus cannot be stopped, only stiffled.
"We were the winners in the end and Genghis Khan was the loser"
Ah, yes todays winner is tomorrows loser; that's the way it has always been. Which is another reason why you can't say that history is always written by the winner-we don't always know who it is.
Moreover that implies that the loser is rendered incapable of speaking for himself. Which implies that the winner is always too ungenerous to let the loser write. Not to mention,it assumes that the winner is capable of forbidding the loser to write; not all wars end in total conquest. And if all such things are subjective, then where was the idea of "history is written by the winners" obtained. Unless that is also a subjective idea.
And by the way, Genghis Khan created one of the longest lasting steppe empires in history. It was only destroyed by his descendants quarrels. Pretty good(if good is the word)for a "loser".
Ah, yes todays winner is tomorrows loser; that's the way it has always been. Which is another reason why you can't say that history is always written by the winner-we don't always know who it is.
Moreover that implies that the loser is rendered incapable of speaking for himself. Which implies that the winner is always too ungenerous to let the loser write. Not to mention,it assumes that the winner is capable of forbidding the loser to write; not all wars end in total conquest. And if all such things are subjective, then where was the idea of "history is written by the winners" obtained. Unless that is also a subjective idea.
And by the way, Genghis Khan created one of the longest lasting steppe empires in history. It was only destroyed by his descendants quarrels. Pretty good(if good is the word)for a "loser".
Similar threads
