Should we build a Death Star?

Well, nuclear arms race is the equivalent of death star in the sense that it can blow the planet up. There are more than one countries still in existence that can do that. There were many demonstration against it. But effect was quite very limited.

A series about the building and operating Earth's Death Stars. Oh yeah, they are multiples, not single. Hard Science, biatches!

A trilogy by John Ringo. He plan for more but not yet write them.

Tactical inflexibility? Instead of 2 battlegroups that you can send to 2 different target, you only has one planetoid. Mighty firepower and all but slow to chase fleeing targets

Well, it would probably be a good idea to find out if there are any planets with civilisations on them sufficiently advanced to terrorise into submission in the first place before forking out that kind of cash.

Speaking of which I'm thinking they should also set the Kickstarter goal a bit higher then $852 quadrillion, because what's the point of building a moon-sized doomsday machine out of something as puny as steel? It just doesn't strike enough fear into the hearts of your enemies if they know you skimped out on the artificial super-tensile materials.

This is actually what happens in Stars Wars: Rebellion. Nuking the galaxy is not an effective strategy in that game, at least if you want a galaxy at the end to rule over.

We are not arguing about better or worse here. We are talking about materiels, production, logistic, and tactical option. Let's assume you have 1000 billion tons of materials. You can either produce 1 planetoid ship, or 2 battlegroups completed with supply fleet trains. You have 100k personels, you can either outfit one planetoid or two battlegroups. You see where I am going with this? It's not about better or worse, it's about strategic decision. You have two goals: capture the planet or chase after the fleeing colonization fleet. with Planetoid you are ensure 100% of one victory, but with 2 battlegroups, and if you are very good, perhaps you can achieve both.

We should totally build a Death Star and blow up those asshole gas giants in order to make Earth the biggest planet of the solar system.

Wrong perspective, chap.

You should think "one fleet of big and slow ships" and "two fleet of medium ships".

As for Utu Class Planetoid... I dont know what it is but let's assume it's one giganormous planetoid ship? In that case, numerical superiority with proper tactics is the key. You use a majority of medium ships but faster than planetoid as a fleeing target, doing a proper fighting retreat action, never get into its range but continuous jab at it (hidden mines on the path?...) Meanwhile you send fast fleet elements to raid their supply depot/planet, hit and run tactic. They cant just divide their accompanying small ships to both screening their planetoid AND rescue their supply depots, because if they do so we will smash both. Numerical superiority, remember? The key is staying out of the planetoid's range and defeat their support elements.

IN case they are defending and totally ignoring our baits to lure them out... Do the proper thing and lay siege upon that star system. If the planetoid stay near planet? Hit all the outlying target and their resupply fleet trains. If they get out of planet range to chase? See the tactic above.

Since you are outmassed 1000 to 1 in ship-to-ship fights, try to keep things in perspective

Book 2 of the Troy Rising series mentioned above also apply a tactic like that. Since humans got a planetoid (Death Star) protecting them by both missiles and solar-laser, enemies use long range kinetic missiles to bombard Earth AND hunting down in-system space targets. Any mobile elements leaving the planetoid get hit by bigger groups. The only way to win is that human got underestimated so instead of 40 to 1 odds they send enough for 3 to 1. When they send 20 to 1 both got stalemated then human send in another still-repairing planetoid (Death Star).

I think the Codex should have its own Death Star.

It's a bit different too already from naval combat... In fact, if we go sci-fi standard and assume there are shields and directed energy weaponry, then smaller vessels will be in even more serious trouble because larger vessels can mount not only more weapons but power weapons the smaller vessels simply cannot. Same thing with sensors and engines. And because directed energy is in use, missiles will be at a disadvantage because an offensive laser for example could attack them from distances and at speeds that the missiles simply couldn't match. Similarly, where the smaller ships may lack the necessary power to even scratch the planetoid weapon, the planetoid most likely can blow them apart and detect them from far greater distances.

The assumption that the planetoid would automatically be slower than smaller vessels is also quite strange, as space uses very different rules concerning acceleration and velocity. Most likely the planetoid weapon can once again mount the kind of propulsion systems that leaves smaller vessels completely behind it. The need for supplies will also most likely be lower, as the planetoid can most likely maintain bacterial and algea farms to provide nutrition and probably has artificial ecosystems in place for converting solar energy. It will also likely possess a network of reactors that will keep it powered for several hundred years without refueling.

If anything, space combat (if ever feasible) will most likely see the return of the capital ship. 1000-1 odds mean nothing if the 1000 are ants attacking an exterminator.

Now this is just silly, if giant lasers are in use then a planetoid weapon will have no trouble powering a laser weapon network that can take out all of those missiles before they have any chance of getting near Earth.

And shoot cum on planets?

I think it's very unlikely that there will or can ever be full scale space combat the way popular culture has it. It would require an impossible amount of space economy and logistics. It's in no way comparable to conventional warfare. You can't just spam space fighters with any technology, much less people to use them the way earth nations have spammed infantry equipment, tanks, planes, and additional equipment for these vehicles and the people to use them in past wars. Even now, the cost of replacing a single fighter is astronomical compared to WW2 military porn.

I think it's more likely that there would at most be lots of long distance tactics, energy manipulation and spacecraft boarding, all intended to capture, sabotage and blackmail rather than destruction and populations at large won't even hear any of it. Ultimately, big picture will be an extension of what we have today: lots of backstage politics and economy warfare.

To even think of the construction of a Super Star Destroyer, much less a Death Star: nerd power fantasies.

Yes, giving birth to a whole bunch of Codexers that will get very angry at the local population and complain about it on the galaxyweb.

Why build one from scratch? Just mine out the moon and use the interior. Better yet, lets use Pluto/Charon so we don't screw up our tides and other shit. Charon makes the first death star and Pluto the second, bigger one.


"That's no Space Station, it's a moon."

Yeah, never mind that a powerful mass driver shooting a rock can cause devastation on a planetary scale with no potential for defense. Any all out war scenario with space-tech civilizations is just too damn costly to even comprehend of waging. Of course, that's what the inventors of firearms, bombs, nukes, etc thought too...

Ah, you mean Dahak in the works by Weber? Then yes, I have read it. Not impressed. Man write that not as well as he can. The first novel is about the best of the series.

As for the scene in Troy Rising, read after me "Target saturation". When you can engage 100 targets but they present, both missles and ships, 200 targets, what can you do? It's the limitation of planetoid versus smaller battleship.

pointless?