Security Officers on the Enterprise

[Ithekro]

The thought of enlarging the Houdini mines came up again in my head and made me remember exactly why they would not be used in space. Space is vast, mines are tiny. The only reason the minefield in front of the Wormhole would work is because there is only one way in or out of it in the Alpha Quadrent. Filling a few square miles of space around that will ensure a blocked path. Anywere else is just too vast to effectively mine. Even a planet. How to you be sure which orbit someone is going to enter? Space line between star systems? Sure there is the direct route, but how wide is that? A few light-hours across?

 

[kirkfan]

The thought of enlarging the Houdini mines came up again in my head and made me remember exactly why they would not be used in space. Space is vast, mines are tiny. The only reason the minefield in front of the Wormhole would work is because there is only one way in or out of it in the Alpha Quadrent. Filling a few square miles of space around that will ensure a blocked path. Anywere else is just too vast to effectively mine. Even a planet. How to you be sure which orbit someone is going to enter? Space line between star systems? Sure there is the direct route, but how wide is that? A few light-hours across?

Personally, I don't see the point of the houdinis. If you have a cloaked anti-personnel mine then let it explode as soon as someone is within killing distance of it. Why wait and explode randomly? The sooner you kill an enemy the fewer opportunities they'll have to kill some of your own. The houdinis are inefficient.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Yeah, but the Dominion are all about creating fear.

And I suppose, if the Houdinis exploded immediately, they would only get the first few people to enter and prevent them from digging in.

 

[kirkfan]

Yeah, but the Dominion are all about creating fear.

And I suppose, if the Houdinis exploded immediately, they would only get the first few people to enter and prevent them from digging in.

If the houdinis explode when they detect someone in close proximity then they likely will kill the same number of people whether they explode sooner or later. So I stand by my assessment.

 

[Timo]

The very point of anti-personnel mines is to create fear. That they on occasion actually explode is basically inconsequential; a mine that doesn't explode does its work much better.

Also, wounding the enemy is much more effective than killing him. Anti-personnel mines could easily be built to take out whole platoons with one blow, but they are deliberately sized so that they don't even necessarily kill the one soldier who steps on them.

However, the point in the DS9 episode is that the Jem'Hadar are not in control of the Houdinis. They are not in control of the facility. They don't know what goes on inside the facility. The Houdinis are their remote representatives, and they probably aren't very smart, but they have been given a long-term assignment: to make life hell for the occupying force regardless of what actually happens. Just blowing up when approached wouldn't do that very well, as it would facilitate rather simple minesweeping. If a mine predictably kills, that's less effective than a mine that unpredictably fails to do so - and, more importantly, a mine that doesn't blow up won't be expended and will remain a threat!

(Naturally, the Houdinis could be set to explode at every "impact". We saw our heroes use that setting against the Jem'Hadar, after all. It's just that this would be a different tactical situation, calling for a different mode of operations.)

As for the use of mines in open space, it would probably be similar to the use of open-sea mines today: the mine wouldn't explode, but would fly right next to its target and then explode, like the "Captor" mines of the USN or other comparable devices of today.

Of course, the challenges in open space would be a tad greater than in open ocean, as the ranges involved are greater. But space torpedoes supposedly have greater speed and range than sea torpedoes anyway, in absolute and relative terms. And again, a mine need not always explode or hit every target. In order to besiege Bajor in "Sons of Mogh", for example, the Klingons would not need to fill every spot of space with mines: there would rather be dense clouds of them at unpredictable locations.

That, FWIW, is how mines and minefields work in the real world.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

I disagree with your assessment : First, there is no mine sweeping possible since the mines were cloaked and they didn't have the means to sweep cloaked mines.

Second, if the mine is set to explode when there are people around (not things but people) then, you pay a hell of a price for "sweeping" these mines, by the time you find them all, there is nobody left to celebrate.

Third, if a cloaked mine, that you can't detect until it blows you to pieces explodes now or some other time it makes no difference, except that the sooner you kill or incapacitate an enemy, the fewer opportunities that enemy will have to kill you.

My initial point stands.

 

[Timo]

I disagree with your assessment : First, there is no mine sweeping possible since the mines were cloaked and they didn't have the means to sweep cloaked mines.

Sure there is. Just walk in; the mines explode, and the next one to walk in there is safe. He or she walks in a bit deeper, the next set of mines explode, and the next one to walk in there is safe. That's how the Jem'Hadar would do it!

Second, if the mine is set to explode when there are people around (not things but people) then, you pay a hell of a price for "sweeping" these mines, by the time you find them all, there is nobody left to celebrate.

Out of 150 troops, 120 would still be left after a complete sweep. Assuming, that is, that only a single Houdini out of those within range would react to the sweeper, and the explosion wouldn't take out too many of the neighboring Houdinis.

Killing just 30 people with such superb weapons would be really wasteful!

Third, if a cloaked mine, that you can't detect until it blows you to pieces explodes now or some other time it makes no difference, except that the sooner you kill or incapacitate an enemy, the fewer opportunities that enemy will have to kill you.

In the real world, it makes an immense difference. Why should Star Trek be different? Mines that don't explode right away are something all the field manuals mention in the very first chapter dealing with mining a facility you have to abandon to the enemy. Killing is futile and only insignificantly saps the fighting strength of your enemy; paralyzing with fear is much more cost-effective and effective.

My initial point stands.

I guess we have to agree to disagree - on every single point.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

I disagree about the idea that the houdinis are set off by the explosion of other houdinis. That's obviously not the way it works now. The houdinis explodes only when detecting a sentient being period. Plus you can instruct the houdinis to be exclusive, IE when one is set to explode it automatically stops the others nearby from exploding for a few seconds. That way the first one explodes, after a few seconds if there are still people alive another one goes off, and another one, etc. That way you are certain to get someone every time.

 

[Timo]

Okay, seems we don't disagree on every point after all - the Houdinis indeed can be immune to everything, including each other, if thus programmed.

But while possible, the above is just a half-step towards the actual reason for having the mines in there in the first place. Mines are used for area denial, not for killing enemy soldiers. A dead soldier is not a goal in itself. Keeping soldiers out of a specific room is one element in the goal. But keeping soldiers out of the whole compound is the actual goal, and letting them know that a certain room is out of bounds actually detracts from that goal, as it makes them breathe more easily!

If there were infinitely many Houdinis available, then obviously they could be used to blockade every room against even a thousand sweepers per room. With finite resources, the party laying the mines will never reveal his hand by creating absolute no-go zones, absolute kill zones and subsequently and necessarily also areas of absolute safety. That isn't area denial, that's just killing flies with a cannon.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

Okay, seems we don't disagree on every point after all - the Houdinis indeed can be immune to everything, including each other, if thus programmed.

But while possible, the above is just a half-step towards the actual reason for having the mines in there in the first place. Mines are used for area denial, not for killing enemy soldiers. A dead soldier is not a goal in itself. Keeping soldiers out of a specific room is one element in the goal. But keeping soldiers out of the whole compound is the actual goal, and letting them know that a certain room is out of bounds actually detracts from that goal, as it makes them breathe more easily!

If there were infinitely many Houdinis available, then obviously they could be used to blockade every room against even a thousand sweepers per room. With finite resources, the party laying the mines will never reveal his hand by creating absolute no-go zones, absolute kill zones and subsequently and necessarily also areas of absolute safety. That isn't area denial, that's just killing flies with a cannon.

Timo Saloniemi

Actually, Rom taught the Dominion how to make their houdinis perfect. Just equip each of them with Rom's trademarked self-replication unit and voila. You can send one million soldiers there and they'll all die, because each houdini will be replaced immediately after it explodes. These Dominion people! They'll never learn... No wonder section thirty one was able to nearly exterminate them with one deadly virus.

 

[Vanyel]

Hoping I don't sound like a no it all, but for clarity, the Houdinis were not cloaked, they were hidden in subspace.

 

[kirkfan]

Hoping I don't sound like a no it all, but for clarity, the Houdinis were not cloaked, they were hidden in subspace.

And that is why they shouldn't be affected by the explosions of neighboring mines.


If it makes you feel better; a know it all wouldn't call it "a no it all".

(It's all in good fun)

 

[Ithekro]

The point of fear seems to be the greatest advantage of these things. Walks right by them for days, then boom, dead officer. It is a weapon to keep your enemy stressed out, nervous, and paranoid. A regular set of mines would just blow up when the first person gets to close. That just makes them cautious. You don't want them cautious, then they are paying attention. You want them scared and so freaked out they can't be cautious. They get sloppy because of lack of sleep and stress. They start getting snippy with their own officers. It makes them easier to attack later.

 

[kirkfan]

The point of fear seems to be the greatest advantage of these things. Walks right by them for days, then boom, dead officer. It is a weapon to keep your enemy stressed out, nervous, and paranoid. A regular set of mines would just blow up when the first person gets to close. That just makes them cautious. You don't want them cautious, then they are paying attention. You want them scared and so freaked out they can't be cautious. They get sloppy because of lack of sleep and stress. They start getting snippy with their own officers. It makes them easier to attack later.

From a purely practical point of view it's better to keep your enemy dead than stressed out, nervous or even paranoid. I think you're missing the point of war. It's not about frightening people or making them lose sleep, it's about defeating them as fast as possible, with as little resources as possible and as little casualties/fatalities on your side as possible. What you're saying is equivalent to a sniper who would miss on purpose or just aim without firing and shout "bang you're dead!". Sorry but that's not the way it works.

And as a matter of fact, nothing is easier to attack than dead people.

 

[Ithekro]

That depends entirely on your own position in the war. Fear can be more useful than dead enemies when the enemy outnumber you. If they fear you to the point they can't fight you or won't fight you, than you potentially win without needing to make them dead. The enemy surrenders, and you have won.

As for the equivalent, you are incorrect. The equivalent for a sniper is to let the target pass a spot five time, then shoot him. Move. Let your next target do the same thing a few time, then kill that one. Leave. Return another week and repeat the process until such time as your own army has enough forces to do soemthing about this enemy position. This should keep the enemy tense and off guard until such time as you can properly deal with them. (In the Dominion's case they were waiting for more troops to overwhelm the Federation force at the base, meanwhile keeping Starfleet jumpy while also killing some was working until the mines were all brought out of subspace and stolen by Starfleet for their own purposes).

The alternative is to mess with the enemy (which historically has been done). Find an enemy base. Wait until they seem confortable, then put a single shot into the loudest thing in their main building. They all come running out looking for a sniper they likely won't find. Wait until they stand down, wait another few hours so they relax, then put another round into the next loudest thing in their base. Then leave. (this was done across the Cambodian border to North Vietnamese regulars in 1970 from across the river in South Vietnam by the US Navy snipers before they were allowed to invade that country.)

The sniper said it was fun to watch them run out of their barracks like angry hornets each time he put a bullet through their metal roof.

 

[Timo]

Indeed. In the most general terms, the purpose of war (which in itself is just a means of reaching the goals of war) is to defeat a hundred soldiers with five bullets. You can't kill a hundred soldiers with five bullets, but you can certainly defeat them with those.

No wars of late have been won by killing the enemy. Some have ended in the defeat of the enemy, after which the defeated enemy has been killed. But try as it may, mankind hasn't yet invented a weapon that would actually kill the enemy, not in a fashion that would meet the goals of war; gassing or nuking everybody gives a Pyrrhic victory at best. And Pyrrhic is not what the Jem'Hadar want: they want their installation back intact. The fewer Houdinis that go bang, the better...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

That depends entirely on your own position in the war. Fear can be more useful than dead enemies when the enemy outnumber you. If they fear you to the point they can't fight you or won't fight you, than you potentially win without needing to make them dead. The enemy surrenders, and you have won.

As for the equivalent, you are incorrect. The equivalent for a sniper is to let the target pass a spot five time, then shoot him. Move. Let your next target do the same thing a few time, then kill that one. Leave. Return another week and repeat the process until such time as your own army has enough forces to do soemthing about this enemy position. This should keep the enemy tense and off guard until such time as you can properly deal with them. (In the Dominion's case they were waiting for more troops to overwhelm the Federation force at the base, meanwhile keeping Starfleet jumpy while also killing some was working until the mines were all brought out of subspace and stolen by Starfleet for their own purposes).

The alternative is to mess with the enemy (which historically has been done). Find an enemy base. Wait until they seem confortable, then put a single shot into the loudest thing in their main building. They all come running out looking for a sniper they likely won't find. Wait until they stand down, wait another few hours so they relax, then put another round into the next loudest thing in their base. Then leave. (this was done across the Cambodian border to North Vietnamese regulars in 1970 from across the river in South Vietnam by the US Navy snipers before they were allowed to invade that country.)

The sniper said it was fun to watch them run out of their barracks like angry hornets each time he put a bullet through their metal roof.

You didn't add anything to your previous arguments, you've just rephrased them while failing to take mine into account.
The snipers shoot all targets of opportunity, they never let one pass them by if they can help it.

 

[Timo]

Umm, what? Itekro is quoting what he says is a true story. You are arguing in favor of your personal opinion on how mines or snipers should be used without pointing to real-world examples.

FWIW, I haven't had sniper training, but my kid brother who had a bit of an unhealthy interest in our mandatory service system does say it's still taught the way familiar from certain (otherwise probably not particularly realistic) movies: snipers insert as much sadism as they can into their art, as they are purely an instrument of fear without any actual tactical value beyond the fear they instill. It's not as if generals or colonels of today would really volunteer to become sniper targets any more; it's all about targets of opportunity, yes, but very seldom about lowering the enemy crew count by one.

As for training in the use of anti-personnel mines, well, that's not really up to dispute: back when our army still used those (now we're holier-than-thou in that respect, at least on paper), there was no pretense of using them to create a maximal death toll. That would have been stupid waste of ammunition.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[kirkfan]

Umm, what? Itekro is quoting what he says is a true story. You are arguing in favor of your personal opinion on how mines or snipers should be used without pointing to real-world examples.
...

Actually his "real life example" doesn't contradict my personal opinion. Where did you get that it did? I said that snipers, never let a target of opportunity pass them by and his example isn't even about that. It's customary to understand what a discussion is all about before intervening in it.

 

[Timo]

Again, umm, what? Itekro contradicts with his example your fallacy that snipers would kill everybody they can get in their sights, as soon as they get him or her in their sights, if ever.

That fallacy is a fun personal opinion to have, but it's contrary to real-world facts. So it's probably not the most fruitful way to continue this discussion.

Timo Saloniemi