Would a series of Star Trek soldier/pilot novels work?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As for, "Tell that to the starship's crew", are you suggesting that Starfleet officers would rather see their enemies dead than come to an accord? Because that is wrong on so many levels, 20th or 24th century.

No, you're just putting different people at risk, depending on what method you use to attack ground targets.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I'm not disagreeing with you on any particular point, just pointing out that there are many alternatives to putting lives at risk, which should always be a final option. As for, "Tell that to the starship's crew", are you suggesting that Starfleet officers would rather see their enemies dead than come to an accord? Because that is wrong on so many levels, 20th or 24th century.

Well, that depends on the situation, actually. If the "accord" you're talking about is appeasement, well, yeah, war is preferable. Further, if there's good reason to believe that the enemy will not abide by the accord -- that they cannot be trusted to abide by any cease-fire agreement and that such an agreement will only buy the enemy time to rebuild their forces and thus continue the conflict, then ending the conflict on terms you control is a superior option.

Obviously, a diplomatic solution that is relatively fair to all parties and which all parties can be trusted to act upon is superior to bloodshed. But there's a reason wars are fought even by people who detest warfare.

I was referring to diplomacy rather than appeasement, and I realize that sometimes war can't be avoided. That's why I called it a "final option".

 

[Iceburgeruk]

Which can be overloaded by constant bombardment

Which would not be particularly effective if 1) the enemy on the surface has ways of masking their lifesigns so you can't even find where they are, or 2) their friends from orbit come by and fire at you.

Why do you think Starfleet didn't just park the Defiant in orbit of AR-558, for example, and just let 'er rip?



And how often does THAT happen? The only reason it did in the film was because they kidnapped Geordi and nicked his VISOR.



Just like the transporter.

Much, much, much better to not risk an actual irreplacable life, on either side, if it can be avoided.

Tell that to the starship's crew.

And besides, the very fact that there is an enemy on the surface *for* the ship to shoot at, proves that the UFP must also have surface forces - you can't afford not to have something that the enemy does have. It would give them an advantage, however small.

I'm not disagreeing with you on any particular point, just pointing out that there are many alternatives to putting lives at risk, which should always be a final option. As for, "Tell that to the starship's crew", are you suggesting that Starfleet officers would rather see their enemies dead than come to an accord? Because that is wrong on so many levels, 20th or 24th century.

I think the point is that although putting lives at risk should always be a last resort, in certain situations you have to. And although a starship can feasibly do a lot from orbit to attack a ground enemy target the same could (and in fact in many cases) was claimed about airplanes. Many people in the armed forces until very recently believed that you could win a war without risking a single ground soldier by aerial bombardment but in the end you need troops on the ground to maintain the dominance your bombardment started.

You could beam down the crew from the starship but that is hardly ideal it would be like having the bomber pilots try and capture the areas they had bombed. It is better to have trained individuals sort that ground objective out.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Many people in the armed forces until very recently believed that you could win a war without risking a single ground soldier by aerial bombardment but in the end you need troops on the ground to maintain the dominance your bombardment started.

If anybody in the service actually believed that, they had to be Air Force.

It's just another reason none of the rest of us ever listened to them.

 

[Iceburgeruk]

Many people in the armed forces until very recently believed that you could win a war without risking a single ground soldier by aerial bombardment but in the end you need troops on the ground to maintain the dominance your bombardment started.

If anybody in the service actually believed that, they had to be Air Force.

It's just another reason none of the rest of us ever listened to them.

Well i think you`re right and it prob was air force idiots. Or it was bureacratic idiot generals and Commanders-in-chiefs who from the view from their big desks couldn`t see the actual situation and didn`t have any real knowledge of tactical reality.

There are always idiots in the higher echelons who think things are fact just coz they yell it loudly. Like the Luftwaffe who believed you could destroy morale and gain an easy surrender by bombing civilians. (In case anyone is wondering, they were wrong it just makes people more determined not to give up).

They were the same types who in U.S military in the 50s believed that planes would only need missiles and surprise surprise they were proved wrong when the planes ran out of missiles and were left defenceless.

The point is they were wrong and i`d bet money that anyone who believes you can humanely win any battle without any ground troops at all would prob be wrong too. It just ain`t gonna work. At some point you need a grunt to secure the target. You can`t do that with a plane, starship or battleship.

 

[captcalhoun]

They were the same types who in U.S military in the 50s believed that planes would only need missiles and surprise surprise they were proved wrong when the planes ran out of missiles and were left defenceless

that idea's come back. the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoons are not armed with a machine gun. they only carry missiles or bombs.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's just not the same kind of military organization we have today. Its mission has evolved over the centuries, just as today's military forces have evolved from where they were and what they did centuries ago. Therefore, some comparisons will work, others won't.
It doesn't really have to get any more complicated than that.

That's fine with me!