Fed ground combat again

[SteveK]

"Except for sh*t luck?" In war, SteveK, "plans last until the first shot is fired." Anyway, yes - your logic does work for the one instance you presented of a completely genocidal, xenophobic race.

Excellent, so we agree that there is at least one rational logical reason for the military we see every known race in Trek deploy. If one agrees with the philosophy that we should assume decisions made by a sufficiently large enough group of experts will average to rational then we must reject the idea that the entire Trek universe is populated by idiots. If one does not agree with that philosophy, one is obligated by intellectual honesty to admit that the theory that everyone is an idiot is not the only explanation for what is seen onscreen.

Now, what happens in every other scenario, in which you want to take and hold a planet/not murder the civilian populace?

Then you fight the war with the army you have, supporting your ground troops with starships and shuttles. Ideally, a military would want to have superiority on the ground and in space, but it is a dangerous liability to spend resources on ground troops if it causes you to lose control of space.

[Deepcrush]

Sorry deep, your confusing me with this kid next to me, I never get in trouble, ever. Lol

Oh, of course... yeah... that's not you.

Don't worry, your secrets are safe with me.

[Deepcrush]

Then you fight the war with the army you have, supporting your ground troops with starships and shuttles. Ideally, a military would want to have superiority on the ground and in space, but it is a dangerous liability to spend resources on ground troops if it causes you to lose control of space.

Question,
How is it that producing a tank or a good rifle would effect the production of Starships? You should know as a side note that Ships and Tanks and Rifles are all made in different places out of different materials.

Question,
Why do you have to fight with the army you have rather then prepare a better one or begin building a better one during the war in order to adapt to your enemy and their weakness? You should know as a side note that Starships can replicate weapons on board so there isn't a reason for ground troops to be stuck with NOTHING other then a messed up phaser rifle.

[Captain Seafort]

Excellent, so we agree that there is at least one rational logical reason for the military we see every known race in Trek deploy.

A reason that, by comparison, makes Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot look like paragons of humanitarianism.

If one agrees with the philosophy that we should assume decisions made by a sufficiently large enough group of experts will average to rational then we must reject the idea that the entire Trek universe is populated by idiots.

Why should we assume rationality, given the lack of evidence? Or, for that matter, consider any Trek power, with the possible exception of the Cardassians, experts?

If one does not agree with that philosophy, one is obligated by intellectual honesty to admit that the theory that everyone is an idiot is not the only explanation for what is seen onscreen.

Mass stupidity is the best explanation for what we see on screen. Assuming competence in the absence of any evidence, on the other hand, is a violation of Occam's Razor.

Then you fight the war with the army you have, supporting your ground troops with starships and shuttles.

And you will lose to any army with ranged weapons and the sense to withdraw to urban areas to force a ground assault.

Ideally, a military would want to have superiority on the ground and in space, but it is a dangerous liability to spend resources on ground troops if it causes you to lose control of space.

Prove that equipping decent ground forces would result in a serious deterioration in the quality of space forces.

[Sionnach Glic]

Jesus H Christ, this is getting even fucking dumber.

Excellent, so we agree that there is at least one rational logical reason for the military we see every known race in Trek deploy.

Well, thanks for proving that you're no longer reading my posts. Because if you had read them, you would see that I had pointed out that even an insanely xenocidal race would be completely fucking retarded to prosecute a war in that manner.

Oh, and here's another shocking fact for you: every race in Trek is not mindlessly xenocidal. The Cardies and Romulans both conquered planets without exterminating eveyone on them. The Klingons had other races within their borders, IIRC. The Dominion didn't just BDZ every planet it came across. Hell, even the Borg don't just nuke the planet from orbit. And the UFP sure as hell isn't going to try doing that.

So tell me, just how does your moronic theory fit now? It only works if you assume that every race in the AQ is that retardedly xenocidal, which they clearly aren't.

Ergo, ground forces are still of use. How many fucking times do I need to spell this out for you?

If one agrees with the philosophy that we should assume decisions made by a sufficiently large enough group of experts will average to rational then we must reject the idea that the entire Trek universe is populated by idiots.

Excuse me, but just where the fuck are you pulling this from? Starfleet and its counterparts among neighbouring races have shown themselves to be utterly braindead on numerous occasions. They are not, by any sense of the word, "experts" in military matters.

Also, your entire argument is just one big Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Saying "well, all these people do it, so it must be right" is not a logical argument. Millions of people in the US believe that the Eart his 6000 years old. Does that mean they're right? No, they're obviously talking out of their collective arses. Saying "well, everyone does it so it must be a smart idea" is a fucking stupid method of debating. Hell, to even call it a method of debating is giving it far more credit than it deserves.

Tell me, is putting your bridge along with all the ship's most important officers out on top of the ship in a nice, obvious, easy to target area also a good idea? After all, every race does it, so it must be a good idea, right?
Moron.

If one does not agree with that philosophy, one is obligated by intellectual honesty to admit that the theory that everyone is an idiot is not the only explanation for what is seen onscreen.

Actualy, even if every race was to conduct wars by bombarding each planet they came across into rubble, they'd still be utterly braindead.
That is not how you conduct a war. Pick up a bloody book on military history for once.

Then you fight the war with the army you have, supporting your ground troops with starships and shuttles.

So then what do you do when the enemy starts replicating AK47s and SAWs and retreats to an urban environment? Bombard the city, killing millions of civillians? Send in wave after wave of Redshirts, with a kill ratio at an insane level for the defenders? Simply ignore them, leaving the city, its armaments and it resources in enemy hands?

You really don't seem to understand the simple fact that in a war you have to capture enemy resources and territory. How the fuck else are you going to defeat an enemy if they still control all their planets?

Ideally, a military would want to have superiority on the ground and in space, but it is a dangerous liability to spend resources on ground troops if it causes you to lose control of space

Once again, you show that you've completely ignored my previous posts on this matter.
Let me put it simply for you. I'll type it in nice, big letters to make sure you have no trouble reading it:

This cost of training and equiping the entire US armed forces would be utterly miniscule compared to the cost of building a single GCS. Ergo the cost of raising and training an army with modern day equipment and training would not be of any noticable drain on the UFP budget.

That clear enough for you yet? Hell, are you even going to start reading my posts again?

[Captain Seafort]

To add to Rochey's point, a GCS masses about five million tons. The equipment of a standard British infantry division in north west Europe in 1944 (a formation that would have even a remotely similarly size redshirt force for breakfast) massed about three thousand tons. You could, therefore, equip over one and a half thousand such divisions, almost thirty million men, with the resources used in constructing a single GCS.

Even assuming the average ship has only a third the mass of a GCS, and the total material cost of supporting that number of men is twice my estimate, the Federation could support a billion-man army using the resources of only 200 starships, out of a fleet numbering thousands or tens of thousands.

[Sionnach Glic]

Indeed. And that ground force would then make your planets virtualy unassailable, rendering your enemy incapable of seizing assets on the ground. I'd say that's worth the loss of a tiny fraction of Starfleet's strength. Hell, take it out of the S&E divisions during wartime and you'll have no problems at all.

And let's not forget that that's just the mass of the equipment. The cost of a GCS with its M/AM reactors, shields, and all sorts of advanced stuff would be way beyond the cost of equiping an army.

[SteveK]

Prove that equipping decent ground forces would result in a serious deterioration in the quality of space forces.

Let X be the maximum quantity of production.
Let Y be the production for space forces
Let Z be the production for ground forces

Approximate that Y + Z = X

As Z --> X Y --> 0

As you are the one who is making the outrageous claim that the entire galaxy is stupid, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that effective ground forces can be fielded cheaply.

(as I was typing this response the previous two posts by Seafort and Rochey were made):
Mass is not the only consideration. We don't know what is involved in the manufacture of the various other components that would be needed, e.g sensors for vehicles, weaponry, shields, armor, engines to move the things . . .

Also, your entire argument is just one big Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Saying "well, all these people do it, so it must be right" is not a logical argument. Millions of people in the US believe that the Eart his 6000 years old. Does that mean they're right? No, they're obviously talking out of their collective arses. Saying "well, everyone does it so it must be a smart idea" is a f***ing stupid method of debating. Hell, to even call it a method of debating is giving it far more credit than it deserves.

If you challenged me to prove that the fundamental theorem of calculus holds I could do it in one of two ways:
1. I could perform a mathematical proof, which depending on the level and nature of your education you might or might not understand.
2. I could point out that every single mathematician is convinced that its true.

The second option, while not as precise as the first offers several advantages. Primarily, it does not require that either party has a good understanding of the finer points of mathematics. Indeed, I imagine that for a good portion of this forum that is how they've convinced themselves of the validity of calculus.

That's all well and good, but to be honest I'm still not sure that you've understood my argument with the "Idiot" notion. Let me explain it succinctly:
We should be hesitant to call everyone an idiot, instead we should try to find a rational explanation for what they do.

You are under no obligation to feel the same. If you want to call everyone in Trek an idiot I could not care less. However, if a rational explanation can be shown to exist then you are being dishonest if you claim that the "Idiot" theory is the only explanation. In short you should say "Everyone is an idiot, or because the consequences of losing control of space are so dire they've focused a huge proportion of their production towards space weapons at the expense of ground troops".

Moron.

There's no need to be a t**t. If it seems like I've stopped addressing your posts in particular its because I have. Like I said previously, we've been round and round this topic and we've each had a fair opportunity to voice our opinions. Nothing has changed, further debate between us is redundant. (Hence my response was limited to Mikey's post)



edit: Destroying a planet is a common tactic in Trek warfare. Off the top of my head:

Cardassians and Romulans sent a fleet to destroy the Founder's planet
Weyoun, upon learning of the potential Earth-centered uprising should the Dominion occupy the planet remarked to the effect of "Well, then the population will have to be destroyed"
Shinzon was intent on destroying Earth

There might be other examples . . .

[Captain Seafort]

Let X be the maximum quantity of production.
Let Y be the production for space forces
Let Z be the production for ground forces

Approximate that Y + Z = X

As Z --> X Y --> 0

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My instruction to you was to prove that equipping decent ground forces would result in a serious deterioration in the quality of space forces. It was not to point out the obvious that throwing all your production into ground forces would cripple space forces. Try again.

As you are the one who is making the outrageous claim that the entire galaxy is stupid, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that effective ground forces can be fielded cheaply.

You are the one who is claiming that the basic principles of warfare have been changed in Trek. Prove it. Appeals to authority are not acceptable as proof.

Mass is not the only consideration. We don't know what is involved in the manufacture of the various other components that would be needed, e.g sensors for vehicles, weaponry, shields, armor, engines to move the things . . .

However, mass is as good a measure as any of the resources required to produce a starship or infantry division. Indeed, the equipment of a WW2 infantry division would be considerably easier to produce than a starship, as it doesn't need to withstand high-g accelerations, or multi-megaton M/AM weapons.

If you challenged me to prove that the fundamental theorem of calculus holds I could do it in one of two ways:
1. I could perform a mathematical proof, which depending on the level and nature of your education you might or might not understand.
2. I could point out that every single mathematician is convinced that its true.

The second option, while not as precise as the first offers several advantages. Primarily, it does not require that either party has a good understanding of the finer points of mathematics. Indeed, I imagine that for a good portion of this forum that is how they've convinced themselves of the validity of calculus.

False analogy, as there is not, as far as I know, any evidence that calculus is bullshit. There is plenty of evidence of the stupidity of Trek ground warfare tactics and equipment (starting with the fact that a single GPMG could have held AR-558 easily).

That's all well and good, but to be honest I'm still not sure that you've understood my argument with the "Idiot" notion. Let me explain it succinctly:
We should be hesitant to call everyone an idiot, instead we should try to find a rational explanation for what they do.

Why? If they act stupidly then we should not dance around the fact, and attempt to find excuses, but accept the fact that they're stupid.

However, if a rational explanation can be shown to exist then you are being dishonest if you claim that the "Idiot" theory is the only explanation.

Key phrase: shown to exist. No evidence whatsoever has been presented in support of any rational reason why the Trek powers would lack ground forces to the extent they do. Indeed, on the two occasions when significant ground combat has been depicted, it was against forces that would have been decimated by modern weapons.

In short you should say "Everyone is an idiot, or because the consequences of losing control of space are so dire they've focused a huge proportion of their production towards space weapons at the expense of ground troops".

If that were the case how did the Jem'Hadar on AR-558 hold out for months after the defeat of their space forces? How did the Fed force survive the Klingon attack on Ajilon Prime without any starship support? How did the Cardassian 11th Order hold the Klingons up for so long at Septimus III? How did the Bajoran Resistance continue for so long, and eventually cause the Cardassians to abandon the occupation?

Moron.

[/quote] There's no need to be a t**t.[/quote]

There is, however, a need to call a spade a spade.

edit: Destroying a planet is a common tactic in Trek warfare. Off the top of my head:

Cardassians and Romulans sent a fleet to destroy the Founder's planet
Weyoun, upon learning of the potential Earth-centered uprising should the Dominion occupy the planet remarked to the effect of "Well, then the population will have to be destroyed"
Shinzon was intent on destroying Earth

There might be other examples . . .

Yes, that tactic has been used occasionally. Many modern Earth nations have the ability to wipe entire cities off the map - this does not mean that it's a standard tactic, or that ground armies are obsolete? Of course not.

[Sionnach Glic]

Let X be the maximum quantity of production.
Let Y be the production for space forces
Let Z be the production for ground forces

Approximate that Y + Z = X

As Z --> X Y --> 0

Congratulations. That has to be the most impressive way I've ever seen someone avoid addressing a point.
Placing a massive amount of your resources into ground forces while removing them from your space faring military will obviously lead to problem, no shit. But that's not what anyone was saying. In case you missed it, here it is again:

Equipping a decent ground force would require a miniscule amount of money and resources compared to building starships. Therefore properly equipping garrisoning a planet with even 20th century era troops (more than adequate to hold off most invasions) will cost damn all in the long run.

As you are the one who is making the outrageous claim that the entire galaxy is stupid, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that effective ground forces can be fielded cheaply.

Are you seriously saying that equiping an army would cost anywhere near the same as a GCS?

And anyway, this debate is over your claim that basic principles of warfare have changed to the point where ground combat is mostly irrelevant. I'm still waiting for you to back that up.

Mass is not the only consideration. We don't know what is involved in the manufacture of the various other components that would be needed, e.g sensors for vehicles, weaponry, shields, armor, engines to move the things . . .

All of which would be a tiny fraction of a percentage of the cost of a single moderate sized starship.

If you challenged me to prove that the fundamental theorem of calculus holds I could do it in one of two ways:
1. I could perform a mathematical proof, which depending on the level and nature of your education you might or might not understand.
2. I could point out that every single mathematician is convinced that its true.

The second option, while not as precise as the first offers several advantages. Primarily, it does not require that either party has a good understanding of the finer points of mathematics. Indeed, I imagine that for a good portion of this forum that is how they've convinced themselves of the validity of calculus.

Well whoop-de-fucking-do for you. Thing is, the last time I checked this debate wasn't about whether fracking calculus of all things is accurate. Why the hell did you even bother bringing up this massive red herring? If it's an attempt at an analogy, then it's pretty damn shit.

That's all well and good, but to be honest I'm still not sure that you've understood my argument with the "Idiot" notion. Let me explain it succinctly:
We should be hesitant to call everyone an idiot, instead we should try to find a rational explanation for what they do.

Why? Because you say so?

However, if a rational explanation can be shown to exist then you are being dishonest if you claim that the "Idiot" theory is the only explanation.

Hello? For the Nth time, no rational explanation has been shown. Your best suggestion was some BS about an uber-xenocidal race BDZing every planet they came across. But the thing is, that form of warfare would also be idiotic.

In short you should say "Everyone is an idiot, or because the consequences of losing control of space are so dire they've focused a huge proportion of their production towards space weapons at the expense of ground troops".

Which, as we've pointed out already, is BS.

There's no need to be a t**t.

Oh really? I'd say ignoring the points Seafort and I have made and continuing to spout BS even after it's been shown to be wrong is a perfect reason to insult you.
I'll start being nicer when you start being smarter.

If it seems like I've stopped addressing your posts in particular its because I have. Like I said previously, we've been round and round this topic and we've each had a fair opportunity to voice our opinions. Nothing has changed, further debate between us is redundant. (Hence my response was limited to Mikey's post)

Translation: "I refuse to accept that I have been beaten, despite my complete inability to refute any points leveled against me and defend my own position."

edit: Destroying a planet is a common tactic in Trek warfare. Off the top of my head:

Cardassians and Romulans sent a fleet to destroy the Founder's planet
Weyoun, upon learning of the potential Earth-centered uprising should the Dominion occupy the planet remarked to the effect of "Well, then the population will have to be destroyed"
Shinzon was intent on destroying Earth

That's your proof that BDZing planets is a common tactic? Utter bullshit.

The first one is a valid example, but both the Cardies and Romulans have both engaged in costly ground warfare to secure planets without destroying them. Tell me, why the the Cardassians continue to occupy Bajor and fight against guerilla movements and a hostile populace if they could have just levelled the planet from orbit?
Hmm, could it perhaps have been because they, like all military commanders throughout history but seemingly unlike yourself, realised that seizing resources and assets is important and destroying them mindlessly is counterproductive?

Your Weyoun example is also flawed, because there are numerous examples of the Dominion engaging in ground warfare and seizing planets. In addition, destroying the surface of Earth was clearly a last resort from that quote, and something which they obviously would rather avoid, even if they wouldn't particularly mind doing it. Again, this is because they can grasp the concept that seizing resources and infrastructure is important in warfare.

Your Shinzon example is worthless, as that was hardly a conventional war, and was all about one lunatic's quest for xenocidal revenge.

Look, I'm going to take some time to educate you over the whole concept of why seizing planets intact is important in warfare.
When you are at war, your forces require supply lines to keep functioning. If those lines are cut, your forces will run out of supplies and be little more than target practice for the enemy. Therefore, keeping a steady and effecient supply train is important if you want to achieve victory.

Now, let's say that you start winning the war and start pushing your enemy back. As you progress further into the enemy's territory, the distance between your forces and your supply bases become far greater. This means that it takes longer for supplies to reach their destination, and there's a greater chance of marauding enemy ships attacking convoys. As you progress further and further, you may very well find yourself with damn all supplies reaching the front lines. This results in your forces becoming incapable of sustaining the assault, and your enemy is able to start pushing you back.

Now, what about enemy planets? Well, enemy planets will contain a great deal of resources, infrastructure, supplies, and maybe even ship yards. This means that they can be used as supply bases close to the front lines. This again means that your supply lines will now be shorter, as the distance between captured enemy planets and the front lines is much shorter, allowing for quicker transit times and less chance of enemy interception. This allows your forces to remain well supplied, and thus capable of continuing the assault. Over time, this strategy will lead to victory.

Now, let's say that instead of capturing enemy planets, you decide to just bomb them from orbit and wipe out all cities, towns and other signs of habitation from the surface. This planet is now useless to you. With no infrastructure, it can not be used to supply your forces. While resources may still be on (or to be more accurate, under) the surface of the planet, all mining equipment is destroyed, and so it can't be mined. All processing plants are gone, meaning that you can no longer process what you do find. All factories are ruined, which means that nothing can be built. All food is gone, meaning that you can't feed your troops.
This means that instead of becoming an important and campaing-sustaining supply point, the planet becomes utterly worthless. As such, this requires your supply lines to continue stretching from your homeworlds to the front lines. As I explained earlier, this means you're in trouble on the supply front.

As you can see, simply BDZing planets is completely counter-productive. History backs up this as well. Why do you think Scorched Earth tactics cause so many problems to invaders? By destroying anything of use, the defenders force the attackers to rely on long, stretched-out and vulnerable supply lines to sustain them.

Bombarding the occasional planet is fine, particularly for something like a show of force, to set an example that you're not to be messed with (such as the Weyoun quote you provided), or if it's a pre-emptive strike and you don't expect to ever have to use that planet (such as the attack on the Founder homeworld). But to destroy everything you come across is to herald your own defeat.

Of course, you're not going to actualy bother listening to this, are you? Instead you're probably just going to continue clinging to your own stance, as if it holds any water.

[SteveK]

Let X be the maximum quantity of production.
Let Y be the production for space forces
Let Z be the production for ground forces

Approximate that Y + Z = X

As Z --> X Y --> 0

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My instruction to you was to prove that equipping decent ground forces would result in a serious deterioration in the quality of space forces. It was not to point out the obvious that throwing all your production into ground forces would cripple space forces. Try again.

The symbol "-->" is understood to mean "approaches". What I have demonstrated is that an increase in Z leads to a decrease in Y. The statement is true over the entire range. Any quantity of resources spent on ground forces takes away from what's available for space forces.

Two questions then need to be resolved:
1. How effective of a ground force can be fielded relative to an insignificant decrease in space forces?
2. What constitutes an insignificant decrease in space power?

With regard to the first question, we have no information with which to make a judgment. We can speculate that a good ground force would be cheap, or that it would be expensive, but it is dishonest to claim that we know for certain one way or the other.

For the second question, I would argue that any decrease in space power is remarkably hazardous. Star Fleet needed more ships during the Dominion war more than they needed better ground forces.

As you are the one who is making the outrageous claim that the entire galaxy is stupid, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that effective ground forces can be fielded cheaply.

You are the one who is claiming that the basic principles of warfare have been changed in Trek. Prove it. Appeals to authority are not acceptable as proof.

The basic principles of everything have changed in Trek, and besides it works. The Dominion conquered Betazed, which must have had a population in the billions. How does your theory regarding the ineffectiveness of starships in supporting ground troops allow for the results we've seen?

Why? If they act stupidly then we should not dance around the fact, and attempt to find excuses, but accept the fact that they're stupid.

Like I've said, it is a philosophical difference. When pressed with the question "Why is it that the ground forces of every government we've seen in Trek seem to be poorly equipped?" I prefer my explanation, which does not require that multiple generations of military leaders from multiple governments each reached the same idiotic conclusion regarding resource allocation.

[Sionnach Glic]

The symbol "-->" is understood to mean "approaches". What I have demonstrated is that an increase in Z leads to a decrease in Y. The statement is true over the entire range. Any quantity of resources spent on ground forces takes away from what's available for space forces.

Great. Except none of that was ever in dispute.

With regard to the first question, we have no information with which to make a judgment. We can speculate that a good ground force would be cheap, or that it would be expensive, but it is dishonest to claim that we know for certain one way or the other.

As I said in a previous post that you obviously didn't bother reading, the cost of equiping a modern day army would be insignificant to the cost of building a fucking space-faring warships powered by M/AM reactions and capable of traveling FTL. If you seriously wish to dispute that, then you're an idiot. It's that simple.

For the second question, I would argue that any decrease in space power is remarkably hazardous. Star Fleet needed more ships during the Dominion war more than they needed better ground forces.

I'd say all those planets that were invaded would disagree with you. And any cuts can be made in the S&E departments, which would be unnecessary during wartimes.

The basic principles of everything have changed in Trek, and besides it works.

For the hundreth time, not to the extent that ground combat is mostly irrelevant.
And it only works because everyone else is also fucking retarded. Add a planet defended by modern day Earth's militaries and it'd be completely unsailable short of BDZing it. As I've pointed out in my last post, though you probably didn't bother reading it, doing that to the majority of planets you come across will result in you losing that war.

The Dominion conquered Betazed, which must have had a population in the billions.

And which was defended by a horrificaly badly equipped and trained defensive force with damn all defences.
Tell me, if modern-day Earth's militaries had been transported onto Betazed, could the Dominion have taken it? Not a chance. The only option would be to blast everything from orbit. Which, as previously established, is moronic in war.

How does your theory regarding the ineffectiveness of starships in supporting ground troops allow for the results we've seen?

By taking into account the fact that they're all fucking retarded when it comes to ground combat. There're no competant ground forces in Trek, which is why it's at all possible for invaders to actualy take the planets.

Like I've said, it is a philosophical difference. When pressed with the question "Why is it that the ground forces of every government we've seen in Trek seem to be poorly equipped?" I prefer my explanation, which does not require that multiple generations of military leaders from multiple governments each reached the same idiotic conclusion regarding resource allocation.

Stop fucking ignoring me, jackass.

EVEN IF YOU WERE FIGHTING A WAR OF EXTERMINATION, DESTROYING EVERY SINGLE ENEMY PLANET YOU COME ACROSS IS STILL FUCKING STUPID. THUS ANYONE ORCHESTRATING A WAR IN THIS MANNER IS STILL FUCKING STUPID. ERGO, EVEN IF WE ASSUME YOUR SUGGESTION TO BE TRUE THEN THEY ARE STILL FUCKING STUPID.

What part of this do you not understand? How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself before it starts to sink in?

[Sionnach Glic]

Steve, perhaps I should point you towards this part of the Rules & Guidlines thread:

If you are in a debate with other members on the board, then it is expected that you will debate in an honest and rational way. Reply to your opponent's points, supply evidence for your claims, do not lie and do not answer some of your opponent's points while ignoring others. You should also not deliberately misquote, or selectively quote someone so as to make them to appear to agree with a point they don't. Most importantly, you must be prepared to lose. Going into a debate and rejecting any possibility of defeat is just going to lead to flames and hostility for all involved. If you are beaten in a debate: accept it and admit it.

Everyone loses sometimes; we will not think less of you for losing. We will think less of you for being dishonest about it.

I expect you to actualy respond to my points.

[Tsukiyumi]

I'll go ahead and clarify: Rochey and Seafort have given numerous reasons, backed by fact and reality, (as well as in-universe examples) of why the 'Trek universe should and could use more capable ground forces.

You've postulated that they don't need them any more, but haven't refuted any of their points. You claim they can't afford to lose any space assets, which has been refuted. You claimed space superiority is the most important factor, which has been refuted.

You are now purposely ignoring Rochey's points, which, as he pointed out, is bad form around here. If you have any means of substantiating your claim, or refuting Rochey's point that supply lines do (and will always) depend on capturing enemy territory, please do so ASAP.

[SteveK]

I'll go ahead and clarify: Rochey and Seafort have given numerous reasons, backed by fact and reality, (as well as in-universe examples) of why the 'Trek universe should and could use more capable ground forces.

You've postulated that they don't need them any more, but haven't refuted any of their points. You claim they can't afford to lose any space assets, which has been refuted. You claimed space superiority is the most important factor, which has been refuted.

I disagree that they've been refuted. Unless repeatedly and obsessively saying "I disagree" counts.

You are now purposely ignoring Rochey's points, which, as he pointed out, is bad form around here. If you have any means of substantiating your claim, or refuting Rochey's point that supply lines do (and will always) depend on capturing enemy territory, please do so ASAP.

I disagree, an unbiased reading of this thread will reveal that I have conducted myself honestly and with integrity.