Atekimogus wrote:Mikey wrote:Irrelevant. Especially for the UFP, the end of a war would be taking and holding territory, not destroying it or rendering it unusable.
Just rewatched "What you leave behind" and I must say I stand by my comment. They did not say "Yeah...their fleet has withdrawn to cardassia, let us capture the numerous planets one by one". Also no mention of the need to capture some worlds where no fleets were left because they would pose a threat to their backs, no they jumped straight after the dominion fleet pretty much ignoring the rest of the territory of the CU and on arrival they argued if they should just blockade them in this system or end it once and for all.
It was departing from DS9 to fighting a a battle with the dominion fleet at their border and then following them back to cardassia prime. No planets needed as staging point etc.
Sure, later on they would have need if all the worlds within the CU would resist and they really need to capture all of them one by one but first and most importantly comes the fight in space. It probably does not make a lot of sense but that is what we see on ds9.
Believe me, I understand where you're going, and I know that much of the time you're supported by canon. My point has been that sooner or later you will need boots on the ground; and at that time is a bit too late to start preparing.
m52nickerson wrote:Perhaps the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.
You can call it the most purple thing you've ever heard; but just saying a thing to be a certain way doesn't really make it that way.
mlsnoopy wrote:I know how it looks from the out side. But how its made on the inside.
Made the same way as the barreled gun on the Argo.
mlsnoopy wrote:Againe with the name calling. I see you have no real argument.
No, the name-callign was included
in the argument. It wasn't nice, but it doesn't render the rest of the statement invisible.
mlsnoopy wrote:Than you also have water, swams, forrest, hills,... numerus natural obstacles, that limit the moment of the tank. There is not such limitation on a shuttle.
OK, 24th century and all that, but answer something for me: we have water, swamps, forests, hills, etc. right now on Earth. Are you saying that modern MBT's are ineffective and should be completely abandoned, and modern militaries just use choppers and strike fighters instead? That's sure what it sounds like, and if it were true I'd think that strategy would have been adopted already. As it stands, MBT's and other armor play a crucial role in modern warfare, even though we do have air superiority and ground-attack craft.
mlsnoopy wrote:Hm. Than how can they travle FTL. How can they reduce the mass of an object. Tell me. Using Newton.
Are you kidding? Seafort just excepted such things completely logically in the response you quoted; and furthermore, how does FTL enter the discussion of ground-support tactical capability?
mlsnoopy wrote:Its ony a metter of the arc, nothing more.
"Nothing more?" The firing arc is built-in to the design of the vehicle in question. If you have an arc optimized for ground support from the air, then it is by definition poorly optimized for AA or infantry support.
mlsnoopy wrote:Well if you have something better there is no need to live in the past.
The whole point of this debate is whether or not we do have something better. Assuming the result and then using it as an argument is either completely illogical, or intentionally dishonest.