Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[Jeremy]

No, but if humanity is inferior in every aspect, I find that slightly boring.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Nobody said that Humanity was inferior as a species. They are inferior in the realm of military technology in space, in a similar way to how Napoleon would have had inferior military technology compared to the Soviet Union's, if they were magically juxtaposed in time.

But, as cacambo pointed out, this isn't really a story about humanity. Its a story about Alex, and as an individual, we've already learned that he is rather exceptional in several ways.

[RedDwarfIV]

Arioch said that Loroi tech advancement is significantly slower than humanity's. Since the Umiak haven't gained a tech advantage over the Loroi (possibly only having managed to counteract a Loroi technology, farseeing) then we can assume they advance at a similar rate.

Basically, humanity tried to join the war far too soon. It could have reached Loroi level tech given time, if it weren't for those meddling ki... er, Scouts.

It still might, given that Humanity as it is currently is useless to the Loroi except maybe as a fallback point or resource provider, and is too far away for the Umiak to bother with. True, the Umiak would be interested in human resistance to Sanzai, but they don't know about that yet.


Has anyone read the WorldWar series by Harry Turtledove? Yes the invading aliens were incompetent at war, but if you want alien invasion done right, go read Niven and Pournelle's Footfall. Humanity managed to force them to a stalemate through a combination of higher resource levels and faster tech advancement. When humans need to develop new technologies to win wars, by jingo do they do so.

[Nemo]

When humans need to develop new technologies to win wars, by jingo do they do so.

See, thats one thing that has always made me scratch my head a bit. Human history is replete with examples of us not doing that. Certainly if the tech levels, that is, the science and mathematical principles, are common between both sides it becomes possible and likely that one side will change its existing practices to match the more successful implementations of these by their opponents. But, its implementing what is already known to them a different way. I mean, I understand the necessity as a plot device, otherwise everything goes War of the Worlds on us.

[Arioch]

I can't think of any examples in human history of a war being won by technology that was developed during the war. World War II, for example, was not won by the atomic bomb; it was won by conventional forces. The bomb just helped end one part of it more quickly. In fact, the side with many key advancements (jets, rockets) lost.

[Nemo]

WW1 tank, maybe? Helped break the stalemate at least, but I can't say its development is solely responsible for the outcome. And all the tech existed already, it was just a matter of putting the pieces together in a useful manner.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Almost by definition, if someone wins a war, someone else loses a war. The losing side clearly didn't develop the technology needed to win.

[Arioch]

WW1 tank, maybe? Helped break the stalemate at least, but I can't say its development is solely responsible for the outcome. And all the tech existed already, it was just a matter of putting the pieces together in a useful manner.

That's a better example, but I think it was just one of many factors (including America's entry into the war) that broke German morale and led to their collapse.

Almost by definition, if someone wins a war, someone else loses a war. The losing side clearly didn't develop the technology needed to win.

Except that technological superiority doesn't guarantee victory. Germany in WWII had superior technology in many respects: superior tanks, jet aircraft, superior artillery, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and rocket interceptors... but they still lost.

[Nemo]

Losing a war does not mean a society lacks the tech. It may lack the strategy to employ its forces correctly, the lack of supply to produce and field its forces sufficiently, or lack the will to wage Total War against the enemy society it faces.

Vietnam and North Korea did not out tech the US and Allied forces arrayed against them. Nor did they out produce them materially. In both cases the US/Allied forces showed a lack of will to employ the levels of force necessary in the manners necessary to achieve victory. Germany had guided rockets and jets and tanks which out performed their counterparts. What they lacked was the resources to produce them in sufficient numbers.



Ninjad by Arioch ah well.

[icekatze]

hi hi

You will note that I said that they didn't develop the "technology needed to win," not the "technology that was better than their opponent." If there were a technology that would have overcome all their other shortcomings, they did not develop it, and what technology they did develop (if any) clearly did not overcome their other shortcomings.

Indeed, there are some common definitions of Technology that would include those other circumstances within the term itself, where the industrial capability and military knowledge of how to properly apply force are considered a part of the technology.

Technology: The making, modification, usage and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, or perform a specific function. (Emphasis mine)

----
As for North Korea and Vietnam, the US and Allied forces didn't have the will to commit global suicide, and good on them for that. There is no Will to Power in nuclear winter.

[Nemo]

You will note that I said that they didn't develop the "technology needed to win," not the "technology that was better than their opponent." If there were a technology that would have overcome all their other shortcomings, they did not develop it, and what technology they did develop (if any) clearly did not overcome their other shortcomings.

In which case the observation is useless.


You seem to be mistaken on Korea and Vietnam. Following the second world war, the United States alone had the bomb. The United States alone had the means to deliver that weapon to her enemies. The United States alone stayed its own hand. The US and Allies were unwilling to win a conventional war and instead fought with the intent NOT to achieve victory. Had they tried to achieve victory, in either theater, those doing the global scale murdering would not have been the US or her Allies. I won't idly allow you to place responsibility for the lashing out of petulant dictators at their feet.


As for Total War, it works. Making the horrors of war patently obvious to the opposing society is the only way to achieve peace once two societies clash. The fact that we are having this discussion proves it works, because the horrors of waging Total War, its costs and effects, are touted widely in the Western World.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Not so useless in the context of the original argument. Which was that necessity practically guarantees necessary innovation.

I'm having some difficulty parsing the argument about Korea and Vietnam, as there seems to be a lot of encoded terminology, but on the topic of the Loroi, I suspect that it is largely irrelevant.

As for total war, I can acknowledge that it involves work, but determining whether it is successful depends widely on the intention of the perpetrators. Since the advent of modern war though, aggressors have rarely accomplished their objectives. It didn't work for Napoleon, it didn't work for Xiuquan's Heavenly Kingdom, it didn't work for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it didn't work out for Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito either, in spite of early successes.

The fact that we are having this discussion proves nothing, we're just two random people on the internet.

[Mr.Tucker]

Then what is the point? You're not gonna tell me Alex is some diplomatic miracle worker. They have better tech therefore, humanity doesn't have a chance.

[RedDwarfIV]

I can't think of any examples in human history of a war being won by technology that was developed during the war. World War II, for example, was not won by the atomic bomb; it was won by conventional forces. The bomb just helped end one part of it more quickly. In fact, the side with many key advancements (jets, rockets) lost.

That's why I said "a combination of higher resource levels...". The Allies had more resources, and their war vehicles were much easier to mass produce. Sure, compared one on one, a Sherman is no match for a Panther. It having gained the name 'Tommy Cooker' is testament to that. But the damn thing could swarm all over the Nazi tanks. I remember a UKTV History programmethat talked about a Nazi tank which had unnescesarily complicated suspension to give the crew a better ride. It significantly increased the time needed to build the tank.

Technology comes in many forms, whether it be a better killing machine or a better way of getting replacement parts to fit in your killing machine. If you want other examples how about this

Aircraft carriers (which pretty much rendered battleships obsolete)
RADAR (which protected the British coast from sea attack and allowed the RAF to zone in on German fighters, and later in the war, provided the means to locate enemy shipping)
Penecillin (which was used toward the end of the war to prevent battle wound infections)
Other medicines
The atom bomb (which ended the war in the Japanese theatre)
Amphibious vehicles
Logistics system improvements
Computing (which helped shorten the war by allowing the Allies to break Axis codes more easily)
Strategic bombing
Actual cockpits in planes instead of open air (allowing much faster flight)
Synthetic petroleum
Tetra-ethyl lead octane hencement (for even faster flight)
Fast-moving tanks (that could operate independently of infantry)
Better logistics vehicles
Submarines (And ones that were much more effective than those from WW1)
Pocket battleships
Diesel engined ships
Welding
ASDIC SONAR
More developed fire control systems
Tank Destroyers
Mine clearing vehicles
Glide bombs
Helicopters
Katyusha rocket artillery
Specialised bombs...


Basically, I might as well just link you to the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology ... rld_War_II




I'm not sure, but I think I might have been ninja'd by Icekatz about the definition of technology thing.

[fredgiblet]

As for North Korea and Vietnam, the US and Allied forces didn't have the will to commit global suicide, and good on them for that. There is no Will to Power in nuclear winter.

Nukes wouldn't be necessary in either case. If, in either situation, we had fully mobilized for war we would have been irresistible, even using conventional weapons.

If we had taken an offensive stance against North Vietnam and made a maximum effort against their infrastructure early on the war would likely have gone better, we still would have had the hearts and minds issues, but it would have gone better. Our restrictive RoE played a major role in the difficulties we had prosecuting the war.

[discord]

red dwarf: some nitpicking here.
aircraft carriers did not make BB's obsolete, the strong belief that all future warfare would be nuclear did, for projection of that weapon carriers were much superior.

the atomic bomb did not end the war, the war was already just about over, the japanese emperor wanted to surrender before, the war minister wanted to wait out a few more things, but was on the same general track, those bombs were pretty much a show of force to stop future wars not the current one...or just a live fire exercise to test the two different bomb designs, depending on who you ask.

and tanks operating independent of infantry to any significant extent is in most of the world considered a pretty stupid idea, except the US which does not have much of any cooperation between armor and infantry.

and synthetic fuel was not a large contributor to the war effort, and most of the production came AFTER the war ended.

just nitpicking a little.

[RedDwarfIV]

Yes, the war was almost over, but without the atom bomb the US would have been forced to go with Operation Downfall. that would have been a very nasty buisiness for both sides, especially since Japan basically knew how the US would deploy its forces. Its not that there was lack of security - there was a lack of possible landing sites for all the important places they'd need to send soldiers.

It wasn't so much that tanks operated independantly of infantry - just that they could, because their speed and maneuverability were much improved.

Aircraft carriers could project force over the horizon, and air power was a serious threat to ships which didn't carry their own planes. A battleship could only fire at what it could see, even if it had RADAR, because of the comparatively limited range of their turret guns. Even if it was assumed that war would become nuclear, aircraft carriers still had a decidedly huge advantage over battlecruisers.

After all, the only use for battleships after WW2 (so far as I know of) was shelling ground positions and carrying missiles, and even then they were too costly to keep up after the Cold War was over. I'm pretty sure the Iowa battleships never saw ship-to-ship action with their guns after their reactivation.

Russia still operates a battlecruiser, but it's nuclear powered, and is reliant on its missiles for force projection.

I'll give you the synthetic fuel thing. I just didn't want the list to be wholly comprised of Allied tech advances. If Germany had managed to create large amounts of fuel from coal, it would almost certainly have prolonged the war, as they'd have been able to keep more planes airbourne and vehicles moving. Not sure how long it would have added though.

[Suederwind]

I'll give you the synthetic fuel thing. I just didn't want the list to be wholly comprised of Allied tech advances. If Germany had managed to create large amounts of fuel from coal, it would almost certainly have prolonged the war, as they'd have been able to keep more planes airbourne and vehicles moving. Not sure how long it would have added though.

We Germans _did_ produce a lot of synthetic fuel from coal in WW2 and if I am correct ("Leuna-Benzin" or look here), that whole process of creation fuel from coal was invented there as well. One of the many reasons why we Germans lost the war, was because of the Allied air raids on those synthetic fuel plants, as most of the German fuel was made in those plants.

[Nemo]

red dwarf: some nitpicking here.
aircraft carriers did not make BB's obsolete, the strong belief that all future warfare would be nuclear did, for projection of that weapon carriers were much superior.

??? Where is, repeat, where is Task Force 34? The world wonders.



Skipping Pearl Harbor, the Prince of Wales and Repulse, the battles of Coral Sea and Midway, etc. Even in Leyte Gulf with complete surprise the IJN heavy battleship group could not rout the US small carriers and the destroyer escorts of Taffy 3. Air power very much rendered the battleship obsolete. Nukes could not be equipped by carrier borne air wings. At the time they were too large to even fit completely inside a B-29. In fact the navy as a whole was on the chopping block in the post war years in favor of land based strategic bombers which could project power into Eurasia from the continental United States. In essence, the Korean war saved the navy.

[JQBogus]

Also consider... well before the end of the war in the Pacific, were carrier aircraft being used to scout out naval targets for battleships to then engage and destroy, or were battleships being used to escort carriers, who's aircraft then engaged the targets?

Battleships were clearly in a supporting/subsidiary role by the end of the war. Well before the Navy was considering nukes.