Occupation Forces
$begingroup$
So, I'm well aware that Sci-fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale. This is an effort to avert this for intragalactic conquest.
My mighty space navy has crushed a solar system's defensive fleet, and now control the space around a planet similar to Earth in population and distribution thereof. It's time to send in the troops to take control of all positions of relative importance so that the planet can be integrated into my growing empire.
My invasion troops are well-equipped; any one soldier could expect to win with minimal injury in a stand-up fight against one of the defenders' armour units (main battle tank or equivalent).
Assumptions:
- I need boots on the ground because I want to start integrating the planet into my empire; threatening them with orbital bombardment has just encouraged passive resistance - they won't attack, but they also won't do anything useful for me.
- Pursuant to the above, I would like the end result to be a revenue-positive addition to my empire. I'd like to add their economy to my own and (obviously after some rebuilding) have it be a contributing non-voting province. (In fairness, my home planets are non-voting as well. My empire subscribes to the One Man, One Vote philosophy. I am the Man, and the Vote is mine.)
- I will also need to send administrators after local resistance has been crushed.
- My soldiers, for all their impressive armour and weaponry, are intellectually and perceptually basically human-equivalent. They aren't any more capable of maintaining focus on multiple things than a well-trained soldier of the other side.
How many troops will I need to deliver to secure a planet of seven billion? If I want to do this expeditiously, how many drop ships would I reasonably need to deploy (for their geographical distribution).
science-fiction warfare military
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, I'm well aware that Sci-fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale. This is an effort to avert this for intragalactic conquest.
My mighty space navy has crushed a solar system's defensive fleet, and now control the space around a planet similar to Earth in population and distribution thereof. It's time to send in the troops to take control of all positions of relative importance so that the planet can be integrated into my growing empire.
My invasion troops are well-equipped; any one soldier could expect to win with minimal injury in a stand-up fight against one of the defenders' armour units (main battle tank or equivalent).
Assumptions:
- I need boots on the ground because I want to start integrating the planet into my empire; threatening them with orbital bombardment has just encouraged passive resistance - they won't attack, but they also won't do anything useful for me.
- Pursuant to the above, I would like the end result to be a revenue-positive addition to my empire. I'd like to add their economy to my own and (obviously after some rebuilding) have it be a contributing non-voting province. (In fairness, my home planets are non-voting as well. My empire subscribes to the One Man, One Vote philosophy. I am the Man, and the Vote is mine.)
- I will also need to send administrators after local resistance has been crushed.
- My soldiers, for all their impressive armour and weaponry, are intellectually and perceptually basically human-equivalent. They aren't any more capable of maintaining focus on multiple things than a well-trained soldier of the other side.
How many troops will I need to deliver to secure a planet of seven billion? If I want to do this expeditiously, how many drop ships would I reasonably need to deploy (for their geographical distribution).
science-fiction warfare military
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
What's the purpose of the occupation? Do you simply want to prevent the defeated foes from organizing their resistance (for example, what the Americans do in Afghanistan), do you want to rule the conquered planet (as the British did in India), or do you want to convert the new conquest into a productive province of the Empire (as, for the example, the Romans did in Gaul)? As for the strength or weakness of each individual soldier, having the capacity to defeat a tank is irrelevant -- they won't be facing tanks. What they will be confronted with is IEDs, sawed-off shotguns and RPGs.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely more Gaulish than anything else, but I would accept ruling a conquered nation a la Britain vs. everywhere in the 1800s. Editing to clarify.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Well then, you must be prepared to be a better ruler than the previous administrations. The Indians allowed the British to rule India because the British administration was objectively better than the feudal regime they replaced. The Gauls agreed to become Romans because the condition of a Roman citizen was infinitely preferable to the condition of a barbarian. (Consider for a moment a Gaulish family; the wife learns that Roman women have rights, they can own property, they can engage in trade, they cannot be married against their will: how long until the wife decides that she is Roman?)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, I'm well aware that Sci-fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale. This is an effort to avert this for intragalactic conquest.
My mighty space navy has crushed a solar system's defensive fleet, and now control the space around a planet similar to Earth in population and distribution thereof. It's time to send in the troops to take control of all positions of relative importance so that the planet can be integrated into my growing empire.
My invasion troops are well-equipped; any one soldier could expect to win with minimal injury in a stand-up fight against one of the defenders' armour units (main battle tank or equivalent).
Assumptions:
- I need boots on the ground because I want to start integrating the planet into my empire; threatening them with orbital bombardment has just encouraged passive resistance - they won't attack, but they also won't do anything useful for me.
- Pursuant to the above, I would like the end result to be a revenue-positive addition to my empire. I'd like to add their economy to my own and (obviously after some rebuilding) have it be a contributing non-voting province. (In fairness, my home planets are non-voting as well. My empire subscribes to the One Man, One Vote philosophy. I am the Man, and the Vote is mine.)
- I will also need to send administrators after local resistance has been crushed.
- My soldiers, for all their impressive armour and weaponry, are intellectually and perceptually basically human-equivalent. They aren't any more capable of maintaining focus on multiple things than a well-trained soldier of the other side.
How many troops will I need to deliver to secure a planet of seven billion? If I want to do this expeditiously, how many drop ships would I reasonably need to deploy (for their geographical distribution).
science-fiction warfare military
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
$endgroup$
So, I'm well aware that Sci-fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale. This is an effort to avert this for intragalactic conquest.
My mighty space navy has crushed a solar system's defensive fleet, and now control the space around a planet similar to Earth in population and distribution thereof. It's time to send in the troops to take control of all positions of relative importance so that the planet can be integrated into my growing empire.
My invasion troops are well-equipped; any one soldier could expect to win with minimal injury in a stand-up fight against one of the defenders' armour units (main battle tank or equivalent).
Assumptions:
- I need boots on the ground because I want to start integrating the planet into my empire; threatening them with orbital bombardment has just encouraged passive resistance - they won't attack, but they also won't do anything useful for me.
- Pursuant to the above, I would like the end result to be a revenue-positive addition to my empire. I'd like to add their economy to my own and (obviously after some rebuilding) have it be a contributing non-voting province. (In fairness, my home planets are non-voting as well. My empire subscribes to the One Man, One Vote philosophy. I am the Man, and the Vote is mine.)
- I will also need to send administrators after local resistance has been crushed.
- My soldiers, for all their impressive armour and weaponry, are intellectually and perceptually basically human-equivalent. They aren't any more capable of maintaining focus on multiple things than a well-trained soldier of the other side.
How many troops will I need to deliver to secure a planet of seven billion? If I want to do this expeditiously, how many drop ships would I reasonably need to deploy (for their geographical distribution).
science-fiction warfare military
science-fiction warfare military
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
edited 48 mins ago
Cyn
6,89011038
6,89011038
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
asked 5 hours ago
jdunlopjdunlop
7,67811743
7,67811743
3
$begingroup$
What's the purpose of the occupation? Do you simply want to prevent the defeated foes from organizing their resistance (for example, what the Americans do in Afghanistan), do you want to rule the conquered planet (as the British did in India), or do you want to convert the new conquest into a productive province of the Empire (as, for the example, the Romans did in Gaul)? As for the strength or weakness of each individual soldier, having the capacity to defeat a tank is irrelevant -- they won't be facing tanks. What they will be confronted with is IEDs, sawed-off shotguns and RPGs.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely more Gaulish than anything else, but I would accept ruling a conquered nation a la Britain vs. everywhere in the 1800s. Editing to clarify.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Well then, you must be prepared to be a better ruler than the previous administrations. The Indians allowed the British to rule India because the British administration was objectively better than the feudal regime they replaced. The Gauls agreed to become Romans because the condition of a Roman citizen was infinitely preferable to the condition of a barbarian. (Consider for a moment a Gaulish family; the wife learns that Roman women have rights, they can own property, they can engage in trade, they cannot be married against their will: how long until the wife decides that she is Roman?)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
What's the purpose of the occupation? Do you simply want to prevent the defeated foes from organizing their resistance (for example, what the Americans do in Afghanistan), do you want to rule the conquered planet (as the British did in India), or do you want to convert the new conquest into a productive province of the Empire (as, for the example, the Romans did in Gaul)? As for the strength or weakness of each individual soldier, having the capacity to defeat a tank is irrelevant -- they won't be facing tanks. What they will be confronted with is IEDs, sawed-off shotguns and RPGs.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely more Gaulish than anything else, but I would accept ruling a conquered nation a la Britain vs. everywhere in the 1800s. Editing to clarify.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Well then, you must be prepared to be a better ruler than the previous administrations. The Indians allowed the British to rule India because the British administration was objectively better than the feudal regime they replaced. The Gauls agreed to become Romans because the condition of a Roman citizen was infinitely preferable to the condition of a barbarian. (Consider for a moment a Gaulish family; the wife learns that Roman women have rights, they can own property, they can engage in trade, they cannot be married against their will: how long until the wife decides that she is Roman?)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
What's the purpose of the occupation? Do you simply want to prevent the defeated foes from organizing their resistance (for example, what the Americans do in Afghanistan), do you want to rule the conquered planet (as the British did in India), or do you want to convert the new conquest into a productive province of the Empire (as, for the example, the Romans did in Gaul)? As for the strength or weakness of each individual soldier, having the capacity to defeat a tank is irrelevant -- they won't be facing tanks. What they will be confronted with is IEDs, sawed-off shotguns and RPGs.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What's the purpose of the occupation? Do you simply want to prevent the defeated foes from organizing their resistance (for example, what the Americans do in Afghanistan), do you want to rule the conquered planet (as the British did in India), or do you want to convert the new conquest into a productive province of the Empire (as, for the example, the Romans did in Gaul)? As for the strength or weakness of each individual soldier, having the capacity to defeat a tank is irrelevant -- they won't be facing tanks. What they will be confronted with is IEDs, sawed-off shotguns and RPGs.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely more Gaulish than anything else, but I would accept ruling a conquered nation a la Britain vs. everywhere in the 1800s. Editing to clarify.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely more Gaulish than anything else, but I would accept ruling a conquered nation a la Britain vs. everywhere in the 1800s. Editing to clarify.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
5 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Well then, you must be prepared to be a better ruler than the previous administrations. The Indians allowed the British to rule India because the British administration was objectively better than the feudal regime they replaced. The Gauls agreed to become Romans because the condition of a Roman citizen was infinitely preferable to the condition of a barbarian. (Consider for a moment a Gaulish family; the wife learns that Roman women have rights, they can own property, they can engage in trade, they cannot be married against their will: how long until the wife decides that she is Roman?)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well then, you must be prepared to be a better ruler than the previous administrations. The Indians allowed the British to rule India because the British administration was objectively better than the feudal regime they replaced. The Gauls agreed to become Romans because the condition of a Roman citizen was infinitely preferable to the condition of a barbarian. (Consider for a moment a Gaulish family; the wife learns that Roman women have rights, they can own property, they can engage in trade, they cannot be married against their will: how long until the wife decides that she is Roman?)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Do what the Assyrians did. Evict the conquered people, and spread them throughout your empire. Move your own loyal citizens to their world; maybe as a reward for your victorious soldiers. Don't allow the evicted to form enclaves. In a generation or two, their culture will be no more and they will cease to put up any real resistance.
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No ground troops at all.
You're a merciless galactic emperor. You don't need to be popular among a newly conquered people. You won't be popular anyway, regardless of how much you try. You merely need to deny them a realistic political alternative.
Appoint a local quisling with some existing plausible claim to rule as your viceroy. Let them do the hard work of dodging assassins, oppressing or co-opting the opposition, and integrating their world into your empire.
High ranking collaborator families should be housed offworld, effectively hostaged by the empire to ensure loyalty. The reward for loyalty is that their children will be among the ruling class of the empire.
Rotate a few of your battleships on station for a few decades to keep control. It will keep the quisling reasonably honest, and you are likely to need to impose several mass reprisals until the collaborator regime is stable. No warnings, no discussion - the planet continues to show impeccable behavior at all times, and to obey the collaborator government, or --blam!-- goes another city.
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a difference between conquering a planet (fighting against the regular army of a planet on open field) and enforcing the rule on it (fighting against guerrilla, dealing with civil unrests and so on).
For the first part, during the first WW Germany mobilized 13M people out of a population of 67M, about 1 on five... For an planet of 7 bilions, we can assume the defending army will be 1 bilion strong. In case of a full scale war, even assuming you have the control of the skies and your soldiers are at the same level of an enemy tank, you would need in the best case an order of magnitude in the tens of milions soldiers.
You will have a better time using a divide and conquer strategy (as Romans did to conquer the ancient Greek cities): even if it is probable that the enemy world will try to unite against a big external menace, there will surely be different factions, each one with its own agenda.
If you control the orbit (and of course drop bombs on whatever on the surface seems a launchpad for rockets), everybody on the planet will know that the outcome of the war will not be subverted (at least, not in the short term): many people on the planet will surely try to ponder hot to take advantage of this situation.
So, just try to entice some of them, promising them the power after the victory (or - if you're a really vicious evil emperor - less harsh punishments). Wait for the intestine war to start and then send a small elite force to the ground to help your faction (you will find lots of similar strategies in history books). You can also help them bombing their enemies from the orbit.
This way, as already hinted in the other answers, the ruling faction of the planet will owe its authority to you and that be loyal to you. Just don't forget to keep (for a generation at least) some battle-ready battleships in the orbit of the planet in case your quislings decide not to obey anymore.
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on methods and the state of the planet really.
If your invaders merely have bigger guns, treat the locals like trash and steal everything of note, there going to have a hard time keeping order however strong they are, as the locals would be highly motivated to resist.
Also just because your solders have a consider tech edge, it doesn't mean they are indestructible. Ambush, sabotage and psychological warfare can narrow gaps in power, and it all too possible that your own solders might switch sides (your a tyranny after all), or even worse someone with knowledge of how all your fancy tech works. At which point you've got everything you need for a dangerous rebellion.
On the planet side of things, a truly united and peaceful planet with a strong central culture and a strong tradition of Democracy would be far tougher to control that one made of hundred of separate states that hate each others guts and are ruled by tyrants.
It likely worth grabbing the history books on historic empires and learning how they operated and garrisoned. The British Empire, Mongolians and Roman Empire are all pretty well documented. So see if you can find some relevant reference material that way.
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't do it with troops alone.
However, it can be done either by the slow method or the fast method.
In line with @AlexP's OP comments, the slow method would involve the carrot as well as the stick. Take over a small, defensible country. England would do for this since the water around it meas that you don't have to burn a "no man's zone" around it. Defend it from outside attacks with troops, installations and orbital strikes for big attacks.
Then use your technology to make their lives much better. Wait for things to calm down and then start offering the benefits to other nations. Some strikes will be necessary against the belligerent but no full scale invasions.
Once a significant majority of the population is under your rule, recruit troops from locals to clean out the pockets of resistance.
You might not even have to invade the first country if you can get them to join for benefits. Perhaps, operate the world using a pyramid scheme where any joined country gets a percentage of the profits from any nation that joins after them.
The other method is faster but not as profitable: remove the current population and bring in your own. Removal method is dealer's choice: bio weapon, chemical weapons, nukes, or a big rock. The native infrastructure is so comparatively low tech that you are going to have to replace it anyway so it doesn't matter if it gets broken.
If the invader has a slow population growth, the fist method gives the best long term profits. If the aliens BLB (Breed Like Bunnies) then the second method gives them resources and some place do their thing.
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Send troops to capture the means of energy production - the power stations (basic really), and of course the fuel depots (and the means to re-supply the power). The water networks are also terribly usefull.
At the same time you'll be hitting the communication networks by way of obliterating existing networks, including satelite, cable, radio and taking control of emergency broadcast networks (EBN).
Tell the people through the EBN's worldwide that you have control of the means of food distribution, power distribution, and water production. They should comply with the Emperor's dictates, or the their civilisation will be rendered innert - any resistance can be co-opted to fight - given military training, and positions of power....... In time the rest will see.
So, controlled by your military, mediated by converts, finaly your burearocrats can enter and take charge - promoting any who fall-in with the regime, ... and the rebels? If you can't co-opt them , then you kill them, publically - but always in a way that shows the benefits of falling-in with the regime.
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138513%2foccupation-forces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Do what the Assyrians did. Evict the conquered people, and spread them throughout your empire. Move your own loyal citizens to their world; maybe as a reward for your victorious soldiers. Don't allow the evicted to form enclaves. In a generation or two, their culture will be no more and they will cease to put up any real resistance.
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do what the Assyrians did. Evict the conquered people, and spread them throughout your empire. Move your own loyal citizens to their world; maybe as a reward for your victorious soldiers. Don't allow the evicted to form enclaves. In a generation or two, their culture will be no more and they will cease to put up any real resistance.
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do what the Assyrians did. Evict the conquered people, and spread them throughout your empire. Move your own loyal citizens to their world; maybe as a reward for your victorious soldiers. Don't allow the evicted to form enclaves. In a generation or two, their culture will be no more and they will cease to put up any real resistance.
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
$endgroup$
Do what the Assyrians did. Evict the conquered people, and spread them throughout your empire. Move your own loyal citizens to their world; maybe as a reward for your victorious soldiers. Don't allow the evicted to form enclaves. In a generation or two, their culture will be no more and they will cease to put up any real resistance.
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
answered 4 hours ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
4,663926
4,663926
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
There's no way you could lift every single human being off the earth without the cumulative heat of all those spaceship engines setting down and taking off baking the planet to a crisp and wiping out all life.
$endgroup$
– Tom O'Daighre
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I like this conceptually, but it doesn't answer my manpower questions, so it's not, strictly speaking, an answer. :S
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I think it does though. You don't need a massive occupying force sticking around indefinitely, because you aren't trying to permanently pacify an unruly populace. You only need enough to protect the eviction operations. And as it progresses, you will need fewer and fewer soldiers because they will be guarding fewer and fewer possible threats.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No ground troops at all.
You're a merciless galactic emperor. You don't need to be popular among a newly conquered people. You won't be popular anyway, regardless of how much you try. You merely need to deny them a realistic political alternative.
Appoint a local quisling with some existing plausible claim to rule as your viceroy. Let them do the hard work of dodging assassins, oppressing or co-opting the opposition, and integrating their world into your empire.
High ranking collaborator families should be housed offworld, effectively hostaged by the empire to ensure loyalty. The reward for loyalty is that their children will be among the ruling class of the empire.
Rotate a few of your battleships on station for a few decades to keep control. It will keep the quisling reasonably honest, and you are likely to need to impose several mass reprisals until the collaborator regime is stable. No warnings, no discussion - the planet continues to show impeccable behavior at all times, and to obey the collaborator government, or --blam!-- goes another city.
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No ground troops at all.
You're a merciless galactic emperor. You don't need to be popular among a newly conquered people. You won't be popular anyway, regardless of how much you try. You merely need to deny them a realistic political alternative.
Appoint a local quisling with some existing plausible claim to rule as your viceroy. Let them do the hard work of dodging assassins, oppressing or co-opting the opposition, and integrating their world into your empire.
High ranking collaborator families should be housed offworld, effectively hostaged by the empire to ensure loyalty. The reward for loyalty is that their children will be among the ruling class of the empire.
Rotate a few of your battleships on station for a few decades to keep control. It will keep the quisling reasonably honest, and you are likely to need to impose several mass reprisals until the collaborator regime is stable. No warnings, no discussion - the planet continues to show impeccable behavior at all times, and to obey the collaborator government, or --blam!-- goes another city.
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No ground troops at all.
You're a merciless galactic emperor. You don't need to be popular among a newly conquered people. You won't be popular anyway, regardless of how much you try. You merely need to deny them a realistic political alternative.
Appoint a local quisling with some existing plausible claim to rule as your viceroy. Let them do the hard work of dodging assassins, oppressing or co-opting the opposition, and integrating their world into your empire.
High ranking collaborator families should be housed offworld, effectively hostaged by the empire to ensure loyalty. The reward for loyalty is that their children will be among the ruling class of the empire.
Rotate a few of your battleships on station for a few decades to keep control. It will keep the quisling reasonably honest, and you are likely to need to impose several mass reprisals until the collaborator regime is stable. No warnings, no discussion - the planet continues to show impeccable behavior at all times, and to obey the collaborator government, or --blam!-- goes another city.
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
$endgroup$
No ground troops at all.
You're a merciless galactic emperor. You don't need to be popular among a newly conquered people. You won't be popular anyway, regardless of how much you try. You merely need to deny them a realistic political alternative.
Appoint a local quisling with some existing plausible claim to rule as your viceroy. Let them do the hard work of dodging assassins, oppressing or co-opting the opposition, and integrating their world into your empire.
High ranking collaborator families should be housed offworld, effectively hostaged by the empire to ensure loyalty. The reward for loyalty is that their children will be among the ruling class of the empire.
Rotate a few of your battleships on station for a few decades to keep control. It will keep the quisling reasonably honest, and you are likely to need to impose several mass reprisals until the collaborator regime is stable. No warnings, no discussion - the planet continues to show impeccable behavior at all times, and to obey the collaborator government, or --blam!-- goes another city.
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
answered 4 hours ago
user535733user535733
8,76721838
8,76721838
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a difference between conquering a planet (fighting against the regular army of a planet on open field) and enforcing the rule on it (fighting against guerrilla, dealing with civil unrests and so on).
For the first part, during the first WW Germany mobilized 13M people out of a population of 67M, about 1 on five... For an planet of 7 bilions, we can assume the defending army will be 1 bilion strong. In case of a full scale war, even assuming you have the control of the skies and your soldiers are at the same level of an enemy tank, you would need in the best case an order of magnitude in the tens of milions soldiers.
You will have a better time using a divide and conquer strategy (as Romans did to conquer the ancient Greek cities): even if it is probable that the enemy world will try to unite against a big external menace, there will surely be different factions, each one with its own agenda.
If you control the orbit (and of course drop bombs on whatever on the surface seems a launchpad for rockets), everybody on the planet will know that the outcome of the war will not be subverted (at least, not in the short term): many people on the planet will surely try to ponder hot to take advantage of this situation.
So, just try to entice some of them, promising them the power after the victory (or - if you're a really vicious evil emperor - less harsh punishments). Wait for the intestine war to start and then send a small elite force to the ground to help your faction (you will find lots of similar strategies in history books). You can also help them bombing their enemies from the orbit.
This way, as already hinted in the other answers, the ruling faction of the planet will owe its authority to you and that be loyal to you. Just don't forget to keep (for a generation at least) some battle-ready battleships in the orbit of the planet in case your quislings decide not to obey anymore.
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a difference between conquering a planet (fighting against the regular army of a planet on open field) and enforcing the rule on it (fighting against guerrilla, dealing with civil unrests and so on).
For the first part, during the first WW Germany mobilized 13M people out of a population of 67M, about 1 on five... For an planet of 7 bilions, we can assume the defending army will be 1 bilion strong. In case of a full scale war, even assuming you have the control of the skies and your soldiers are at the same level of an enemy tank, you would need in the best case an order of magnitude in the tens of milions soldiers.
You will have a better time using a divide and conquer strategy (as Romans did to conquer the ancient Greek cities): even if it is probable that the enemy world will try to unite against a big external menace, there will surely be different factions, each one with its own agenda.
If you control the orbit (and of course drop bombs on whatever on the surface seems a launchpad for rockets), everybody on the planet will know that the outcome of the war will not be subverted (at least, not in the short term): many people on the planet will surely try to ponder hot to take advantage of this situation.
So, just try to entice some of them, promising them the power after the victory (or - if you're a really vicious evil emperor - less harsh punishments). Wait for the intestine war to start and then send a small elite force to the ground to help your faction (you will find lots of similar strategies in history books). You can also help them bombing their enemies from the orbit.
This way, as already hinted in the other answers, the ruling faction of the planet will owe its authority to you and that be loyal to you. Just don't forget to keep (for a generation at least) some battle-ready battleships in the orbit of the planet in case your quislings decide not to obey anymore.
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a difference between conquering a planet (fighting against the regular army of a planet on open field) and enforcing the rule on it (fighting against guerrilla, dealing with civil unrests and so on).
For the first part, during the first WW Germany mobilized 13M people out of a population of 67M, about 1 on five... For an planet of 7 bilions, we can assume the defending army will be 1 bilion strong. In case of a full scale war, even assuming you have the control of the skies and your soldiers are at the same level of an enemy tank, you would need in the best case an order of magnitude in the tens of milions soldiers.
You will have a better time using a divide and conquer strategy (as Romans did to conquer the ancient Greek cities): even if it is probable that the enemy world will try to unite against a big external menace, there will surely be different factions, each one with its own agenda.
If you control the orbit (and of course drop bombs on whatever on the surface seems a launchpad for rockets), everybody on the planet will know that the outcome of the war will not be subverted (at least, not in the short term): many people on the planet will surely try to ponder hot to take advantage of this situation.
So, just try to entice some of them, promising them the power after the victory (or - if you're a really vicious evil emperor - less harsh punishments). Wait for the intestine war to start and then send a small elite force to the ground to help your faction (you will find lots of similar strategies in history books). You can also help them bombing their enemies from the orbit.
This way, as already hinted in the other answers, the ruling faction of the planet will owe its authority to you and that be loyal to you. Just don't forget to keep (for a generation at least) some battle-ready battleships in the orbit of the planet in case your quislings decide not to obey anymore.
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
$endgroup$
There is a difference between conquering a planet (fighting against the regular army of a planet on open field) and enforcing the rule on it (fighting against guerrilla, dealing with civil unrests and so on).
For the first part, during the first WW Germany mobilized 13M people out of a population of 67M, about 1 on five... For an planet of 7 bilions, we can assume the defending army will be 1 bilion strong. In case of a full scale war, even assuming you have the control of the skies and your soldiers are at the same level of an enemy tank, you would need in the best case an order of magnitude in the tens of milions soldiers.
You will have a better time using a divide and conquer strategy (as Romans did to conquer the ancient Greek cities): even if it is probable that the enemy world will try to unite against a big external menace, there will surely be different factions, each one with its own agenda.
If you control the orbit (and of course drop bombs on whatever on the surface seems a launchpad for rockets), everybody on the planet will know that the outcome of the war will not be subverted (at least, not in the short term): many people on the planet will surely try to ponder hot to take advantage of this situation.
So, just try to entice some of them, promising them the power after the victory (or - if you're a really vicious evil emperor - less harsh punishments). Wait for the intestine war to start and then send a small elite force to the ground to help your faction (you will find lots of similar strategies in history books). You can also help them bombing their enemies from the orbit.
This way, as already hinted in the other answers, the ruling faction of the planet will owe its authority to you and that be loyal to you. Just don't forget to keep (for a generation at least) some battle-ready battleships in the orbit of the planet in case your quislings decide not to obey anymore.
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
answered 3 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
4394
4394
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on methods and the state of the planet really.
If your invaders merely have bigger guns, treat the locals like trash and steal everything of note, there going to have a hard time keeping order however strong they are, as the locals would be highly motivated to resist.
Also just because your solders have a consider tech edge, it doesn't mean they are indestructible. Ambush, sabotage and psychological warfare can narrow gaps in power, and it all too possible that your own solders might switch sides (your a tyranny after all), or even worse someone with knowledge of how all your fancy tech works. At which point you've got everything you need for a dangerous rebellion.
On the planet side of things, a truly united and peaceful planet with a strong central culture and a strong tradition of Democracy would be far tougher to control that one made of hundred of separate states that hate each others guts and are ruled by tyrants.
It likely worth grabbing the history books on historic empires and learning how they operated and garrisoned. The British Empire, Mongolians and Roman Empire are all pretty well documented. So see if you can find some relevant reference material that way.
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on methods and the state of the planet really.
If your invaders merely have bigger guns, treat the locals like trash and steal everything of note, there going to have a hard time keeping order however strong they are, as the locals would be highly motivated to resist.
Also just because your solders have a consider tech edge, it doesn't mean they are indestructible. Ambush, sabotage and psychological warfare can narrow gaps in power, and it all too possible that your own solders might switch sides (your a tyranny after all), or even worse someone with knowledge of how all your fancy tech works. At which point you've got everything you need for a dangerous rebellion.
On the planet side of things, a truly united and peaceful planet with a strong central culture and a strong tradition of Democracy would be far tougher to control that one made of hundred of separate states that hate each others guts and are ruled by tyrants.
It likely worth grabbing the history books on historic empires and learning how they operated and garrisoned. The British Empire, Mongolians and Roman Empire are all pretty well documented. So see if you can find some relevant reference material that way.
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on methods and the state of the planet really.
If your invaders merely have bigger guns, treat the locals like trash and steal everything of note, there going to have a hard time keeping order however strong they are, as the locals would be highly motivated to resist.
Also just because your solders have a consider tech edge, it doesn't mean they are indestructible. Ambush, sabotage and psychological warfare can narrow gaps in power, and it all too possible that your own solders might switch sides (your a tyranny after all), or even worse someone with knowledge of how all your fancy tech works. At which point you've got everything you need for a dangerous rebellion.
On the planet side of things, a truly united and peaceful planet with a strong central culture and a strong tradition of Democracy would be far tougher to control that one made of hundred of separate states that hate each others guts and are ruled by tyrants.
It likely worth grabbing the history books on historic empires and learning how they operated and garrisoned. The British Empire, Mongolians and Roman Empire are all pretty well documented. So see if you can find some relevant reference material that way.
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
$endgroup$
Depends on methods and the state of the planet really.
If your invaders merely have bigger guns, treat the locals like trash and steal everything of note, there going to have a hard time keeping order however strong they are, as the locals would be highly motivated to resist.
Also just because your solders have a consider tech edge, it doesn't mean they are indestructible. Ambush, sabotage and psychological warfare can narrow gaps in power, and it all too possible that your own solders might switch sides (your a tyranny after all), or even worse someone with knowledge of how all your fancy tech works. At which point you've got everything you need for a dangerous rebellion.
On the planet side of things, a truly united and peaceful planet with a strong central culture and a strong tradition of Democracy would be far tougher to control that one made of hundred of separate states that hate each others guts and are ruled by tyrants.
It likely worth grabbing the history books on historic empires and learning how they operated and garrisoned. The British Empire, Mongolians and Roman Empire are all pretty well documented. So see if you can find some relevant reference material that way.
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
answered 3 hours ago
MrDracoSpiritMrDracoSpirit
660514
660514
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't do it with troops alone.
However, it can be done either by the slow method or the fast method.
In line with @AlexP's OP comments, the slow method would involve the carrot as well as the stick. Take over a small, defensible country. England would do for this since the water around it meas that you don't have to burn a "no man's zone" around it. Defend it from outside attacks with troops, installations and orbital strikes for big attacks.
Then use your technology to make their lives much better. Wait for things to calm down and then start offering the benefits to other nations. Some strikes will be necessary against the belligerent but no full scale invasions.
Once a significant majority of the population is under your rule, recruit troops from locals to clean out the pockets of resistance.
You might not even have to invade the first country if you can get them to join for benefits. Perhaps, operate the world using a pyramid scheme where any joined country gets a percentage of the profits from any nation that joins after them.
The other method is faster but not as profitable: remove the current population and bring in your own. Removal method is dealer's choice: bio weapon, chemical weapons, nukes, or a big rock. The native infrastructure is so comparatively low tech that you are going to have to replace it anyway so it doesn't matter if it gets broken.
If the invader has a slow population growth, the fist method gives the best long term profits. If the aliens BLB (Breed Like Bunnies) then the second method gives them resources and some place do their thing.
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't do it with troops alone.
However, it can be done either by the slow method or the fast method.
In line with @AlexP's OP comments, the slow method would involve the carrot as well as the stick. Take over a small, defensible country. England would do for this since the water around it meas that you don't have to burn a "no man's zone" around it. Defend it from outside attacks with troops, installations and orbital strikes for big attacks.
Then use your technology to make their lives much better. Wait for things to calm down and then start offering the benefits to other nations. Some strikes will be necessary against the belligerent but no full scale invasions.
Once a significant majority of the population is under your rule, recruit troops from locals to clean out the pockets of resistance.
You might not even have to invade the first country if you can get them to join for benefits. Perhaps, operate the world using a pyramid scheme where any joined country gets a percentage of the profits from any nation that joins after them.
The other method is faster but not as profitable: remove the current population and bring in your own. Removal method is dealer's choice: bio weapon, chemical weapons, nukes, or a big rock. The native infrastructure is so comparatively low tech that you are going to have to replace it anyway so it doesn't matter if it gets broken.
If the invader has a slow population growth, the fist method gives the best long term profits. If the aliens BLB (Breed Like Bunnies) then the second method gives them resources and some place do their thing.
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can't do it with troops alone.
However, it can be done either by the slow method or the fast method.
In line with @AlexP's OP comments, the slow method would involve the carrot as well as the stick. Take over a small, defensible country. England would do for this since the water around it meas that you don't have to burn a "no man's zone" around it. Defend it from outside attacks with troops, installations and orbital strikes for big attacks.
Then use your technology to make their lives much better. Wait for things to calm down and then start offering the benefits to other nations. Some strikes will be necessary against the belligerent but no full scale invasions.
Once a significant majority of the population is under your rule, recruit troops from locals to clean out the pockets of resistance.
You might not even have to invade the first country if you can get them to join for benefits. Perhaps, operate the world using a pyramid scheme where any joined country gets a percentage of the profits from any nation that joins after them.
The other method is faster but not as profitable: remove the current population and bring in your own. Removal method is dealer's choice: bio weapon, chemical weapons, nukes, or a big rock. The native infrastructure is so comparatively low tech that you are going to have to replace it anyway so it doesn't matter if it gets broken.
If the invader has a slow population growth, the fist method gives the best long term profits. If the aliens BLB (Breed Like Bunnies) then the second method gives them resources and some place do their thing.
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
$endgroup$
You can't do it with troops alone.
However, it can be done either by the slow method or the fast method.
In line with @AlexP's OP comments, the slow method would involve the carrot as well as the stick. Take over a small, defensible country. England would do for this since the water around it meas that you don't have to burn a "no man's zone" around it. Defend it from outside attacks with troops, installations and orbital strikes for big attacks.
Then use your technology to make their lives much better. Wait for things to calm down and then start offering the benefits to other nations. Some strikes will be necessary against the belligerent but no full scale invasions.
Once a significant majority of the population is under your rule, recruit troops from locals to clean out the pockets of resistance.
You might not even have to invade the first country if you can get them to join for benefits. Perhaps, operate the world using a pyramid scheme where any joined country gets a percentage of the profits from any nation that joins after them.
The other method is faster but not as profitable: remove the current population and bring in your own. Removal method is dealer's choice: bio weapon, chemical weapons, nukes, or a big rock. The native infrastructure is so comparatively low tech that you are going to have to replace it anyway so it doesn't matter if it gets broken.
If the invader has a slow population growth, the fist method gives the best long term profits. If the aliens BLB (Breed Like Bunnies) then the second method gives them resources and some place do their thing.
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
answered 2 hours ago
ShadoCatShadoCat
14.6k1851
14.6k1851
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You may not care about the infrastructure, but the ecology is probably useful. Enough nukes to remove the current population is not going to be good for the environment, and is likely to leave otherwise useful places contaminated. One big rock will wipe out everything, not just the intelligent inhabitants.
$endgroup$
– David Thornley
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@DavidThornley, that's why the slow method is more profitable. I only listed the fast method as a contrast and to indicate that there may be some specific cases where it might work.
$endgroup$
– ShadoCat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Send troops to capture the means of energy production - the power stations (basic really), and of course the fuel depots (and the means to re-supply the power). The water networks are also terribly usefull.
At the same time you'll be hitting the communication networks by way of obliterating existing networks, including satelite, cable, radio and taking control of emergency broadcast networks (EBN).
Tell the people through the EBN's worldwide that you have control of the means of food distribution, power distribution, and water production. They should comply with the Emperor's dictates, or the their civilisation will be rendered innert - any resistance can be co-opted to fight - given military training, and positions of power....... In time the rest will see.
So, controlled by your military, mediated by converts, finaly your burearocrats can enter and take charge - promoting any who fall-in with the regime, ... and the rebels? If you can't co-opt them , then you kill them, publically - but always in a way that shows the benefits of falling-in with the regime.
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Send troops to capture the means of energy production - the power stations (basic really), and of course the fuel depots (and the means to re-supply the power). The water networks are also terribly usefull.
At the same time you'll be hitting the communication networks by way of obliterating existing networks, including satelite, cable, radio and taking control of emergency broadcast networks (EBN).
Tell the people through the EBN's worldwide that you have control of the means of food distribution, power distribution, and water production. They should comply with the Emperor's dictates, or the their civilisation will be rendered innert - any resistance can be co-opted to fight - given military training, and positions of power....... In time the rest will see.
So, controlled by your military, mediated by converts, finaly your burearocrats can enter and take charge - promoting any who fall-in with the regime, ... and the rebels? If you can't co-opt them , then you kill them, publically - but always in a way that shows the benefits of falling-in with the regime.
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Send troops to capture the means of energy production - the power stations (basic really), and of course the fuel depots (and the means to re-supply the power). The water networks are also terribly usefull.
At the same time you'll be hitting the communication networks by way of obliterating existing networks, including satelite, cable, radio and taking control of emergency broadcast networks (EBN).
Tell the people through the EBN's worldwide that you have control of the means of food distribution, power distribution, and water production. They should comply with the Emperor's dictates, or the their civilisation will be rendered innert - any resistance can be co-opted to fight - given military training, and positions of power....... In time the rest will see.
So, controlled by your military, mediated by converts, finaly your burearocrats can enter and take charge - promoting any who fall-in with the regime, ... and the rebels? If you can't co-opt them , then you kill them, publically - but always in a way that shows the benefits of falling-in with the regime.
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
$endgroup$
Send troops to capture the means of energy production - the power stations (basic really), and of course the fuel depots (and the means to re-supply the power). The water networks are also terribly usefull.
At the same time you'll be hitting the communication networks by way of obliterating existing networks, including satelite, cable, radio and taking control of emergency broadcast networks (EBN).
Tell the people through the EBN's worldwide that you have control of the means of food distribution, power distribution, and water production. They should comply with the Emperor's dictates, or the their civilisation will be rendered innert - any resistance can be co-opted to fight - given military training, and positions of power....... In time the rest will see.
So, controlled by your military, mediated by converts, finaly your burearocrats can enter and take charge - promoting any who fall-in with the regime, ... and the rebels? If you can't co-opt them , then you kill them, publically - but always in a way that shows the benefits of falling-in with the regime.
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
answered 1 hour ago
Fay SuggersFay Suggers
3,526632
3,526632
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138513%2foccupation-forces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
What's the purpose of the occupation? Do you simply want to prevent the defeated foes from organizing their resistance (for example, what the Americans do in Afghanistan), do you want to rule the conquered planet (as the British did in India), or do you want to convert the new conquest into a productive province of the Empire (as, for the example, the Romans did in Gaul)? As for the strength or weakness of each individual soldier, having the capacity to defeat a tank is irrelevant -- they won't be facing tanks. What they will be confronted with is IEDs, sawed-off shotguns and RPGs.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely more Gaulish than anything else, but I would accept ruling a conquered nation a la Britain vs. everywhere in the 1800s. Editing to clarify.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Well then, you must be prepared to be a better ruler than the previous administrations. The Indians allowed the British to rule India because the British administration was objectively better than the feudal regime they replaced. The Gauls agreed to become Romans because the condition of a Roman citizen was infinitely preferable to the condition of a barbarian. (Consider for a moment a Gaulish family; the wife learns that Roman women have rights, they can own property, they can engage in trade, they cannot be married against their will: how long until the wife decides that she is Roman?)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
5 hours ago