What is the utility of ground warfare?

[Citiprime]

I was re-watching SNW's "Under the Cloak of War," and I'm just trying to reason why an interstellar navy with the abilities of the major powers in the Star Trek universe would fight major engagements on the ground, or position important forward operating bases on the surface of a planet?

In "Under the Cloak of War," M'Benga and Chapel are stationed at basically a Starfleet medical base on the surface of J'Gal. So my first question is why, when we know 23rd century Starfleet transporters can reach orbit, would you put a medical base on the surface within visual distance of enemy weapons emplacements, rather than having medical ships in orbit that are timed to make runs for beaming out wounded?

Now, I'm not nitpicking SNW for this, since it's well-established in canon that surface battles and hand-to-hand close quarters engagements are something that's been part of the show's history since TOS ("Arena") and will still be there in the 24th century (DS9's "The Siege of AR-558"). And I can see how ground forces would be big for:

• ship-to-ship engagements with boarding parties
• tactical operations to capture important installations, people, or intelligence
• or to defend colonists under attack by an enemy that wants to conquer an area and its people whole and inserted their own ground forces that have been interspersed within the population.

Even then, though, you would think the effect of ground forces would be limited. Since the threat of starships in orbit should give an advantage that would rain death on any surface installation (or be able to beam out their colonists and Starfleet personnel if there's no transport inhibitors or after any inhibitor had been destroyed).

But the bigger question is wondering how to headcanon why Starfleet would put their forces through a meatgrinder, when given that we know a starship's phaser's and photon torpedoes' are capable of glassing a planet, if an enemy is killing the entire population wholesale why wouldn't you just bombard the enemy from orbit?

I just can't get my head around why any of the powers would ever put an important military encampment or mass ground forces on the surface of a planet that can be targeted easily by a Federation starship or Klingon battle cruiser.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

As a show of force - sheer numbers intimidate the population face to face, but also enable surgical precision/extraction/capture rather than carpetbombing/mass beaming everything away.

Most of the time, there'd be some kind of defenses - force fields, infrastructure that can be packed up and moved at a moment's notice, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

One, to limit engagement or application of resources depending on the objective. A ship in orbit can control traffic but might not be able to control all resources.

Two, to target or control specific installations, populations or terrestrial resources that require harvesting or mining.

Finally, a show of force might not require an orbital bombardment. Or might require more precision in its operations to ensure minimal collateral damage.

 

[Citiprime]

As a show of force - sheer numbers intimidate the population face to face, but also enable surgical precision/extraction/capture rather than carpetbombing/mass beaming everything away.

Wouldn't a fleet surrounding a planet that gained orbital supremacy be a big enough show of force?

And the only issue I have with the "precision" argument is that a starship's sensors have already been shown to be capable of both identifying specific lifeforms, differentiating them, and capable of singling them out for transport.

If the sensors can do that, they should be able to do that for targeting a weapon from orbit. Punch through any shielding or interference with the weapons, the same way you would do a starship, scan the area, and then target the precise object that you need to target. It's safer and doesn't endanger your people the same way putting troops on the ground does.

Two, to target or control specific installations, populations or terrestrial resources that require harvesting or mining.

I can understand that rationale. But then you would run into the counter argument. If the Klingons, Romulans, Gorn, Dominion, etc., are going to lose control of an important dilithium mine, why wouldn't they "salt the Earth" and practice resource denial using orbital bombardment?

If you're going to lose a strategic position to an enemy ground force, why not send a squadron of Birds of Prey to target disruptors on it, and take out both it and the Starfleet task force?

 

[fireproof78]

can understand that rationale. But then you would run into the counter argument. If the Klingons, Romulans, Gorn, Dominion, etc., are going to lose control of an important dilithium mine, why wouldn't they "salt the Earth" and practice resource denial using orbital bombardment?

If you're going to lose a strategic position to an enemy ground force, why not send a squadron of Birds of Prey to target disruptors on it, and take out both it and the Starfleet task force?

Usually the Klingons want the resources otherwise they wouldn't be expanding. That's their rationale. Resource denial sounds good unless it's something you know you need.

Denial sounds good unless it can't be easily replaced.

 

[Phily B]

Ground forces shouldn't exist on any significant level. They rarely work whenever they turn up in Trek and they never have a budget for it.

The SNW episode is the worst one by far too in my opinion.

 

[somebuddyX]

I heard they activate the neocompic deaccelerators so that the the starship phasers and photon torpedoes can't reach the planet's surface. Then they increase the variance of the mercury flow straighteners and so small hand weapons can work perfectly on the planet's surface. Simple.

 

[The Wormhole]

It looks cool.

 

[somebuddyX]

I sometimes wonder why US military uses infantry and not nukes. Wouldn't that sort out most problems?

 

[fireproof78]

I sometimes wonder why US military uses infantry and not nukes. Wouldn't that sort out most problems?

It would. No need for that troublesome ammo or tactics thing.

 

[Citiprime]

I sometimes wonder why US military uses infantry and not nukes. Wouldn't that sort out most problems?

Well ... we do use Hellfire R9X missiles which kill people with ninja "ginsu" blades instead of explosives.

It qualifies for the it "looks cool" and "precision" components of weaponry.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

It took about one month for the US Air Force to conquer Iraq, but many more years to actually control the country.

 

[Phily B]

I sometimes wonder why US military uses infantry and not nukes. Wouldn't that sort out most problems?

We've seen that Star Trek ships are capable of highly surgical and complete destructive strikes on a planet's surface. The only usage of a military in this setting would be as as a brutal occupational army - which makes no sense for Starfleet in particular.

Mass scale ground warfare rarely makes sense in a lot of science fiction.

 

[Citiprime]

It took about one month for the US Air Force to conquer Iraq, but many more years to actually control the country.

But that's only important if you want to put an occupation force on a planet as part of nation building. That doesn't seem like something the Federation and Starfleet would do with a hostile population given the Prime Directive.

If they're in a war, I would reckon all Starfleet would care about is controlling the system and the space AROUND a specific planet, or controlling a specific point on a planet that's strategic (like a transmitter). That wouldn't get you into the morass of a situation similar to what happened in Iraq.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

But that's only important if you want to put an occupation force on a planet as part of nation building. That doesn't seem like something the Federation and Starfleet would do with a hostile population given the Prime Directive.

If they're in a war, I would reckon all Starfleet would care about is controlling the system and the space AROUND a specific planet, or controlling a specific point on a planet that's strategic (like a transmitter). That wouldn't get you into the morass of a situation similar to what happened in Iraq.

Sorry, but war involves goals that aren't necessarily "kill everyone." Anything that's worth fighting over probably makes the most deadly options irrelevant.

 

[fireproof78]

It comes down to the objective.

 

[Phily B]

But that's only important if you want to put an occupation force on a planet as part of nation building. That doesn't seem like something the Federation and Starfleet would do with a hostile population given the Prime Directive.

If they're in a war, I would reckon all Starfleet would care about is controlling the system and the space AROUND a specific planet, or controlling a specific point on a planet that's strategic (like a transmitter). That wouldn't get you into the morass of a situation similar to what happened in Iraq.

You would hope Starfleet wouldn't have a brutal military force ready to occupy and brutalise a hostile population under the guise of "nation building". That'd probably be the Cardassians. Bajor invited them to help out in the post-occupation era and they were really careful with it.

I would hope the Federation didn't have a military on the streets of Cardassia brutalising an already broken population.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

You would hope Starfleet wouldn't have a brutal military force ready to occupy and brutalise a hostile population under the guise of "nation building". That'd probably be the Cardassians. Bajor invited them to help out in the post-occupation era and they were really careful with it.

I would hope the Federation didn't have a military on the streets of Cardassia brutalising an already broken population.

That is a one sided outlook of what post-war occupation forces do. The British, French, and Americans in Germany, Italy, and Japan were not going about killing people.

 

[Citiprime]

You would hope Starfleet wouldn't have a brutal military force ready to occupy and brutalise a hostile population under the guise of "nation building". That'd probably be the Cardassians. Bajor invited them to help out in the post-occupation era and they were really careful with it.

I would hope the Federation didn't have a military on the streets of Cardassia brutalising an already broken population.

This is the reason I can't see something where Starfleet participates in an action like the Iraq War, where they put troops on the ground to pacify a population in order to hold a strategic area even against backlash from the indigenous population.

Bajor was a hugely important strategic position given the wormhole. At the beginning of season 2 of DS9, even after Sisko told Starfleet there was evidence the Cardassians were manipulating the political situation on Bajor that was forcing Starfleet to leave, Starfleet Command ordered Starfleet to abandon the station to comply with the Prime Directive.

 

[Phily B]

That is a one sided outlook of what post-war occupation forces do. The British, French, and Americans in Germany, Italy, and Japan were not going about killing people.

We're talking about the modern age. The only point of infantry these days would be used as an imperialist occupational army due to the level of technology if you fuck with someone of equal footing.

It's why in Star Trek, ground forces on a mass scale make no sense. There should be small teams of marines. Earth has a planetary shield, but it didn't seem like it would do shit to a forcing massing that had the planet surrounded. Once Chin'toka's space defenses fell, the entire system fell.

A single phaser blast could level a compound or kill one dude. They would probably only need a couple of hundred troops for the entire planet - at most.