Why would people build spaceships to fight each other when it's easier to build spaceships to attach rockets to asteroids and propel them toward enemy planets?
Some sort of space treaty limiting the types of warfare allowed?
>>43739740
Probably this, most space fiction portrays earth like planets as extremely rare. You don't want to blow up something you might need down the road.
Because it's a waste of a perfectly good Planet? Habitable Planets are probably not super common, so instigating an asteroid apocalypse doesn't sound like a good idea.
It's less heroic
>>43739690
Because then all the cool stuff on that planet is gone. How are you going to loot and pillage when everything's been destroyed in a catastrophic fireball? And forget about conquering territory, that's useless to you now that it's a crater.
>>43739690
1) thats what terrorist do: "we hate them and kill all of them.
2) Asteroids might not kill all, so you have to build several and they might destroy them with their ships. Some flee from, the planet and kill you in revange.
3) Most are like "we want conquor and they are our slaves"
4) Some may think its cheaper "If we make the planet uninhabitable, we have to spend too much to mine their ressources"
Thats some reasons i think, why this is mostly writen what a "madman" character would do.
>>43739690
Taidanii plz
>>43739690
Can someone post that "rocks are not free" letter?
Why send armies to fight the other guy when you can just drop a lot of nukes on him?
Because mass drivers are outlawed in warfare. Just ask the Narn why.
Seriously, you're talking about causing an extinction level event on a planet of sentiant life. Humans might be xenophobic but shit dude, you'd destroy a planet to win a war?
Same reason we don't just nuke nations we go to war with too oblivion
Of all the characters in that show, Londo, is one of my favorites. His entire story arc can boil down to the phrase, be careful what you wish for. Because boy, does he get it. And it is amazing and horrible to witness.
Because if you started doing that, your enemies would try to stop you.
And what's the best way to stop a ship doing something? Destroy it with anothe ship.
So either way, ship-to-ship combat is inevitable.
Besides, you'd need a good reason to be going to war, probably something to do with resources, which you wouldn't be ale to access very easily if you render the target planet a post-apocalyptic ruin.
Be prepared for some fucked up shit.
>>43739690
I destroy the rockets attached to your space rock using my space battleship, and then alter its course away from anything valuable if outright destroying the rock isn't an option.
Then I go and bomb your bumfuck civilization back into the stone age from orbit. And you can't stop me, because you were too 'smart' to invest in warships.
>>43739690
Go with shep to fuck aliens.
To answer the question. Yeah that's mad overkill, (but like the nuke, it's nice to keep it in mind)
>>43739690
I was going to say "I'm gonna go with Space Jesus" until I realized that at least 3 people on there fit that bill...
As for the question, I will Quote Gul Dukat:
"A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness. And only kill them if necessary"
The dead can't acknowledge your greatness. It is better to leave them unable to resist you and with no choice but to admit they were wrong, than it is to outright kill them.
>>43739949
I don't even like 40K and I think that letter is fantastic.
>>43740776
>Yeah that's mad overkill
Depending on the size of the asteroid, it can just as well be utterly ineffective. And pushing the big ones around at enough speed to make them get to the target within a decade means your propulsion solution must also be in the "ludicrous overkill" category as well. If you want something like the bigger nukes we've popped, you're looking at maybe one and a half million tons of asteroid, over twice the biggest supertanker, which you might need to accelerate to a kilometre per second relative it's current velocity to get it going where you want it, and then if you're lucky it only takes the damn thing half a year to get there.
>>43739690
Because Rocket rocks can be easily intercepted if you can predict the trajectory, whereas ships can be slippery and allow for docking and stealing shit
>>43739949
>>43739690
Why do nations train soldiers and build tanks when it's easier to just launch nuclear ICBMs at other countries?
Why use all these bombs and missiles form ground attack when we could just drop large rocks instead?
>>43739690
Shepard.
I wan sum fuk
