United Federation of Planets vs Galacitic Empire

[KirkSkyWalker]

Is there a shield over coruscant?

The only alternative is that the droid-army chose not to use energy-bombardment in their attack on the planet-- and I'd rule that out as a possibility.

You rule out the fact that the droid ships chose to fire at the ships shooting at them first rather than just getting pounded and destroyed while firing on the planet instead?.

Military targets first then civillian targets dude, doing it in reverse gets your ass kicked.

Bombers have their tasks, fighters have theirs. Look it up, "dude."

[KirkSkyWalker]

BTW, the AT-ATs at Hoth came in under the shield, not through, else all that would have been needed to take out the base would have been for bombers or even an ISD to come in through the shield and then start firing...
So the shield had to be both a Particle and a Ray shield...

More like bombers were vulnerable to attack, and the AT-AT's weren't so much.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

You rule out the fact that the droid ships chose to fire at the ships shooting at them first rather than just getting pounded and destroyed while firing on the planet instead?.

Military targets first then civillian targets dude, doing it in reverse gets your ass kicked.

Bombers have their tasks, fighters have theirs. Look it up, "dude."

Bombing and fighting spring instantly to mind, your logic has large holes in it fella simply put if you wanna claim there was a planetary shield you will pretty much need definitive material proving one not your personal opinion and speculation.

More like bombers were vulnerable to attack, and the AT-AT's weren't so much.

Highly mobile fighters and bombers vs very large transport ships designed to carry massive walkers to the surface of a planet?.

[KirkSkyWalker]

It's called "deductive logic," but you wouldn't know anything about that (or military history) if you think that every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself... "dude."

As for the AT-AT's, they clearly landed outside the region's defense-umbrella; all they had to do was reach the ground, not any particular target inside it.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

It's called "deductive logic," but you wouldn't know anything about that (or military history) if you think that every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself... "dude."

Your deductive logic seems to only be such to yourself.

Still it was a interesting strawman you just created, would you care to address the actual point or just continue make up stuff to argue with?.

You know the point about a entire and very large fleet shooting at them and needing dealing with, not your "every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself" strawman designed to avoid the very valid point.

As for the AT-AT's, they clearly landed outside the region's defense-umbrella; all they had to do was reach the ground, not any particular target inside it.

A defence umbrella that included weapons that could hit star destroyers in high orbit?...ok so i suppose they could have landed on the other side of a mountain or below the horizon level.

And after about 6 weeks they may have walked into range of the base given the speed of the walkers......

[KirkSkyWalker]

It's called "deductive logic," but you wouldn't know anything about that (or military history) if you think that every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself... "dude."

Your deductive logic seems to only be such to yourself.

Still it was a interesting strawman you just created, would you care to address the actual point or just continue make up stuff to argue with?.

You know the point about a entire and very large fleet shooting at them and needing dealing with, not your "every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself" strawman designed to avoid the very valid point.

You're the one arguing with yourself, since those are YOUR OWN WORDS.
As for the fleet shooting at them, that's energy-bombardment.

As for the AT-AT's, they clearly landed outside the region's defense-umbrella; all they had to do was reach the ground, not any particular target inside it.

A defence umbrella that included weapons that could hit star destroyers in high orbit?...ok so i suppose they could have landed on the other side of a mountain or below the horizon level.

And after about 6 weeks they may have walked into range of the base given the speed of the walkers......

Your accuracy is wanting. Before combat, they're clearly moving at least 30mph, which would get to them in 18 minutes from the horizon.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

You're the one arguing with yourself, since those are YOUR OWN WORDS.

Link where i say "every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself".......RIGHT NOW or conceed your strawman and repost a point about my actual argument not your own creation.

Here is some help:

2. They did the smart thing at shot at the things shooting at them first (IE: OTHER SHIPS) rather than focusing their weapons on the planet that was not shooting at them while getting destroyed by the enemy ships.

And now:

every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself

See the differance?.

Your accuracy is wanting. Before combat, they're clearly moving at least 30mph, which would get to them in 18 minutes from the horizon.

Your lack of understanding regarding LOS, mountain bases (guns being high up to make it simple for you) and weaponry that can hit ships in orbit is what is lacking.

[KirkSkyWalker]

You're the one arguing with yourself, since those are YOUR OWN WORDS.

Link where i say "every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself".......RIGHT NOW or conceed your strawman and repost a point about my actual argument not your own creation.

Better yet, here's a direct quote:

Military targets first then civillian targets dude, doing it in reverse gets your ass kicked.

Here you used "civilian targets" to mean ground-targets.
But what's any of this got to do with the UFP vs. the GE?

[Who is like God arbour]

It's called "deductive logic," but you wouldn't know anything about that (or military history) if you think that every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself... "dude."

You have to give a reason why they would fire on the city at all and that this is indeed what they wanted to do.
Then you can argue if it had been possible.

[KirkSkyWalker]

It's called "deductive logic," but you wouldn't know anything about that (or military history) if you think that every single fighter must be vanquished before they can fire shot 1 of energy-bombardment on the city itself... "dude."

You have to give a reason why they would fire on the city at all and that this is indeed what they wanted to do.
Then you can argue if it had been possible.

The first word in the opening scrawl was "WAR!"
The separatists were attacking Coruscant, and energy-bombardment was a part of war in SW. Otherwise the capships would be there just as glorified aircraft-carriers.

However the more important question would be, why wouldn't Corusant have shields, if it was the capital of the Republic? If anyone had shields, Coruscant would have them. To say that Coruscant wouldn't want shields because no one would want to bombard it, is just absurd.

[Who is like God arbour]

The first word in the opening scrawl was "WAR!"

Since when does war mean unreasonable destruction?

» War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means « (Carl von Clausewitz)

» No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state « (Immanuel Kant)

Which purpose would the bombing of Coruscant have? What could they gain?

The separatists were attacking Coruscant, and energy-bombardment was a part of war in SW. Otherwise the capships would be there just as glorified aircraft-carriers.

Are you sure, that their goal was to attack Coruscant and to kill as many civillians as possible?
Are you sure that their goal was not to do something else on Coruscant - e.g. abduct the Chancellor?

However the more important question would be, why wouldn't Corusant have shields, if it was the capital of the Republic? If anyone had shields, Coruscant would have them. To say that Coruscant wouldn't want shields because no one would want to bombard it, is just absurd.

If there are no planetary shields, Corusant wouldn't have them. And in no movies were planetary shields shown - although, if there were planetary shields, they would have been mentioned. Fact is that they are an invention of some EU-authors and are contradicting the movies and their novelizations. Especially the RotS novelization does not mention any planetary shields although, if there were any, they should have been mentioned.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Let me re-state what I've held all along, for clarity's sake:

With regard to “Planetary shields” like Star Trek’s—i.e. a single shield that covers the whole planet: you’re 100% right about that, ie. Star Wars has no such technology in the G-canon, and I never meant to imply otherwise.

I was only talking about theater-shields; but in Coruscant's case, this could mean simply having enough of them to cover the whole planet. Yes, we'd be talking a lot of them, but Coruscant's a planet-wide city as well as the capital, and so might invest in such protection. I'm not saying these are proven, only that it could exist by this method.

I also fully realize that SDN claims that Aderaan initially "glows" when the DS beam strikes it in ANH, and that this somehow "proves there's a planetary shield--" I agree that this is nonsensical, and I that I was not talking about any such thing.

I did not mean to give ANY such impression that "planetary shields" exist in the G-canon.

[Who is like God arbour]

1. There is no evidence for planetary shields or theatre shields on Coruscant in the movies, their novelizations or The Clone Wars. If there were planetary shields, they would have been mentioned - at least in the RotS novelization. Insofar, RotS is only making sense, if there are no planetary shields.
2. According to the EU, planetary shields are shields that are encompassing the whole planet. Several shield generators may be necessary, but the resulting shield is not the result of overlapping theatre shields.
3. According to the EU, Coruscant has a planetary shield. But that contradicts higher canon and is therefore to be ignored.
4. As far as I know, the EU does not say anything about overlapping theatre shields. If these shields were supposed to stop matter (torpedoes, rockets, bombs, debris) too, then the RotS novelization makes it clear, that there are no such shields. If these theatre shields are only ray shields, their existence is not excluded by RotS. These shields would stop turbo-laser-fire but no debris. But there is nothing that indicates that theatre ray shields are on Coruscant.
   
   It is possible but not proven.
   
   And I think it is not probable.
   
   Shields that can only stop turbo-laser-fire are pretty useless. If someone wanted to attack a so protected planet, that someone would either use only torpedoes, rockets or bombs in his attack or that someone would plan to destroy the shield-generators by using such devices. After that, he could use all weapons. And that the planetary defence system would not be enough to stop a massive attack on a shield generator with torpedoes, rockets or bombs was shown by the RotS novelization. The planetary defence system of Coruscant wasn't even enough to destroy the debris from in the orbit destroyed ships.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Shields that can only stop turbo-laser-fire are pretty useless. If someone wanted to attack a so protected planet, that someone would either use only torpedoes, rockets or bombs in his attack or that someone would plan to destroy the shield-generators by using such devices.

Torpedoes, rockets and bombs can be stopped directly through the defensive-umbrella of STA fire and SAM's, "Patriot missiles" etc; laser-fire, blasters etc. can't.

The planetary defence system of Coruscant wasn't even enough to destroy the debris from in the orbit destroyed ships.

"Even" enough? Falling debris from destroyed ships is the last thing one would focus on during a batttle.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Torpedoes, rockets and bombs can be stopped directly through the defensive-umbrella of STA fire and SAM's, "Patriot missiles" etc; laser-fire, blasters etc. can't.

If debris and crap can get through so can missiles and bombs.

"Even" enough? Falling debris from destroyed ships is the last thing one would focus on during a batttle.

Potentially millions of tonnes of material traveling at orbital speeds or faster likely containing unfired ordinance and fuel?, i think they would likely focus on preventing such impacts.