Jar-Jar: nuke him from orbit
I participated in the latest round of SF Signal’s MindMeld: Q: Which SciFi films and/or television shows do the best job in adhering to realistic science? Which ones do the worst? Find out how I manage to come up with an answer that calls for Jar-Jar Binks to be annihilated by space-to-ground weaponry. I’ve also got a friendly exchange in the comments with colleague Mike Brotherton on whether or not OUTLAND can be taken seriously, in spite of the fact that some Hollywood producer got a little too interested in the spacesuits and what ought to happen when you’re not wearing one.
My novel BURNING SKIES can be pre-ordered on Amazon.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
and all the swamp creatures too
May 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I agree that if you hold the high orbitals you, essentially, hold the planet.
But, even with the capacity to rock it back into the Stone Age, there are always going to be some installations that are too valuable to casually destroy. So I believe that you will always get some ground attacks even if you hold the high ground.
Of course, the battle at the end of Phantom Menace took place in what appeared to me to be a field of no explainable strategic significance.
Also Jar-Jar does need to be nuked from orbit – it’s just self evident
Cheers,
Tim
May 20th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Totally agree, but I’m by no means arguing that there would be NO ground combat. What I’m saying is that there would be no DECISIVE ground combat. I can fully envision mopping up operations, particularly in (very) deep strategic bunkers, but by the time the ground combat starts in earnest, the real war would have been settled by definition. . .
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:59 pm
I trust you would not have reservations if I posted a part of this on my univeristy blog?