Best/Worst military forces in Science Fiction

[Coyote]

Deciding a military that is "best" will probably also mean determining how each setting treats conflict as well.

One thing I liked about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was how Nog was affected by his combat experience and the loss of his leg, and his long arc dealing with depression and PTSD. Few military sci-fi stories have the balls to address that, IMO. It is a big point in favor of "realism". But some might argue that is a peripheral matter of character and plot and writing, and not reflective of military performance, but if military characters are able to operate free of negative consequences (beyond having "stories" to tell, or maybe a cool battle scar while nameless background mooks are killed wholesale), that has a bearing on the story overall. But again, my .02.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. That could make good military fiction without making a good military.

There's a fair number of post-Vietnam SF stories that feature incompetent or deeply screwed up militaries that are realistic about how war affects people. It was definitely part of the public consciousness at the time.

Or, you might actually see a good military in bad military fiction. Think of the stuff Stuart writes- the military forces are competent and well equipped, and generally succeed in their goals, but everything else about the story is mediocre at best.

[Batman]

A point could be made that the best military is one that ensures it will never be used, by virtue of it being so terrible a solution that any kind of negotiated settlement is preferrable to going to war.

[Coyote]

A point could be made that the best military is one that ensures it will never be used, by virtue of it being so terrible a solution that any kind of negotiated settlement is preferrable to going to war.

But that is a frame of mind that has ushered in many new advances in warfare --dynamite, the Gatling gun, the atomic bomb-- yet each one inevitably gets used at some point... so there is a lot of potential in setting up a "paper tiger"...

[Simon_Jester]

No wait, you could turn that around.

Say your military is comically useless and pitiful. Resorting to it would be a terrible solution, and any kind of negotiated settlement would be better than war... for you!



It's Zen strategy. Less is more.

[Zinegata]

Being able to negotiate yourself out of a war is typically the responsibility of the government (particularly its diplomatic corps) as a whole, rather than just the military. But admittedly such segregation of responsibilities isn't always present.

[Simon_Jester]

...You just totally missed the point. Both points.

Come on, even by my standards...

[Zinegata]

I wasn't responding to your point specifically Simon, hence me not quoting you. I'm just pointing out that military = government is not necessarily the case because we're veering into that territory already and I felt people need to be reminded of this framework.

[Coyote]

I got it.


Anyhow, this is hard to quantify, since so much military science fiction depends on enemies and writing and production decisions. To that end, written sci-fi will always have the advantage, since it costs nothing to write different layers of command and tactical characters, or competent enemies. And usually, one person is writing it so there's no Producer saying "can you fit in a cute kid and a dog? Marketing thinks this will go better if we have a cute kid and a dog. Maybe a robot dog, how's that?"

[Ultonius]

There's a fair number of post-Vietnam SF stories that feature incompetent or deeply screwed up militaries that are realistic about how war affects people. It was definitely part of the public consciousness at the time.

The work of David Drake, who served in Vietnam, has several examples of this, though not necessarily both at the same time. In his Hammer's Slammers stories, while the Slammers themselves are aggressively competent, their local allies are often nepotistic and unprofessional, or at best inexperienced. Looking at his military science fiction in general, a number of protagonists are forced to do terrible (at least from their own perspective) things to survive in war and end up suffering from guilt and/or PTSD.

[Simon_Jester]

Drake was on my mind when he wrote that, and arguably some of his work is an example of what I'm thinking of. But not quite what I meant. What I was getting at is that you can have good military SF, without it containing a good military. A war between inept and bloody-minded opponents can be good SF- it's just antiwar military SF.

[Batman]

I don't see how one or all involved parties in a conflict being incompetent like nobody's business makes that tale 'antiwar'.

[Coyote]

The work of David Drake, who served in Vietnam, has several examples of this, though not necessarily both at the same time. In his Hammer's Slammers stories, while the Slammers themselves are aggressively competent, their local allies are often nepotistic and unprofessional, or at best inexperienced. Looking at his military science fiction in general, a number of protagonists are forced to do terrible (at least from their own perspective) things to survive in war and end up suffering from guilt and/or PTSD.

I suppose a military that is actually professional and competent would not need to hire the Slammers, but then on the other hand I'd also like to see them get hired by a faction/nation/whoever in that setting that is actually competent and able, but are just overwhelmed by an enemy with massive numerical superiority (or some other advantage) and are forced to parcel out for some support.

But the Slammers stories are shaped by his Vietnam experience, where the professional*, well-equipped American military was propping up an incompetent nepotistic kleptocracy with little public support while fighting against an enemy of guerrilla thugs and an autocratic regime. So that leaves a mark.


*professional as in powerful and capable with some semblance of decent command & control and professional structure, despite the draftee nature and the tales of things like drug abuse and such.

[Simon_Jester]

I think The Warrior had a scene of that- where they were fighting in the rice paddies; the local armor on both sides seemed reasonably competent and well equipped.

There are probably some others, where local forces (or at least some of them) know what they're doing.

[aieeegrunt]

The opposition in the Warrior was more than competent, there was just such a huge technological gap between them and the Slammers it was a Shermans verses Abrahms scenario. If the indigs had had equivelant equipment they'd have won.

[Simon_Jester]

In the battle in the paddies, I don't think it was that sharp- the difference in equipment was significant, but not enough to let the Slammers beat huge local forces alone. They needed the local forces of their employers backing them up, and suffered from the fact that their locals weren't quite as good as the other locals.

[Randalthorpk]

Read a book long ago (like when I was in HS) about mercanaries on a galactic level, the galactic goverment allowed people to hire them to fight in planetary wars but they were restricted to using an indigenous tech level. I cant remember the name of the book now, but the Merc force was definetly one of my personal top 5 bad ass forces since they could fight with everything from swords and bows through ultra high tech (to us anyway) main battle tanks and combat arms.

[Batman]

What kind of stupid setup is that? If I hire mercenaries from offworld I want that expense to show for something, namely them crushing the opposition on short notice with vastly superior technology. If they're restricted to indigeneous technology, what's the incentive for me to hire them to begin with? Especially as chances are the natives are better at using that technology than the mercenaries.

[Randalthorpk]

What kind of stupid setup is that? If I hire mercenaries from offworld I want that expense to show for something, namely them crushing the opposition on short notice with vastly superior technology. If they're restricted to indigeneous technology, what's the incentive for me to hire them to begin with? Especially as chances are the natives are better at using that technology than the mercenaries.

ahhh but while their wepons could only be the level of indigenous tech, they were allowed to use 100% of the medical and reparitave tech. the way I understood it, was as an example if the US was hiring them to fight the soviets (yes im using a cold war metaphore) they would be limited to projectile weapons but they could be using target seaking supersonic Gyrojet guns while all we could use was simple slug throwers. The advantage is still there, its just more of semantics.

[Batman]

That's idiotic. If supersonic (and seriously, modern day pistol bullets are supersonic as often as not) gyrojet tarket seekers are outside inigeneous technology the mercenary's don't get to use them either by that setup.

[Eulogy]

ahhh but while their wepons could only be the level of indigenous tech, they were allowed to use 100% of the medical and reparitave tech. the way I understood it, was as an example if the US was hiring them to fight the soviets (yes im using a cold war metaphore) they would be limited to projectile weapons but they could be using target seaking supersonic Gyrojet guns while all we could use was simple slug throwers. The advantage is still there, its just more of semantics.

That's damn stupid, and whoever thought that rule up needs to have shit shoved in his ear. The whole point of hiring mercs is to quickly give you advantages that you couldn't get otherwise. If the mercs were being hired to do assassinations and the like I could understand restricting them to using only local tech. It would also be understandable if you wanted the mercs to show your Iron Age civilization how to make, care for and use decent firearms properly, because you are going to most likely have to produce the guns and ammo yourself (if you're wise, at least).

But not letting the super-advanced aliens use all of their toys? What's the use then, if you'll only end up with another native-equivalent force you could already hire/raise yourself - and therefore not have to go through the bother and expense of contracting spacemen? Especially since that restriction is laughable to begin with: we can't use nukes and lasers, but we CAN clone tissue and cure cancer, and the natives can't! I suppose firing lead out of Gyrowank seekers isn't any more deadly or advanced than simple rifles, either!

Really, that restriction - which is dumb to begin with - isn't even consistent.

[lance]

What kind of stupid setup is that? If I hire mercenaries from offworld I want that expense to show for something, namely them crushing the opposition on short notice with vastly superior technology. If they're restricted to indigeneous technology, what's the incentive for me to hire them to begin with? Especially as chances are the natives are better at using that technology than the mercenaries.

Let's take nazi germany for an example, if these guys can bring in another 1000 tigers, a fleet of made out of the best quality of other wise cost prohibited steel, or start dropping nukes on the allies ten minutes after the first successful test is done in America.

I don't know what your using to pay for these, I'll just assume 20 million jew, chinese, french slaves.

[Malivotti]

Sounds like Joel Rosenberg's 'Metzadan Mercenary Corps' stories only two books though that I recall, 'Not for Glory' and 'Hero'. The conflicts are regulated by a department of the government that control access to space flight if remember right.

Read a book long ago (like when I was in HS) about mercanaries on a galactic level, the galactic goverment allowed people to hire them to fight in planetary wars but they were restricted to using an indigenous tech level. I cant remember the name of the book now, but the Merc force was definetly one of my personal top 5 bad ass forces since they could fight with everything from swords and bows through ultra high tech (to us anyway) main battle tanks and combat arms.

[Randalthorpk]

@Malivotti Hero thats the book, I wasnt even aware there was a second one though *starts diging for it*

[Connor MacLeod]

What kind of stupid setup is that? If I hire mercenaries from offworld I want that expense to show for something, namely them crushing the opposition on short notice with vastly superior technology. If they're restricted to indigeneous technology, what's the incentive for me to hire them to begin with? Especially as chances are the natives are better at using that technology than the mercenaries.

If your goal was to fight wars with maximum efficiency at all times, then yes, it is stupid. If the goal is to regulate or control a society (or aspects of it, including warfare, technology, etc.) then it actually makes some sense, depending on the context. It sounds a bit like the way things were set up in Early Dune novels. Or perhaps a variation on the Prime Directive (the non retarded one.)

Hell its an idea I'd considered for SW and 40K at times to explain their OWN military stupidity on occasions.

That's idiotic. If supersonic (and seriously, modern day pistol bullets are supersonic as often as not) gyrojet tarket seekers are outside inigeneous technology the mercenary's don't get to use them either by that setup.

If I gather what they're saying correctly, they're limited to the limits of whatever the planet's technology level is, but they can use basically anything up to the limits of that freely. The gyrojet example might be a bad one, but it basically means 'stuff that is rare or expensive militarily for us nowadays would be easily accessible and common' for them. They wouldn't have an OMFGHUGE advantage militarily, but they'd have a significant one all the same.)

An easier analogue might be to say if they fought an enemy that was in the 19th century where flintlock muskets are common, they might be able to make rifled and/or breechloading weapons to outfit themselves easily, which would provide a considerable advantage (not not neccesarily an unbeatable one.)