[OOC] Untold Empires: Legacy of the Old

[darkwolf687]

Or me or Yugoslavia could just blast their asteroid with our orbital weaponry...

[null123]

WilsonTurner said
I think it'd be pretty obvious if a Ceres Independence ship fired on someone. Cause, you know... it'd go up... and up... 1.and then it'd accelerate to a speed so fast that it looks more like it disappeared.2. And the best part is, no one can do ANYTHING to the Ceres Independence! You can starve them, in which they'll lash out at all those Mars and Lunar colonies and steal all their foods. Yum. And then they'd rush with hydroponics and start ice-mining again. You'd only take out, like, half of them, and seriously piss them all off. 3.You'd be getting airstrikes with weapons that need resources beyond what can be easily found on Earth. And to meet CI ships in space would be to spell death for you as well, because they are unparalleled in terms of space technology and combat....

1.No
2 People can do crap to you
3.While you do you have slighty more advanced weapons, that doesn't mean they cant be built on earth.

[WilsonTurner]

pffft
you'd cause minimal damage, if any

[null123]

No
The factions with weapons platforms could cause major damage
And if you want to argue with me, I am the GM.

[null123]

Also Im gonna take control of the Empire of America until you guys decide you wanna take control of it.

[WilsonTurner]

duck55223 said
NoThe factions with weapons platforms could cause major damageAnd if you want to argue with me, I am the GM.

I don't have any orbital offense platforms. I have point defense for missiles and ballistic weapons, and then railguns and missiles to shoot at incoming fighters, bombers, etc. Nothing that can get through the atmosphere.

By the way, I'm tempted to have the Ceres Independence launch air strikes against the Empire of America. They do have the capability, and energy screens would keep them from getting shot down, countermeasures to help keep most missiles off its tail. And the loss of the central hub for the area's command and control would allow the riots and rebels to gain the upper hand.

[Keyguyperson]

WilsonTurner said
I don't have any orbital offense platforms. I have point defense for missiles and ballistic weapons, and then railguns and missiles to shoot at incoming fighters, bombers, etc. Nothing that can get through the atmosphere.By the way, I'm tempted to have the Ceres Independence launch air strikes against the Empire of America. They do have the capability, and energy screens would keep them from getting shot down, countermeasures to help keep most missiles off its tail. And the loss of the central hub for the area's command and control would allow the riots and rebels to gain the upper hand.

To be honest, this strategy totally makes sense. Lasers, however, would definitely do some damage.

darkwolf687 said
Honestly? I think the entire world would know about a war fleet landing in America. The Empire of America likely has noticed. I don't recall if they have satellites, but this is the late 21st century... You know, where you cant sneak war fleets around the coast line of a foreign country, especially one which is likely watching for invasion anyway... Any country which isn't now would be insane The ships entering their water would be enough to make the Commonwealths demands relevant anywayOf course, I am assuming you launched from ships, if not you skipped over half his empire. He would have detected your planes coming in, and if they flew from Antarctic they likely passed near my lands and just beyond that is the EoA so its not had to call it an invasion because you flew military planes into his air space. To conclude: Thanks to your planes, it would take a miracle for the imperials NOT to have found that base now, and another miracle for the Empires neighbours not to have noticed you flew planes into his country. And that's nit even considering satellites, which make both of those even more likely.

It was a few aircraft flying over an area confirmed to be rebel territory, the Commonwealth had no idea about the aircraft and the EoA obviously doesn't know because if they did, then the town would have been conquered long ago.

[ASTA]

Somewhat interested in the RP, but first thing's first:

@Wilson:

Space assets aren't immune to ground-based retaliation.

With the advent of the spy satellite, anti-satellite weapons were created as a respectable counter to such daunting technology. Space stations, no matter the armor that they sport, aren't going to stand up to the point-blank detonation of a nuclear missile launched from a mass driver, a combustion light-gas gun, an electrothermal chemical gun, or your run-of-the-mill air superiority fighter. Integrating a nuclear-shaped charge into such a missile enables the projectile to not only deliver its payload from a much longer range, but it also does far more damage than a conventional nuclear weapon of similar size could output, as the radiation and heat generated from the explosion is focused in the shape of a cone as opposed to a rapidly-expanding ball. Bomb-pumped lasers are also a viable, cheap and disposal solution to spaceborne assets.

You can also use standard rocket-assisted 'smart' shells that can correct their own courses. Much cheaper, though perhaps less reliable. Unsure.

Ground weaponry can also be made larger, more powerful and be better protected than any space station or military-grade spaceship that 2080-era Earth can conceivably come up with due to the very strict weight, internal volume and cost limitations forced upon spacecraft and space stations. Hiding your launch facilities and gun platforms within Mount Everest, for example, affords you nigh-immunity to spacebased weaponry. If a mountain can laugh off a multi-megaton yield nuclear weapon, it's going to laugh off a railgun shot with impunity---especially one fired from space, which is going to be smaller. The threat of bunker-buster munitions grating on your nerves? Dig your bunkers deeper, for you have the mining technology to do it. Reinforced tunnels and hardened bunkers are unbelievably resistant to kinetic-based munitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_nuclear_bunker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_light_gas_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun

Information on plausible space weaponry:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

[WilsonTurner]

Point defense would be used against fighters, bombers, missiles, and if they are detected before they come into range, ballistic weaponry such as high-density rounds and the like.

Lasers would be most efficient in space for use as point defense: more powerful lasers would be powerful, but would be stressful on energy because of its energy-guzzling properties, even for the CI's fusion reactors, which are the best energy reactors known. I say this because these fusion reactors have to keep these shuttles going for millions of kilometers without breaking down, sputtering, or the smallest malfunction, and they are powering countless systems, including life support.

Larger weapons would be used against larger targets. Right now, a place such as Ceres, a fortified dug-in position that is inside a landmass of some kind would require very, very powerful weapons. As in 20 megaton nuclear warheads or greater to just start scratching the surface. If there are space battles, it won't be decided by how many large ships, but rather how many small ones. Fighters and bombers would be instrumental, because they are easier to man and build, and they can attack with more accuracy. Missiles and light energy weapons could be attached, and would make someone having carriers and the other not be the deciding factor in a battle.

[The Captain]

I find it questionable that radar can be used to detect a dozen-plus people in the woods who are wearing heat-masked ghillie suits and the like, and that the Antarcticans could just advance on them across the field between the tree-line and the structures with impunity. If anything, the drone would be picked up on. Not the Sons of Liberty's favorite infiltrators and bushwhackers. The drone is the only thing making any sudden movements, and that's a dinner-plate sized robot about two hundred meters up in the air. The rest of them are hundreds of meters away in the woods.

They're flanking these guys, who are most certainly watching their rear and flanks, in white armor. That's not going to work.

[WilsonTurner]

And in response to ASTA, I say this:

One: This isn't armor. This is an energy screen, and THEN armor. The energy screen would take most of the nuclear detonation.
Two: Point defense, including the railguns that are also meant to be shooting at any shuttles or fighters or something will also fire on a nuclear missile or shell.
Three: Pulse lasers are also on the New Point, and would also hit a nuclear missile or projectile.
Four: Correct your missile's or your projectile's course in-transit won't do anything. The targeting system will take note and will compensate.
Five: A bunker so deep that a bunker buster won't break it would mean that you wouldn't be able to fire from it, either. It'd be a safe place, not a fire-a-missile place.

A fighter wouldn't be able to get close, and a missile wouldn't either. And if a nuclear weapon were to hit the energy screen, the station might take medium damage, but would not be destroyed. Then, you'd piss of the Ceres Independence, and they'll go looking for uranium-rich sources, or, even better, they'll start an antimatter program. A ten-megaton nuclear weapon wouldn't be able to compare to the same with antimatter.

[null123]

Wilson
You are parading the "op i am powerful and invincible lel" thing otherwise

Nuclear weapons would wipe out your stations
Adjust according to what ATSA has to say or I have a hammer to whack you with.

[WilsonTurner]

A nuclear missile is a projectile moving at high speeds, and from what he is saying, from the Earth, up to orbit, to the station.

I am saying that the station would detect it and use the satellites' manuevering rockets to move into a lower orbit, and use lasers and railguns to intercept the missile. I'm not saying that they are 100% accurate, but I AM saying that if you fire a missile like that from long range, or extreme range, then I will detect it, and I will move defenses in its way. Interceptor missiles, pulse lasers, light railguns.

If you want to hit the station with a nuclear weapon, bring up a ship to deposit it within a range too close for the point defense to wipe it out. I've been reading all about interstellar warfare, and quite simply, you gotta get close. If you fire a great deal of them, 5 or more, then I would not be able to efficiently counter them, if they are fired at the same time. Two or three would get through.

I am not saying I am invincible. I am saying that you can't just fire from a long distance and forget about it. It won't work. The Ceres Independence is the only nation that is exclusively space-based, with some of the best space-centered technology. They have sublight, though they won't say anything about it. If they could get it into a small enough shell [which won't happen for at least fifty years to another century], then they could make a sublight missile that really would be impossible to intercept. But if you fire a regular missile from Earth to target the New Point station, then it will be intercepted. One missile would mean the end for the Ceres Independence, because they currently can't build another station, nor could they be able to reestablish trade with their clients on the ground, and one of two storage spaces would be gone. It'd be disastrous, and there would be no saving the Ceres Independence. Shuttles could still make it, but it'd take a toll on them to keep going back and forth, and the mining ships are too slow.

Quite simply, it's perfectly plausible to keep a nuclear missile from hitting New Point, and New Point is one of two population centers of the Ceres Independence. It'd be like taking a missile and wiping out a fourth of the US in one hit. I couldn't, can't, let that happen, or it'd be the end.

So if a single missile can take out New Point, regardless of its defenses, then there isn't very much point, is there? The Ceres Independence is so advanced, but they are also very small and vulnerable, whatwith being remote. They can't afford to not take precautions to intercept nuclear missiles, or some other kind of weapon that would destroy the New Point. Strategically, the New Point isn't worth much anyways without the Ceres Shuttles. They are the only ones with the right docking rings, and the station doesn't have an orbital weapons. All the satellites can do is move very slowly, for a very limited amount of time before having to get more fuel. All the station can do is act as a communications hub and storage bay. And as a town, since the Ceres is short on space.

What is it, tl;dr?

Tl;dr, it's too dangerous to allow one of two Ceres population centers to be easily taken out with one or two missiles, so the station has its own defenses to protect against it.

[Keyguyperson]

Apologies. I guess I was overestimating the tree density. I also find myself questioning my use of radar, to be honest, I don;t know what I was thinking.
Actually, it was probably "Move faster plot! Move faster!". Correcting it now.

[The Captain]

Keyguyperson said
Apologies. I guess I was overestimating the tree density. I also find myself questioning my use of radar, to be honest, I don;t know what I was thinking.Actually, it was probably "Move faster plot! Move faster!". Correcting it now.

Thanks. It's all good, it's just that these guys are taking the necessary precautions to avoid this sort of run-in.

[ASTA]

Point defense would be used against fighters, bombers, missiles, and if they are detected before they come into range, ballistic weaponry such as high-density rounds and the like.

Lasers would be most efficient in space for use as point defense: more powerful lasers would be powerful, but would be stressful on energy because of its energy-guzzling properties, even for the CI's fusion reactors, which are the best energy reactors known. I say this because these fusion reactors have to keep these shuttles going for millions of kilometers without breaking down, sputtering, or the smallest malfunction, and they are powering countless systems, including life support.

Larger weapons would be used against larger targets. Right now, a place such as Ceres, a fortified dug-in position that is inside a landmass of some kind would require very, very powerful weapons. As in 20 megaton nuclear warheads or greater to just start scratching the surface. If there are space battles, it won't be decided by how many large ships, but rather how many small ones. Fighters and bombers would be instrumental, because they are easier to man and build, and they can attack with more accuracy. Missiles and light energy weapons could be attached, and would make someone having carriers and the other not be the deciding factor in a battle.

I’m unsure what laser technology is like in this particular setting, but I think it should be noted that lasers take time to destroy a target; lasers are dissimilar to standard ordinance, such as conventional cannons, coilgun, railgun, or any of the two unique gun types I listed in the post predating this one, in that they do not have the ability to score a disabling hit upon an incoming missile with a single round. Cannons and the sort do (for obvious reasons).

If you do have access to lasers of such high caliber, I will begin to question how you’re dealing with the waste heat and how the optical technology you’re using in such a laser is able to withstand a beam of such intensity without failing. Depending on the pulse rate of the laser, the spectrum you’re using, the material your laser is trying to burn through, the presence of suitable electronic countermeasures/stealth technology (disrupting the laser’s fire-control systems by jamming the space station’s radar suite, IR-targeting module or otherwise creating a very stealthy cruise missile of sorts), your station could fall to an incoming missile without even realizing it. Missiles could also be deployed on the other side of the planet and ride the Earth’s orbit towards your station—engines cold and undetectable--- with the missile’s stealth systems engaged until it was within suitable striking distance. The missile could even be equipped with an ablative surface that takes the brunt of the laser beam by burning away in the process. An active-cooling casing could also be integrated into the missile system, which would allow it to further resist laser fire.

Also, point-defense is not infallible. The modern CIWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system)—which is mounted on modern warships to protect them against anti-ship missiles—has a relatively poor success rate. You could increase the chances of scoring a hit against a missile by implementing overlapping coverage with many CIWS-type units, but then the enemy could simply saturate your point-defense by launching literal missile swarms. You can’t shoot all of them down, Wilson. That’s not how real-life PD works. Even railgun point-defense is not perfect, because you still need to keep in mind that railgun rounds still are constrained by travel time.

It’s rather foolish to think that missiles suddenly stop developing because railguns and lasers come on the scene.

One: This isn't armor. This is an energy screen, and THEN armor. The energy screen would take most of the nuclear detonation.
Two: Point defense, including the railguns that are also meant to be shooting at any shuttles or fighters or something will also fire on a nuclear missile or shell.
Three: Pulse lasers are also on the New Point, and would also hit a nuclear missile or projectile.
Four: Correct your missile's or your projectile's course in-transit won't do anything. The targeting system will take note and will compensate.
Five: A bunker so deep that a bunker buster won't break it would mean that you wouldn't be able to fire from it, either. It'd be a safe place, not a fire-a-missile place.

A fighter wouldn't be able to get close, and a missile wouldn't either. And if a nuclear weapon were to hit the energy screen, the station might take medium damage, but would not be destroyed. Then, you'd piss of the Ceres Independence, and they'll go looking for uranium-rich sources, or, even better, they'll start an antimatter program. A ten-megaton nuclear weapon wouldn't be able to compare to the same with antimatter.

I’m going to assume that this energy screen is a standard science fiction energy shield. When something hits it, one of several things will occur:

1) The shield will lose energy and eventually collapse from enduring too much energy. Suitable time passing will cause the shield to reappear.

2) The shield will stop the projectile from penetrating, but it will not stop the projectile’s momentum from being imparted onto your station. Ballistic vests work on this same basic principle, in that while a round may not penetrate the vest, the ribs are still broken, bruises still form and the body’s internal organs may suffer damage. However, the wearer of the vest still lives.

3) You’re trying to pass this shield off as an invincible barrier of doom, in which case you need to reexamine your nation and correct it as Duck instructs you too.

As for armor:

A nuclear missile is pretty much going to vaporize whatever you’re coating your station in. Did you read any of the links that I posted? They’re rather interesting reads if I do say so myself. Try Googling the effects of a nuclear explosion, or perhaps question Google about the temperatures generated by the detonation of a nuclear armament.

Also, you can still fire from a deep bunker. Why wouldn't you be able to? Have you ever seen a shore gun emplacement before? What about the ballistic missile sites that are buried around the United States?

EDIT:

Wilson, if you are worried about your nation suddenly being wiped out, you should take into consideration three things:

1) No one is going to randomly destroy your nation. That would be powerplaying and, quite frankly, not very fun.

2) As a vulnerable space-based nation, your faction should seriously consider not attacking the surface of planets. Your faction is woefully outgunned when compared to even one of the smaller powers of Earth. They can and will destroy you if you anger them.

3) I’m shocked your faction hasn’t been greased already, because you do in fact pose a serious risk to national security seeing as how you’re making use of very powerful surveillance equipment and can attack cities, military bases and other ground targets with shocking ease.

[The Captain]

ASTA said
I’m unsure what laser technology is like in this particular setting, but I think it should be noted that lasers take time to destroy a target; lasers are dissimilar to standard ordinance, such as conventional cannons, coilgun, railgun, or any of the two unique gun types I listed in the post predating this one, in that they do not have the ability to score a disabling hit upon an incoming missile with a single round. Cannons and the sort do (for obvious reasons). If you do have access to lasers of such high caliber, I will begin to question how you’re dealing with the waste heat and how the optical technology you’re using in such a laser is able to withstand a beam of such intensity without failing. Depending on the pulse rate of the laser, the spectrum you’re using, the material your laser is trying to burn through, the presence of suitable electronic countermeasures/stealth technology (disrupting the laser’s fire-control systems by jamming the space station’s radar suite, IR-targeting module or otherwise creating a very stealthy cruise missile of sorts), your station could fall to an incoming missile without even realizing it. Missiles could also be deployed on the other side of the planet and ride the Earth’s orbit towards your station—engines cold and undetectable--- with the missile’s stealth systems engaged until it was within suitable striking distance. The missile could even be equipped with an ablative surface that takes the brunt of the laser beam by burning away in the process. An active-cooling casing could also be integrated into the missile system, which would allow it to further resist laser fire. Also, point-defense is not infallible. The modern CIWS ()—which is mounted on modern warships to protect them against anti-ship missiles—has a relatively poor success rate. You could increase the chances of scoring a hit against a missile by implementing overlapping coverage with many CIWS-type units, but then the enemy could simply saturate your point-defense by launching literal missile swarms. You can’t shoot all of them down, Wilson. That’s not how real-life PD works. Even railgun point-defense is not perfect, because you still need to keep in mind that railgun rounds still are constrained by travel time. It’s rather foolish to think that missiles suddenly stop developing because railguns and lasers come on the scene. I’m going to assume that this energy screen is a standard science fiction energy shield. When something hits it, one of several things will occur:1) The shield will lose energy and eventually collapse from enduring too much energy. Suitable time passing will cause the shield to reappear. 2) The shield will stop the projectile from penetrating, but it will not stop the projectile’s momentum from being imparted onto your station. Ballistic vests work on this same basic principle, in that while a round may not penetrate the vest, the ribs are still broken, bruises still form and the body’s internal organs may suffer damage. However, the wearer of the vest still lives.3) You’re trying to pass this shield off as an invincible barrier of doom, in which case you need to reexamine your nation and correct it as Duck instructs you too. As for armor:A nuclear missile is pretty much going to vaporize whatever you’re coating your station in. Did you read any of the links that I posted? They’re rather interesting reads if I do say so myself. Try Googling the effects of a nuclear explosion, or perhaps question Google about the temperatures generated by the detonation of a nuclear armament. Also, you can still fire from a deep bunker. Why wouldn't you be able to? Have you ever seen a shore gun emplacement before? What about the ballistic missile sites that are buried around the United States?

And this is also discounting the capabilities of a MIRV missile, which would further confound said point-defense systems.

And, well, push comes to shove it wouldn't be uneconomical to just shove an asteroid into Ceres Independence installations, if we're already at the point of space combat.

[Senor Herp]

Oh god everything is so hard sci-fi all of a sudden. I don't know if I should cry in joy or terror. How long until this becomes matte gray space-dildo missile boats skating blind on greased gravitational ice while trying very hard to not melt from inability to dump waste heat?

[null123]

The Captain said
And this is also discounting the capabilities of a MIRV missile, which would further confound said point-defense systems.And, well, push comes to shove it wouldn't be uneconomical to just shove an asteroid into Ceres Independence installations, if we're already at the point of space combat.

Space combat at this point shpuld should really only be snall fighters and rail-guns strapped to sattilites

Wilson make corrections according to what ATSA has said

Also im gonna be at school tomorrow so im probably going to be inactive.

[WilsonTurner]

ASTA said
I’m unsure what laser technology is like in this particular setting, but I think it should be noted that lasers take time to destroy a target; lasers are dissimilar to standard ordinance, such as conventional cannons, coilgun, railgun, or any of the two unique gun types I listed in the post predating this one, in that they do not have the ability to score a disabling hit upon an incoming missile with a single round. Cannons and the sort do (for obvious reasons). If you do have access to lasers of such high caliber, I will begin to question how you’re dealing with the waste heat and how the optical technology you’re using in such a laser is able to withstand a beam of such intensity without failing. Depending on the pulse rate of the laser, the spectrum you’re using, the material your laser is trying to burn through, the presence of suitable electronic countermeasures/stealth technology (disrupting the laser’s fire-control systems by jamming the space station’s radar suite, IR-targeting module or otherwise creating a very stealthy cruise missile of sorts), your station could fall to an incoming missile without even realizing it. Missiles could also be deployed on the other side of the planet and ride the Earth’s orbit towards your station—engines cold and undetectable--- with the missile’s stealth systems engaged until it was within suitable striking distance. The missile could even be equipped with an ablative surface that takes the brunt of the laser beam by burning away in the process. An active-cooling casing could also be integrated into the missile system, which would allow it to further resist laser fire. Also, point-defense is not infallible. The modern CIWS ()—which is mounted on modern warships to protect them against anti-ship missiles—has a relatively poor success rate. You could increase the chances of scoring a hit against a missile by implementing overlapping coverage with many CIWS-type units, but then the enemy could simply saturate your point-defense by launching literal missile swarms. You can’t shoot all of them down, Wilson. That’s not how real-life PD works. Even railgun point-defense is not perfect, because you still need to keep in mind that railgun rounds still are constrained by travel time. It’s rather foolish to think that missiles suddenly stop developing because railguns and lasers come on the scene. I’m going to assume that this energy screen is a standard science fiction energy shield. When something hits it, one of several things will occur:1) The shield will lose energy and eventually collapse from enduring too much energy. Suitable time passing will cause the shield to reappear. 2) The shield will stop the projectile from penetrating, but it will not stop the projectile’s momentum from being imparted onto your station. Ballistic vests work on this same basic principle, in that while a round may not penetrate the vest, the ribs are still broken, bruises still form and the body’s internal organs may suffer damage. However, the wearer of the vest still lives.3) You’re trying to pass this shield off as an invincible barrier of doom, in which case you need to reexamine your nation and correct it as Duck instructs you too. As for armor:A nuclear missile is pretty much going to vaporize whatever you’re coating your station in. Did you read any of the links that I posted? They’re rather interesting reads if I do say so myself. Try Googling the effects of a nuclear explosion, or perhaps question Google about the temperatures generated by the detonation of a nuclear armament. Also, you can still fire from a deep bunker. Why wouldn't you be able to? Have you ever seen a shore gun emplacement before? What about the ballistic missile sites that are buried around the United States?EDIT: Wilson, if you are worried about your nation suddenly being wiped out, you should take into consideration three things:1) No one is going to randomly destroy your nation. That would be powerplaying and, quite frankly, not very fun. 2) As a vulnerable space-based nation, your faction should seriously consider not attacking the surface of planets. Your faction is woefully outgunned when compared to even one of the smaller powers of Earth. They can and will destroy you if you anger them. 3) I’m shocked your faction hasn’t been greased already, because you do in fact pose a serious risk to national security seeing as how you’re making use of very powerful surveillance equipment and can attack cities, military bases and other ground targets with shocking ease.

The Captain said
And this is also discounting the capabilities of a MIRV missile, which would further confound said point-defense systems.And, well, push comes to shove it wouldn't be uneconomical to just shove an asteroid into Ceres Independence installations, if we're already at the point of space combat.

.

.

The Ceres Independence has two installations. Ceres, and New Point. They have nothing else.

Ceres has an impentrable armor, called a giant asteroid, and has point defense and intercepter missiles on chunks of asteroid taken off of Ceres and moved into an artificial orbit around Ceres. And there are point defense on Ceres. And shuttles could be launched with more intercepter missiles.

New Point, on the other hand, has only a dozen hand-made defensive satellites meant to exclusively protect it from harm. Multiple targets will get through, but one or two will not.

And the energy screens are sort of number one: they absorb the blast and the energy goes down. However, they recover. If you fire steadily at it, it'll take much longer than firing everything you have in one barrage, because the screen keeps regenerating. The energy screens work from a fusion reactor, not a giant battery. The fusion reactor will pump up energy output to 100% and continue to do so as long as the energy screen needs energy. If there are half a Class 3 Mark-VI fusion reactors, the likeliness of someone blasting their way through the energy screen is very small. However, there is only two Class 3 Mark-V fusion reactors, and they are both, more or less, experimental versions with engineering crews refining it every time something might come up.

A nuclear missile will damage, but the station is not small. It's not like today's ISS. It's much bigger, and holds well over one hundred people. Over five hundred. There are miners, station crew, extra pilots, a couple squads of CI marines, researchers and scientists, engineering crew and construction workers.

A nuclear missile would certainly break the current energy screen, but the CI are trying to make it so that it won't. Nuclear missiles are the most common space-faring missiles, since they go up and back down. An engagement between to space powers would undoubtedly be measured by who can withstand more nuclear missiles, with the line of thinking you all inhabit.

And you say everything as if point defense would not have advanced. As if it would have stayed the same or become inferior, even though scientists that are closer to a feat that no one else has even begun to encounter the possibility of are also working on making point defense efficient and powerful enough to stop weapons before they are tested against energy screens.

You are not going to be talking about how everything would be so against point defense if it could have advanced farther than missiles have. I do not see missiles being fired every day across oceans. There is not as much need to make an anti-point defense missile, and so the funding and progress of such would not be as fast as a group of researchers with materials that others would never get in the same amounts with technology that is more durable than others with as much funding as they need. It is lower priority elsewhere to make weapons that would render point defense useless, while the advancement and usefulness of point defense is vital for the Ceres, and so it will be going much faster than the anti.

So no, you would not be able to just wipe out the station with a flick of your finger. If push comes to shove, the station would be evacuated and pushed out of orbit, towards, say, the Moon. Then they would start claiming the Moon and Mars for the Ceres Independence, claiming that because they are unwelcome in Earth and in orbit around it, they'll just absorb all those superexpensive colonies up there like the Antarcticans did to the Antarctic outposts countless years before.

And besides, you sound more like this is supposed to be superrealistic instead of just a roleplay. Point defense will have expanded more than the superduper unstoppable missiles that you keep blathering on about, and Duck has already said no orbital weapons platforms, which means you won't have the type that fires nuclear missiles or projectiles in the first place, which eliminates the need to have advancement in that area in the immediate future.

The New Point is safe from nuclear attack unless you waste more than two missiles on it.