> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:35 PM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote:
>
> That seems extremely unlikely, since there are really only two types
> of missiles that make much sense: those that kill by kinetic impact,
> and those that kill by nuclear detonation.

Upon a little more thought on the subject, missile development in the OTU has likely been largely ignored *because* of the existence of spinal and bay Meson/PA weapons. In the absence of those options, I think that there will be a much wider array of missile options and defenses/counter-defenses/counter-counter-defenses in place.

I think Weber’s Harrington-style space combat would be more likely. Granted he did it because ‘Hornblower in Spaaaaaace’ was what he wanted, with English capital ships of the line, lining up and pounding the evil French ships with cannons*, but in the absence of ship-killing energy weapons, that’s pretty much all that’s left.

Fighters are just slower, manned missiles, so they’re right out.

* ('Rob Pierre’? REALLY, David?? That’s where the HH series just turned to banal mush for me. Too bad because the first book was good, second was OK, but it went way downhill after that, imo)

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs