PLANETARY DEFENSE | How to protect your world from invasion [FIXED]

Generic greetings and welcome to science insanity, a channel dedicated to bringing my love of sci-fi to you. Today we're covering planetary defenses, how they work, what they do and what the different types of them are. So settle in and get ready to learn how to protect your world from all the nasty, filthy, disgusting xeno filth trying to invade it.
Want to support SCI? Check out our patreon to get access to our content a day early and send some space bucks out our way to improve the channel:
patreon.com/ScienceInsanity

[@be-noble3393]

Garrison Forces are like Locks: They make sure honest people stay that way!

[@ironboy3245]

Hi this is the lockpicking lawyer

[@justiron2999]

​@@ironboy3245About to use C6 Plastic explosives on this titanium A graded lock.

[@DTSephiroth]

"A locked door invites thieves." -Unknown

[@jaisummons2304]

​@@ironboy3245 And this is who you take out a planet just use a ship using hyper beam and launch another planet to the planet to take out a locked up planet.

[@CaptainRhodor]

I just love the Fermi Steam Cannon as an anti-invasion weapon. Imagine the utter disrespect of smacking down a ship capable of interstellar or even intergalactic travel with a manhole cover traveling at the *_exit velocity of the solar system_*.

[@8vantor8]

ah yes, that time we shot a manhole cover into orbit with a nuclear bomb

[@Thetankracer]

@@8vantor8 (Depending on your current view of the world) That is either the most American or Russian thing I have ever heard of and I would love to see that as an actual weapon! (Btw I have heard of the story before and I know it was the us that did it)

[@8vantor8]

@@Thetankracer well, it was the US who did it, so its the most american thing ever

[@Thetankracer]

@@8vantor8 Did you click the read more below my comment? I already know it was the us XD

[@8vantor8]

@@Thetankracer and i was using that fact to say it was the most american thing ever, sense we are the ones who did it

[@Girubev]

Another two things to touch on regarding megastructures: they take a very VERY long time to complete compared to other forms of defense, and they are quite likely to be detected during their build stage when they are at their most vulnerable as shown in Return of the Jedi. They're a sort of "win more" thing when it comes to game theory, because you would never invest the time and resources if your other defenses are weaker than a potential opponent because they would simply rush in and not let you complete it, if you're of equal strength you can't afford to divert said time and resources to not fall behind in the eternal arms race and become the weaker faction, and if you're the stronger faction then you never particularly needed the megastructure in the first place. They have their place when a faction is trying to futureproof itself from some unforeseen outside enemy like Stellaris' crises or stave off the inevitable turn of the wheel when their civilization collapses, but against one's immediate neighbors and rivals megastructural defenses seem to have more cons than pros.

[@warlock64c]

I believe their viability would depend on travel times and sensor tech. In star wars, a purely military megastructure would absolutely be spotted before completion and possibly attacked. In halo however, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of ftl sensor systems. You could have decades to invest before discovery and longer before any potential attack. Not to mention that it's almost guaranteed to have multiple purposes for each structure.

[@mill2712]

​@@warlock64c Even in star wars it took the rebels around 20 years to find out there was a death star over Scarris. In a non FTL universe by the time you see your enemy or even just another race building a megastructure, it's too late. In a slow one, they have more time to prepare for any would-be attackers.

[@cpp3221]

Let's not forget that very advanced civilization could achieve Megastructures in a very short time. Just to give an idea, during WW1, the Germans were able to pull out of their ass a defensive lines with what was thought as the most advanced defense system possible : the Hindenburg line. Althought it didn't fare well against combined arm offensives of the allies, it was still the most advanced network a civilisation could offer, and was constructed in a very short time. Maginot could be an exemple of that too. So, it's not crazy to imagine that any Type II/III civlisation on the Kardashev scale could build Megastructure in a matter of a few year. Which is usually sufficient in peace time.

[@arbelico2]

The best option in reference to "megastructures" is to take advantage of celestial objects such as asteroids and convert them into fortresses or use them as kinetic weapons directing their fall or converting them into shrapnel to "sweep" an area.

[@emberthecatgirl8796]

No. The whole point of megastructures is futureproofing. Your megastructure has to be a quasi-independent and nigh-indestructible structure. The Death Stars are actually a great example of a megastructure done right. It can operate independently for a long period of time and was all but indestructible, making the immense cost pay back in dividends… or at least it would’ve been if the Death Star didn’t share the flaws common in all Imperial projects. It is still a huge commitment to base your military around a single point of failure, but it’s a better choice than excessive R&D spendings or overproduction of miliary assets.

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

Something else to mention that was overlooked here is building facilities deep inside a planet. You can mine resources, use them to make munitions, and build facilities in the cleared space, the deeper the better. Even if the enemy clears out your space-based defenses, if hatches keep appearing on the planet below and belching out missiles, railgun rounds, and attack craft into the orbitals and system beyond, it wouldn't do them much good. They'd need something Death Star tier to literally blow the planet apart if they want to fully control and utilize the system without constant streams of incoming fire.

[@mill2712]

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Yes you absolutely can dig deep to protect yourself, your manufacturing capabilities and your population from bombardment. And I'm not talking about a couple hundred meters under the soil. We're talking tens to hundreds of kilometers of soil, stone or even magma if you can withstand the heat and pressure. You won't run out of raw materials. Ever. So you can continue to manufacture, deploy, repair, and replace any surface to orbit cannons, drones, or even ships you lose. Also different worlds would be more useful than others. Lower gravity worlds like Mars or Mercury would be easier to dig down in and moons (Particularly icy moons like Europa or Triton) would be a great candidate for such a defensive tactic since at those temperatures, ice might as well be rock and you got miles of it.

[@arbelico2]

Undoubtedly it is a totally effective tactic , but once the positive aerospace control is lost , the enemy can set up a network of satellites with sensors and weapons to go " goading " the defenders , in regards to the advance by land the best option is to seal/flood the tunnels that are found. Something similar was raised in the 1991 Gulf War. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iITUfKtpe6xjgtk&ab_channel=TheOperationsRoom

[@theanathema3062]

@@mill2712also, it would maybe make the enemy less likely to use the exterminatus option. Think about it. A world with that much industrial output would be so useful to your forces, if you can take it. So there is a chance the enemy would rather spend years sieging a system and planet instead of just trying to glass the thing and being done with it. And that buys time for the defenders nation to build up their fleet in order to counter attack.

[@Guardsman-sy8qm]

Or they'd need to take the planet.

[@Comicsluvr]

One of the things that may have been shown in Star Wars books or animated work, but not in the films, was the way the Empire wasted a lot of resources on overkill. Sure, a star destroyer is great as the backbone of a fleet or even as a single unit, but it's a waste when chasing down a handful of pirates or rebels. This is why most of the wet navies of Earth have warships for fighting and coast guards for anti-piracy and S&R operations.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

The Empire was really into oversized solutions.

[@igncom1]

I've always been fascinated by the idea of planetary defences so vast, that the planet beneath them is more like a colossal heat sink that the enemy attackers must overcome. Unless the mass of the enemies heat sinks matches that of the defenders, then they might need alternative methods of nullifying the threat. And that's before the enemy starts recycling the heat for more power!

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Unless the population on the planet is massive (with their own massive infrastructure and logistic needs) no fleet would get close to reaching the mass of a planet. They would either bring their own planet to attack, or come with such overwhelming force that simply destroying the planet ouright is the easier option.

[@ALPHA.Mods.1]

There is one scifi that used core taps to power some crazy weapons, and the whole planet was turned into basically a no-go zone, as it provided enough firepower to take on the largest fleets, almost single handedly. AND they put it at a nexus point

[@gilmadreth680]

Primary tenant of Planetary Defense Platforms: I will keep shooting till my last breath because some dipshit didn't give me engines

[@Ribbons0121R121]

USS no-go

[@TheStartrek99]

But engines would divert power from the daka, and you always need more daka.

[@damongraham1398]

I really like the "The Fleet in Being" idea. I love reading about a construction worker, lawyer, and doctor all receiving a letter from the government. Time to fulfill your promise of duty in their time of need. The three end up in the same warship as the bosun, captain, and doctor that is about 3 or even 5 generation older then what is currently deployed by the government. Since they have no time to update these old warships. The are place in units where one or two current gen warship are tied into their sensors to help the older gen warships to be able to throw more missiles or laser at one time. Making what you got work in the time you have.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Or to add another interesting layer: The civilization is attempting to update their old ships, but the process is slow and often done with duct tape.

[@damongraham1398]

@@HappyBeezerStudios isn't that what I said?🤔

[@HyperMAX9001]

@@HappyBeezerStudios Skip the tape, make inflatable battleships!

[@sharojak9401]

@@HyperMAX9001 You are joking but this is exactly what the humans do in my universe.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

I've always seen planetary defense as a multi layer setup. From outside inwards: - A fleet that can move around to intercept invaders, but also transport troops or relief materials. The ships can also move to other allied systems or run counter offenses. They are the mobile operation for all kinds of missions. From military, to exploration, to logistics. The fleet would be bigger than what is in active service. Be it for refits and updates or simply to save costs. And if a ship gets damaged, pull it back and replace it with one from the mothballed reserves. - Next with systems at the edge of the influence. So stations in solar orbit that can track and catch invaders if they just visit the system. Their use is also to guard the border and control traffic. - Next would be orbital systems around any inhabited planets. A vast satellite array that can secure the orbit. They would be the main part of the defense and can be reinforced by fleet operations. Combined with orbital stations to dock and resupply ships. - Next ground systems. Like a network of cannons or silos that can target orbit and airspace. Basically the last line of defense that isn't active for most of the time, but are cheap to build and activate. - Infantry/robots/drones/etc would be placed on all layers. From crews to operate the stations, ships and cannons, to boarding parties and ground armies. All of the space and ground systems would have not only weapons for attack, but also defensive features (point defense guns, shields, armor, etc) And generally I would step away from any kind of massive super weapon outside of prestige projects. They are simply impractical. They can only be at one place at a time, and enemy tactics might include luring it to a different place. Two simultaneous attacks at different places leave one of those places without super weapon. Plus it puts lots of resources into one single thing. Resources that could be used to build a complete fleet of smaller structures that can be spread out to cover a vast region, or concentrated for a combined strike.

[@Imbetterlookingthanyou]

Aliens that can travel the stars will have no issues deflecting these types of weapons.

[@jtjames79]

Last ditch effort, intentional Kessler syndrome.

[@darth_dan8886]

I think there is actually so much more to talk about when it comes to "passive" or "other" defences. When someone invades YOUR system, you have a lot of home advantage to potentially leverage. Hidden instalations in asteroid belts or behind moons, industrial complexes ready to be retooled within hours to produce a swarm of low cost attack drones, portions of the fleet stationed off the beaten path ready to hit the enemy's flanks or rear... There is so many possibilities there.

[@davidarimond5762]

14:25 missed opportunity here to use Space Balls planetary shield as an example. “Remember kids stay off my fracking lawn unless you have the passcode! Boys remind me to change the code to my luggage!”

[@davidarimond5762]

And yes you other nerds I know that’s not the quote. It’s an example line for the video. Frack off! 😂

[@Bombers57]

1,2,3,4,5

[@vi6ddarkking]

The ultimate in planetary defense The Behemoth Planetcraft. AKA the planet that we made into a battleship. Stellaris mods are fun.

[@clockwork7daemon]

Gigastructural Engineering is my absolute favorite mod for that game.

[@Talon1124]

I see your planetcraft and raise you an entire solar system.

[@vi6ddarkking]

@@Talon1124 I see your Stellar Systemcraft and raise you a Mobile Weaponized Supermassive Black Hole.

[@Talon1124]

@@vi6ddarkking Blokkats.

[@nitebones1]

one thing to add to even the small defence stations they can be used as government check points for any ships coming into a system, scanning them and checking if there is any contra band so even if you are not at war they still have a use

[@The_Viscount]

It is my personal analysis that the best fortifications aren't designed to stop an enemy attack, but to redirect it. The Maginot Line, while often cited as a failure, did exactly what it was designed to do: prevent a direct invasion across the Rhinelands. The intent was to encourage invading German armies to bypass the Maginot Line and instead attack through Belgium. The German army did indeed avoid the Maginot Line, but instead of attacking through Belgium, the bulk of the Nazi forces went through the Ardennes Forrest. This was not a failure of the Maginot Line but of the military planners who assumed the Ardennes were impassable. So, designing a series of fortresses to encourage the enemy to take a predictable course is very useful if you properly predict their movements. This is why good recon is essential to defense as well. Ultimately, however, a mobile defense is often the most cost effective as it allows for fewer assets to defend a larger area. Even with gun platforms and the like being cheaper than full ships, the sheer number you need to fortify every star system quickly becomes cost prohibitive.

[@randominternetfella96]

A mobile defense is also less vulnerable to attack. It’s easier to hit a bunker from orbit than a vehicle.

[@linger0740]

This guy is like a mix of The Templin institute and sacred cow shipyards and it’s perfect.

[@federationprime]

Templin, but he actually thinks lore is a real thing that has to been maintained and followed to make a setting good.

[@limburgishmapping7166]

For most of its history Earth Space Dock in star trek was actually unarmed as United Earth did not trust a giant weapons platform being placed in its backyard even if it was a Federation facility.

[@eight-cloudspurple5871]

Based.

[@arbelico2]

An interesting exercise. - Ground troops: They are in charge of ground combat and endo-admospheric and exo-admospheric anti-air/ballistic defense (1 light second away). - Aerospace Force: Based on the surface, it has fighters, bombers, and a network of satellites with sensors and weapons that can attack approaching ships or enemy troops on the planet's surface (in coordination with ground troops). - Navy: Based on space stations, it carries out patrols in deep space, it has AWACS / ISR ships for early warning, the idea is to attack the enemy supply lines in case their force is much higher and the planet is expected to be besieged. Otherwise, destroy the attacking fleet.

[@777Mikos]

Really hoped to hear about the bigger downside of the static defense - it's inability to avoid long range bombardment. In Expanse railguns rely a lot on secrecy of their location, but in other examples - SW, ST, Halo...the locations of those static defenses are generally well known or can be obtained and as a result - bombarded safely from a distance, with a single ship being able to destroy a planet worth of defense structure, without ever getting in danger. It's somewhat explored in Thrawn series with the asteroid attack on Coruscant, but is generally applicable for all forms of static defense. Imagine spending centuries building a planet encompassing defense network, only for the whole planet to be glassed by millions of rounds that can be lined and timed by a single ship from beyond detection range. Overall static defense is worthless without the equivalent mobile element, the force of which it can multiply. But if it's multiplying a zero...

[@questionmaker5666]

In some Sci-Fi universes, if based on the Napoleonic wars or WW1/2, static defences have a longer firing range.

[@JakeBaldwin1]

In star wars they have shields that can tank bombardments from entire fleets for months without stopping to recharge so it makes sense that static ground defenses would be more viable.

[@tdofducksplays]

Played stelaris and used 4 of these tactics in one system, had a big bugger off station set up to shred armour, because it was built in a system with a pulsar that strips all shields, with a habitat in system with a large defence force with both a planetary shield (I don’t ask questions of how that works) and a FTL jammer, and then had a fleet that’s just ready to jump into any system to help defend.

[@bobybimberbod8500]

One type of defense I wish appeared more often is a ship or fleet with a much cheaper FTL that only works between planets not stars or even no FTL at all so that they can maneuver like normal but can only defend the system they were built in or the one they were towed to. This would work best in a setting like Halo where FTL drives are the most expensive part of a ship or one like Dune where the navigator's guild won't transport warships for fear of getting themselves caught in the crossfire, rendering any hyper-industrialized world (seats of power) incapable of being invaded conventionally.

[@Furzkampfbomber]

I find the idea of solar laser arrays, as sci-fi author John Ringo depicts in some of his books, quite interesting. Here, humankind is melting down silicone rich asteroids to create mirror arrays close(r) to the sun, which then collect sunlight and distribute it to mirror arrays all over the solar system. A system like this would be relatively cheap in maintenance, it could deliver energy in all dosages, from 'moderate' to 'insane', and usable for civilian usage as well _and_ it would be hard to detect and destroy. As long as you don't send energy to one of the smaller mirror arrays, it would be almost impossible to detect until it is too late and in case one gets destroyed, just switch over to another array. It also would have the advantage that you could cover pretty much everything you need to, without any real blindspots.

[@AnonD38]

It‘d be problematic if your enemy just starts using mirrors as armor.

[@Furzkampfbomber]

@@AnonD38 True, but then again, mirrors would most likely be difficult to maintain and keep effective if they'd be used as armor. Mind you, space within solar systems is not as empty as people believe they are, there is actually a lot of dust which would work like sandpaper. Then there would be a lot of other debris that flies around at high velocity during combat, like debris from rockets, destroyed ships/drones etc. and of course there are ballistic weapons and rockets as well, so classic mirrors might work for a while, but not for very long. And when talking about armor that contains, let's say, a high amount of microscopic diamonds as a means to disperse laser fire, then we are also talking about something that is less effective in reflecting a solar laser. And as someone already pointed out in the comments, using a layered defense and a mix of all kinds of defensive systems would be the smart thing to do anyway, it would be unwise to use solar laser arrays as your sole means of defense. And in that mix, they would still be a cheap and easy to maintain heavy hitter.

[@M9Seradon]

​@@AnonD38 mirrors fare poorly agaisnt any sufficiently powerful laser. And sure futuristic scifi mirrors might be able to handle it but then you just hit them with conventional weapons first, trash their mirrors enough they can't take the blast then vape them for thinking mirrors as armor was a good idea.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

Ah yes the Stellaser. When you want the Death Star without the Death Star cost and have more versatility as well.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

@@AnonD38 At the power levels we are talking, even if the enemy can reflect all the light, that many photons would give a significant thrust to the enemy vessel. Not to mention that the hull cannot be a perfect mirror surface everywhere. The enemy ship's own sensor and communication arrays have to be outside the hull and cannot be mirrored the same way as the hull. So even if they could repel the beam and correct their coarse without much trouble, they would then be flying blind and deaf.

[@lordtritus2261]

Static defense has always been my favorite part of warfare and strategy, I just build a fortress and from there I stage my massive strike force or jus tlevel the rest of the map with artillery. This is also the same reason i hate playing timed missions where I am limited by time to not only get a good base up and running, but to also build an army and coordinate it against tightly packed defenses the enemy already has.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

I, too, am a student of General Monty.

[@DTSephiroth]

The Maw might have been a great place to set up a top secret military instillation, but wasn't it also a prison for something far scarier than even the Empire?

[@_Pickle-]

Yes

[@darthzasheic3352]

Her name is abeloth

[@DTSephiroth]

@@darthzasheic3352 Yeah that creepy woman with the universe's nastiest Glasgow Grin.

[@_Pickle-]

@@darthzasheic3352 yes

[@sirpieman300]

As a big man in yellow power armor once said "I shall begging fortifying this position."

[@spencervance8484]

Rogal dorn

[@mill2712]

Begging?

[@theOrionsarms]

@@mill2712 it's better to be a living beggar, than a proud death corpse. So begging for your defense sounds good to me.

[@CzCorrupt]

Stellaris is another great game that builds on planetary defense. In my current play through, on my south western border their is only one way in and out but along this path i have 4 planets. Not to long after discovering the planets I would send colonists and quickly began colonization. I also built starbases filled to the brim with star fighter hangars. Not to mention the orbital rings around the 3 planets which would also be filled with star fighters. Some 100 years later, and each planet would respectfully house some billions of soldiers each. Their is alot more but i dont want to write to much😂

[@dc-4ever201]

I'm known by my gaming mates as the supreme turtle due to my nature of building bases/planets or empires with walls/stations or choke points/jump points festooned with weapons. In fact when we play cooperatively against an AI, it's usually my job to build defences with my call of "cover me whilst I build this shit" .

[@justawhiskey41]

What do you play?

[@dc-4ever201]

@@justawhiskey41 used to play Total Annihilation, forged Alliance, Dawn of War and a few other games over the years, became the norm for me to build the base whilst others focused on army building and covering. These days I play Stellaris and a bit of Age of Empires and Total Warhammer.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

And here we have found the prodigy of Rogal Dorn

[@GadzWolf11]

Remember: if they send one of yours to the shipyard, you send six of theirs to the scrap yard.

[@benjaminconnor6640]

Laser Web is my personal favorite defensive system, especially after reading "Live Free or Die" by John Ringo. Tears open just about anything and is a great "Castle Wall" for a star system. That and it can double up as a mining rig in it's down time, peeling asteroids like potatoes and selling them for scrap or making them into new mirrors. Self-Perpetuating to a point.

[@alendonvaldor5808]

That whole series was fantastic. Also Black Tide Rising, one of the few zombie settings I like.

[@benjaminconnor6640]

@@alendonvaldor5808 Interesting, I've never gotten into zombie stories. something about how it demands everything go wrong always felt off to me.

[@alendonvaldor5808]

@@benjaminconnor6640 He takes a more realistic approach. One, not undead. Harder to kill, yes, but they also starve out and cannibalize each other over time. Some start to display actual survival instincts and even avoid survivors showing some people were resistant. You have several groups actively working on vaccines to prevent spread once order begins to reestablish. Essentially you have a small family, with a father and uncle who are former Aussie SAS who takes the family to sea, begin clearing boats, killing infected, and taking on survivors. Eventually, the crazy bastards clear a cruise liner, with a nuclear sub watching them. One thing leads to another, and there is still a minimal military presence in several countries. He takes the approach of, shit hit the fan fast, things fell apart, but enough plans were in place that just enough human society survived to be able to make a comeback and claw and fight their way back. Frankly love it.

[@benjaminconnor6640]

@@alendonvaldor5808 Sounds interesting, I've often wondered about cannibal zombies. Good to see that addressed at least. Along with multiple vaccine efforts

[@lunamaria-doofusVIII]

I am very thankful for what you do, in part because the easily digestible format makes it possible for me to draw inspiration from it in the moment. Thank you, angering canadian!

[@Tydyt]

I have small problem with classification of what is dyson sphere- it is concept made by guy named Dyson (whoa) and it is a giant energy generaror- you envelop a star and harvest all the energy (light, heat) from its fusion- you cannot dyson sphere a planet- it requires star to be a dyson sphere

[@spencervance8484]

Machiokia world or however you spell it

[@lordfrostwind3151]

There are a couple advantages to static defenses, orbital or ground. Big fleets are gonna generate a lot of attention with allies and enemies, the politics may become hard to justify. Static defenses while still raising some eyebrows will likely be less concerning than several new battlegroups, unless your universe operates on some futuristic version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

You can always hide a big cannon and it's energy output as industrial plants and silos as mining operation.

[@steveo9284]

Humor so good, last upload of this video was to much for youtube! Also you want layers and layers and wave and more layers of defenses. Drones, satellites, senor grids, pre-set bombs or mines. You name it, you want more layers of it to soften up or stop enemies. So when they finally get to you - you have an easier time.

[@AnonD38]

Static and Passive defenses while looking really cool sadly are really only a delaying measure. If there are no incoming reinforcements then your enemy will simply turn the battle into a siege. If you can’t harass your enemy‘s supply lines or threaten their positions with your own mobile force, then your only hope is that the enemy gives up (or is forced to give up).

[@elitemook4234]

Only turning the planet into a fortress? You’re thinking small, son. Turn your entire solar system into a megastructure and your sun into a death ray! K2 civilizations FTW

[@yungo1rst]

for garrisons there is also rate of production if you are generating robots to fight. in star wars battle for geonosis, the republic had to send a task force to disable the droid production as it was outpacing reinforcements of clones. [of course they could have bombarded the facility and transport ships before landing, but that wouldn't have been cinematic.] my favourite megastructure for a while was the Kotar star forge generating ships from the mass of the star. Schlock mercenary has a similar item with their buuthandi generating automated munitions from the same process.

[@cp1cupcake]

7:00 This reminds is basically the Solarian League in the Honorverse. It ends up not really working for them as a war they were not involved in bred innovation and they were hopelessly outdated by the time they started activating reserve fleets. There is an interesting idea I saw in a series I read. It's planetary defense centers which are so heavily shielded that breaking it from space will leave the planet uninhabitable. Its not worth destroying from space because you lose all potential of the planet.

[@SportyMabamba]

Welp, time to re-read all the main Honorverse books again 😁

[@AKUJIVALDO]

Yeah, Honorverse is stupidly Mary-Sued to make HH to be invincible. I mean, experienced Q-Raider captain knowing that his opponent is very experienced does max military run instead of continue to pretend be a cargo ship and go by cargo ship speed, then jettison coverings from weapon systems long before combat... And Solarian League would be so crap because again because of plot...

[@Jazz-i4h]

One issue with fixed defensive installations, touched on in 'the lost fleet' series by jack Campbell, is that anything either fixed on a planet or in a fixed orbit is just target practice for anything else spaceworthy. whether the attacking force uses purpose-designed bombardment rounds or just lines up asteroids, any installation that can't move can be easily destroyed by just lining up enough mass on an intercept trajectory.

[@gabbymadsen7260]

Dude... for a Canadian you're more cobra-chicken than stoner Victorian and I'm here for it.

[@baphnedia]

This is a Stellaris commercial without saying "Stellaris." ^_^

[@jtjames79]

Surrender immediately. Then be so annoying they give up and go away.

[@derekburge5294]

How to defend a planet. Step 1: Build a BOLO. Step 2: Build another BOLO for the other side of the planet. Step 3: Have a beer! You're done!

[@karlsjunior395]

I wonder if the Warp from Warhammer 40k would count as a natural void defense. The chaos space marine factions have been pretty untouchable by setting up on plants in there. The only problem is that the Warp has no allies and is filled with demons that they have to make shields to keep out. So maybe a 2 for 1 on defense types

[@deezn8tes]

I was about to mention the Pariah Nexus….literally a near-perfect defensive solution by slowly draining the life from all standard life forces….absolutely wrecking psykers and warp-sensitive foes….with literally zero negative effect for any Necron units. It’s expanding, which gives it an offensive element as well. It’s supremely well-suited to a gradual decay of the enemies of the necrons….which they can simply outlast given their near-infinite lifespans.

[@Michael-jx9bh]

Another advantage of static defenses is that they _are_ static! It means some pennypinching beancounter can't just relocate your planetary shield, PDCs, space bases, weapons platforms etc when some savings are required - or central worlds politicians if your planet has upset them.

[@Poctyk]

Defenses are static. Weapons that are used in said defenses aren't See for example: AEGIS Ashore that uses the exact same SM-3 missiles as naval version. Meaning you can just take those missiles and put them somewhere else

[@loganswalk8621]

I personally like orbital defensive cannons not only is more practical to build a cannon of that size in space just seeing a giant cannon one shot a capital ship makes me giddy.

[@RuiWang-zm2ue]

"Gentlemen, I present to you the Asian Planetary Defense Gun. Compact, hairless, and fiercely powerful. The barrel, while tiny, are extremely efficient."

[@emilsinclair4190]

Truly defending a planat is impossible if it stays in an orbit. It can literally get targetted from everywhere in the galaxy and you can use as much weapons as you want. So your only chance is to move it in a way that makes attacks from a large distance very difficult.

[@emilsinclair4190]

@SmilingShadow-jl5tr I would not say completely useless. For example this assumes that you know that what you see is a defensive structure. Recently read a book where they used a self replicating defense network that looked like astroids for the attackers. However the value of such defenses is extremly limited and can only help in certain situations

[@byronclark235]

It's looking like no one has mentioned another defensive item that you could have covered; Mines. Orbital Mines and/or just stellar mine fields. Personally, I'd put them under static, maybe even passive defense. Star Wars (again!) has some great laser and even ion gunnery mines in the old EU. So long as the power generators are running, and any maintenance is kept up (which still tends to be low), they are a simple, cheap invasion deterrent. Or, at least, a decent speedbump to slow the enemy down with so you can ready a better defense with more mobile units.

[@Pen_Slinger]

You know, Aliens coming to conquer Earth to simp for Vtubers would be a hilarious anime plot.

[@AlMcpherson79]

you missed a trick for the planetary shield by going with star wars. Spaceballs to the rescue.

[@AlMcpherson79]

just had a thought; Star Wars' Empire: where the galactic government's military responded to a highly mobile, fighter-heavy enemy, by... making more turtles that struggle against fighters, and one of those already destroyed one of their fully operational planet-busting megastructures. instead of, you know, switching to fighter and anti-fighter doctrine.

[@dragonturtle2703]

There is also what I like to call system weapons: weapons which cover entire Star systems. Not sure of any actual examples, but I know of an IRL theoretical idea called the laser web, where you a laser somewhere (like around the star) and a bunch of satellites to refocus and redirect it as it reaches its target. Other than something like that, you’d need an FTL weapon like a gun that shoots through a wormhole, some guided munitions with serious range and speed, or the volley approach (where even if they don’t get hit, you still force them to bob and weave or hid behind planets). Also, presumably you’d have planet side orbital guns/silos/hangers be fortified from the ground, as well as against orbital bombardment, and have similarly fortified compounds for key things. After all, a great way to take out a space ship killing gun is tiny infantry, since often they won’t even be able to properly aim at the ground, let alone effectively engage such small targets.

[@r.connor9280]

Kirklin Mines, sleeper torpedoes that speed bump anything travelling to fast in the wrong direction Just Set it And Forget it!

[@dragonturtle2703]

@@r.connor9280 can you collect any unused ones after the battle?

[@r.connor9280]

@@dragonturtle2703 They're best as a preemptive measure and usually get used one at a time or in small clusters

[@dragonturtle2703]

@@r.connor9280 makes sense.

[@emilsinclair4190]

​@@r.connor9280space is generally far to big for this.

[@GhostChild808]

I would love to have a planetary defense system...more like the Stonehenge complex from the Ace Combat games. XD

[@marrqi7wini54]

How many Stonehenge complexes do you think would be sufficient to protect the planet? I have an idea but how about you?

[@GhostChild808]

@@marrqi7wini54 yes

[@Scarface_1b]

​@@marrqi7wini54If you want to protect Earth's landmasses(and Antarctica) you need 24 Stonehenge arrays. I suppose it's guns can shoot directly into space, so while it would need 24 of them to cover Earth landmass, I suppose it can cover somewhat more of the space around the planet. Also, with 24 Stonehenges you get 192 railguns

[@CWS-i3n]

Thanks for giving a nodd to Maw Installation and Star Wars Legends in general. Loved those books. For static defense, I'm surprised you didn't bring Battletech in, we see ships shot down on entry to the atmosphere of Huntress in MW3.

[@anticlaassic]

10:00 for the record: a Golan III Platform is less like a cruiser in space and more like one or more star destroyers with ridiculously powerful shields. Golan IIIs are bad bad little murder packages

[@hidefreek6905]

Planetery shield actually was taken advantage by Grand Admiral Thrawn in Legend. Forced the New Replubic struk in Coruscant while his fleet went out to do thing as he want.

[@M9Seradon]

One big caveat to megastructures is that the sheer traffick of a facility this large usually means it is relatively easy for aggressors to infiltrate. This is the key element that sets off the war that ensues between X3 Terran Conflict and Albion Prelude. Basically, the Terrans (Earthlings) had created a massive ring structure around Earth called the Torus as a defensive measure agaisnt AGI attack (the AGI were Terran in origin but had gone rogue and nearly destroyed Earth), but the Argonians (who themselves were descendants of Terrans that sacrificed themselves to bait the AGI off Earth) became fearful of Terrans so they did a bunch of dumb shit that culminated in infiltrating the Torus and sabotaging one of the reactors. The destruction of the Torus crippled the Terrans, yet forced them into war, which they inevitably lost despite being the most powerful military force in the galaxy.

[@RevokFarthis]

Reminder: The more realistic/"hard" your Sci-Fi setting is, the less effective a static defense structure becomes. Without something like powerful energy shields, nothing counters an orbital Starbase like a fast rock

[@hellosejay5479]

I'm not sure if it's just me but I love my idea of a robot faction living out in asteroid Fields just living underneath the surface hiding out just completely hidden and no way to know whether or not it's a normal asteroid or it's hollowed-out the inside there's thousands of droids just living their lives

[@sebastiang.5032]

Love the stealthed Mass Drivers they used in The Expanse.

[@kanseidorifto2430]

Rogal Dorn style, simply slapping on guns and walls and fortifications ON TOP AND UNDER said guns, and wall, and fortifications would make for one of the best ways imo to deny opponents the ability to attack. Add the additional idea of sci-fi where the whole solar system is constructed into a singular ship and you already have a mobile way of keeping your planets further out of harm's way while further allowing for greater weapons to be powered against literally anything in the vast universe. Should such a thing even be built at all.

[@marrqi7wini54]

The Shkadov Thruster kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYfIpXSjbMt2iZI

[@ekairim]

a interesting video and topic. (also happy it got fixed) i do have a question, when it comes to surface-to-space defensive weapons. what type of weapon would be most "effective" without "too much space magic" in the mix? (considering the targets are capital ships and not fighter crafts ) i think that Balistic missiles would maybe be your best bet. Laser cannons do have the problem that their energy tends to degrade with distance and espacially in athmosphere and a big enough lazer could actually you know.. maybe ignite the planet you build it on? Kinetics are, dificult. wile we have a healty obsession with everything that goes "Dakka" or "Kaboem" the size of such weapons to actually reach into orbit with enough energy to hit/damage targets would be enourmous and it rounds might as well be missiles themselves.... now there is a idea, Rail/coil gun powered missiles. generally, if your surface defense weapons should be cheap and flexible then look no further to the classic big-old missiles. remember, static defenses are the graveyards of armies, and are there to grant you time. also, you forgot the best area-denial weapon in space, the mighty minefield.

[@Furzkampfbomber]

I see no reason in terms of physics why a laser should ignite our atmosphere. Lightnings pump insane amount of energy through the skies and yet, this never happened. Also, the energy degradation would not really be a problem as well, as there are ways to prevent/circumvent that. An option, for instance, would be to use a smaller laser in order to create a pre-heated channel in the atmosphere and _then_ fire the main laser. Shooting kinetics skywards would be problematic not just because you would need to shoot them _out_ of the gravity well, but because _here_ the atmosphere and the friction it causes would become a huge problem. You would need to fire high-velocity projectiles in order to damage targets in space, which also means a lot of friction and thus, a quite substantial energy loss. And high velocity + high friction also means you have to deal with the degradation of your projectiles. Rockets are not without problems as well. They would need to be very fast and you would need _a lot_ of them in order to overload any capable point-defense system. Sure, you can hope that the target would still get hit and damaged by the debris, but this is not a given.

[@AnonD38]

@@FurzkampfbomberKinetic weapons would also have the massive downside of friendly fire potential. „What goes up, must come down“ is the saying after all.

[@AnonD38]

Energy weapons actually aren’t affected much by the atmosphere, as long as they use frequencies/wave lengths which can pass through the atmosphere freely. (aka maybe don’t use a UV laser)

[@Furzkampfbomber]

@@AnonD38 As long as we are talking about projectiles meant to hit things in space, I think we would not care that much about collateral damage on the ground. This would not be ballistic artillery after all and the velocity they would need to have, as well as the fact that they would be fired in a straight line, would most likely assure that nothing falls to the ground. Also, we would most likely talk about relatively small projectiles without any ballistic payload - tungsten rods for instance.

[@M9Seradon]

Missiles are too slow to engane targets in orbit effectively. Or to be more precise, the entire process of launching a missile is going to be obvious enough to any hostile fleet looking down that by the time it approaches them, the point defenses have gotten tired of waiting. Best to keep missiles up high on stealth satellites that might catch defenders unaware. Load them for penetrating enemy armor and shields or even nukes then watch the fireworks as your sat reveals itself and opens up the biggest ship to an easy kill by the ground installations (if you didn't just nuke their asses).

[@thejoey468983]

gotta be a massive layered defense, ships patrolling the hyperlanes/jump points what have you, orbital stations in LEO, ground batteries the size of a city on earth and the moon, and if all else fails a heavily armed populace with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[@alexs5814]

I had the unreasonable hope you'd namedrop O-Game^^ Either way a wonderful video!

[@williamlloyd3769]

Personally, favor Bolo Mark XXV and newer models to discourage any unauthorized visitors to the planet.

[@wolfcraft484]

would say, RKMs (relativistic kill missiles) or the scifi version of said weapons count i mean its basically like being a nuclear power in modern times, you dont want to attack a nuclear power for fear of being nuked in return be a form of defense basically would MAD count

[@sovietbanana4589]

I think one of my favorite defensive works forms sci-fi are the massive space stations from the anime the legend of the galactic heroes. It has the massive mega stations in chokepoints that act as war defining hard points in the universe.

[@Jaeger_Bishop]

There's also one other downside of static defenses. If the enemy manages to bypass them, you're kinda screwed. See the French built Majino line for reference.

[@super-zw3ep]

That’s pretty much a downside for everything isn’t it?

[@ranekeisenkralle8265]

To pick a Sci-Fi example: The Amaris Coup.

[@Furzkampfbomber]

@@super-zw3ep Sure, but static defenses suffer considerably more from this.

[@steelbaron6343]

Great channel. been nice watching it grow.

[@EthericImpulse]

Min and 8 seconds in and ur humor with whit almost has me subbing

[@xengk]

There is also space minefields, satellite turrets, and warp trap.

[@tdofducksplays]

3:16 He’s just standing there. MENACINGLY!!

[@quinnfable2694]

Hippity hoppity got off my property? Is that Tex explaining the Taurian Concordat I hear?

[@philipfahy9658]

The other thing to consider is terrain manipulation. If we are already talking megastructure style fortifications, then moving stars is kind of trivial. Having trouble defending your spread out allied star systems? Why not just take them and literally push them closer together?

[@marxel4444]

The problem with any good static defence is that everyone knows where it is, what it can do and you can outbuild it. Similar to gun enplacements against ships. Build bigger ship with bigger gun and longer range: you won!

[@thepiratemongoose8965]

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Collector base from Mass Effect 2 in the bit about passive defenses

[@PartB_0]

Pretty sure "The Maw" in Starwars was a galactic sized prison for an insane eldritch deity.... maybe that's why Palpatine went nutso in less than 2 decades after taking over the republic.

[@MrEasterrabbit]

I would bet on Extrasolar Defences= Long Range Energy Weapons (if they want to reach you, they have to approach your position in the most shortest way) Counter would be a straight line or a swarm

[@kleinjahr]

Never forget that in the end a ship is a weapon. Ramming speed!

[@chrisyoung5929]

The problem for this in space battles is distance. As you can fire weapons over vast distances there is no need for any ships to get as close to each other as they do in films. Ramming a fast moving ship from 1000km would take quite an aim. In a number of simulator ships are considered as point.

[@kleinjahr]

@@chrisyoung5929 True distance is a problem though it can also be helpful. If you are closer in your opponent has less chance to avoid a hit.

[@emilsinclair4190]

​@@chrisyoung5929every ship with ftl is a weapon of planet destruction.

[@YoRHaUnit2Babe]

ngl the UNSC did a very good job of making sure Earth stays protected against most conventional attacks

[@terrysaunders7107]

Awesome random draw. I love orbital plates, mini ring world sections orbiting planets or stars for star lifting. Great city states in space.

[@pauln6917]

Star Trek Picard 1 Season 1 featured a planetary shield over the Romulan refugee planet, Discovery Season 4 featured a planetary shield and orbital defense satellites over 32nd century Earth.

[@ranekeisenkralle8265]

I am surprised that there was no mention of the Ramiles Star Fortress from 40k in this one.

[@Gillymonster18]

Perhaps not necessarily active or passive: having other fortified planets with their own forces to deploy. Regardless of where in the solar system the primary target is, any invading force would be turning their backs to the other planets in-system if they try to focus on just one. Any invading force has to be twice (or more) as big and if either planet is able to fight free, the invading force at the other planet still winds up with their backs to someone.

[@The--Illusion]

Gigastructural Engineering: Hold my Quasi-Stellar Obliterator. No really, hold it. If you dont it will destroy an entire star cluster just out of boredom

[@justaraptorridingamericanw3382]

This whole video would benefit a lot from EVE. The shielding isn’t impervious but it is resilient and strong enough to tank hits well enough, mega structures are cookie cutter by design and even the planetary harvest structures are the same. Planetary defenses exist albeit limited in numbers except in core systems. The level of technology and the amount of conflict with all the insane weapons meet the criteria here and honestly would do a lot better than most would think initially. Highly recommend looking into the lore a good bit for all the details.

[@matthewrayner2552]

I used to think Planetary defences were hardcore and would work... Until I read the Dark Forest

[@emilsinclair4190]

The explanation in those books is somewhat shitty. However in general static defenses are limited in their usefulness.

[@PillarofSmite]

Minefields, like little asteroids that explode. Bonus points if you tether a few of them together for maximum effectiveness.

[@leprechaunprime]

Passive defenses aka artificially induced gravity wells; most types of ftl tend to be affected by them.

[@canadiankewldude]

I prefer the Stargate method, not really a cloak, for the planet. Rather, it phases the earth into a pocket dimension, which can be powered by one ZPM.

[@dadudeme]

Personally I would love to think that we could develop something similar to the current mobile anti air weapons. Essentially trailers in people's garages that hold multiple planet to orbit capable missiles and accompanying targeting systems so that they can simply drive the trailer out of the garage and start nuking spaceships in orbit, and then be gone dozens of km before anyone can return fire.

[@8vantor8]

another good option is to put Nuclear weapons inside of the forts so when one is about to be over ran you can destroy it and prevent the structure from being used against you.

[@addisonwelsh]

You don’t need to use a nuclear weapons for that. Conventional explosives will work just as well, and won’t give off any radiation that could be detected.

[@8vantor8]

​@@addisonwelsh a nuclear warhead would also wipe out the attacking force, maximizing casualties the enemies takes.

[@addisonwelsh]

@@8vantor8 We have non-nuclear weapons that can do that just fine. Just look at the MOAB

[@8vantor8]

@@addisonwelsh The MOAB is has a yield is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT and a blast radius of a mile. Little Boy from WW2 had a yield of 15,000 tons of TNT, and wiped out a city. considering the tech and the sheer size of the attacking armies, Nuclear Warheads are the best choice for their cost effectiveness to destruction ration

[@AlMcpherson79]

About star Trek; sector fleets isn't, based on how often a ship called Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant. you know, ,,, a quarter of the galaxy. ... (writers have no sense of scale. which just makes the Expanse even more awesome, since those writers DO have a sense of scale.)

[@justrandom90]

Ok here is my sci-fi defense grid will be 1. A Large number of sensor satellite to a distance of 2 to 5 light minute 2. A FTL dampening field ready to be online to prevent ship from jumping away 3. A Large number of Hunter Killer Stealth Satellite moving in random pattern just in case 4. Hide my Planetary Defense under a stealth field. Should be enough i think.

[@SteelWolf13]

Spaceballs has a passive shield. :) Protection if you will.

[@DragobAttack]

Another more passive defense system. Smart mine fields. Thousand's of small devices, scattered around in orbit. If they detect an enemy ship dozens of the activatey swarming the enemy from all sides. Either shooting missles, or they are missles themselves, drifting, until activated, delivering a nice payload to the enemy.

[@johndeere2525]

Interesting video but a couple of things seem off. First, Dyson Spheres and shield Worlds are 2 different concepts. A Dyson Sphere is a megastructure built in orbit/incapsulating a star, harnessing its energy to propel a civilization throughout a galaxy. It is not in itself a defensive or offensive weapon, simply a tool to harness nearly unlimited amounts of energy. Second thing is the planetary shields in Star Wars are not indefinite or indestructible, what they do is force people to focus on a single point (the shield generator) which means instead of splitting your forces with a blockade, you can use less assets and have them all defending a single point.

[@scienceinsanity6927]

I want to state this aint meant to be like, mean spirited. This is just a great chance to start a conversation and explain stuff I failed to convey in the episode for time constraint reasons. Firstly, technically incorrect. In halo a shield world IS a dyson sphere, although a little different. We see on multiple occasions in the books and games that forerunner dyson spheres count as such since they contain stars, planets and sometimes even entire solar systems in compressed pockets of space. The one we see in halo wars is a great example, but the one in halo 4 counts as well. Also, terms in sci fi shift a lot over time as genres mature and evolve, look at 'Mechs or power armor as an amazing example. The idea of a dyson sphere at its most correct is what you described, but over time people see a big spheroid thing and call it a dyson sphere. The term has become a descriptor of a certain style of megastructure as much as it remains a solid definition. Like the terms rocket/missile/torpedo having a very specific real world definition, but being used together by laymen in sci-fi to describe anything that shoots flame in one direction to move in the other. Second, that is also half incorrect and based mostly on limited information. There are tons of examples in star wars of different shields. The rebel base from episode 2 has a small local shield that does exactly what you say. I assume the one on scarriff acts the same. But Coruscant has a planetary shield that covers the entire world and during the battle over it from episode three, is stated to stop everything from blaster and turbolaser fire and debris. They state in extended material and cut scenes that they explicitly had to lower part of the shield or anakin/obi-wan/palpatine would have exploded on contact when they hit it. Also, most sci fi is very soft, it doesn't follow its own rules and bends things for drama all the time and shields are often a uniquely soft sci-fi element. (star trek/40k/halo/dune. etc) More often than not shields do whatever the writer wants them too even within the same universe. Inconsistencies, mmmm, 40k says hello. Alright, lets see if this gets some discussions going. Come on kids, have at it.

[@matchesburn]

Minefields are worth keeping on the table, even in space. It might seem like a bad idea due to space not being a 2D plane and you can come at a planet from thousands of different angles... But if your planet is surrounded by a ring or asteroid field and you mine the hell out of except for certain areas... Suddenly the enemy has to find their way through the rocks and not hit any of the mutli-megaton mines that are going to send trillions of pieces of rock shrapnel into their fleet each time they hit it. I wouldn't want to be in that invasion fleet that day.

[@uss_04]

Planetary defense might be able to damage a fleet, but it can’t keep Kharak from Burning

[@seantaggart7382]

1:30 HEY WE HAVE VISITED its just for science missions only

[@gmartuch]

stargate have a cool PLANETARY DEFENSE, make it look like you are not there. stargate Sg1 use a Arthur's Mantle to shift the planet earth out-of-phase with rest of universe. they cant see you or shot you. Stargete Atlantis use a Puddle Jumper Cloak to cloak Atlantis, they cant see you but you can still be shot by them

[@JuanRodriguez-xq5bp]

Always build underground, rarely or as little as possible above ground. Never broadcast deep space transmission waves, or you'll potentially attract the wrong things. Always keep weapon emplacements remote and unseen. Fortify traffic and congestion points, ie ingress points into the underground civilization extremely fortified with potential cave in procedures in case of breach. Have those underground ingress points be flood able, to neutralize any gains from said breaches. Never disclose how advanced you are, any structure built on the surface should be 100s to thousands of years behind, or threw clever low tech adaptations. Never build points of population concentration above ground, they will be targeted first by any invader. In order to successfully invade a fortified above ground human world, hit it with space rocks, repeatedly. Target population centers first, most long term resistance is going to come from them. Knock out electrical/power infrastructure as soon as possible. Most defenses/fortifications have redundancies but those redundancies are generally fuel powered. Without electricity, gas production screeches to a halt, transportation/logistics routes start degrading. Food shortages arise immediately in areas without independent agriculture. If you can follow a global disaster like coordinated meteor strikes or some form of em explosion, ie if you control the skies then setting up atmospheric em bombs to knock out unhardened power grids is a viable option. Overwhelm planetary disaster relief efforts, throw them into complete disarray. After knocking out most major population centers watch where the resistance forces start concentrating, then send ground invasion forces planetside to crush them.