Monitors?
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
- Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
- Bolo_MK_XL
- Captain
- Posts: 835
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:00 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Steve Cole
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:24 pm
- Klingon of Gor
- Lieutenant SG
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:11 pm
One could point out that even a fortress which falls may accomplish something of value. It may delay the enemy, or discombobulate his plans. It may cost him more than he afford to lose, or it may simply mount a prolonged defense that becomes an inspiring example. (In this respect, Corregidor and the Alamo come to mind) federation monitors, even if destroyed, might do any or all of these things before they finally stop twitching.
On the other hand, limiting the naming to fortresses that held out might leave one short of names. To quote a wise man, there never was an oyster that a starfish couldn't bore into.
On the other hand, limiting the naming to fortresses that held out might leave one short of names. To quote a wise man, there never was an oyster that a starfish couldn't bore into.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K Dick
Actually, it looks like the locations of famous sieges, rather than fortresses. While some of the names are indeed forts (Bastille, Eben Emel, Sumpter) others were towns or cities (Atlanta, Stalingrad, Dien Bien Phu) that were the locations of protracted battles.DNordeen wrote:So they're all famous defeats of fortresses?
Mike
"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."
"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank."

