I know, I know. This subject had been discussed to death.
But still, I'd like to raze it.
So is it *because* it has been "discussed to death" that you want to "raze" it rather than "raise" it?
1. Jumpgates in space
Ever wondered what would happen if you would create a jumpgate at a place where there is an object? I imagine things would go *boom*. Why send a fleet? Just form 1 jumppoint at Babylon 5's co-ordinates: BLAM!
First of all, I assume that you mean "jump point", and not "jump gate" (which is the big piece of machinery in space which opens jump points for ships that can't do it themselves).
Of course, that assumes that you want to *destroy* the target and
not capture it. Even with the all of the damage that was inflicted by the fleet in
Severed Dreams, the reparable and could have been occupied by the EarthGov forces had Delenn not shown up.
The second problem is the matter of targeting. We have never seen *anyone* (not even any of the First Ones) open a jump point that wasn't in close proximity to the ship opening it. Therefore, you *still* have to send a fleet and expose them to enemy fire. Also, although First One races have developed the tech for opening jump points to be much smaller and fit in smaller ships, for the younger races it was assumed that only larger ships would be able to create their own jump points. The White Stars were unusually small for a ship that could create its own jump point, but they were built help from the Vorlons. It was also true that we only ever saw ships open jump points directly in front of themselves. Noone ever opened a jump point off to the side and then turned into it or anything like. For all of those reasons, I tend to think that the "jump engines" are big enough, bulking enough, and need to attached to large enough power supplies that they really only work / point in one direction and they can't be targeted vary well. This would make it extremely problematic to execute this kind of attack against an opponent that is defending itself. If you have to both be very close and facing directly toward it, you will have trouble getting into position without getting shot down. Besides, if you do pull that off you will be flying right through the debris field immediately after the explosion. You would probably be destroyed (or at least heavily damaged) right after any successful attack.
2. Hurling objects through space.
Why not grab a piece of rock from somewhere and mount it on a ship? Now, open a jumppoint in front of b5, hurl the rock through it (obviously I'm talking about a Armageddon size rock) and BLAM!
Many of the same issues that I brought up with regard to the jump point attack also apply here; Do you want to *destroy* B5 rather than capture it? The targeting would be limited, so you expose yourself. There is also another problem. You have to apply enough force to the big rock to propel it at the station with the desired speed. That force will be getting released right next the ship doing the firing. That is not really the best way to avoid damaging your own ship. It is much safer for you, and an easier (if more expensive) way to deliver the destructive force to the station by firing a guided missile at it.
Note that much of this changes in a situation such as the Centauri had when they used "mass drivers" to bombard Narn. They had the space equivalent of what we would call "air superiority". Therefore, they could use big, slow, non-meneuverable weapons systems without worrying about them being destroyed by the defenders. They were also firing at a planet. This meant that they did *not* need to accelerate the rocks up to the speed that they wanted for the impact. They just had to start rocks and the planets own gravity would generate most of the desired speed, which would not happen when firing at a ship or space station (they just aren't massive enough).
3. Dogfights
In todays war, one jetfighter doesn't see his opponent physically, only as a bleep on his radar. On 6 million missile handles the rest. So why do ships in the future get so close to eachother? (arguably, this would be because you can get rid of a missile more easily when having the liberty of going in all directions, but still)
First of all, you might want to note that "visual range" would be *much* further in space. Having an atmosphere in between creates a great deal of light scattering etc. that would not be a problem in space.
Secondly, it might well be to the advantage of one side or the other to force the fight into a close quarters situation. For example, if your ships were faster and more maneuverable while your opponents were much more heavily armored, you would not want to stand off at a distance and trade shots. In that situation you would do everything you could to get inside and "mix" with that opponent.
Thirdly, ....
It is a TV show and the battles are, to a large degree, designed to look good and entertaining.
