I'd like to try this on with folks to see if it sounds feasible. It is set in the (fairly) far future...
There are four players: The Alliance is a superpower, with dozens of systems and Members. Among those members is the Kingdom which consists of basically one planet and a few star systems nearby. The Empire is another superpower, slightly smaller than the Alliance. The Federation (roughly a dozen systems) is an ally of the Alliance, and a rival of the Empire.
The Kingdom believes itself ill-treated by the Alliance and seeks to secede. Part of this process is a royal marriage with the Empire. Escorting the imperial bride is a task force of the Empire's fleet, which takes orbit around the Kingdom's homeworld.
Now, the Alliance isn't going to take this lying down. But they don't want to confront the Empire directly, so the field of combat becomes the outer systems of the Kingdom. But the Kingdom's military proves stronger than anyone suspected, and the Alliance's military faces a political decision not to deploy its full strength. As always, the defenders have the advantage and war drags on several years inconclusively--which is to say, the Kingdom is winning.
Meanwhile, the Federation and Empire have a brief but brutal war of their own over their own issues. The imperial task force remains in orbit around the Kingdom's homeworld, which gets to buy really good weapons from the Empire. In the end, the Federal/Imperial War ends with a truce.
At this point, the Federation is willing to aid the Alliance. With Federal units backing them up, the Alliance military stages a daring attack in the Kingdom's home system but avoiding the planet where the task force orbits. They are betting the Empire will take no preemptive action unless actually fired upon. This assumption proves correct, but the battle is much costlier than anticipated. Finally, the Alliance commander tries a dangerous ploy which fails. An increasingly important 'peace faction' in the Alliance prevents further reinforcements from being deployed. They must withdraw.
When this happens, the Empire offers full recognition and a mutual defense treaty with the Kingdom. Any attack on the one, following a certain date, will be viewed as an attack on the other. Alliance leaders, not willing to risk a war that could cost billions of lives, finally agrees to the Kingdom's total independence.
Does this make sense to you? Do you see any holes or potential problems?
It seems right to me, I just had to read it a few times to make sure I was understanding it. I'm still not sure I didn't miss something. What is it anyway?
Look into the history of the First World War to see how mutual defense treaties can multiply to the point where a single incident can cascade into conflict so quickly that it can't be stopped. The conflict becomes a force all its own that no one can avoid even if they wanted to. Also, assuming this is an outline for a novel, realism might be added if you get into issues like economic output, trade, infrastructure and natural resources. Consider how incredibly costly it would be for any civilization to field a sizable space fleet.
Economics play a huge part in war. The Confederacy lost the Civil War because its economy was agrarian based (they lacked the sheer volume of factories to produce war materials) and its infrastructure couldn't support the transportation of supplies (its rail system couldn't match that of the North). It financed the war by producing more script (printing more money... very stupid economically) and agricultural exports. Once the North began burning all the farms and crops it came across, the game was pretty much up for the South.
The same for Nazi Germany. Once the Allies cut off raw material imports via blockades and destroyed the factory belt in northern Germany with bombing raids, the Third Reich simply couldn't field the armor and munitions it needed. Germany's defeat involved a lot more but the destruction of its factories was decisive.
Pearl Harbor was all about America's raw goods blockade against Japan. Japan's industry was being strangled and they knew it was a matter of months before its factories simply couldn't produce enough material to defend the home islands. That's why they attacked while they still could.
Wars are a lot more than just big battles. Yes, this is all old history but you could still extrapolate these concepts into the future. That's the great thing about Dune; it was mostly about the importance of trade and the influence of religion. For example, the Middle East is in turmoil right now because of a natural resource -- oil -- but in another 20 years or so Middle Eastern countries will be fighting each other over another natural resource -- water. There will be too many people and not enough drinkable water. River courses will become vitally important and lives will end over them. Also, a lot of people say that Iraq is not about American access to oil (as liberals contend) but about controlling China's access to oil. Controlling Middle Eastern oil means controlling China's economy. This completely circumvents China's ongoing blue water naval buildup to protect import routes.
The part about popular support (or lack of it) affecting battlefield decisions is good; that's been a part of warfare since Victorian England (it lost Britain its empire) and before. Of course, all of this makes for good realism but may not make for good reading. One more thing; make the members of the Federation, Empire, Kingdom and Alliance proud of their heritage, history, etc. That may give these fictitious entities an aura of realism. Even if you never use it, work out their histories thoroughly. Every novel writing how-to book will tell you to do that.
BTW, is this 'too many moons'?
__________________
Never play poker with a guy named Doc, never eat at a place called Mom's, and never pick a fight with a guy named Tiny.
![medium]](http://lp.hm.com/hmprod?set=source[/josh/media/sys_master/localized_media/teaser_d82-teaser-m-holiday-start_1320677032533/8986825523230/6131_w46_08.jpg]&call=url[file:/teaser/medium]/)
