Posted by: ShadowLop
« on: August 17, 2012, 02:54:27 AM »Quote from: Redshirt link=topic=2861. msg51791#msg51791 date=1342128163
Radical biological changes would, of course, be far up the tech chain.
Biological weapons would differ from radiation warheads in that they would leave the existing structures intact, as well as not irradiate the planet (which is a problem afterwards. ) I'd personally rather welcome the new species into my empire, but to each their own.
If bioweapons are implemented, they should have a chance of making the world inhospitable entirely, especially one created as a rush job or with relatively low-tech processes. A virus engineered to attack species A but not B could potentially mutate to attack both species, meaning your own bioweapon would potentially make the worlds inhospitable to both them and you, as well as potentially destroying the ecosystem.
Even if the virus is safe to your own people, would YOU live and work in cities or buildings that were recently doused in experimental bioweapons without protective infrastructure in place?
A potentially viable alternative would be chemical weapons, which would basically inject various chemicals into the atmosphere, which would need to be extracted out by terraforming equipment. This would mean that a species under bombardment could potenially fight back by running a mass of terraformers to extract the chemicals (hopefully) faster than the missiles can dump it in.
Quite frankly, there should be no way to conquer a planet without SOME negative effect, whether requiring time and resources to negate your bombing, or damage to either infrastructure or ecology.