That only applies if they have something left to lose. That's why the superior nation always gives concessions. You can have this worthless rock, or you can fight us and lose everything. If they don't have that worthless rock to protect, then they can scatter and attack you and you can't bring your big guns to bare because it is pointing at your own rock.

I don't think that very many nomadic people have had great reputations for trade. The only ones I can think of were the Bedouin, but that's stretching it. Keep in mind that merchants want consistent transport of goods, and nomads will move around according to patterns that are effectively random from the merchants' perspectives. Also, the most efficient transport method is, and always has been, by water. Nomads don't do that. They're probably not going to serve anyone as the primary goods transporters.

How about the Native Americans? They were nomadic. They traded. They even used water transportation.

Which ones? The Plains Indians were nomadic, certainly, but as far as I know, they didn't use waterways for trade. The tribes in the East and on the West Coast certainly used waterways, but they were not nomadic. Some were semi-nomadic slash-and-burn farmers, but they were generally settled.

The point is not that nomadic people don't trade with others (of course, they trade with others.) The point is that they would make unreliable trading partners for civilization, which generally prefers things work on a schedule. Now, civilizations are going to be willing to pay them a lot of money to work as mercenaries to harass their enemies, as that's just good for business.

Quite true but I'm kinda assuming that if the advanced civilisation picks a fight war is inevitable. Still, you raise an interesting point about the technological edge and there's a few 'if's there. The advanced technology has to be 'clean' enough to be used, there's no point invading someone for living space if you have to live in the radioactive wasteland you created or where a mutant virus you released will kill you. This is part of the reason that a guerilla force can effective fight a superpower, the technology simply isn't necessarily applicable to the situation. It's a different scenario when you're okay with scorched earth (maybe a scenario where the point isn't occupation but elimination) but the goals of the advanced nation are likely to matter here.

Also, in an advanced civilisation, there's usually enough concern about the views of the populace that such weapons might not be employed anyway, limiting the gap. Sure, MIRVs might be the pinnacle of technology but that's not much good if you're not going to use them for fear of damaging morale/getting voted out of office. To be quite honest, I think this is the real reason a highly advanced culture isn't going to flatten a primitive one, the gap allows them to give themselves a degree of moral fulfillment, especially when the conflict isn't related to their survival.

But otherwise I agree, if the gap gets to point where it's orbital space lasers vs a pointy stick, someone's royally screwed

you know i never looked at it this way before, but that may be the very reason most "advanced civilizations" eventually fall... because they tie their own hands when it comes to their own defense. When it comes to survival, you dont have the option of being "nice" about it... you do WHAT EVER IS NECESSARY! or you die!

Any thoughts?