"There goes another one" - EP IV question

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2009-11-18 05:27pm

Except that the Death Star is massively overpowered for the purpose of defeating planetary shields. Alderaan's held out for what? A billionth of a second; and the beam was still enough to blow up the planet with exceptional amounts of energy left over.

The Death Star was not a necessity for defeating shields. It was a terror weapon to blow up planets. This is explicitly clear in the movie.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2009-11-18 05:31pm

Crazedwraith wrote:Except that the Death Star is massively overpowered for the purpose of defeating planetary shields. Alderaan's held out for what? A billionth of a second; and the beam was still enough to blow up the planet with exceptional amounts of energy left over.

The Death Star was not a necessity for defeating shields. It was a terror weapon to blow up planets. This is explicitly clear in the movie.

The point I am making is that other methods take time and allow said enemies to intercept you with ease. This eliminates all that. It's side effect is that it doesn't just destroy the shield but destroys the entire planet, it's effectiveness is not deniable. It's usage and at what level and lease is a morality point that I care not to go into and others are already particpating in. Just pointing out why it was made, nothing more.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2009-11-18 05:38pm

Ghost Rider wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:Except that the Death Star is massively overpowered for the purpose of defeating planetary shields. Alderaan's held out for what? A billionth of a second; and the beam was still enough to blow up the planet with exceptional amounts of energy left over.

The Death Star was not a necessity for defeating shields. It was a terror weapon to blow up planets. This is explicitly clear in the movie.
The point I am making is that other methods take time and allow said enemies to intercept you with ease. This eliminates all that. It's side effect is that it doesn't just destroy the shield but destroys the entire planet, it's effectiveness is not deniable. It's usage and at what level and lease is a morality point that I care not to go into and others are already particpating in. Just pointing out why it was made, nothing more.

And the point I am making is this; Planetary destruction was not a 'side effect' as you put it. It was the primary purpose. Is shield destruction was what they want. The Death Star is surplus to requirement. They could have built a much small superlaser that was designed to deleiver enough power to knock out shields. Instead they built one with many orders of magnitude more energy than was needed.

Patroklos · Post by **Patroklos** » 2009-11-18 05:43pm

If you are referring to Thrawn's blockade, the siege lasted for a few weeks at the most, and breaking it was the top priority for the NR fleet. Are you referring to some other, larger-scale blockade?

Thats correct, a few weeks in which there was no real mention of catastrophic starvation of water shortages or whatever. So that means that means that if a planet with probably the highest population in the galaxy and no real described resources of note can withstand a siege of a month or more, what could a planet with far fewer mouthes to feed and specifically hardened against an attacker manage?

More importantly, while you are parking a fleet large enough to enforce a blockade or deter a relief force what else is going on in the greater galaxy?

Isard's Revenge. I was wrong about the scale of the Hegemony, it's actually only a dozen worlds in size. However, the false "Pulsar Station" was significantly less powerful than the Death Star, and designed as a fleet combatant/defense station rather than a strategic weapon. Larger states, such as the Mon Calamari, the Hutts, and KDY, could potentially build their own Death Stars. Admittedly, it was only the state of the galaxy post-ROTJ that would realistically allow (and did, in the case of the Hutts) for such a project to be completed without large segments of the Imperial Fleet being devoted to crushing the project.

It is also orders of magnitude less impressive than a DS.

Either Grievous was able to overcome Humbarine's planetary shield (which you have claimed are immune to any bombardment), or a large ecumenopolis such as Humbarine lacks a planetary shield.

Reading everything I could online about this engagement I have heard not a single mention of Grievous encountering a planetary shield let alone circumventing one. This is absurd shitty Star Wars writer BS of course, but thats what we are left with.

Apparently Humbarine's defenses relied solely on a fleet of impressive capital ships which were convienently absent when Grevious arrived. An obviously contrived plot point.

Furthermore, there are specialized anti-shield weapons like the torpedo sphere and shield-penetrating technology like that on the Galaxy Gun and Zam Wessel's assassin droid. You also missed the point with Muunilist and the later conquest of Cato Nemoidia. The homeworlds of the Intergalactic Banking Clan and the Trade Federation lack these massive, nigh-invulnerable shield complexes. All the fortress worlds were established during the course of the war itself.

I don't think it is impossible to take down a great powers shields, obviously it can be done or no planet would have to worry about anything at all as long as they had one. The question is just how much effort and resources has to be devoted in order to accomplish this? And while you are busy being tied down pouring whatever overwhelming amount of force is required to accomplish this what is not being taken care of elsewhere?

The galaxy as a whole is almost certainly less militarized after the downfall of the Separatists, even if the Empire is more militaristic than the Republic. The Death Star couldn't be used to destroy "dozens" of great powers in a day, but that is a bit of a nitpick.

It most certainly is militarized. Not only was the Republic ramping up for war during the clone wars, but so was every other political/econmic power of any signifigance. Whether it was to paricipate directly or just to secure themselves against the general instability, there is no question that after a military build up of that scale quite a bit is going to be left laying around. The Rebels were counting on this acually.

Secondarily, the most important systems, like Corellia, Kuat, Fondor, Carida, and other major industrial powerhouses, are reliant on space-based infrastructure and are considered nearly invulnerable because of the massive fleets protecting them.

Again, if Courusant can last a month plus then any of these worlds should be able to d the same plus some.

You are absolutely correct that besides the planetary shields there are other things that make a great power hard to crack like planetary weaponry and fleets. Luckly for the Empire the DS was designed to be impervious to any of these defenses.

The planets themselves are less valuable than the shipyards and training facilities. Banking centers, and "library worlds" are more dependent on planetary facilities,

This is true in a lot of cases, but then again nobody said it was all roses for thos being besieged.

but even Obroa-Skai, the largest known such world, was unable to prevent Grand Admiral Thrawn from conducting an information raid on their libraries, suggesting they are either lightly defended, or that like a number of worlds, they have massive space presences. In essence, either full, Alderaan-scale planetary shields are relatively uncommon, and/or they are easier to bring down (through momentum transfer to individual generators if nothing else) than through a Death Star.

Or maybe all planetary shields were not created equal?

Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use for a "great power" with regards to Star Wars?

An entity that wields power to a significant degree in areas such as economy/military/culture/gravitas/etc. It could be any combination of these, or all of them.

Simon_Jester · Post by **Simon_Jester** » 2009-11-18 05:45pm

Crazedwraith wrote:And the point I am making is this; Planetary destruction was not a 'side effect' as you put it. It was the primary purpose. Is shield destruction was what they want. The Death Star is surplus to requirement. They could have built a much small superlaser that was designed to deleiver enough power to knock out shields. Instead they built one with many orders of magnitude more energy than was needed.

NOTE:

The shields in question must be able to soak up considerably more firepower than the minimum required to do a Base Delta Zero. Any weapon capable of penetrating them reliably must in turn be drastically more powerful than that, which means that even if only a small fraction of the total weapon energy gets through, you get mass destruction on the planet's surface. Building it big enough to blow apart planets may actually be necessary, given that we know the shields are stiff enough to survive prolonged bombardment from fleets of individual ships with firepower in the mid-yottawatt* range.

*Yotta: "times ten to the power of 24" in the SI system; thus the yottawatt range stretches from 1E24 to 1E27 W.

bz249 wrote:Going to a purely legal ground (morally while the Empire is evil, the other side had succesfully thrown the Galaxy into chaos so I have no real simpathy to the Rebels either). There are two important thing: the status of the Tantive IV and status of the Rebel prisoners.

a.) for Tantive IV the situation is easy, after receiving the Death Star plans the ship changed the status of being a combatant, thus any actions against her is perfectly legal (note that a hospital ship carrying ammunition or simply reporting the position of opposing units within 24 hours is a perfectly legitimate target, since it acts like a combatant). The Imperial troops have hard evidence for this (from the dialogue) so in the Vader-Leia argument the law is on Vader's side and Leia comitted warcrimes (note that from legal point of view Martin Luther King, Sophie Scholl or anyone trying to escape to West Berlin were criminals)

Agreed. All that falls into my opinion of the Empire's legal system, not their compliance with the laws of war. The attack upon and the boarding of Tantive IV are, in my opinion, laws-of-war compliant (for at least some reasonable sets of laws-of-war).

Firing on the escape pods? Not so much, especially given that they were obviously prepared to land overwhelming forces on Tatooine to search the surface for any survivors, and that ships in that weight class have tractor beams that can be used to capture boarding pods, as well as ion cannons that can be used to disable them and capture them in space.

Executing the prisoners without any credible semblance of a trial? Again, no, no way to pitch that as anything but an atrocity.

b.) the real question is whether the Rebels were soldiers or not, they definitely had uniforms which might indicate that they were member of an army or a law enforcement organization (on the other hand employees of the German Railways, hotelboys or even waiter wear uniforms). If they were so the next question is whom they were representing (if Alderaan it means that there is a state of war between the Empire and Alderaan!). If they were soldiers or policemen than they deserve the right to being treated as PoW. On the other hand they were mere civvies with guns, than their status is armed mob, executing members of such a mob on the spot, while harsh it is not unprecedented.

If we look at the Geneva definition for lawful combatants in irregular forces, as I understand there are four such conditions:
-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

By and large, the Rebellion follows some kind of laws of war, although it's not obvious what laws those are because we don't know what the Star Wars equivalent of the Geneva Convention is. They do carry arms openly, at least as individuals, making no attempt to hide that they are in fact guys with blasters. Their uniforms and insignia are a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.

The tricky question is whether they are commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates. In a real sense they are, because they have an organized command structure. But in a real sense they are not, because that command structure is in hiding and there is no effective way to hold them accountable for their actions.
_________

What makes a war just? The soldiers of the Empire could easily think that they were fighting for the integrity of the Empire which was threatened by a group of terrorists. Stability can be a value on its own. Anyway most armies think that they were fighting for a just cause, indeed an army not beleiving they are the good guys collapse quickly.

This is very much true. But I am a moral absolutist, so I don't think it's particularly relevant. The Imperials' war to suppress the Rebellion either is or is not just; depending on which it is, the destruction of Alderaan to bring about a swift Imperial victory either is or is not justified.

In my opinion it is not justified, because the Galactic Empire violates my definition of legitimate governments, and since it is not fighting to protect its people from an existential threat. Against the invasion of the Yuuzhan Vong, the Empire would be fighting a just war; against the Rebels it is not. Therefore, in my opinion the destruction of Alderaan cannot be justified in the terms that make the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki marginally justifiable*. A better analogy would be the firebombing of Dresden, or perhaps** the bombing of Rotterdam.

*marginally so, because the context was questionable enough that it cannot be shown with certainty whether it was the only way to end the war without greater casualties. Had the US been willing to accept a more conditional surrender, The Bomb might have been unnecessary.
** Depending heavily on how much of the bombing you blame on mixups in the German chain of command, stuff like that- it may be a borderline case. Not sure.

Patroklos · Post by **Patroklos** » 2009-11-18 06:08pm

Simon_Jester wrote:In this case, their ship had been boarded, rather than sunk; it amounts to something very similar. Warfare in uninhabitable environments is materiel-oriented, and rightly so; once you neutralize the enemy's materiel, the laws of war do not normally give you cover to shoot people trying to escape the neutralized vehicle.

No, not only is it not similar it is not analogous at all. Perhaps, again, you saw a different movie, but I at no time saw either the Tanative as a whole surrender or any of its crew. They fought the Empire tooth an nail until the compelled some to surrender. There was an active engagement going on and given the choice to fight, surrender or run away some decided to run away. There is no requirement to show mercy to a fleeing enemy, there is a requirement to show mercy to a surrendering enemy. If those in the escape pod indeed wanted to surrender and request quarter, juming into an escape pod and fleeing to the planetary surface is not the way to do it.

Was it you or someone else who argued that the Imperials had the right to execute the captured Rebels out of hand?

It certainly wasn't me, I stated that within the Empire lots of peers/Moffs/flag officers are deligated the authority to execute both enemy combatants AND their own troops under many circumstances. That is Imperial law, if you have a problem with it join the Rebellion.

I'm not sure it was you, but if it was, that argument sits poorly with what you've just said. After all, if their ship has been captured by an enemy who intends to kill them all, their situation is little or no different from what they would face if their ship was about to explode.

Hardly. The Empire did how quarter to combatants that properly surrendered vice attempt escape. We see a whole formation of them escorted by stormtroopers on screen. The fact that they are undeniable engaging in treason and were executed (under authority delegated by the Throne) later irrelevant.

If they abandon their ship, or parachute out of their plane, even if they do not do so to escape imminent mortal danger from damage to the ship or plane, it is still grossly outside the usages of war to shoot them out of hand. Round them up as POWs? Yes. Massacre them? No.

If they are actively engaged in getting back to their own lines then yes, the fact that they are in a life boat of just parachuted is irrelevant. If surrender once confronted that is another matter, however on the Tanative the opportunity to surrender was onboard the Tanative itself, the very act of getting into the escape pod at that point is proof they were trying to evade capture. There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing on a downed pilot actively running away from you, as an example.

On land, this would indeed not be unusual, although it is often, shall we say, disapproved of after the fact. In environments far more similar to space, in that fleeing enemies cannot continue to fight back simply by the expedient of hiding behind a tree and waiting to ambush you? Not so much.

It is no different, you are either an active combatant or you are not. The very act of trying to evade capture makes you an active combatant and a perfectly legitimate target, it is as simple as that.

If the Empire had a right to suppress the Rebellion, given the scale of the conflict, you could make a reasonable argument that destroying one planet was justified to avert a galactic-scale war. But if the Empire does not have such a right, it cannot justify the destruction of Alderaan in terms of that right, and thus does not get a pass on its own war crimes by claiming that they prevented a greater evil.

The Empire has every right to supress the rebellion, it is the legitimate government of the galaxy. Whether you like it or not Palpantine was proclaimed Emperor by the Senate, and created the Imperial State via that authority. If you really don't like that go ahead and rebel, but make no mistake that you are the one disregarding legal authority and thus the outlaw, not the other way around.

That doesn't mean destroying Alderaan didn't make strategic sense, of course. But "strategically sound" does not mean "justified" or "not a war crime."

The destruction of Alderaan really is a trivial event given the scale of the Empire itself. You may think it is excessive, but Alderaan was as a matter of fact party to treason on the whole state level.

[quote[No. But building this capability in secret with the intent of establishing a world hegemon of rule by fear? That does.[/quote]

The fact that it was built in secret is irrelevant. It was a military project, most are secret.

The fact that it was built with the intent of establishing a world hegemon of rule by fear is irrelevant, that in no way makes you evil. As others have pointed out the Empire didn't need to rule through fear, most of the citizenry had no problem with the Empire. The Death Star was built to 1.) destroy those in open rebellion and 2.) forstall future rebellion by removing it as an option of for the other centers of power within the Empire, ie great powers. There is nothing wrong with that. Was the centralizing of power by Kings at the expense of fuedal lords considered eval when nation states were emerging?

You can certainly disagree with it from a political standpoint, the age old question of centralization of federalism if you will, but it is not evil or bad on its face.

NoogDeNoog · Post by **NoogDeNoog** » 2009-11-18 06:12pm

Simon_Jester wrote: 2) Your interpretation of the laws of war is not consistent with the one applied throughout most of history, especially in the context most similar to space warfare- war at sea or in the air. By longstanding custom, you do not fire on the crew of a belligerent warship after the ship is disabled and the crew abandons ship. You do not strafe the lifeboats. You might take the lifeboats in and ship the people inside off to a POW camp, but you don't kill them out of hand. Likewise, after a pilot ejects and is parachuting to the ground, it is customary not to riddle his parachute with bullets to kill him. People who do that kind of thing gain a well deserved reputation as murderous savages.

War is about killing people, all sides to a conflict do this sort of thing. Just yesterday I was watching a video of sailors machine gunning japanese survivors floating in the water. It's not like you get an official "time out" when you have to bail out or abandon ship in time of war. Realistically, it's up to your enemy if he wants to take you prisoner or not.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2009-11-18 06:48pm

Simon_Jester wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:And the point I am making is this; Planetary destruction was not a 'side effect' as you put it. It was the primary purpose. Is shield destruction was what they want. The Death Star is surplus to requirement. They could have built a much small superlaser that was designed to deleiver enough power to knock out shields. Instead they built one with many orders of magnitude more energy than was needed.
NOTE:

The shields in question must be able to soak up considerably more firepower than the minimum required to do a Base Delta Zero. Any weapon capable of penetrating them reliably must in turn be drastically more powerful than that, which means that even if only a small fraction of the total weapon energy gets through, you get mass destruction on the planet's surface. Building it big enough to blow apart planets may actually be necessary, given that we know the shields are stiff enough to survive prolonged bombardment from fleets of individual ships with firepower in the mid-yottawatt* range.

*Yotta: "times ten to the power of 24" in the SI system; thus the yottawatt range stretches from 1E24 to 1E27 W.

Planetary destruction is still clearly the purpose of the Death Star and not a mere by product of knocking down shields. Again, Alderaan's shields held up for a tiny fraction of a second against a blast that was maybe a couple of seconds in duration. Clearly massive overkill. I'm not arguing that they can build a device that will blast out a shield and leave what's underneath totally untouched but clearly the planet killing is not an unintentional and unavoidable by product of shield breeching.

For example if they had a much lower power beam; they could take down shields in a second or two rather than milliseconds and with the lower power beam they'd be much less excess energy to fuck up whatever's underneath it.

Richelieu · Post by **Richelieu** » 2009-11-18 06:58pm

Simon Jester wrote: During the Second World War, all the belligerent powers fought long and hard, and were heavily militarized. Those countries' governments did what they could to make sure every citizen contributed to the war effort (with varying success). All countries involved launched attacks on civilian towns and cities using powerful, indiscriminate weapons. There's a certain symmetry there; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were broadly comparable to things the Japanese would have been willing to do if they'd had the resources.

During the Star Wars Rebellion, there's no comparable symmetry. Alderaan is not a heavily militarized planet, the Rebels are not razing worlds of their own. Yes, you can argue that blowing up Alderaan will shorten the war, but first you need to establish that the war is just in the first place- that the Empire has a right to win it that justifies blowing up planets. Otherwise, you're left with a very strange set of laws of war, one in which I can, say, randomly declare war on you for no reason and then massacre many of your citizens to "shorten the war" that I just started. And be in the right, because I inflicted less casualties than I would have in the long run by fighting the war by more accepted means.

Good points regarding the relatively equal footing. So basically, you'd say it would be morally acceptable to demonstrate your WMD when at war with a relatively strong opponent, but not, say, nuke an island because the local tribe threw rocks at you. I can see that.

But I am not sure I agree that the Empire decided to attack Alderaan for no reason. It was Leia's planet. Leia was in position of power there (well, perhaps less in reality than what her title implies), and there are real-world precedents of governments declaring war on other governments because they harboured terrorists. I agree that the proper form should have been to ask them to surrender first, so the attack can qualify as evil even with the mindset of psychological warfare.

Patroklos · Post by **Patroklos** » 2009-11-18 06:58pm

Anguirus wrote: How so? You appear to take the position that anyone who "commits treason" should be immediately executed without trial. I was making the assumption that you're not a complete authoritarian, nor are you a sociopath, in everyday life, so unless this assumption does not hold, you are holding the Empire to a more generous moral standard than you would a government in the real world.

I took no such position, I merely pointed out that has indeed been the case for many a state in our own history and it is certainly a power proscribed to many entities by Imperial law in the SW universe. The fact that you disagree with this is irrelevant to whether it is legal in universe.

You need to seperate yourself from you own preconceptions about what is right and wrong about our world. The Star Wars world is not our world, and our morals mean nothing whatsoever when discussing what is right/legal/allowed/whatever in a galaxy far far away.

Keep in mind, the main crime that was committed was sending information about a secret warship that was commanded by Tarkin (read: Space Hitler) to the only organization that stood a chance of defeating it. In other words, if you are not morally dissonant, than I wonder what your position is on real-world authoritarian mass-murdering governments executing traitorous citizens who attempt to prevent more mass murder.

1.) Your personal opinion of Tarkin asside, he was as a matter of fact the appointed adminstrator of his Over Sector and he was appointed by the legitimate authority for doing so. There was nothing illegal about the actions Tarkin takes on screen.

2.) Why are we assuming the Rebellion shouldn't have been defeated. They were in fact a group of unrepentant terrorists fighting legitimate government authority for the purposes of destabilizing the galaxy. By any reasonable assesment the bad guys are definetly the rebels in this scenario. Alderaan is a pitance next to the trillions that will die who otherwise wouldn't have in the next decades as a direct result of the Rebellion's destuction of galactic governance.

3.) Alderaan was destroyed for one reason and one reason only, it was in voluntary rebellion against legitimate authority.

I happen to hold the position that attacking an unarmed retreating enemy is wrong. Shooting up a lifeboat when you're riding around in a battleship is wrong, and no amount of "Western-style total war" wankery will change that.

1.) You can hold that opinion all you want, but don't expect to win any wars either. And enemy attempting escape is an enemy who hasn't given up.

2.) You must have been watching a different movie than I was, becasue the one I saw insinuated declared combatants attempting to escape capture instead of surrendering. There is no lifeboat analogy, they were not escaping from anything other than capture.

As I and others have pointed out to you, they were not "retreating" to a superior tactical position (Tatooine?). They were fleeing a foe who gave no quarter. SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THERE.

What, you have to be fleeing to a SUPERIOR tactical position to be subject to attack? Seriously, NEVER try and run a war.

As the movie clearly shows as combatants they were given quarter. They were executed for being traitors as a seperate mater.

So? It's legal for lots of bad people to shoot lots of good people in this crazy world. However, many countries apply something called "due process." There are also people called "prisoners of war," who have rights.

What constitutes due process depends on what state you are under. You can complain all you want about how improper you think the due process is in a particular state, but under the Galactic Empire summary execution is the law of the land in many cases.

See above. Do you imagine that "we" attack troops who have thrown down their weapons as a matter of national policy? Do you imagine that it is right to do so?

Not only do I imagine we do so, we in fact do so all the time, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

You are again failing to understand the difference between an enemy that is surrendering and one that is fleeing. And enemy fleeing for safety, armed or not, is still an active combatant. If he really didn't want to fight again then he should surrender. And emeny hat is surrendering, on the other had, is declaring his intention to not fight you either now or later, and thus should be given quarter.

The problem with the crew of the Tanative is that on top of simply being a combatant, they are also criminals. And on top of being criminals, they are guilty of a crime that is usually considered a capital offense. That of course leaves them with a tricky choice, because regardless of whether quarter is given on the battlefield they are still laible for their crime after that.

And murdered them.

Irrelevant, they were not in danger of being killed by the ship once it was captured by the Empire, the lifeboat analogy is this not appropriate.

Many did surrender. They didn't survive.

Sure they did. We very clearly saw them being marched around under guard. The fact that they may have died later as a result of their very serious crimes agains the people of the Galactic Empire irrelevant to their capture at during combat.

You're a dumbass. Getting a bullet/blaster bolt in the back of the neck, in secret, kept away from the inquisitive eyes of the legitimate legislative body of the galaxy, much less the general public, is not the same thing as trial and execution.

Again, please stop applying your provincial terrestrial concepts of justice to a completely different galaxy. The Empire is the state that the elected representatives of every corner of the galaxy voluntarily created. Futhermore the Senate has no jurisdiction over the operation of the Imperial State in the Outer Rim. Its administration was legally delegated to the Imperial armed forces who we do not see exercise any power beyond their normal perogative.

Then why is C-3PO claiming that "they've shut [it] down" and characterizing it as "madness"? I've never heard, in Star Wars or anything else, the act of "blowing something up" characterized as "shutting it down." To shut down power means "to turn off." IIRC the section that was destroyed was the antenna dish. It almost certainly contributed to a decision to power down and await boarding. But I guess this is all irrelevant to you, because any armed rebellion against a lawful government should, in your eyes, be punished with the icy scythe of Death. I think the equating of "lawful" with "right" is the fundamental flaw I find in your moral calculus.

So it was shut down due to being damaged by turbolaser fire, what does it matter? At that point there is no reason to think that the brazenly illegal activity his Alderaanian slave masters would not lead to the Tanative's destuction.

I find it funny that you think a legitimate government should respond to the violent actions of rebels with anything other than force.

So in your opinion, it is morally correct to murder duped pawns?

Murder them? No, kill them? Sure. They were in fact agents of the government of Alderaan who made a deliberate decision to rebel against legitimate galactic authority. Do you think footsoldiers are asked to give their imput of consent to every decision the commanders, civilian or military, make? Is it somehow illegal for their enemy to kill them becacuse this didn't take place?

All those poor German conscripts in WWII, illegally killed by the Allies...

I'll remember to stand up and cheer next time I watch Tarkin kill the billions of Alderaan. After all, they knew nothing about the plans, but they were unwitting pawns of their planetary government. Thank god he stopped their evil rulers before they made him kill anyone else.

As you should, Tarkin very nearly prevented a rebellion that would eventually claim trillions of lives. In any case, perhaps the Alderaanians should have thought about the consequences of letting hereditary royalty treat them as game pieces in a political stuggle that had more to do with them losing galactic influence than any fight for freedom. What can we say, the house of Alderaan were a bunch of dicks.

I have never invoked Godwin's Law before, but I'd like you to think about what 20th-century governments (not to exclude others) you are eagerly apologizing for at this moment in time. After all, when you start oppressing people, sometimes they push back and become a "threat." Then, you can call them traitors and "execute" them all without trial. Rinse and repeat for anyone you don't like.

The problem is, as was alluded to ealier in this thread, there is really nothing much pointing to the Empire oppressing anyone to any great degree. The Empire by and large is described as a happy place besides the Outer Rim, who did in fact just loose a war of genocide against the more populous and civilized Core. Of course the Rebels just say all these people were duped, but then again when does a self righteous group of terorists/drug smugglers/deposed royalty/arms dealers/down and out politicians/defeated seperatists NOT say this?

By all accounts the Empire was an infinetly more peaceful place than the Old Republic before it, and on top of that far more effective in governance. Yet for some reason we are supposed to be all teary eyed for the people who want to return to days of rampant government corruption, sectarian violance, galactic discontent and general nepotism enforced by an unelected religious order?

Think about this real hard. The First Galactic Empire was declared 20 years BEFORE any organized shot-firing Rebellion existed.

Yeah, you just made that up.

I think the Alderaanians and other "traitors" tried pretty damn hard to keep their protests peaceful until there was clearly no choice.

They did? Source? I am curious, do you have any idea what exactly the Aderaanians were protesting in the first place?

How many Imperial atrocities were committed in those 20 years? Bet it's a lot.

Considering we are privy to none via the movies, and very few via the EU, certainly very few that have an meaning within a galaxy the size of this one, that is a losing bet.

And they were building the Death Star that whole time, in order to replace the legislature and simply rule by fiat, killing unimaginable numbers of civilians in order to centralize all ruling power into the hands of a Dark Lord of the Sith.

1.) As has been explained to you the constuction of the Death Star is noting evil. The simple fact is that the DS's intended targets WERE conspiring against the Empire (some of them anyway), justifying its constuction outright.

2.) The Empire was ruled by fiat since the moment of its declaration, with the consent of the previously empowerd Senate of course. The Senate conviened at the pleasure of the Emperor, as was proven in ANH it was a well within his authority to suspend it at his pleasure. You have a very strange idea of how the Galactic government worked post Clone Wars.

3.) The point of the Death Star was NOT to kill unimaginable numbers of civilians. The idea was to make the prospect of rebellion untenable, preventing war and enforcing stability under the most effective goverment in existance for thousands of years.

Do you want to know what did kill trillions of people and through the galaxy into decades of free for all galactic scale warfare resulting in a galaxy fragmented and a frail shadow of its former self? The rebellion overthrowing the legitimate center of power. Way to go Alliance!

Yep. Atrocity pie.[/quote]

Richelieu · Post by **Richelieu** » 2009-11-18 07:26pm

Simon_Jester wrote: If the Empire had a right to suppress the Rebellion, given the scale of the conflict, you could make a reasonable argument that destroying one planet was justified to avert a galactic-scale war. But if the Empire does not have such a right, it cannot justify the destruction of Alderaan in terms of that right, and thus does not get a pass on its own war crimes by claiming that they prevented a greater evil.

Right as in legal right, or right as in "not wrong" ? Usually, I'd say suppressing the rebellion was within the legal role of Vader, but I'd say destroying rebel worlds for the sole crime of being rebel is over the top. It also struck me when I read the opening "yellow text" of episode II, separatists were supposed to be evil just because they were separatists. Ennemy, of course (I assume the charter of the republic made joining irreversible), but evil?

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2009-11-18 07:29pm

Richelieu wrote: But I am not sure I agree that the Empire decided to attack Alderaan for no reason. It was Leia's planet. Leia was in position of power there (well, perhaps less in reality than what her title implies), and there are real-world precedents of governments declaring war on other governments because they harboured terrorists. I agree that the proper form should have been to ask them to surrender first, so the attack can qualify as evil even with the mindset of psychological warfare.

You seem to be missing the fact that Alderaan was a member of the Empire. So this is like the UK nuking Manchester. Further more they attack Alderaan not because it is a military target (Tarkin himself states its not "you would prefer a different target? A military target? Then name the system!) but to pressure her to give up infomation. So this is like the UK army arresting a mancunian terrorist and then nuking Manchester to get him to confess.

Patroklos · Post by **Patroklos** » 2009-11-18 07:32pm

No, Alderaan was a DOMINION of the Empire. It may have been party to the Empire, but it was also a soveriegn state in its own right.

Crazedwraith · Post by **Crazedwraith** » 2009-11-18 07:37pm

Patroklos wrote:No, Alderaan was a DOMINION of the Empire. It may have been party to the Empire, but it was also a soveriegn state in its own right.

OK, now explain how that makes a difference to my point?

Bakustra · Post by **Bakustra** » 2009-11-18 07:43pm

Patroklos wrote:
If you are referring to Thrawn's blockade, the siege lasted for a few weeks at the most, and breaking it was the top priority for the NR fleet. Are you referring to some other, larger-scale blockade?
Thats correct, a few weeks in which there was no real mention of catastrophic starvation of water shortages or whatever. So that means that means that if a planet with probably the highest population in the galaxy and no real described resources of note can withstand a siege of a month or more, what could a planet with far fewer mouthes to feed and specifically hardened against an attacker manage?

More importantly, while you are parking a fleet large enough to enforce a blockade or deter a relief force what else is going on in the greater galaxy?

Yes, a few weeks wherein the NR fleet had to launch a desperate attack to grab a CGT. Coruscant, which is likely highly prepared for a siege, is at that point after five years of open battle between the New Republic and the Empire. We are talking about twenty years after the end of the Clone Wars. Why do you think the two situations are identical?

Isard's Revenge. I was wrong about the scale of the Hegemony, it's actually only a dozen worlds in size. However, the false "Pulsar Station" was significantly less powerful than the Death Star, and designed as a fleet combatant/defense station rather than a strategic weapon. Larger states, such as the Mon Calamari, the Hutts, and KDY, could potentially build their own Death Stars. Admittedly, it was only the state of the galaxy post-ROTJ that would realistically allow (and did, in the case of the Hutts) for such a project to be completed without large segments of the Imperial Fleet being devoted to crushing the project.
It is also orders of magnitude less impressive than a DS.

And the Ciutric Hegemony is orders of magnitude less impressive than larger states like the Pentastar Alignment, the Mon Calamari Sector, and the Hutts. You are presuming that the Death Star occupied a significant amount of the military budget of the Empire, when it was hidden completely from the Senate, presumably buried within "top secret" budget areas. The second Death Star was constructed entirely in situ, with materials shipped by a single shipping company, and its location was only revealed by deliberate design on the part of the Emperor. The Death Stars did not take up immense amounts of the Empire's resources.

Either Grievous was able to overcome Humbarine's planetary shield (which you have claimed are immune to any bombardment), or a large ecumenopolis such as Humbarine lacks a planetary shield.
Reading everything I could online about this engagement I have heard not a single mention of Grievous encountering a planetary shield let alone circumventing one. This is absurd shitty Star Wars writer BS of course, but thats what we are left with.

Apparently Humbarine's defenses relied solely on a fleet of impressive capital ships which were convienently absent when Grevious arrived. An obviously contrived plot point.

Alternately, Humbarine's shields, if they existed, might have been taken out by Grievous in his initial volley before they could be raised. But we agree, essentially, that a major world within the Republic at a time of war lacked Alderaan-scale defenses.

Furthermore, there are specialized anti-shield weapons like the torpedo sphere and shield-penetrating technology like that on the Galaxy Gun and Zam Wessel's assassin droid. You also missed the point with Muunilist and the later conquest of Cato Nemoidia. The homeworlds of the Intergalactic Banking Clan and the Trade Federation lack these massive, nigh-invulnerable shield complexes. All the fortress worlds were established during the course of the war itself.
I don't think it is impossible to take down a great powers shields, obviously it can be done or no planet would have to worry about anything at all as long as they had one. The question is just how much effort and resources has to be devoted in order to accomplish this? And while you are busy being tied down pouring whatever overwhelming amount of force is required to accomplish this what is not being taken care of elsewhere?

Actually, the idea of breaking a shielding system like Alderaan's is probably moot after Ghost Rider's clarification, but the point is that the homeworlds of two founding Separatist corporations were unshielded (or their shields were significantly weaker. See below.) so you can't really rely on Alderaan-scale shields being common.

The galaxy as a whole is almost certainly less militarized after the downfall of the Separatists, even if the Empire is more militaristic than the Republic. The Death Star couldn't be used to destroy "dozens" of great powers in a day, but that is a bit of a nitpick.
It most certainly is militarized. Not only was the Republic ramping up for war during the clone wars, but so was every other political/econmic power of any signifigance. Whether it was to paricipate directly or just to secure themselves against the general instability, there is no question that after a military build up of that scale quite a bit is going to be left laying around. The Rebels were counting on this acually.

One of the two belligerent powers was destroyed utterly. So now, assuming the Empire mothballed/scuttled the majority of captured Separatist ships, there is approximately (probably just more than, counting abandoned/lost/salvaged ships) half the warships in service during the war. Or are you seriously claiming the Empire is more heavily militarized during a time of peace than during a time of galactic, full-scale war?

Furthermore, you are presuming that local powers would maintain an active and large navy when they have a)the Imperial Sector and Regional fleets protecting them, which their taxes fund, and b)no pressing need for a navy, making it a large expense for no apparent gain (unless you're plotting armed resistance).

Finally, the only use of Separatist warships by the Rebels is a Lucrehulk in Death Star. In other words, where are the Lucrehulks, Munificents, and Recusants at Endor?

Secondarily, the most important systems, like Corellia, Kuat, Fondor, Carida, and other major industrial powerhouses, are reliant on space-based infrastructure and are considered nearly invulnerable because of the massive fleets protecting them.
Again, if Courusant can last a month plus then any of these worlds should be able to d the same plus some.

You are absolutely correct that besides the planetary shields there are other things that make a great power hard to crack like planetary weaponry and fleets. Luckly for the Empire the DS was designed to be impervious to any of these defenses.

Okay, conceded.

The planets themselves are less valuable than the shipyards and training facilities. Banking centers, and "library worlds" are more dependent on planetary facilities,
This is true in a lot of cases, but then again nobody said it was all roses for thos being besieged.

You miss my point. Kuat proper is less valuable than its shipyards, which are essentially all in orbit. Furthermore, Coruscant is capable of lasting weeks after the planet has already fallen once. The New Republic presumably would have stockpiled food and water on Coruscant in case of warlord/Imperial attacks, but prior to Endor, or even Yavin, why would Corellia and Kuat do the same? Peace breeds complacency.

but even Obroa-Skai, the largest known such world, was unable to prevent Grand Admiral Thrawn from conducting an information raid on their libraries, suggesting they are either lightly defended, or that like a number of worlds, they have massive space presences. In essence, either full, Alderaan-scale planetary shields are relatively uncommon, and/or they are easier to bring down (through momentum transfer to individual generators if nothing else) than through a Death Star.
Or maybe all planetary shields were not created equal?

That was exactly my point with the "Alderaan-style" comment. Planetary shields certainly aren't created equal, and presumably Alderaan's is at the high end of the scale.

Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use for a "great power" with regards to Star Wars?
An entity that wields power to a significant degree in areas such as economy/military/culture/gravitas/etc. It could be any combination of these, or all of them.

The problem lies in defining significant. After all, Alderaan may be well-known on a galactic scale, but it's trifling compared to Hutt Space. You also seem to use it interchangeably with "fortress world" or "well-defended planet," but very few planets/planetary systems are that important and powerful on their lonesome. Coruscant, Corellia, Carida, and possibly other ecumenopoli really are the only ones that fit as singly important.

Crazedwraith wrote:Planetary destruction is still clearly the purpose of the Death Star and not a mere by product of knocking down shields. Again, Alderaan's shields held up for a tiny fraction of a second against a blast that was maybe a couple of seconds in duration. Clearly massive overkill. I'm not arguing that they can build a device that will blast out a shield and leave what's underneath totally untouched but clearly the planet killing is not an unintentional and unavoidable by product of shield breeching.

For example if they had a much lower power beam; they could take down shields in a second or two rather than milliseconds and with the lower power beam they'd be much less excess energy to fuck up whatever's underneath it.

The Alderaan shield absorbed about 7.7e38 watts before failing. It honestly looks like there's no way to actually batter the shield down through brute force without killing everybody on the planet, unless we assign it an efficiency of less than 1e27 of a percent in heat loss. That would merely correspond to low-end estimates of a Base Delta Zero attack, so people in bunkers might survive. There are presumably ways to batter down the shield, through momentum transfer to individual projectors, or strikes on projectors using shield-piercing missiles, but those are fairly speculative. In essence, the defense does seem to have a massive advantage in Star Wars.

Simon_Jester · Post by **Simon_Jester** » 2009-11-18 07:45pm

My main response to Patroklos is at the bottom.

Richelieu wrote:Right as in legal right, or right as in "not wrong" ? Usually, I'd say suppressing the rebellion was within the legal role of Vader, but I'd say destroying rebel worlds for the sole crime of being rebel is over the top. It also struck me when I read the opening "yellow text" of episode II, separatists were supposed to be evil just because they were separatists. Ennemy, of course (I assume the charter of the republic made joining irreversible), but evil?

Since the Empire can write its own laws, talking about whether its actions are legal is very difficult. Therefore, I tend to fall back on ethical arguments, just war theory, and the concept of national legitimacy... see below, starting below my next round of stuff addressed to Patroklos.
______

Patroklos wrote:I took no such position, I merely pointed out that has indeed been the case for many a state in our own history and it is certainly a power proscribed to many entities by Imperial law in the SW universe. The fact that you disagree with this is irrelevant to whether it is legal in universe.

Legal != right, especially when we're talking about people who can write their own laws. Legal doesn't even imply legitimate when we talk about people who can write their own laws.

You need to seperate yourself from you own preconceptions about what is right and wrong about our world. The Star Wars world is not our world, and our morals mean nothing whatsoever when discussing what is right/legal/allowed/whatever in a galaxy far far away.

Now, you see, I'm a moral absolutist, so I think this is nonsense. Maybe that's why we keep arguing.

What, you have to be fleeing to a SUPERIOR tactical position to be subject to attack? Seriously, NEVER try and run a war. As the movie clearly shows as combatants they were given quarter. They were executed for being traitors as a seperate mater.

Malmedy much? All this Internet tough guy "hruh, take no prisoners" crap aside, this is a really stupid way to fight a war. There's a reason most countries are willing to play along with the laws of warfare normally. They actually make sense; they did not evolve just because Hugo Grotius was a softy.

Again, please stop applying your provincial terrestrial concepts of justice to a completely different galaxy. The Empire is the state that the elected representatives of every corner of the galaxy voluntarily created. Futhermore the Senate has no jurisdiction over the operation of the Imperial State in the Outer Rim. Its administration was legally delegated to the Imperial armed forces who we do not see exercise any power beyond their normal perogative.

Of course, that administration is now plotting to overthrow the Senate, which makes them just as big a bunch of traitors as the Rebels... see below.

Yeah, you just made that up.

Did you even watch Episode III?
________

Richelieu wrote:But I am not sure I agree that the Empire decided to attack Alderaan for no reason. It was Leia's planet. Leia was in position of power there (well, perhaps less in reality than what her title implies), and there are real-world precedents of governments declaring war on other governments because they harboured terrorists. I agree that the proper form should have been to ask them to surrender first, so the attack can qualify as evil even with the mindset of psychological warfare.

Let me put it this way.

They have a motive to attack Alderaan. It was not an act of absolute insanity, one that makes no sense in any context. It was, however, profoundly evil to do so both because they did not call on the planet to surrender and because they considered it acceptable to kill billions of people who had nothing to do with the Rebels in the process of killing the Rebels.
________

Crazedwraith wrote:Planetary destruction is still clearly the purpose of the Death Star and not a mere by product of knocking down shields. Again, Alderaan's shields held up for a tiny fraction of a second against a blast that was maybe a couple of seconds in duration. Clearly massive overkill. I'm not arguing that they can build a device that will blast out a shield and leave what's underneath totally untouched but clearly the planet killing is not an unintentional and unavoidable by product of shield breeching.

For example if they had a much lower power beam; they could take down shields in a second or two rather than milliseconds and with the lower power beam they'd be much less excess energy to fuck up whatever's underneath it.

Even in the mere tenth of a second for which Alderaan's shields held out, the shields absorbed many times more energy than it would take to reduce the planet to a cloud of rubble. So I think my point is still broadly correct.

Using massed fire from lighter weapons, it is possible to knock down a shield with lower collateral damage, but this takes time. You need to stop and say "wait, the shield is almost down, time to slacken off a bit." So if you accept the need to one-shot a strong planetary shield, you're more or less stuck with using a weapon big enough to destroy the planet.

But yes, they put way too much firepower into Alderaan, more than was necessary even to blow it up. However, I doubt they could have not blown it up and still breached the shield, given the shield's resistance to their full power beam.
_______

NoogDeNoog wrote:War is about killing people, all sides to a conflict do this sort of thing. Just yesterday I was watching a video of sailors machine gunning japanese survivors floating in the water. It's not like you get an official "time out" when you have to bail out or abandon ship in time of war. Realistically, it's up to your enemy if he wants to take you prisoner or not.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that your enemy is immune to moral judgement if they decide "not." A son of a bitch is a son of a bitch, even if realistically you have to accept that he might be one.

==============

My main comments to Patroklos.

Patroklos wrote:If they are actively engaged in getting back to their own lines then yes, the fact that they are in a life boat of just parachuted is irrelevant. If surrender once confronted that is another matter, however on the Tanative the opportunity to surrender was onboard the Tanative itself, the very act of getting into the escape pod at that point is proof they were trying to evade capture. There is absolutely nothing wrong with firing on a downed pilot actively running away from you, as an example.

Could you present an example of this argument from a more authoritative source on international/military law?

I know I consider it to be wrong ethically. You counter by saying you do not, which places us at an impasse. One of us is misunderstanding the laws of war, and the customs of war in inhospitable environments.

Also: Tantive, not Tanative.
_________

The Empire has every right to supress the rebellion, it is the legitimate government of the galaxy. Whether you like it or not Palpantine was proclaimed Emperor by the Senate, and created the Imperial State via that authority. If you really don't like that go ahead and rebel, but make no mistake that you are the one disregarding legal authority and thus the outlaw, not the other way around.

There are other necessary conditions for a government to be legitimate, so far as I am concerned. It is these conditions the Empire fails to fulfill. For instance, there is no legal mechanism by which the government can be held accountable to its citizens. And I don't just mean no practical mechanism; I mean no mechanism at all, so far as I can tell. The New Order is all about unthinking obedience to authority, after all.

Moreover, the Empire abandons all semblance of legitimacy after Palpatine disbands the Senate, because it not only destroyed the only body capable of holding it accountable in theory, but lacked the authority to do so; I can hardly disband my superior in a chain of command.

And yes, I apply these conditions across the board; there are a lot of terrestrial governments that I do not consider legitimate, and which I do not believe have a right to fight in their own defense against a rebellion. I may consider their decision to fight understandable, but I don't for a moment think it gives them any kind of license to commit atrocities in the process.
_______

The destruction of Alderaan really is a trivial event given the scale of the Empire itself. You may think it is excessive, but Alderaan was as a matter of fact party to treason on the whole state level.

It was no more or no less trivial than, say, the massacre of a town of several hundred people by government forces in, say, France. France is a nation of a hundred millions; a few hundred people one way or the other is a rounding error. That doesn't make it negligible.

And such a massacre would (rightly) draw a lot of hostile attention if committed by any government that made a pretense of being civilized (such as France). Especially if it was not occuring in an active war zone, and if there was no remote semblance of evidence linking the inhabitants to any actual crime. Which, in this case, there isn't. "Lives on the same planet as someone guilty of X" is not equivalent to "guilty of X." Not even when you zoom out to a galactic scale.
_______

[No. But building this capability in secret with the intent of establishing a world hegemon of rule by fear? That does.
The fact that it was built in secret is irrelevant... The fact that it was built with the intent of establishing a world hegemon of rule by fear is irrelevant, that in no way makes you evil.

I most definitely disagree.

If the Death Star project had been carried out under the auspices of the Senate, I would accept it on the grounds that the Senate is a (broadly) legitimate government, one whose members can be held accountable for their actions. If such a government commissions a weapon, and that weapon is abused, the government officials responsible can be punished. The weapon fits into the structure of lawful armed forces, even if it has overwhelming power and can be used to commit great evils.

But carried out in secret, without the consent of the Senate, to act as a replacement for the Senate, it is no such thing. It is merely an organ by which someone who has received delegated power can usurp the people who delegated it to him. The Death Star is a tool by which Palpatine intends to carry out a military coup d'état, a "blow against the state." It does not benefit from the shield of legitimacy the state's actions might otherwise have.

Richelieu · Post by **Richelieu** » 2009-11-18 07:48pm

Anguirus wrote: Keep in mind, the main crime that was committed was sending information about a secret warship that was commanded by Tarkin (read: Space Hitler) to the only organization that stood a chance of defeating it.

And from the average guy on board the ISD, they were pursuing a terrorist group who just stole the blueprints of a WMD, certainly with sinister intent (since they are rebels). I'd guess most of them would think the capture of the ship and elimination of any survivor who could leave with the data) were justified.

As I and others have pointed out to you, they were not "retreating" to a superior tactical position (Tatooine?). They were fleeing a foe who gave no quarter. SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THERE.

There is no way the Imperials could determine if they were retreating, escaping with the intent of surrendering, or buying time with the hope of accomplishing their mission (which was to transmit the data).

So? It's legal for lots of bad people to shoot lots of good people in this crazy world. However, many countries apply something called "due process." There are also people called "prisoners of war," who have rights.

Do they? Real question, here, I am genuinely interested. What's the current, real-world status of prisonners of war and rules of war in a civil war?

If you have a problem with Leia's guards and the crew of the Tanative being the unwitting pawns of the government of Alderaan, take it up with Alderaan.
So in your opinion, it is morally correct to murder duped pawns?

I don't think it's morally correct, but I think we explicitely ask our military to refuse unlawful orders. So, ok, the crew of the Tantive IV might not know they were carrying the plans of a secret battlestation, but I guess it became apparent to them they were committing treason when their captain ordered them to escape the ISD and return fire. In a real life military, isn't there a procedure allowing the removal of command of the officer who's giving undoubtedly traitorious orders?

Richelieu · Post by **Richelieu** » 2009-11-18 08:07pm

Crazedwraith wrote:
Richelieu wrote: You seem to be missing the fact that Alderaan was a member of the Empire. So this is like the UK nuking Manchester.

It would be like the North nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding? I guess Lincoln would have done it, if he had had a WMD. Of course, we can posit that the rebellion was in no shape to actually threaten the Galactic Empire, but only 20 years before, the galaxy was torn by a dire civil war and it was on the brink of collapse. The very idea of letting a full scale rebellion should certainly scares the many loyal citizen of the empire.

Bakustra · Post by **Bakustra** » 2009-11-18 08:26pm

Richelieu wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:
Richelieu wrote: You seem to be missing the fact that Alderaan was a member of the Empire. So this is like the UK nuking Manchester.
It would be like the North nuking Richmond to prevent the South from seceding? I guess Lincoln would have done it, if he had had a WMD. Of course, we can posit that the rebellion was in no shape to actually threaten the Galactic Empire, but only 20 years before, the galaxy was torn by a dire civil war and it was on the brink of collapse. The very idea of letting a full scale rebellion should certainly scares the many loyal citizen of the empire.

No, this is akin to Lincoln nuking a city full of Southern sympathizers. Alderaan was not actively engaged in war against the Empire. There is nothing to suggest it was on the verge of doing so, either. It was providing arms to the Rebels, but covertly. Treasonous, but not on the scale of killing everyone on the planet for it. Unless we are to assume that every child on Alderaan was actively engaged in such activity?

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2009-11-18 09:48pm

Patroklos wrote: I took no such position, I merely pointed out that has indeed been the case for many a state in our own history and it is certainly a power proscribed to many entities by Imperial law in the SW universe. The fact that you disagree with this is irrelevant to whether it is legal in universe.

Why are you referring to a critique of your moral system with fictional legalism?

You need to seperate yourself from you own preconceptions about what is right and wrong about our world.

Only as much as you need to blow me.

Star Wars is a morality fable by George Lucas. It is completely based upon what is right and wrong about our world. That's why the bad guys murder people in the billions, and the good guys are only seen )in the movies) to fire on enemy war machines.

The Star Wars world is not our world, and our morals mean nothing whatsoever when discussing what is right/legal/allowed/whatever in a galaxy far far away.

Why not? "The Star Wars world is not our world" is not a statement that carries any moral relevance whatsoever, unless you think that motrality is derived from "our world's" God or something.

1.) Your personal opinion of Tarkin asside, he was as a matter of fact the appointed adminstrator of his Over Sector and he was appointed by the legitimate authority for doing so. There was nothing illegal about the actions Tarkin takes on screen.

Hitler didn't do anything illegal either AFAIK.

2.) Why are we assuming the Rebellion shouldn't have been defeated. They were in fact a group of unrepentant terrorists fighting legitimate government authority for the purposes of destabilizing the galaxy. By any reasonable assesment the bad guys are definetly the rebels in this scenario. Alderaan is a pitance next to the trillions that will die who otherwise wouldn't have in the next decades as a direct result of the Rebellion's destuction of galactic governance.

What's your source that Rebellion led to trillions of deaths? I'm not sure trillions of people even joined the Rebellion (probably not, if you hold the position that the "entire Rebellion" was at Endor as per various canon sources). If this is the case, the Rebellion could only have led to trillions of deaths if the Empire massacred non-Rebel civilians to draw them out.

The only two Rebel bases we see are on completely undeveloped planets, before you go nattering on about "terrorists using human shields" and so forth. Deaths on that scale could only have resulted from Palpatine domestically-abusing the galaxy because he loves it.

3.) Alderaan was destroyed for one reason and one reason only, it was in voluntary rebellion against legitimate authority.

What, all of it? Did all of the adults sign up, put on uniforms, join the Rebel cause, flick off pictures of Palpatine?

Children too?

Only the fact that we are discussing a sensationalized fictional universe is holding me back from denouncing you as a sick, twisted, bloodthirsty fuck. It is bizarre to me that you are pointing out the "legality" of Tarkin's atrocity not as a fact of minor interest, but as a justification for murder on a scale that CANNOT EVEN EXIST on Earth.

1.) You can hold that opinion all you want, but don't expect to win any wars either. And enemy attempting escape is an enemy who hasn't given up.

And an enemy that you machine-gun in the back has a family that will never again willingly submit to your authority. An enemy to whom you give no quarter will never surrender. You justify his "combat" death by blaming the victim for his own desire to escape execution without trial. And it was a desperate hope...launching in escape pods, they were probably just making a hopeless bet that the Star Destroyer gunners would be more merciful than Lord Vader and his troops.

2.) You must have been watching a different movie than I was, becasue the one I saw insinuated declared combatants attempting to escape capture instead of surrendering. There is no lifeboat analogy, they were not escaping from anything other than capture.

Yes, they are, they are attempting to escape from death. As you have explained to me with great relish, captured combatants have absolutely no rights under Imperial rule.

What, you have to be fleeing to a SUPERIOR tactical position to be subject to attack? Seriously, NEVER try and run a war.

How about, you have to be a threat? One guy in a pod that is in a ballistic course to the planet below is not a threat. Even if he still has a gun.

The Star Destroyer broadcast no orders for the pods to return, they simply blasted, as shown by the gun captain's hurried order to hold fire.

As the movie clearly shows as combatants they were given quarter. They were executed for being traitors as a seperate mater.

They weren't though. They were executed in order to cover up a highly questionable military operation. Also, it is not moral to execute anyone without due process.

What constitutes due process depends on what state you are under. You can complain all you want about how improper you think the due process is in a particular state, but under the Galactic Empire summary execution is the law of the land in many cases.

...so? You are the only one who cares what legal boundaries the Galactic Empire has set for itself.

Not only do I imagine we do so, we in fact do so all the time, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

How cute.

You are again failing to understand the difference between an enemy that is surrendering and one that is fleeing. And enemy fleeing for safety, armed or not, is still an active combatant. If he really didn't want to fight again then he should surrender. And emeny hat is surrendering, on the other had, is declaring his intention to not fight you either now or later, and thus should be given quarter.

The problem with the crew of the Tanative is that on top of simply being a combatant, they are also criminals. And on top of being criminals, they are guilty of a crime that is usually considered a capital offense. That of course leaves them with a tricky choice, because regardless of whether quarter is given on the battlefield they are still laible for their crime after that.

Perhaps if the crew knew that they had legal protections, they would not have been caught in such a sticky situation. Of course, in that case, it's possible that they WOULD NOT HAVE REBELLED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Irrelevant, they were not in danger of being killed by the ship once it was captured by the Empire, the lifeboat analogy is this not appropriate.

So...it's morally wrong and deserving of death to flee one's own inevitable execution?

Sure they did. We very clearly saw them being marched around under guard. The fact that they may have died later as a result of their very serious crimes agains the people of the Galactic Empire irrelevant to their capture at during combat.

Dude, I seriously wonder what's going through your head when you watch Star Wars.

Again, please stop applying your provincial terrestrial concepts of justice to a completely different galaxy. The Empire is the state that the elected representatives of every corner of the galaxy voluntarily created.

The ones who didn't vote the right way were arrested.

Futhermore the Senate has no jurisdiction over the operation of the Imperial State in the Outer Rim.

It did as few as 22 years prior. Palpatine systematically whittled the legal power of the body down to nothing. I suppose you think that's morally right?

Its administration was legally delegated to the Imperial armed forces who we do not see exercise any power beyond their normal perogative.

Which is relevant why? Again, nobody but you cares whether the Empire had made its own hush-hush military operations legal.

So it was shut down due to being damaged by turbolaser fire, what does it matter? At that point there is no reason to think that the brazenly illegal activity his Alderaanian slave masters would not lead to the Tanative's destuction.

I find it funny that you think a legitimate government should respond to the violent actions of rebels with anything other than force.

A legitimate government is not necessarily a moral government, and a moral government uses necessary force. A moral government does not harden resistance against its own rule by torture, killing civilians, killing enemy forces without trial or quarter, and it does not dismantle the legal protections of its people

Murder them? No, kill them? Sure.

They were in fact agents of the government of Alderaan who made a deliberate decision to rebel against legitimate galactic authority. Do you think footsoldiers are asked to give their imput of consent to every decision the commanders, civilian or military, make? Is it somehow illegal for their enemy to kill them becacuse this didn't take place?

I'll see your strawman and play another "killing POWs to cover up your clandestine operations is a crime against humanity."

I mean, do you honestly think that the government of ALDERAAN is conscripting its citizens? Even the USA allows conscientious objectors at times when it has instituted a draft.

All those poor German conscripts in WWII, illegally killed by the Allies...

Blow me. There were atrocities committed against the Germans by the Allies, but for the most part on the Western Front they were captured and treated as POWs.

As you should, Tarkin very nearly prevented a rebellion that would eventually claim trillions of lives

What in the fuck is wrong with your brain?

In any case, perhaps the Alderaanians should have thought about the consequences of letting hereditary royalty treat them as game pieces in a political stuggle that had more to do with them losing galactic influence than any fight for freedom.

Children too?

What can we say, the house of Alderaan were a bunch of dicks.

Palpatine murders them because he loves them.

The problem is, as was alluded to ealier in this thread, there is really nothing much pointing to the Empire oppressing anyone to any great degree. The Empire by and large is described as a happy place besides the Outer Rim, who did in fact just loose a war of genocide against the more populous and civilized Core.

You fucking dumbass. The on-screen massacre of Jedi children and the destruction of Alderaan aren't atrocious enough, so...

EU MISSILE SPAM ATTACK!

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Destruction_of_Caamas
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial ... ation_ship
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ghorman_massacre
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Second_B ... _Period%29 (despite the title, this was an unprovoked planetary-scale invasion launched to kill a single Jedi)
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_o ... _Period%29 ("With the planet on the verge of pacification, Imperial Admiral Riwwel refused to accept the Acherin plea for cease-fire, ordering the bombardment of Eluthan, the Acherin capital, as revenge for all his dead troops.")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bombardm ... Haruun_Kal
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Giju ("The Empire desired to nationalize the industry and infrastructure on Giju and subjugated the planet. This spurred a short, but violent revolt by the native Herglic, which was only ended after horrific massacres forced the Herglic to reconsider their resistance.")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bombing_of_Callos ("Despite obvious misgivings about obeying her orders, she continued her assault on the already beaten and defenseless planet, leading to the genocide and, for all intents and purposes, destruction of the planet.")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/First_Ba ... _Period%29 (" Like the Wookiees of Kashyyyk, the native Mon Calamari and Quarren of Mon Calamari were viewed as ideal slaves. The world's massive shipyards and location near the Tion Sector made it the perfect site for an Imperial base. The Mon Calamari attempted to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Empire, but it was rejected. The world was to bear the full force of an Imperial invasion, led by Moff Wilhuff Tarkin. ")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_ThonBoka ("Fueled by his mistrust of a sentient alien species capable of hyperspace travel and functionally superior to a fighter craft, Emperor Palpatine issued orders to exterminate the Oswaft.")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Emperor%27s_purge
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Firrerreo_Genocide
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_o ... i_Purge%29 ("Top-side, the surviving Nosaurian fighters attempted to surrender to the Imperial forces. However, they were summarily executed by the stormtroopers of the 501st. Their families were captured before they could enter the main spaceport and were scheduled for transportation to Orvax IV to be slaves.")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Order_37 ("It is imperative that bodies not be released to family members. . .")
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Flame_Night
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Icarii_Campaign (...the Galactic Empire's effort to subdue the native Icarii on Vestar...Lightning Battalion employed a horrific biological agent to eradicate the Icarii. The only surviving member of the species was Selestrine, whose head was preserved in a kneebhide casket...)

Of course the Rebels just say all these people were duped, but then again when does a self righteous group of terorists/drug smugglers/deposed royalty/arms dealers/down and out politicians/defeated seperatists NOT say this?

Hey dumbass, remember how you've been saying that we have no canon atrocities on the part of the Empire? Where's your film evidence of a) terrorism, b) drug smuggling, c) arms dealing, d) former Seperatists (who aren't all evil anyway) among the uniformed agents of the Rebellion that we see?

By all accounts the Empire was an infinetly more peaceful place than the Old Republic before it, and on top of that far more effective in governance. Yet for some reason we are supposed to be all teary eyed for the people who want to return to days of rampant government corruption, sectarian violance, galactic discontent and general nepotism enforced by an unelected religious order?

See above, fuckstick. Almost the first thing the Empire did was launch a bunch of unprovoked invasions. Palpatine promoted Tarkin for killing thousands of unarmed protestors.

Yeah, you just made that up.

How about no?

They did? Source? I am curious, do you have any idea what exactly the Aderaanians were protesting in the first place?

From Wookieepedia:

"The Galactic Empire violently terminated the Jedi Praxeum on the planet, though a few students escaped."

"Immediately after the formation of the Galactic Empire, Alderaan was wracked by anti-Imperial protests, mainly from alien refugees who were now forced to pay an exorbitant tax to return home."

In the Episode III novelization we have several sequences from Bail Organa's POV. He fears that Palpatine's governors are assuming too much power, especially since they are arriving with contingents of clone troops. Padme Amidala urges him and Mon Mothma to vote for the formation of the Empire. Sixty-three Senators who did not were arrested. At least one of them, Fang Zar, was murdered by Darth Vader.

Also some more cherries:
"In the months after the destruction of Alderaan, Imperial agents often lay in wait for ships performing a Returning ritual. They boarded the ships and arrested the passengers and crew. "

"In 0 ABY one group of Alderaanians formed a colony on Ejolus, but it was wiped out by the Empire only eight months after their homeworld's destruction.[7] "

Considering we are privy to none via the movies, and very few via the EU, certainly very few that have an meaning within a galaxy the size of this one, that is a losing bet.

You hold the aberrant viewpoint that state-sponsored extermination of entire species and planetary populations is excusable (in fact laudable) simply because a lot of other people live in the galaxy, too.

I disagree.

How about you find me an atrocity sponsored by the Rebel Alliance? Not by "people who were fighting the Empire," but by the Rebel Alliance that we see in the movies. The one that, in your version of the movies, smuggles drugs (just as bad as blowing up Alderaan) and commits "terrorism" by firing on Imperial warships and stormtroopers.

1.) As has been explained to you the constuction of the Death Star is noting evil. The simple fact is that the DS's intended targets WERE conspiring against the Empire (some of them anyway), justifying its constuction outright.

So any amount of rebellion justifies any amount of force?

The existence of the Death Star may have been justified, but its use certainly was not.

2.) The Empire was ruled by fiat since the moment of its declaration, with the consent of the previously empowerd Senate of course. The Senate conviened at the pleasure of the Emperor, as was proven in ANH it was a well within his authority to suspend it at his pleasure. You have a very strange idea of how the Galactic government worked post Clone Wars.

So because Palpatine had the authority (never mind his machinations to get it) it was moral for him to do with it as he pleased?

3.) The point of the Death Star was NOT to kill unimaginable numbers of civilians. The idea was to make the prospect of rebellion untenable, preventing war and enforcing stability under the most effective goverment in existance for thousands of years. [/quote[

What was the first mission of the Death Star?

Did it INCREASE Galactic stability, or DECREASE Galactic stability?

Do you want to know what did kill trillions of people and through the galaxy into decades of free for all galactic scale warfare resulting in a galaxy fragmented and a frail shadow of its former self? The rebellion overthrowing the legitimate center of power. Way to go Alliance!

Yes, clearly a people should allow its government to massacre and enslave minorities and rule without any accountability.

What's your source on the total number of deaths caused by the Galactic Civil War? I can't find one. It seems likely, however, that the destruction of Alderaan was the incident responsible for the greatest number of deaths.

Bakustra · Post by **Bakustra** » 2009-11-18 11:19pm

Anguirus wrote:
Patroklos wrote: As you should, Tarkin very nearly prevented a rebellion that would eventually claim trillions of lives

What in the fuck is wrong with your brain?

Like many Imperial apologists, he is most probably an inclusionist who looks at the "whole of the evidence" (EU, mainly NJO), and claims that because the Yuuzhan Vong invasion/occupation of Coruscant/Kilik invasion/Elscol Loro/breakfast was mishandled by the New Republic, that whatever the Empire does is right, because they surely would have done better than any of these namby-pamby, representational, democratic governments. It's a common defect of the brain, it seems.

He's also claiming that everyone on Alderaan deserved death for their actions, including children, the Imperial garrison, the governor, and many others who could not possibly have been complicit in treason. He'll then go on confusing legality with morality, and in saner cases, scream at you if you point out the logical conclusions of his support of the Empire's actions. So, nothing wrong in particular that isn't shared by many!

Samuel · Post by **Samuel** » 2009-11-18 11:27pm

I'm pretty sure the Rebellion could have been crushed without these heavy handed tactics.

former Seperatists (who aren't all evil anyway) among the uniformed agents of the Rebellion that we see?

We are talking about a group that torched entire worlds and unleashed biological agents on civilian populations.

Andras · Post by **Andras** » 2009-11-18 11:57pm

Could you present an example of this argument from a more authoritative source on international/military law?

WWII- Battle of Britain- Dowding said it would be legal for the German pilots to machinegun parachuting RAF pilots if they were coming down over Britain and could return to duty, and he was suprised that they didn't do it more often then they actually did (i.e. almost never). In the same manner, the RAF attacked German seaplanes recovering pilots who landed in the channel, because they could be returned to duty.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2009-11-19 01:20am

^ Before anyone tries to claim an analogous situation, it's worth pointing out that there is an Imperial garrison on Tatooine, and no substantial Rebel presence.

It's also interesting to point out that it's being claimed that on a galactic scale, one life being snuffed out somehow matters less than it would on our planet because there are so many people in the Star Wars galaxy. This reasoning has not been explained...after all, in our world and the fictional one, people feel equal amounts of pain, have families, etc., etc. No explanation has been given for why scale of the greater galaxy should change that.

HOWEVER, the massive scale of the galaxy DOES lessen the level of threat posed by a small handful of lightly armed troops fleeing in an escape pod. Spending the reactor energy to kill those people from safe within your heavily shielded warship is an exercise in spite. Fortunately for the gunners in question, the Empire follows an institutional policy of encouraging spite and overkill with promotions (cf. Ghorman Massacre).

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2009-11-19 01:26am

I find the statement that we cannot apply our "terrestrial notions" of morality to Star Warsto be ridiculous on its face - Star Wars may be deep and contain numerous subtexts, but to claim that moviegoers were to apply tortured legalistic arguments to believe that the Empire was the good guys and the Rebels...well...terrorists is pretentious in the extreme. It is at the very minimum a ruthless state with a ruthless military whose ruthlessness is of the sort people are expected to associate with Movie Nazis, not say, Movie GI's. I know this is basically arguing authors intent and out-of-universe explanation to the argument, but the movie is what it is.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question

Re: "There goes another one" - EP IV question