Why? All you'd have to do is disable their ability to enter or leave the bunker, using the US/Japan example, disable any surface vehicles and leave behind a single piece of artillery at each entrance, set to blow up anything that attempts to come in or go out those doors. And strangely enough, not everyone is concerned about attaching a price tag to human lives, or worried about the bottom line, ESPECIALLY AN EMPIRE THAT WAS ABLE TO BUILD NOT ONE BUT TWO PLANET-BUSTING WEAPONS RELYING ENTIRELY ON SECRET DONATIONS.Norade wrote:Unless that bunker, like Alderaan was able to survive under siege indefinitely. While a blockade would have worked for keeping them from supplying anything that is far far more costly than blowing it up as an example.
There's been another thread mentioned several times so far where this argument's already been brought up. Basically it goes something like this: If you murder several billion people, it doesn't matter if it was only 5 billion out of 100 quadrillion people in the galaxy, it doesn't matter if it was 5 billion out of 200 quintillion people, it doesn't matter if it was 5 billion out of an infinite number of people, it doesn't matter what small percentage of the total galactic population it is, it is still a fucking atrocity and only feasable if even more lives are at stake because of it.1) The attack of Alderaan certainly killed more people than the attacks on Japan but percentage wise it isn't even close. The nuking of Japan was far worse percentage wise than anything that could have been done to Alderaan and a half dozen other worlds. That isn't to say it's right, but then again outside of 2 uses nukes have never seen use again so something sure went right there.
And no, 'more lives at stake' doesn't mean 'destroy these five billion so that the Empire doesn't have to destroy that 25 billion that had subversive, Rebel elements on other planets that would act up if an example isn't made out of Alderaan'.
Who gives a shit about political will? Palpatine dissolved the fucking Senate, he was the effective dictator-for-life, he could keep it up for as long as he damn well pleased. And if political will was such a problem, then MAYBE THE SIEGE WAS A BAD IDEA, AND MAYBE BLOWING THE PLACE UP IS EVEN A WORSE IDEA and only being pushed through so that rational people don't have a chance to think about it before it happens.2) Not really the same given that there may not have been the political will to maintain a siege against Alderaan for any length of time.
I'm sorry, what? I'm trying to see your point, but I've just been blinded by stupidity. Is your point about the Empire worrying about cost-factor of blockading a single planet buried somewhere under the countless other worlds that the Empire had already blockaded, enslaved, BDZ'd and otherwise fucked over through conventional means? Is the cost of keeping a few Star Destroyers out of tens of thousands parked in orbit around the planet more than the cost of building and staffing a moon-sized battle station?There is also a cost factor, any attacking army will always value their lives more highly than yours so when combined with cost, effect, political will needed, and the creation of a new form of deterrence the destruction of a world was justified.
Is cost even a concern when said battle-station was built entirely secretly using hidden funds? Are you that much of an idiot?
So what you're saying is that you deliberately altered the quote to give it a different meaning without making mention of it... because the quote was open to interpretation? How does this change the fact that it was blatantly dishonest of you to do that?Boeing 757 wrote:I left that out purposely because IMO, 'good' will be taken differently by each respective party.