StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bounty wrote:Except it's made blatantly clear in the movie that the Death Star is meant to keep systems in line within the Empire, systems that would have rebelled after the dissolution of the Senate (and, therefore, were content and non-threatening as long as the Senate existed). Moreover, if the point of the attack was to intimidate these supposed states... why not attack those supposed states? Would it have been a good idea for the US to drop the bomb on Seattle to show the Japanese they meant business?

Alderaan is same to Empire as Seattle is to USA ? They are an independent nation with own military and governance that was forcefully subjugated following the dissolution of the Republic !

- Illegally attacking and boarding a vessel flying under diplomatic protection. You could argue they had pressing reasons to do so, but if those reasons were legitimate, why the worry over the Senate's reaction?
- Torturing and killing a ship captain who has already surrendered
- Using force to conceal the creation of a terror weapon which we can safely conclude would not have been approved by the democratically-elected representatives of the people of the Empire (again, why else would the Senate be a concern?)
- Using deadly force on unarmed, fleeing escape pods when their interception and peaceful capture is well within the Empire's abilities
- Indiscriminate killing of several dozen civilians as retaliation for having been in contact with rebel sympathisers (I question the alternative rationale here: if it was really a case of getting rid of anyone who could have a copy of the plans for reasons of imperial security - why was Mos Eisley, or by extensions the whole of Tatooine, spared?)

And that's before we get into planetary-scale genocide. The Empire, not evil in this movie? Bitch please.

1.) Vader had every right to board that vessel. In general immunity involves prosecution after the fact, that doesn't mean law enforcement can't stop someone in the commission of a crime, which the Tanative was most certainly doing.
2.) All sorts of nation create weapons in secret, hell our own nuclear weapons were created in secret. How many Congress members do you imagine were in the know about the Manhatten project? A good number of the Senators of the Empire were allies of the Emperor or even just Tarkin, why do you think none of them were aware of the project?
3.) The escape pods thing has been explained. Those in them were fleeing capture while in the act of committing high treason, there is no moral problem with taking them out.
4.) This is an act that is questionable, however we don't know how that event actually went down and All of those people were actually themselves committing an act of treason by hiding Luke. In any case, this is nothing even remotely close to proving a galaxy spanning state of a trillion beings is evil.
5.) The state of Alderaan was in fact one of the three primary members of the alliance. We may take issue with the Empire's menthods but there is no denying that the state itself was in fact a legitimate target. Perhaps the leaders Alderaan should have taken the welfare of its citizens into account before exposing them to the Imperial war machine.

Patroklos wrote:They were in fact traitors participating in an open civil war and are thus belligerents. What people using those escape pods for constitutes nothing less that retreating, and there is nothing wrong with attacking a retreating enemy.

Your whole argument hinges on the Tantive crew being traitors, but to anyone who has actually seen that movie that idea doesn't even begin to fly. If the boarding of the Tantive was a legitimate action against traitors, it would have happened with the Senate's blessing, but it didn't. Any claim to legitimacy of Vader's authority melts away then and there. The attack on the Tantive wasn't a battle between the Empire and a Rebel warship; it was an covert, unprovoked attack on a vessel flying under diplomatic immunity in order to retrieve plans that should not have existed in the first place.

Alderaan is same to Empire as Seattle is to USA ? They are an independent nation with own military and governance that was forcefully subjugated following the dissolution of the Republic !

Irrelevant: it's part of the Empire. If Palpatine wanted, for some reason, to send a signal to nations outside the Empire - even though it's specifically said the DS serves to 'keep local systems in line' - he would have attacked nations outside the Empire. The whole argument is a non-starter.

Bounty wrote:

Patroklos wrote:They were in fact traitors participating in an open civil war and are thus belligerents. What people using those escape pods for constitutes nothing less that retreating, and there is nothing wrong with attacking a retreating enemy.

Your whole argument hinges on the Tantive crew being traitors, but to anyone who has actually seen that movie that idea doesn't even begin to fly. If the boarding of the Tantive was a legitimate action against traitors, it would have happened with the Senate's blessing, but it didn't. Any claim to legitimacy of Vader's authority melts away then and there. The attack on the Tantive wasn't a battle between the Empire and a Rebel warship; it was an covert, unprovoked attack on a vessel flying under diplomatic immunity in order to retrieve plans that should not have existed in the first place.

In the film we first see that the Tantive IV opens fire to something coming from behind... note that those might not be the first shots, but it is entirely possible that the Devastator is asked for a boarding and the Tantive resisted that action and opened fire on an Imperial warship, and from that point everything was legitimate since it was done in self defense. We do not have any information how the conflict started.

Your whole argument hinges on the Tantive crew being traitors, but to anyone who has actually seen that movie that idea doesn't even begin to fly. If the boarding of the Tantive was a legitimate action against traitors, it would have happened with the Senate's blessing, but it didn't. Any claim to legitimacy of Vader's authority melts away then and there. The attack on the Tantive wasn't a battle between the Empire and a Rebel warship; it was an covert, unprovoked attack on a vessel flying under diplomatic immunity in order to retrieve plans that should not have existed in the first place.

1.) The idea that the law enforcement apparatus of the Empire requires the consent of the Senate to function is fantasy. Our own Congress doesn't even require that. In the Empire itself, however, the Imperial Senate exercises no jurisdiction over the fuctions of the Imperial state whatsoever. The only oversight it has is via power of the purse which it can use to compel the Imperial State to do what it wants, but it is not direct control. All authority to do what Vader did comes from the Throne itself, the Senate is irrelevant. Especially in the Outer Rim in which the Imperial military has special jurisdiction.

2.) The desire to keep the incident secret is to keep the Death Star project secret, which involves making sure all people who were on it have no opportunity tell whatever they know.

3.) As has been explained, Vader didn't attack the Tanative out of the blue. The Empire knew it was involved in an act of espionage against the Imperial state, that blows any immunity out the window. You will note the Captain didn't say "sure we have the plans but we have diplomatic immunity so fuck off," rather he had to make up a story about a diplomatic mission to allow him to invoke diplomatic immunity.

Irrelevant: it's part of the Empire. If Palpatine wanted, for some reason, to send a signal to nations outside the Empire - even though it's specifically said the DS serves to 'keep local systems in line' - he would have attacked nations outside the Empire. The whole argument is a non-starter.

Sorry, you obviously have no idea about how the Imperial State functions. Read this thread to gain an understanding.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=122169

Wing Commander MAD wrote:I'll note its been awhile since I've seen the movies, but if I were approaching it from a first time viewer there are a few problems.

Funny thing, there really is not indication Imperials are the bad guys in the movie other than they have scary looking armor on (concealed faces are almost exclusive to the bad guys in media for some reason) at this point, and the guy in charge wears all black.

If you were a first time viewer, the first thing you'd have seen in the movie was the (I assume, at the time, very impressive) "giant yellow words being launched into space" scene...

Then, broadly speaking, you'd see a cut to Leia's ship getting the crap blown out of it and "the Empire's sinister agents" boarding them. Note that said Empire has already been described as "evil," while the Rebels' objective has already been given as "restoring freedom to the galaxy."
________

The only real attrocity we see the Imperials commit pre Alderaan, is the killing of Owen, Beru, and the Jawas and honestly I'd be surprised not see any government do the same or similar during a war and involving classified strategic information. Maybe I'm abit more synical than most, but not many of the actions up till Alderaan strike me as things generally only in the realm of movie villians.

What's notable about the pre-Alderaan actions of the Empire is that they seem to be operating on what is very much a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. Their operation is being commanded by a vicious, scary, angry man; they kill anyone who is even peripherally associated with anyone who saw the plans regardless of whether there's any evidence that they ever saw them. "Due process" is clearly a concept that's been removed from these guys' dictionary with extreme prejudice.

That kind of behavior, taken to those extremes, honestly is surprising, even from a government. Unless, of course, we accept in advance that the government in question is brutal and doesn't take the idea of human rights seriously. Which places them firmly in "bad guy" or at least "guys it is legitimate to oppose" territory.

AniThyng wrote:Bollocks, the opening crawl was clearly written by a Rebel Sympathizer - it is a well known fact that the Star Wars movies are merely documentary propaganda by a pitiful insignificant terrorist group. I mean, all those prejorative words "sinister" "evil".

Sure, why not, but that really isn't what you'd likely be thinking as a first time viewer...
________

Richelieu wrote:Though I agree with most of your other points about being evil, this particular planetary-scale genocide might not qualify as evil. What's the point of a deterrant psychological weapon if you don't use it once to deter people from messing with you? I am not sure the IJN would have surrendered if instead of two nukes, they had received video footage of the mushrooms and a special invitation to come and visit the reseach facilities and see it's for real and not some visual effect. It's certainly not nice, but evil, I am not sure (if you ask Hiroshima inhabitants, of course, the answer would be a definite yes). Blowing Alderaan would have forced many insurgeants worlds to surrender without fighting, sparing the lives of their inhabitants who would have otherwise been exposed to deadly assaults by ground forces.

Several points:

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.

Patroklos wrote:1.) You used dissonance incorrectly.
2.) It doesn't matter what they were running away from. They were in fact traitors participating in an open civil war and are thus belligerents. What people using those escape pods for constitutes nothing less that retreating, and there is nothing wrong with attacking a retreating enemy.

1) Not really. The definition of "dissonance" includes clashing or inconsistent philosophical ideas. Here, you are invoking the laws of war in a way that is inconsistent with the laws of war, so I think describing it as moral dissonance is well founded.

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.

There's a reason for that. On land, the enemy can keep fighting even after their army has been beaten, because they can live on land. The only way to ensure that a beaten army does not come back to haunt you tomorrow is to pursue it until it is thoroughly broken up, or until the soldiers in that army surrender. But at sea or in the air, people cannot live and continue to fight effectively after their vehicles are lost. Therefore, when they try to escape a disabled craft they are not merely "retreating." They are out of the fight entirely, and are now defenseless in a way that retreating soldiers on land are not. If you pursue those defeated, defenseless enemies with intent to kill, you are going far beyond the level of force necessary or proper to win the battle (or the war).

And this is just as true in space as it is at sea or in the air. Therefore, your claim that firing on escape pods is lawful is inconsistent with the usages of war. Indeed, similar claims have only been made in the past in similar situations by the most militaristic of nations, ones that wound up with a very poor reputation among the international community. Such as, say, Imperial Japan during the Second World War.

Sooo what does Bounty propose to do about the stolen Death Star plans ? Legalistic bullshit aside the Death Star was critical to Tarkins long term plans. He could not enforce order with his star destroyers alone. A lot of world had shields like Alderaan that were immune to any bombardment. The Death Star was a revolutionary weapon. It was the key to ending the deadlock of siege warfare that prevailed in major conflicts like clone wars. The threat of a Death Star would ensure for the first time no one is safe to bluster from behind the safety of a planetary shield.

Sorry, you obviously have no idea about how the Imperial State functions. Read this thread to gain an understanding.

I'm not going to read fifty pages of fanfiction to get it through your skull that the evil Empire is evil.

Sooo what does Bounty propose to do about the stolen Death Star plans ?

Do keep up:

me, responding to the first time this red herring came up wrote:Not building a Death Star would be an awesome start, if you're trying not to be evil. Failing that, get permission from the senate to arrest the spies on grounds of national security, give them a open-and-shut trial for treason, and spin it into a great coup for the safety and stability of the Empire.

The only reason the plans even got down to the planet was because Vader wanted to do a simple stop-and-search in a heavy-handed way to keep it away from the Senate's eyes.

And despite the endless parade of weaseling and justifications, nobody has yet said how the Empire's crimes somehow make it "not evil".

Don't be stupid. The Empire needs the Death Star. Any galactic power would need such a weapon. There is simply no other way to counter planetary shielding technology that is readily available to even backwater worlds.

1) Not really. The definition of "dissonance" includes clashing or inconsistent philosophical ideas. Here, you are invoking the laws of war in a way that is inconsistent with the laws of war, so I think describing it as moral dissonance is well founded.

He has provided no proof of such dissonance, and neither have you. My position is completely consistant.

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.

I see your disconnect, you apparently watched a different movie where the Rebels were trying to escape a doomed ship instead of one saftely secured in an ISDs docking bay and in no danger of bieng destroyed.

You are trying to make an analogy that doesn't exist. This isn't similar to a merchant crew escaping a U-boat attack. When those poeple are abondoning ship they are not fleeing a U-boat, they are instead fleeing their own mortally damaged vessel. Once in the water, in the simple act of escaping their ship, it is indeed not appropriate to attack them as they are not trying to flee you to fight another day.

Thats not what happened here. The crew of the Tanative was trying to escape imminent capture by enemy forces, it had nothing to do with their ship.

There's a reason for that. On land, the enemy can keep fighting even after their army has been beaten, because they can live on land. The only way to ensure that a beaten army does not come back to haunt you tomorrow is to pursue it until it is thoroughly broken up, or until the soldiers in that army surrender. But at sea or in the air, people cannot live and continue to fight effectively after their vehicles are lost.

1.) There vehicle was not lost, it was simply in a very bad tactical situation.

2.) Those escape pods were not about to be stranded in deep space, they were going to a planet where those inside would find refuge from their enemeis, ie retreat. In fact that was EXACTLY the motive of Leia in the movie, to get R2 to the planet to find Kenobi, not just to ensure R2 survived to be picked up by the Devestator and rescued.

Therefore, when they try to escape a disabled craft they are not merely "retreating." They are out of the fight entirely, and are now defenseless in a way that retreating soldiers on land are not. If you pursue those defeated, defenseless enemies with intent to kill, you are going far beyond the level of force necessary or proper to win the battle (or the war).

Again your analogy fails, the Tanative was not a ship sinking in the Mid Atlantic or a fighter jet hurtling to the ground. It was a vessel captured by an enemy and those making the decision to not fight or surrender were making a decision to flee, not survive.

And this is just as true in space as it is at sea or in the air. Therefore, your claim that firing on escape pods is lawful is inconsistent with the usages of war. Indeed, similar claims have only been made in the past in similar situations by the most militaristic of nations, ones that wound up with a very poor reputation among the international community. Such as, say, Imperial Japan during the Second World War.

The above is irrelevant becasue again your analogy does not match in the slightest. Applied to the Tanative what you are sayins that given the choice of having to fight or surrender someone seeing circumstances not going his way can just say "Hey guys, yeah, I think I'm done here. If you don't mind I am just going to step out and go home." That is obviously absurd.

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.

Since we are talking about a supposed civil war the Empire (the group in charge) could not have started it from the simple facts that they are in power so they have nothing to gain from a fight. Unless of course the Empire is run by sadistic morons, but in that case there is nothing to discuss there. So let´s assume the Empire is run by a sadistic regime, who can act logically (the other elements of the movies show they are a reasonable bunch, the Tarkin-doctrine, the structure of the Imperial Navy and the Death Star itself are both logical concepts for this kind of rule). Thus the war was initiated by the Rebels, and Alderaan was an important center of the Rebellion: they provided manpower and possibly equipment to the Rebellion. From the point of view of the Empire they were arming and harboring terrorists. Thus the attack on the Alderaan could have the exact same legal backing as the US intervention in Afghanistan, or previously in case of the Tomahawk strikes against targets in Sudan.

I am not saying that the actions of the Empire are moral... but what they have done is not irrational and it is not that hard to make it legitimate also. The strict division of combattants and non-combattants sometimes appear and other times disappear from the principle of warfighting, the Empire is more on the total war side of the scale, but they are far from the extreme end.

I'm not going to read fifty pages of fanfiction to get it through your skull that the evil Empire is evil.

You can lead a horse to water...

Publius's summary may be characterized as a fan fic but it is extensively footnoted to show exactly what is sourced and wha isn't, and all most all of it is sourced canon. In that regard it is no different than any post on this board.

I didn't ask you to take a look at that because I wanted to prove the Empire is evil, but rather give you an understanting of how the Imperial state actually functions. You obviously have no idea, and apparently you wish to continue having no idea.

As to why the Empire is evil I believe why the original person brought the topic up was that he didn't SEE anything that made the Empire overtly evil in the beginning of the movie. Its all well and good for an oppening credit to tell us so, but then we get a half hour of actual movie where all we see is a bunch of self admitted traitors trying to steal state secrets and doing noting we couldn't reasonably expect any other major power to do in response. It should be noted that in 1981 the existance of massive weapons of destuction was nothing new, the existance of a Death Star type weapon shouldn't have stuck anyone as particularly evil. Once Alderran is destroyed the audience finally sees something that justifies the opening credits claims, because while we all tolerate the existance of our equivalant (nukes) we still consider their use an attrocity. It is also not clear in ANH that Alderaan was complicite in the Rebellion, during that movie all we know is that Leia herself is, so there is no justification for the destuction of Alderaan at all except as a massive hostage negotiation with Leia. Very evil. But of course we all know better now, Alderaan asked for it.

Sarevok wrote:Don't be stupid. The Empire needs the Death Star. Any galactic power would need such a weapon. There is simply no other way to counter planetary shielding technology that is readily available to even backwater worlds.

If the Empire needs a Death Star, then why was it kept secret from the Senate? For that matter, the Old Republic existed as a galactic power for 25,000 years without making use of planet-killers. You're presuming that a)the Death Star is absolutely essential to maintaining Imperial authority because b)Alderaan's planetary shield held against the Death Star for a fraction of a second.

Justify this assertion that a statistically significant fraction of planets are a) self-sufficient for a indefinite period of time, making sieges impossible, and b) maintain a planetary shield network that can hold off any practical conventional bombardment. In addition, the Death Star still would have killed everyone on Alderaan if the shield has an inward inefficiency of even a billionth of a percent. This is ignoring the possibility of defeating local shield projectors within an array through the use of specialized weapons like torpedo spheres, which had been approved by the Senate as part of the Navy budget.

It's worth noting that Coruscant is clearly not self-sufficient, requiring continuous food imports, meaning that sieges would be effective, unless the defender was willing to essentially concede the planet by evacuating enough civilians off to make the planet self-sufficient. Other planets that are likely to have planetary shield networks, such as Corellia, Kuat, and Fondor, are heavily industrialized, reliant at least partially on space infrastructure, and in the case of Corellia, has four other habitable planets in-system it can draw upon for food. General Grievous, meanwhile, slagged the planet of Humbarine, which was comparable to Coruscant in size as a city-planet and almost certainly would have had a planetary shield. So there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that planetary shields are not the be-all end-all they are often claimed to be.

Hoth, meanwhile is not comparable. Vader explicitly states that a clean bombardment is impossible through their field, suggesting that Death Squadron could have destroyed the Rebel base, whether through melting areas but that would have killed Skywalker.

Indeeed Patroklos

There mere existence of Death Star does not make Empire evil. The United States can destroy cities at whim with ICBMs. So could Russians. Yet neither qualifies as "evil" in the same book as the Galactic Empire. Rather they exist as complex entities beyond simple black and white cases. Similarly possessing the ability to destroy planets does not make the Empire Evil with a capital E.

Bakustra wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Don't be stupid. The Empire needs the Death Star. Any galactic power would need such a weapon. There is simply no other way to counter planetary shielding technology that is readily available to even backwater worlds.

If the Empire needs a Death Star, then why was it kept secret from the Senate?

Sure the Manhattan-project was running in front of the press and the polititians. Vice-President Truman was just lazy and dumb that he did not learn about it.

Bakustra wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Don't be stupid. The Empire needs the Death Star. Any galactic power would need such a weapon. There is simply no other way to counter planetary shielding technology that is readily available to even backwater worlds.

If the Empire needs a Death Star, then why was it kept secret from the Senate? For that matter, the Old Republic existed as a galactic power for 25,000 years without making use of planet-killers. You're presuming that a)the Death Star is absolutely essential to maintaining Imperial authority because b)Alderaan's planetary shield held against the Death Star for a fraction of a second.

So the Old Republic had to do without the Death Star when confronted with the same problems? So what? Does that mean that even though the Empire, confronted with the same problem has to handicap itself even though technology now exists to provide for a far more effective solution to that problem?

Justify this assertion that a statistically significant fraction of planets are a) self-sufficient for a indefinite period of time, making sieges impossible, and b) maintain a planetary shield network that can hold off any practical conventional bombardment. In addition, the Death Star still would have killed everyone on Alderaan if the shield has an inward inefficiency of even a billionth of a percent. This is ignoring the possibility of defeating local shield projectors within an array through the use of specialized weapons like torpedo spheres, which had been approved by the Senate as part of the Navy budget.

1.) Corucant had such a shield, and most of the Great Powers had more than the means to possess similar bombardment imune shielding. To suggest otherwise is stupid.

2.) How many planets had such shielding is not as important as to WHAT planets had that shielding. This is a time when major great powers who indeed did have the ability to significantly hinder Imperial ambitions were lining up together against the Empire, namely Correllia/Alderaan/Chadrilla. Given this reality the Death Star showed up EXACTLY when it was needed.

3.) You are making the assumption that the Death Star was meant to be used. Do you honestly think that any great power in the galaxy would dare suppor insurrection when it just saw a peer with as much ability to defend itself as any of them destroyed out of hand when the weapon that did so still existed? Hell no, they would function happily as an Imperian dominion forever after. The Death Star literally makes another Clone War type scenarion impossible just like nukes made another WWII type scenario impossibe before Russia got theirs.

It's worth noting that Coruscant is clearly not self-sufficient, requiring continuous food imports, meaning that sieges would be effective, unless the defender was willing to essentially concede the planet by evacuating enough civilians off to make the planet self-sufficient. Other planets that are likely to have planetary shield networks, such as Corellia, Kuat, and Fondor, are heavily industrialized, reliant at least partially on space infrastructure, and in the case of Corellia, has four other habitable planets in-system it can draw upon for food. General Grievous, meanwhile, slagged the planet of Humbarine, which was comparable to Coruscant in size as a city-planet and almost certainly would have had a planetary shield. So there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that planetary shields are not the be-all end-all they are often claimed to be.[/quote]

Nobody said that it is impossible to crack these fortress worlds, but do you think the Empire wanted to fight another Clone War to accomplish its purposes? Because that is exactly what it took to crack them.

Hoth, meanwhile is not comparable. Vader explicitly states that a clean bombardment is impossible through their field, suggesting that Death Squadron could have destroyed the Rebel base, whether through melting areas but that would have killed Skywalker.[/quote]

Yes, I did forget about the opening crawl. I should note though that even though it is typical for the omnicient narrator to be unbiased, this is not necessarily always the case (especially true in the EU). My point, as Patroklos was able to see, was that preAlderaan we don't see anything directly that labels them as evil bad guys. Certainly there are questionable actions, diaglog suggesting it, and the say so of the narrator, but nothing I would consider concrete proof of it. After Alderaan is destroyed, you have definite proof of who the bad guys are (or at least that the Empire are definitely bad guys, while the Rebels remain unknown).

Maybe its just that I prefer my fiction to reflect reality where few if any things are black and white, and thus I'm willing to not take everything at face value (especially when presented with limited info). I admit sometimes I do enjoy simple good vs evil settings (ie Command & Conquer's GDI vs NOD), but they are rather childish and simplistic compared to more realistic and ambigous settings. Personally I'd like to see a game or movie take a similar route that Star Wars takes (storywise), only come the sequel we find out we were actually rooting for the bad guys simply becuase we were presented with a limited viewpoint.

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.

Are you sure about that? That seems a decidely modern (19th-20th century) viewpoint, and would seem to be kinda at odds with the way warfare in general has mostly been waged AFAIK, albeit my knowledge is rather limited. Isn't the concept of being merciful to a beaten enemy rather at odds with the usual practices of killing most (definitely those who can resist), enslaving the rest, and taking all wealth as your own that seemed to be rather common place in antiquity? I will state once again, that my knowledge of history is not anywhere near that of say Thanas, and thus I could be completely misrepresenting the past as overly cruel and unpleasant. If so, by all means correct me and if possible point me towards more accurate sources of information.

Patroklos wrote:

Bakustra wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Don't be stupid. The Empire needs the Death Star. Any galactic power would need such a weapon. There is simply no other way to counter planetary shielding technology that is readily available to even backwater worlds.

If the Empire needs a Death Star, then why was it kept secret from the Senate? For that matter, the Old Republic existed as a galactic power for 25,000 years without making use of planet-killers. You're presuming that a)the Death Star is absolutely essential to maintaining Imperial authority because b)Alderaan's planetary shield held against the Death Star for a fraction of a second.

So the Old Republic had to do without the Death Star when confronted with the same problems? So what? Does that mean that even though the Empire, confronted with the same problem has to handicap itself even though technology now exists to provide for a far more effective solution to that problem?

The question that was posed was one of necessity. You yourself admit that the Empire doesn't need a Death Star, even if it makes subduing rebellious systems far easier.

Justify this assertion that a statistically significant fraction of planets are a) self-sufficient for a indefinite period of time, making sieges impossible, and b) maintain a planetary shield network that can hold off any practical conventional bombardment. In addition, the Death Star still would have killed everyone on Alderaan if the shield has an inward inefficiency of even a billionth of a percent. This is ignoring the possibility of defeating local shield projectors within an array through the use of specialized weapons like torpedo spheres, which had been approved by the Senate as part of the Navy budget.

1.) Corucant had such a shield, and most of the Great Powers had more than the means to possess similar bombardment imune shielding. To suggest otherwise is stupid.

2.) How many planets had such shielding is not as important as to WHAT planets had that shielding. This is a time when major great powers who indeed did have the ability to significantly hinder Imperial ambitions were lining up together against the Empire, namely Correllia/Alderaan/Chadrilla. Given this reality the Death Star showed up EXACTLY when it was needed.

The self-sufficiency is the critical part, which you delightfully ignored. You also ignored that the Empire already has weapons for use against planetary shields: the torpedo spheres.

3.) You are making the assumption that the Death Star was meant to be used. Do you honestly think that any great power in the galaxy would dare suppor insurrection when it just saw a peer with as much ability to defend itself as any of them destroyed out of hand when the weapon that did so still existed? Hell no, they would function happily as an Imperian dominion forever after. The Death Star literally makes another Clone War type scenarion impossible just like nukes made another WWII type scenario impossibe before Russia got theirs.

Wrong. A minor state like the Ciutric Hegemony (less than a hundred systems) was considered capable of building a Death Star-scale station.

Furthermore, yes, it was planned to be used. Are you ignoring Tarkin's statement of "Dantooine is too remote to be an effective demonstration. But don't worry, we will deal with your rebel friends soon enough." Tarkin's plan was to use the Death Star to destroy an important Core World, and then move on to destroy the main rebel base. The plan was also a failure, unless you want to claim that inducing desertions from the armed forces and increasing support for the terrorist group was a success for the Empire?

Nobody said that it is impossible to crack these fortress worlds, but do you think the Empire wanted to fight another Clone War to accomplish its purposes? Because that is exactly what it took to crack them.

Really. It took a galactic-scale war to slag Humbarine? Funny, that's not what the ROTSICS says, simply noting it as one of a group of atrocities committed by Grievous. The Republic was able to seize Muunilist within weeks of the outbreak of the Clone Wars. Planetary shields, particularly after twenty years of peace, may not be as common as you think.

Though I agree with most of your other points about being evil, this particular planetary-scale genocide might not qualify as evil.

Humanity FAIL.

I have class in a few minutes so I'll get to Patroklos later. One other note though:

The Empire needs the Death Star. Any galactic power would need such a weapon.

A galactic civilization has existed for 250,000 years of the fictional Star Wars history. A Death Star was operational during that time for, what, a TOTAL of a few months?

It sounds like using the Senate and the Jedi Knights to "keep the local systems in line" was used to much greater success than "fear."

The self-sufficiency is the critical part, which you delightfully ignored. You also ignored that the Empire already has weapons for use against planetary shields: the torpedo spheres.

It wasn't ignored in the slightest (I specifically addressed it actually), your assumption that a major power can't sustain itself under a seige is pure fantasy on your part. We know for a fact that Coruscant, probably the most populous planet in the galaxy, did in fact survive a complete blockade for some time.

Wrong. A minor state like the Ciutric Hegemony (less than a hundred systems) was considered capable of building a Death Star-scale station.

Source. This is obviously BS.

Furthermore, yes, it was planned to be used. Are you ignoring Tarkin's statement of "Dantooine is too remote to be an effective demonstration. But don't worry, we will deal with your rebel friends soon enough." Tarkin's plan was to use the Death Star to destroy an important Core World, and then move on to destroy the main rebel base. The plan was also a failure, unless you want to claim that inducing desertions from the armed forces and increasing support for the terrorist group was a success for the Empire?

Please don't be obtuse, you know damn well what it meant. The use of a mere two nuclear weapons of minimal yeild was enough to end the largest war in history and then prevent the start of another one. You will note Tarkin said DEMONSTRATION, not campaign of galacitic destuction. Of course you have to validate the threat if you expect that threat to keep peace. The point of demonstrating the power of the Death Star was to scare people to such a degree that is further use is not required.

Really. It took a galactic-scale war to slag Humbarine? Funny, that's not what the ROTSICS says, simply noting it as one of a group of atrocities committed by Grievous. The Republic was able to seize Muunilist within weeks of the outbreak of the Clone Wars. Planetary shields, particularly after twenty years of peace, may not be as common as you think.

Ummmm.... yeah, that all took place during the Clone Wars, so obviously it took a galactic confligration the scale of the Clone Wars to crack all those great powers opposed to the Republic. Thats kind of the whole point of the Clone Wars. You will also note there is nothing mention about the defenses of Humarine or how Grievous overcame them if the existed. Your assumption that it was done with ease is exactly that, an assumption.

The point of the Death Star is that you don't need a galactic conflict to do the same, you just jump in, instakill the planet, and move on. You could literally destroy dozens of great powers a day. The Clone Wars are analogous to WWII with the Death Star being the invention of nukes. It totally revolutionizes the concept of galactic warfare.

And you have it backwards, the Republic was demilitarized before the Clone Wars, the Empire was militarized all over the place after the Clone Wars. The Empire can be expected to deal with threats and problems far worse than anything the Republic ever had to if for no other reason than the obvious advances in military hardware between TPM and ANH.

Patroklos wrote:

The self-sufficiency is the critical part, which you delightfully ignored. You also ignored that the Empire already has weapons for use against planetary shields: the torpedo spheres.

It wasn't ignored in the slightest (I specifically addressed it actually), your assumption that a major power can't sustain itself under a seige is pure fantasy on your part. We know for a fact that Coruscant, probably the most populous planet in the galaxy, did in fact survive a complete blockade for some time.

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?

Wrong. A minor state like the Ciutric Hegemony (less than a hundred systems) was considered capable of building a Death Star-scale station.

Source. This is obviously BS.

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.

Furthermore, yes, it was planned to be used. Are you ignoring Tarkin's statement of "Dantooine is too remote to be an effective demonstration. But don't worry, we will deal with your rebel friends soon enough." Tarkin's plan was to use the Death Star to destroy an important Core World, and then move on to destroy the main rebel base. The plan was also a failure, unless you want to claim that inducing desertions from the armed forces and increasing support for the terrorist group was a success for the Empire?

Please don't be obtuse, you know damn well what it meant. The use of a mere two nuclear weapons of minimal yeild was enough to end the largest war in history and then prevent the start of another one. You will note Tarkin said DEMONSTRATION, not campaign of galacitic destuction. Of course you have to validate the threat if you expect that threat to keep peace. The point of demonstrating the power of the Death Star was to scare people to such a degree that is further use is not required.

Conceded.

Really. It took a galactic-scale war to slag Humbarine? Funny, that's not what the ROTSICS says, simply noting it as one of a group of atrocities committed by Grievous. The Republic was able to seize Muunilist within weeks of the outbreak of the Clone Wars. Planetary shields, particularly after twenty years of peace, may not be as common as you think.

Ummmm.... yeah, that all took place during the Clone Wars, so obviously it took a galactic confligration the scale of the Clone Wars to crack all those great powers opposed to the Republic. Thats kind of the whole point of the Clone Wars. You will also note there is nothing mention about the defenses of Humarine or how Grievous overcame them if the existed. Your assumption that it was done with ease is exactly that, an assumption.

The point of the Death Star is that you don't need a galactic conflict to do the same, you just jump in, instakill the planet, and move on. You could literally destroy dozens of great powers a day. The Clone Wars are analogous to WWII with the Death Star being the invention of nukes. It totally revolutionizes the concept of galactic warfare.

And you have it backwards, the Republic was demilitarized before the Clone Wars, the Empire was militarized all over the place after the Clone Wars. The Empire can be expected to deal with threats and problems far worse than anything the Republic ever had to if for no other reason than the obvious advances in military hardware between TPM and ANH.

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. 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. 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.

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

Of course, I find myself agreeing with your proposal that the Death Star aided in centralizing power, but dispute your assertion that it is necessary on the scale you believe it to be.

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

Patroklos wrote:I see your disconnect, you apparently watched a different movie where the Rebels were trying to escape a doomed ship instead of one saftely secured in an ISDs docking bay and in no danger of bieng destroyed.

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.

You are trying to make an analogy that doesn't exist. This isn't similar to a merchant crew escaping a U-boat attack. When those poeple are abondoning ship they are not fleeing a U-boat, they are instead fleeing their own mortally damaged vessel. Once in the water, in the simple act of escaping their ship, it is indeed not appropriate to attack them as they are not trying to flee you to fight another day.

Thats not what happened here. The crew of the Tanative was trying to escape imminent capture by enemy forces, it had nothing to do with their ship.

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

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.

The above is irrelevant becasue again your analogy does not match in the slightest. Applied to the Tanative what you are sayins that given the choice of having to fight or surrender someone seeing circumstances not going his way can just say "Hey guys, yeah, I think I'm done here. If you don't mind I am just going to step out and go home." That is obviously absurd.

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.

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.
_______

bz249 wrote:I am not saying that the actions of the Empire are moral... but what they have done is not irrational and it is not that hard to make it legitimate also. The strict division of combattants and non-combattants sometimes appear and other times disappear from the principle of warfighting, the Empire is more on the total war side of the scale, but they are far from the extreme end.

My point is that one can only justly target non-combatants to end a war if the war is itself just. 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.

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."

Sarevok wrote:Indeeed Patroklos

There mere existence of Death Star does not make Empire evil. The United States can destroy cities at whim with ICBMs. So could Russians. Yet neither qualifies as "evil" in the same book as the Galactic Empire. Rather they exist as complex entities beyond simple black and white cases. Similarly possessing the ability to destroy planets does not make the Empire Evil with a capital E.

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

Wing Commander MAD wrote:Are you sure about that? That seems a decidely modern (19th-20th century) viewpoint, and would seem to be kinda at odds with the way warfare in general has mostly been waged AFAIK, albeit my knowledge is rather limited. Isn't the concept of being merciful to a beaten enemy rather at odds with the usual practices of killing most (definitely those who can resist), enslaving the rest, and taking all wealth as your own that seemed to be rather common place in antiquity? I will state once again, that my knowledge of history is not anywhere near that of say Thanas, and thus I could be completely misrepresenting the past as overly cruel and unpleasant. If so, by all means correct me and if possible point me towards more accurate sources of information.

In past times, POWs would often be ransomed or sold into slavery rather than being thrown into a camp, but the basic customs go back at least to the 17th century or so in Europe. Allowing a relatively quick, clean surrender "to prevent a needless effusion of blood" is not a new idea, either.

Premodern times could be brutal, but the combatants were often surprisingly merciful to each other by modern total-war standards.

Simon_Jester wrote: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.

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.

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)

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.

Simon_Jester wrote:My point is that one can only justly target non-combatants to end a war if the war is itself just. 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.

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."

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. From some evidence we know that there were desertions from the Imperial Army/Navy thus this can indicate that at least some of them thought they are the bad guy, but we do not know the scale. So it is difficult to tell what was the self-image of the Imperial soldier and how they were viewed.

1.) You used dissonance incorrectly.

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.

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.

2.) It doesn't matter what they were running away from. They were in fact traitors participating in an open civil war and are thus belligerents. What people using those escape pods for constitutes nothing less that retreating, and there is nothing wrong with attacking a retreating enemy.

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.

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.

1.) All of them were in fact declared traitors of the legitimate government. Lots of countries in our own history execute traitors, and it was certainly within the legal authority of both Vader and Tarkin to order executions.

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.

2.) They certainly could have tractored in the excaping pods, there is however no moral requirement to do so. Again, do you imagine we don't attack troops withdrawling from positions on the battlefield?

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?

Destruction as a result of combat (or scuttled thereafter) and obviously not before the Empire removed everyone onboard.

And murdered them.

This is not the same thing as a lifeboat escaping a shipwreck, the people fleeing the Tanative were attempting to ESCAPE, if they just wanted to survive they should have surrendered.

Many did surrender. They didn't survive.

That they would face the consequences of their willing treason after the fact is irrelevant.

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.

If I remember correctly this was said just after we see a very large explosion from a turbolaser blast just forward of the engine banks. I took that to mean that th reactor was taken out, and with an ISD taking pot shots at you a prediction of "being destroyed" is a no brainer.

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.

It matters not whether those on board knew anything about the plans, its no concern of Vader's whether the government of Alderaan kept its rank and file in the dark about its treasonous activities. 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'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.

1.) The Empire had proof the Tanative was involved in treason against the legitimate government and then resisted capture by the same legitimate government.

2.) As has been explained ot you the people using the escape pods were nothing more than combatants trying to make their get away. There is no moral requirement to allow your enemy to retreat.

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.

Think about this real hard. The First Galactic Empire was declared 20 years BEFORE any organized shot-firing Rebellion existed. I think the Alderaanians and other "traitors" tried pretty damn hard to keep their protests peaceful until there was clearly no choice. How many Imperial atrocities were committed in those 20 years? Bet it's a lot. 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.

Yep. Atrocity pie.

Not to go into the strange debate of the morality of the New Order and such not, but a point of shields, the Death Star, and fleets.

The reason of the Superlaser is obvious. It would take significant assets to penetrate the shield before REINFORCEMENTS arrive. Not because the siege can go on for hours or days. It's meant to keep the enemy at bay for that fleet that couldn't intercept them at said planet, not to go "Neener, neener". Ther Superlaser on the scale of the Death Stars eliminate that completely,

Continue with the debate, I wanted to clarify that particular.