StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rogue 9 wrote:That's assuming the Death Star alone. Every ship in the fleet Star Destroyer sized and up is capable of laying a BDZ on a planet, and such measures are hardly outside the Empire's SOP. The Empire makes it it's business to kill people at the drop of a hat; just look at Owen and Beru Lars. Destroying the planet isn't the only way to kill people, and the Empire did a lot of killing sans Death Star.

Well, but they are generally small fry compared to Alderaan. It'd take a lot of those small population planets put together...

It would take 1 billion cases of Owen and Lars to equal one Alderaan, and countless Alderaans to equal 365 trillion. Good luck getting that number anytime soon.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:That's assuming the Death Star alone. Every ship in the fleet Star Destroyer sized and up is capable of laying a BDZ on a planet, and such measures are hardly outside the Empire's SOP. The Empire makes it it's business to kill people at the drop of a hat; just look at Owen and Beru Lars. Destroying the planet isn't the only way to kill people, and the Empire did a lot of killing sans Death Star.

Well, but they are generally small fry compared to Alderaan. It'd take a lot of those small population planets put together...

It would take 1 billion cases of Owen and Lars to equal one Alderaan, and countless Alderaans to equal 365 trillion. Good luck getting that number anytime soon.

Right. After all, just how many examples of BDZ do we really have? Maybe three or four. Caamas, which we kind of know jack-shit about. Dankayo, which seems to have jack-and-all to begin with. I don't recall any high population victims of BDZ. Do you?

Lord of the Farce wrote:Right. After all, just how many examples of BDZ do we really have? Maybe three or four. Caamas, which we kind of know jack-shit about. Dankayo, which seems to have jack-and-all to begin with. I don't recall any high population victims of BDZ. Do you?

To be fair, they nearly BDZed Nar Shaadaa, with an estimated 70-90 billion population. Many of them, perhaps even a high proportion of the working population, were smugglers or other petty criminals, and the government was "Organized Crime" but still ... it ia a BDZ of a high population world.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

Lord of the Farce wrote:Right. After all, just how many examples of BDZ do we really have? Maybe three or four. Caamas, which we kind of know jack-shit about. Dankayo, which seems to have jack-and-all to begin with. I don't recall any high population victims of BDZ. Do you?

To be fair, they nearly BDZed Nar Shaadaa, with an estimated 70-90 billion population. Many of them, perhaps even a high proportion of the working population, were smugglers or other petty criminals, and the government was "Organized Crime" but still ... it ia a BDZ of a high population world.

True (forgot about Nar Shaadaa). So we do have one example of where the Empire might have been prepared to actually use BDZ on a high population world. Then again, they didn't actually go through with it either, so we're back at square one.

Lord of the Farce wrote:True (forgot about Nar Shaadaa). So we do have one example of where the Empire might have been prepared to actually use BDZ on a high population world. Then again, they didn't actually go through with it either, so we're back at square one.

Shild's fleet were going to go through with it, just that their attack was disrupted by the smugglers' attack and the Excomm order suggesting Greelanx do anything possible to lose. Not giving them that point is like saying Tarkin wasn't within one second was destroying Yavin.

And remember, that BDZ was going to be carried out by 4 Dreadnoughts. On what was pretty much Coruscant Jr, but more shitty and less of the ritz.

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:And remember, that BDZ was going to be carried out by 4 Dreadnoughts. On what was pretty much Coruscant Jr, but more shitty and less of the ritz.

3, not 4. And it also proves planetary shields are of very different makes, with this one near the low-end. It is more like the son to the antithesis of Coruscant.

BTW, Farce. I think this will be my last post. I've been fighting this thread since P.1 and I'm exhausted.

(Deactivates notification)

I can sum up this debate in a nutshell: the entire ethic of war is to argue that it's OK to do something which is immoral in an attempt to combat or prevent an even greater evil. This is the rationale behind wars of all kinds, virtually all bombing campaigns, particularly the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, etc. It is a delicate ethical balancing act which is outcome-based and which some moralists would have you believe is simply absurd, hence they become pacifists.

If you believe in this concept, then it is possible to make an argument for the Empire's actions at Alderaan. if you do not, then you can proudly beat your chest and tout your moral superiority as long as you are willing to admit that Hiroshima was evil too, because otherwise you are just not being logically consistent.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have no trouble with being logically inconsistent, so they tout competing outcomes as justification for Hiroshima while rejecting that same logic for Alderaan and going for general principles instead.

Because the objective of Alderaan was not to bring a peaceful end to the war. It was to subjugate the galaxy so Palpatine could subsume it's inhabitants into it's will. Even if the ends do justify the means, those are some really crappy ends.

Rogue 9 wrote:Because the objective of Alderaan was not to bring a peaceful end to the war. It was to subjugate the galaxy so Palpatine could subsume it's inhabitants into it's will. Even if the ends do justify the means, those are some really crappy ends.

I see you completely missed the point yet again. Do you agree with the following premises?

1) The end can justify the means.
2) Human life has greater value than egalitarian governmental systems.

If so, then you should agree that Alderaan is just as "moral" as Hiroshima, for the justifications are the same. If not, then you should be willing to state that for the record: that your notions of democracy are more important than human life itself. And you should also be willing to concede that Hiroshima was evil.

If Hiroshima isn't accurate enough for you, try this on for size:

A major city is known to harbour insurgents against the President.

The President drops a MIRV on it and flattens it completely, to cut off the head of the insurgents.

If that's moral for you, Alderaan is moral.

No, because the goal for Hiroshima was to put a swift end to World War II with as few casualties as possible. The goal for Alderaan was to bring the entire galaxy under the dominion of Emperor Palpatine for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming its entire populace. The ends are not the same, so they cannot comparably justify their means in any case.

Rogue 9 wrote:No, because the goal for Hiroshima was to put a swift end to World War II with as few casualties as possible. The goal for Alderaan was to bring the entire galaxy under the dominion of Emperor Palpatine for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming its entire populace. The ends are not the same, so they cannot comparably justify their means in any case.

The justification was the same to end a war ASAP. Do you think killing thuonsands civilians can be justfied by redusing military casualties. to me it seems you don't what conside to fact US could and did a morally bad choice

Rogue 9 wrote:No, because the goal for Hiroshima was to put a swift end to World War II with as few casualties as possible.

In other words, kill a lot of innocent people in order to prevent a greater number of deaths.

The goal for Alderaan was to bring the entire galaxy under the dominion of Emperor Palpatine for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming its entire populace. The ends are not the same, so they cannot comparably justify their means in any case.

No, the goal was to "bring order to the galaxy" and "end this destructive conflict". Sounds like "a swift end to a war" to me, and that's obviously the ideology of the Emperor in his inner circle, as stated by Vader. Taking an intermediate goal and describing it as the end goal is like saying that the goal of Hiroshima was to blast a hundred thousand people with intense radiation and shockwave.

Or, to put it another way, if I employ your kind of rhetorical games, I could say that the goal of Hiroshima was to "bring the entire nation of Japan under the dominion of President Truman for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming the entire populace, hence the demand for totally unconditional surrender".

Lord Revan wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:No, because the goal for Hiroshima was to put a swift end to World War II with as few casualties as possible. The goal for Alderaan was to bring the entire galaxy under the dominion of Emperor Palpatine for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming its entire populace. The ends are not the same, so they cannot comparably justify their means in any case.

The justification was the same to end a war ASAP. Do you think killing thuonsands civilians can be justfied by redusing military casualties. to me it seems you don't what conside to fact US could and did a morally bad choice

No, because I'm not going to concede what isn't true. An invasion of Japan would have resulted in far more casualties, both civilian and military. Such is not true of Alderaan; the only way for a ground invasion to spark more civilian casualties would be for the stormtroopers to kill every last man, woman, and child. Furthermore, the final goal of the United States was not global domination followed by draining the life force out of all the inhabitants of the world. That was Palpatine's goal with respect to the galaxy, from which he must be stopped. Surely you concede that those ends are very shitty ends, right?

Darth Wong wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:No, because the goal for Hiroshima was to put a swift end to World War II with as few casualties as possible.

In other words, kill a lot of innocent people in order to prevent a greater number of deaths.

Precisely. More innocent people would have died in an invasion. It was the least bloody course.

The goal for Alderaan was to bring the entire galaxy under the dominion of Emperor Palpatine for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming its entire populace. The ends are not the same, so they cannot comparably justify their means in any case.

No, the goal was to "bring order to the galaxy" and "end this destructive conflict". Sounds like "a swift end to a war" to me, and that's obviously the ideology of the Emperor in his inner circle, as stated by Vader. Taking an intermediate goal and describing it as the end goal is like saying that the goal of Hiroshima was to blast a hundred thousand people with intense radiation and shockwave.

No, I'm not even talking about the deaths. I'm talking about the end purpose of Palpatine's Empire, which renders the entire thing immoral and makes the necessity of stopping it undeniable.

Or, to put it another way, if I employ your kind of rhetorical games, I could say that the goal of Hiroshima was to "bring the entire nation of Japan under the dominion of President Truman for the purpose of subjugating and subsuming the entire populace, hence the demand for totally unconditional surrender".

Except that we see that this was not the case, since *gasp!* it didn't happen, nor did Truman ever state any intent to bring that about; in fact, the United States financed the rebuilding of Japan. Palpatine was actively crushing the galaxy beneath his boot, with the intent to use his subjects to power his Dark Side powers much like Exar Kun did with his Massassi slaves. Can you honestly not see that these two end goals are completely different things, and that Palpatine's are too reprehensible to allow?

Rogue 9 wrote:No, because I'm not going to concede what isn't true. An invasion of Japan would have resulted in far more casualties, both civilian and military. Such is not true of Alderaan; the only way for a ground invasion to spark more civilian casualties would be for the stormtroopers to kill every last man, woman, and child.

What if DS1 had not been destroyed, the galaxy's star systems submitted to Imperial will and the Civil War ended? That would have prevented far more billions of deaths than what took place in the chaos following the centrifugal disintegration of the galaxy into the "freedom" of feuding local warlords.

Conversely, what if Japan had somehow managed to destroy America's ability to make and use atom bombs after Hiroshima, so they refused to surrender? Then they would have killed all those people for nothing.

Can you produce a consistent ethical argument at all, or just spin around making excuses for not bothering to do so?

Furthermore, the final goal of the United States was not global domination followed by draining the life force out of all the inhabitants of the world. That was Palpatine's goal with respect to the galaxy, from which he must be stopped. Surely you concede that those ends are very shitty ends, right?

Where did Palpatine state that he planned to drain the life force out of every person in the galaxy?

Where did Palpatine state that he planned to drain the life force out of every person in the galaxy?

It's a major premise of Dark Empire, as I understand. It's been stated at intervals throughout this thread and others.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Where did Palpatine state that he planned to drain the life force out of every person in the galaxy?

It's a major premise of Dark Empire, as I understand. It's been stated at intervals throughout this thread and others.

He's draining the inhabitants of Byss. Byss != Entire Galaxy.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Where did Palpatine state that he planned to drain the life force out of every person in the galaxy?

It's a major premise of Dark Empire, as I understand. It's been stated at intervals throughout this thread and others.

Then you can provide the quote, correct?

The only time that him draining the galaxy was brought up that I can recall was once.

It was in the Dark Empire Sourcebook as a conjecture to why he created Byss. This was to be the model for the rest of the galaxy, IF and a big if he should implement a Dark Side theocracy upon the galaxy. It gave the notion that literally thousands upon thousands of worlds that he could suck energy from. It was a description of him using his Life sucking power and how much energy in terms of Force Points he got from it.

So Rogue is basing his entire argument upon a piece of conjecture? Well, if conjecture about the motives of the United States becomes admissible evidence ...

Darth Wong wrote:So Rogue is basing his entire argument upon a piece of conjecture? Well, if conjecture about the motives of the United States becomes admissible evidence ...

Except we don't need conjecture in that case, as the United States, unlike the Empire in the Galactic Civil War, won in WW2 and brought about it's goals, so we can examine them ourselves. Further, the United States is irrelevant to the Empire in the first place.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:So Rogue is basing his entire argument upon a piece of conjecture? Well, if conjecture about the motives of the United States becomes admissible evidence ...

Except we don't need conjecture in that case, as the United States, unlike the Empire in the Galactic Civil War, won in WW2 and brought about it's goals, so we can examine them ourselves. Further, the United States is irrelevant to the Empire in the first place.

We don't need conjecture in the case of the Empire, either. We know their stated goals and their actions back up those goals. You say that those goals are a front based on one piece of conjecture. Prove it.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:So Rogue is basing his entire argument upon a piece of conjecture? Well, if conjecture about the motives of the United States becomes admissible evidence ...

Except we don't need conjecture in that case, as the United States, unlike the Empire in the Galactic Civil War, won in WW2 and brought about it's goals, so we can examine them ourselves. Further, the United States is irrelevant to the Empire in the first place.

Still looking for excuses to avoid the tough questions, eh Rogue?

When making a decision, one does not have the luxury of precognition. Ergo, one cannot say "well, we know it worked so I don't have to answer your question" as a way of evading a question about the ethics of a decision. Get it?