Royal (Imperial) Manticore Army

The point is that it most certainly not a "regular" occurrence.

Duckk wrote:The point is that it most certainly not a "regular" occurrence.

Five instances in five hundred years, among thousands of inhabited worlds, is pretty much the definition of 'not a regular occurrence'. It's like saying that between the Third Crusade and the French Revolution only five towns in Europe was burned by an attacking army.

mmmm...

once every 100 years

How longs ago was the last one?

We could due for another one pretty soon if it was around 95+ years ago


T&R
GJS

Edited for period clarity

Dafmeister wrote:

Duckk wrote:The point is that it most certainly not a "regular" occurrence.

Five instances in five hundred years, among thousands of inhabited worlds, is pretty much the definition of 'not a regular occurrence'. It's like saying that between the Third Crusade and the French Revolution only five towns in Europe was burned by an attacking army.

My recollection is that there were no indications when within that five hundred years window those five incidents(or their responses) took place.

They could all have taken place within a few decades of the Edict's declaration, in the early days of the League as rogue nations or corporations or terrorists or whatever were still testing the waters, also affected by the slower interstellar speeds of those days, as well as a smaller volume of interstellar shipping.

IMO, it's more likely that most violations would occur early on and then become examples of why you don't want to do anything like it, thus reinforcing the Edict and ensuring a lack of successful violations for centuries.

Of course, it could go the other way. An once-a-century violation, with the perpetrators promptly crushed as soon as Sol hears of it. RFC probably left that vague for a reason!

I will, however, point out that the last major SLN action(before Spindle) was in the early 1700s(Battle of Farley's Crossing). If that battle was part of an Edict response, then it seems obvious that the last Edict violation was nearly 200 years old before Honor took command of Eighth Fleet.

As SLN impotence comes common knowledge and warlords go on rampage Eridini violations could come relatively more common place.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 5-10 in the next ten T years.

Of course presuming the Grand Alliance wins those violators will dealt with fully and completely - if a bit tardily

Alistair wrote:As SLN impotence comes common knowledge and warlords go on rampage Eridini violations could come relatively more common place.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 5-10 in the next ten T years.

Of course presuming the Grand Alliance wins those violators will dealt with fully and completely - if a bit tardily

I really don't see it happening much more commonly than it is now. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't need to be a single polity enforcing the ban, and if some star nation carried out a genocidal planetary bombardment, every single neighbor they have will band together to keep themselves from being next on the target list. I could see some situations where a whack-a-doo like Warnecke grabs power and sets things up where he has enough people in his thrall in the right places on his ships to be able to carry it out, and then decides that it is a good idea to do it, but no more often than I could count on my thumbs. (That would be three times; I use binary.). But they won't last long after they do, and most of the rest of the time left will be spent fighting a multiple front war, and that by it self should keep most of the nuts at bay.

I could even see a situation where two remnants are actively fighting over a streach of space between them when the find that the system next door has just glassed a planet. They say, let's put this on hold, hang onto what we got, and let's go stop that maniac!

crewdude48 wrote:

Alistair wrote:As SLN impotence comes common knowledge and warlords go on rampage Eridini violations could come relatively more common place.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 5-10 in the next ten T years.

Of course presuming the Grand Alliance wins those violators will dealt with fully and completely - if a bit tardily

I really don't see it happening much more commonly than it is now. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't need to be a single polity enforcing the ban, and if some star nation carried out a genocidal planetary bombardment, every single neighbor they have will band together to keep themselves from being next on the target list. I could see some situations where a whack-a-doo like Warnecke grabs power and sets things up where he has enough people in his thrall in the right places on his ships to be able to carry it out, and then decides that it is a good idea to do it, but no more often than I could count on my thumbs. (That would be three times; I use binary.). But they won't last long after they do, and most of the rest of the time left will be spent fighting a multiple front war, and that by it self should keep most of the nuts at bay.

I could even see a situation where two remnants are actively fighting over a streach of space between them when the find that the system next door has just glassed a planet. They say, let's put this on hold, hang onto what we got, and let's go stop that maniac!

Do you start counting from zero or one?

n7axw wrote:I can see some advantages to leaving a world to rot, especially if you have a supply of carrots to go with your big stick. If you simply control the orbitals and ignore what's going on planet side along with the message, give up your hostility, renounce the League, enter into peaceful agreements and we will give you back your orbital industry or help you rebuild it if its been damaged and give you favorable trade agreements, access to the wormhole network, I can imagine that a quite a few worlds would decide that hostility wasn't a worthwhile proposition.

Don

Don, if it is the customary practice according to interstellar law for a planet to surrender once its own naval forces lose control over its near-planetary space, the corollary would be that the star nation whose naval forces have taken control of that planet's near-planetary space will have certain obligations, including maintaining peace and order, preventing atrocities and ensuring the delivery of essential social services, under that same interstellar law, as the occupying power.

As such, occupying near-planetary space but leaving the planet itself to its own devices would not be compliant with interstellar law, and that is the kind of diplomatic slip-up that the GA's leadership is far too smart to commit.

hanuman wrote:

n7axw wrote:I can see some advantages to leaving a world to rot, especially if you have a supply of carrots to go with your big stick. If you simply control the orbitals and ignore what's going on planet side along with the message, give up your hostility, renounce the League, enter into peaceful agreements and we will give you back your orbital industry or help you rebuild it if its been damaged and give you favorable trade agreements, access to the wormhole network, I can imagine that a quite a few worlds would decide that hostility wasn't a worthwhile proposition.

Don

Don, if it is the customary practice according to interstellar law for a planet to surrender once its own naval forces lose control over its near-planetary space, the corollary would be that the star nation whose naval forces have taken control of that planet's near-planetary space will have certain obligations, including maintaining peace and order, preventing atrocities and ensuring the delivery of essential social services, under that same interstellar law, as the occupying power.

As such, occupying near-planetary space but leaving the planet itself to its own devices would not be compliant with interstellar law, and that is the kind of diplomatic slip-up that the GA's leadership is far too smart to commit.

Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I can tell, the only applicable interstellar law is "don't indiscriminately bombard a planet!" You can never assume that anything has a corollary unless it is spelled out.

Even if that corollary was the case, what is being discussed is what to do in the face of a system that is still resisting. If a system has truly surrendered, there will be no problem with providing services and order. But in the case of a system that is still fighting against the occupiers, they would be justified using KEWs. I see no problem going back into orbit, and telling people "We are just going to quarantine your planet until somebody hands over the resistance."

hanuman wrote:

n7axw wrote:I can see some advantages to leaving a world to rot, especially if you have a supply of carrots to go with your big stick. If you simply control the orbitals and ignore what's going on planet side along with the message, give up your hostility, renounce the League, enter into peaceful agreements and we will give you back your orbital industry or help you rebuild it if its been damaged and give you favorable trade agreements, access to the wormhole network, I can imagine that a quite a few worlds would decide that hostility wasn't a worthwhile proposition.

Don

Don, if it is the customary practice according to interstellar law for a planet to surrender once its own naval forces lose control over its near-planetary space, the corollary would be that the star nation whose naval forces have taken control of that planet's near-planetary space will have certain obligations, including maintaining peace and order, preventing atrocities and ensuring the delivery of essential social services, under that same interstellar law, as the occupying power.

As such, occupying near-planetary space but leaving the planet itself to its own devices would not be compliant with interstellar law, and that is the kind of diplomatic slip-up that the GA's leadership is far too smart to commit.

What you are saying sounds ideal, but I am not aware that there is any text ev to support you here.

If your goal is to control the affairs of such a planet, then what you are saying makes sense. But if you are in the orbitals, you are simply denying the planet access to space. You are not displacing the government. The people might decide to replace the government, but that is their affair. All you are doing is saying that they can have access to their orbitals by renouncing the League and signing a treaty which in turn gets them protection and favored status for trade.

Don