Technology

Dilandu wrote:

I would like to point out that Cayleb and Sharleyan have already rejected the use of terror, for example Ferayd, and the rejection of the Book of Schueler, other than the immediate execution of any member of the inquisition captured, so I doubt that they would countenance any use of biological or indiscriminate weapons.

Well, with the help of Merlin, they could afford it. But what if they haven't Merlin's help? Or the other side have their own equivalent? Would they still be so "nice and civilized", even if it means that they clearly would lose (with disastrous consequenses for their populations), or would they throw against Clyntahn everuthing they could obtain - gases, viruses, radiological bomb?

The fact is, that in real total wars, there is no Merlins or Mary-Sue or anything like that. There is two powers, struggling against each other with all they could manage.

Good point, Dilandu. At the same time I agree with your fundamental point here, I would also have to add that war is about politics. Lose too many hearts and minds especially on your own side, you eventually lose the ability to wage war. That makes it important for Charis to burnish its reputation as the good duys as much as possible. Clyntahn's reputation, on the other hand, is probably going to do as much to cause the COGA's collapse as Charis' tech.

Don

n7axw wrote:
Good point, Dilandu. At the same time I agree with your fundamental point here, I would also have to add that war is about politics. Lose too many hearts and minds especially on your own side, you eventually lose the ability to wage war. That makes it important for Charis to burnish its reputation as the good duys as much as possible. Clyntahn's reputation, on the other hand, is probably going to do as much to cause the COGA's collapse as Charis' tech.

Don

Completely agree. And i also agree, that in warfare, the collateral damage should be minimized, if it possible.

The problem is, that we could minimize the collateral damage only if we have a serious technological, industrial or numerical advantage over the enemy, AND could exploit this advantage immeadiatly. In the situation of total warfare against more or less equival enemy, we simply could not concentrate on avoidin the collateral damage, or we would be defeated, because our ability to inflict damage to enemy would be restricted.

Slightly off topic,

About biological or chemical weapons....

I think there should be some of them within the COGA's reach and I dont see Clyntahn hesitating....

mh1 wrote:Slightly off topic,

About biological or chemical weapons....

I think there should be some of them within the COGA's reach and I dont see Clyntahn hesitating....

The Safehold haven't got anything like the microbiology or advanced chemistry. The biological weapon could probably be easly developed and deployed by Charis (with Merlin's help), but they are adamant in their intentions to kill and maim the enemies with humane, old-fashioned ways, like lead bullets, starvation and explosives.

And something more about the idea of "civilized, humane" warfare. This idea could pretty easly led to another pretty ugly thing - the "civilized, humane" war would lost it's horrific image.

And this is REALLY bad, because the horrors of war is one of the most important deterrent. With the conceptions of some nice, restricted by rules, "civilized and humane" war, the nations and goverments would easily slip to the idea of military solutions to all problems. The war would be everlasting.

The full-scale, unconventional, total warfare have at least one good side: it's too horrific to start it easly. The horrors of war is a really powerfull voter for peace. If both sides knew, that the war between them would be horrific, destructive, and may easly led to the mutual destruction, they will be much more careful with their politic.

Dilandu wrote:And something more about the idea of "civilized, humane" warfare. This idea could pretty easly led to another pretty ugly thing - the "civilized, humane" war would lost it's horrific image.

And this is REALLY bad, because the horrors of war is one of the most important deterrent. With the conceptions of some nice, restricted by rules, "civilized and humane" war, the nations and goverments would easily slip to the idea of military solutions to all problems. The war would be everlasting.

The full-scale, unconventional, total warfare have at least one good side: it's too horrific to start it easly. The horrors of war is a really powerfull voter for peace. If both sides knew, that the war between them would be horrific, destructive, and may easly led to the mutual destruction, they will be much more careful with their politic.

I do totally agree,

It is just that Clyntahn has already proven that the means to win the war do not matter much to him.

And the biological /chemical warfare I meant was more on the scale of using the writs prohibited techniques/knowledge to do damage to your enemy's...

a bit like Sandrah Lywis used before she joined the inner circle

Dilandu wrote:

I would like to point out that Cayleb and Sharleyan have already rejected the use of terror, for example Ferayd, and the rejection of the Book of Schueler, other than the immediate execution of any member of the inquisition captured, so I doubt that they would countenance any use of biological or indiscriminate weapons.

Well, with the help of Merlin, they could afford it. But what if they haven't Merlin's help? Or the other side have their own equivalent? Would they still be so "nice and civilized", even if it means that they clearly would lose (with disastrous consequenses for their populations), or would they throw against Clyntahn everuthing they could obtain - gases, viruses, radiological bomb?

The fact is, that in real total wars, there is no Merlins or Mary-Sue or anything like that. There is two powers, struggling against each other with all they could manage.

I understand what you are saying, but they do have Merlin's help. Indeed, without it, the story would probably have ended in OAR. The fact is, in the story Merlin does exist, and Cayleb and Sharleyan have already rejected the use of terror. Cyntahn hasn't. The use of the Punishment against his enemies in the Vicarate to terrorize the remainder of the reformers, the use of the Sword of Schueler against Siddermark all demonstrate how he is willing to do anything to win, so once he has knowledge of weapons of mass destructions, he will develop them and put them to use.

Dilandu wrote:

mh1 wrote:Slightly off topic,

About biological or chemical weapons....

I think there should be some of them within the COGA's reach and I dont see Clyntahn hesitating....

The Safehold haven't got anything like the microbiology or advanced chemistry. The biological weapon could probably be easly developed and deployed by Charis (with Merlin's help), but they are adamant in their intentions to kill and maim the enemies with humane, old-fashioned ways, like lead bullets, starvation and explosives.

The CoGA should refer to the Book of Pasquale for curses to hurl against the heritics. After all, non-conformers and those others who resist the wishes of Clyntahn, er, make that the CoGA, are subject to things like poison gas.

After WW1, there were people who imagined that "war was now too terrible to be fought" and look what happened.

While Hitler may have been insane, the German High Command had studied WW1 to figure out "what we could do differently".

While Germany lost WW2, it was because of US involvement and the difficulty of the Germans had fighting Russians who apparently didn't fall into the trap of thinking "war is now too terrible to be fought".

While there's some validity in the dangers of "making war too civilized", thinking that "war is terrible" would lead to "no more wars" isn't such a valid idea.

Oh, by the way IIRC Italy in the early modern era fought "civilized wars" only to be defeated by armies who didn't fight in a "civilized" manner.

Dilandu wrote:And something more about the idea of "civilized, humane" warfare. This idea could pretty easly led to another pretty ugly thing - the "civilized, humane" war would lost it's horrific image.

And this is REALLY bad, because the horrors of war is one of the most important deterrent. With the conceptions of some nice, restricted by rules, "civilized and humane" war, the nations and goverments would easily slip to the idea of military solutions to all problems. The war would be everlasting.

The full-scale, unconventional, total warfare have at least one good side: it's too horrific to start it easly. The horrors of war is a really powerfull voter for peace. If both sides knew, that the war between them would be horrific, destructive, and may easly led to the mutual destruction, they will be much more careful with their politic.

DrakBibliophile wrote:
While there's some validity in the dangers of "making war too civilized", thinking that "war is terrible" would lead to "no more wars" isn't such a valid idea.

You misunderstood my words. The "war is terrible" would lead to more greater political caution, military accuracy and generally less conflicts would grew in open warfare. The Second World War clearly indicated, that there is no way to really won the war between industrial superpowers - the post-war situation for all participants (excluding USA, but only because their remote position) was greatly worse than before war.

And Cold War didn't became Hot, because both sides clearly understood the horrors of full-scale nuclear warfare and also understood that they would be unable to won the war.