I understand RFC's reluctance to get into the logistics of attacking Yildun just yet. But about those pesky system defense pods. Am I in error that RMN tech can deal with the issue?
Pod Warfare
I always wondered why there aren't special ships built to destroy pods. There are mine layers. Why aren't there mine destroyers? I recall in one of the books that a serious dent was put in the field of mines in one system on one occasion. Isn't Mistletoe an armed, stealthed drone that was used to destroy Moriarty platforms? Why can it not be adapted to destroy pods? Can a nuclear capable version be produced? Would a nuclear version be more effective in the midst of pods? Is the expense of such a strategy cost prohibitive?
Is it absolutely necessary to relocate the millions of civvies? Aren't the orbitals self sufficient?
If the pods can be destroyed. Then why wouldn't that be game over? Solarian warships are ineffective. Once the pods are toasted and the ships are roasted then the orbitals are under RMN control. No? Everything of concern is contained in the orbitals. Easy peasy to separate the military platforms from the civvies then. It seems Yildun would be an easier target, not a harder one. I know that it isn't, because himself says it isn't. I just don't understand why. And why would there be a need to transport the millions of civilians? Simply destroy the pods from long distance, kill the ships and the orbitals are controlled.
Ok, what am I missing? Ships hiding or holding out amongst the orbitals, preventing engagement?
The particularly thorny moral and political problem that RFC talks about reminded me of an article I read quite some time ago. Took me a while to fish it out. Solely, FYI...
March 14, 2011
Ethics and War: When combatants hide among civilians
—Christina Farr
One critical element of the laws of war is a concept known as "belligerent privilege," which stipulates that combatants may legally kill other combatants but may not target civilians. What, then, does a soldier do about the fact that in modern warfare it can be extraordinarily difficult to tell the difference?
Terrorists often choose to move undetected through the ranks of civilian populations. They hide in plain sight by wearing civilian clothes rather than uniforms or distinctive emblems. "They may be farmers by day and fighters by night," said David Luban, a Georgetown professor of law and philosophy, at an event that was part of the Ethics and War series. What's more, civilians may offer food and shelter to enemy soldiers - do they in the process become combatants? And what, finally, should the soldier do about civilians who are being used as a shield to protect combatants?
These are tricky questions. Luban said the phrasing of the Geneva Convention leaves open the possibility that soldiers may legally target civilians in a conflict zone. Article 48 says the military must discriminate between civilians and combatants at all times. Yet Article 51 notes that civilians shall only enjoy full protection in times of conflict "unless and for such times as they take a direct part in hostilities."
Efforts to clarify these issues have proved to be "highly dangerous," said Luban. In 2009, the Obama administration made a change in the Military Commissions Act to label anyone who materially supports hostilities against the U.S. as an "unprivileged enemy belligerent." As a result, civilians who tacitly support an enemy regime or terrorist organization may be lawfully targeted. Unfortunately, the amendment drew no distinction between those who did so voluntarily and those who did so involuntarily. It other words, a civilian actively helping a terrorist might be construed to be a combatant. But less clear, said Luban, is how the U.S. government would consider an Afghan woman who under duress shelters members of the Taliban.
The lack of consensus, he said, has led to widespread confusion within the military. One soldier told Luban that he didn't "think anyone has worked out what to do when civilians take on certain risks by assisting the enemy," or what to do when "soldiers and civilians are indistinguishable."
It is equally difficult to know how far the military is obligated to go to protect innocent civilians. It is often left to the discretion of an individual solider or unit to make that call, and often in a split second. Luban cited one well-known example in which one British soldier, Frank Richards, was ordered to throw bombs into cellars to target German soldiers during the First World War. When Richards chose to issue a warning cry to alert civilians in hiding, he lost a key advantage over his enemy.
The attitude toward civilians is very different today, Luban said. The unspoken sentiment among soldiers is that "we'll not lose another life for these people." But they are wrong to think this way. Luban cited recent studies that indicate it is in the best interests of soldiers to protect the innocent. Brigades that actively try to prevent civilian casualties tend to take the fewest casualties in their own ranks. "If you're careless in protecting civilians," he argued, "you're careless in everything."
The key, Luban said, is establishing clear boundaries. Wars are inevitable, and no matter how compelling the moral arguments, he argued, "the states that ratify treaties like the Geneva Convention will never accept rules that ruin their own military effectiveness." However, the issues surrounding civilians in war zones must be addressed to ensure that soldiers are not left with a dangerous incoherence. Ultimately, he said, "we need analytic clarity."
.