Post League Eridani

kzt wrote:Bad things happen in war. Large units that surrendered were generally safely taken into custody. Individuals maybe, or maybe not.

That’s without genocidal decisions like the politburo decided to murder all the Polish officers who had surrendered to them.

I may have stated that badly. The protections of the Accord (either Deneb or Geneva) are requirements placed on forces of the signatories that any uniformed enemy personnel captured are to be treated in ways specified by the document. So had the People's Republic repudiated the Accords, Honor would still be obligated by Manticore's signing of the Accords to treat StateSec combatants as POW's.

No. "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."

The fact that the West doesn't shoot terrorists out of hand is because we choose to not do so. We are not legally obligated to do so by "international law'.

kzt wrote:No. "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."

The fact that the West doesn't shoot terrorists out of hand is because we choose to not do so. We are not legally obligated to do so by "international law'.

Interesting and I certainly appreciate the correction.

So if the StateSec personnel both rejected the Deneb Accords and acted in a way that was inconsistent with them, then they could be treated the way the RMN treated pirates. In the story we have something different, the People's Republic of Haven (including StateSec) gave lip service to the Accords and in many cases seemed to follow them, except for some cases where they did not. The results were the trials, under Haven law, of the personnel who thought that there would be no retribution.

Terrorists, provided they do not wear a uniform, are something different. There is also a controversy over those who wear military style fatigues that lack any identifying insignia.

tlb wrote:Terrorists, provided they do not wear a uniform, are something different. There is also a controversy over those who wear military style fatigues that lack any identifying insignia.

Back when the USSR existed we were told that you needed some sort of distinguishing element. IIRC, the example of a valid element was of everyone typing a red bandana around their right arm.

In any case that sort of decision as to the classification of prisoners was made at a much higher level than I ever was at. There are supposed to be forms that detail things like how you capture them that go back with them.

My dad knew a guy who was a ranger in WW2, operating many miles in front of the US lines. When they captured a prisoner they would question him and then one guy, it was always the same guy, would take him back to headquarters. He'd normally be back with the unit in 10 minutes or so.

tlb wrote:How does the Eridani Edict prevent a weak planet from threatening ultimate destruction in self defense?

So I've changed my mind on this. The EEE actually lets a weak planet threaten ultimate destruction much more effectively. While the leadership and the actual perps of an EEE strike might get executed, the EEE does NOT permit counter-strikes. Hell, if the leadership has the right set of specialized ships they can even wander off into the rest of the galaxy!

Essentially the underdogs can say: "You attack us, we burn your worlds, and wander off to spend the rest of our lives in these automated self-replicating yatchs."

GloriousRuse wrote:To be clear, the surrender terms she offered were in explicit contradiction to what up to that point was the accepted law of war. I.e. surrendering forces get to wipe their cores. The moment she asked for a contravening term, she was in violation.

It would be the equivalent of telling someone today, under the Geneva convention, that you would only accept their surrender if they agreed to answer eve question you had about their force faithfully and accurately, and that you would not accept itelsewise. Also, that you would retro-a ticket consider the surrender null and void if anyone lied during debriefing, and then kill everyone.

That is not what we consider legal, though obviously it is something that in effect many regimes and organizations do.

Or, for another (more extreme) example, “you only get to surrender if you agree to be slaves” is not considered legal. Even if accepting an offer of slavery allows for a peaceable surrender that defuses the co flirt, and even if you really need slaves for the war effort, and even if you are making nazis in to slaves.

And so forth. You could also say, “you only get to surrender if we allowed to rape every third person in your unit. If anyone resists the rape, we won’t count you as having surrendered and will kill you”. There are many, many, ways where an offer of surrender can be quite illegal even if it ends the current shooting.

Basically. I also note that Honor assaulted a prisoner when she pointed a weapon at a (non-threatening) prisoner with intent to kill. Also deliberate destruction of civilian property is a war crime, if it isn't a military necessity.

Note, criminality appears to be overwhelmingly accepted among the Manitocrian military (or at least marines). We see this when a large number of marines broke into a civilians home and tortured the civilian. Not one did anything to stop this nor contacted the appropriate authorities.

tlb wrote:
I expect the accepted usage was that when the captain was a free actor (not in a position of having surrender demanded by an overwhelming force that is only holding off destruction while terms are accepted) and decided to surrender, then the order can be made to erase the computer cores with the expectation that there would be no retaliation. Otherwise when the captain is not a free actor, then everyone in the ship is essentially a prisoner already and must obey the captors' commands (which might include leaving the ship in functional order).

This is insano-logic. If one side can just declare "Haha! We have overwhelming force, you must obey all demands or forfeit your right to surrender." What's even the point of requiring surrenders to be honored? Its possible the Deneb Accords use insano-logic, but then it is basically useless.

Back to the topic at hand:

The EEE is more or less dead, barring something unexpected. In theory the Grand Alliance could claim they are enforcing the EEE, but they really look like they violated the EEE, so that won't carry any moral weight.

The real issue is Darius is currently in a position where they CAN planet bust, but don't need to fear retaliation. There is no real reason for them not too. The leadership has crossed that moral event horizon. They are presumably telling their population that the GA just murdered hundred of millions of people based on an incorrect suspicion that Mesa attacked some of their military targets, so they can totally justify it to their people. They absolutely have the ability to as we saw with Oyster Bay.

So why not just end the GA? Then after the Galaxy sees the GA destroyed and no one able to do anything, I think that should extinguish the EEE.


P.S. If I was the Solarian League, I would actually amend the EEE to deprotect anyone who commits and EEE violation and refuses to unconditionally surrender to the League. Furthermore, all trade will be deemed illegal with the offending nations. However, the League SHALL take in any civilians who wish to flee the offending nations. Finally, this new EEE shall be incorporated into the individual member constitutions.

In particular, if anyone goes and destroys the GA and kills all of their people, they will not give a shit. Hope those people behind the Yawata Strike aren't still angry at you!

P.P.S. Another thing the Solarian League should do is declare that they are a new country unrelated to the previous Solarian League. They can name themselves Eugael Nairalos.

GloriousRuse wrote:To be clear, the surrender terms she offered were in explicit contradiction to what up to that point was the accepted law of war. I.e. surrendering forces get to wipe their cores. The moment she asked for a contravening term, she was in violation.

tlb wrote:I expect the accepted usage was that when the captain was a free actor (not in a position of having surrender demanded by an overwhelming force that is only holding off destruction while terms are accepted) and decided to surrender, then the order can be made to erase the computer cores with the expectation that there would be no retaliation. Otherwise when the captain is not a free actor, then everyone in the ship is essentially a prisoner already and must obey the captors' commands (which might include leaving the ship in functional order).

quite possibly a cat wrote:This is insano-logic. If one side can just declare "Haha! We have overwhelming force, you must obey all demands or forfeit your right to surrender." What's even the point of requiring surrenders to be honored? Its possible the Deneb Accords use insano-logic, but then it is basically useless.

There is text evidence that Glorious Ruse is wrong and demanding that the cores not be wiped was WITHIN the rules of war (the Deneb Accords), although it was not the normal usage. If you do not like my suggested reason why that might be so, then you are free to invent another. I was merely making an analog to the situation with a planet, which is allowed to fight until the enemy commands the orbitals and then must surrender.

Sure. Agree, then wipe the core, and abandon ship. Your move, Manticore.

kzt wrote:Sure. Agree, then wipe the core, and abandon ship. Your move, Manticore.

Interestingly, that was never put to the test. One possibility is to check that the ship is non-functional (or at least cannot translate into hyper) and leave them there. If they can get the ship working again, then they might not be so quick to disregard orders next time. This assumes they are in the middle of nowhere and fits nicely with contention by Quite Possibly a Cat that Manticore is filled with criminals. I do not know that the RMN is obligated to rescue stranded enemy soldiers. And they do still have a ship, so they are not completely stranded.

quite possibly a cat wrote:The real issue is Darius is currently in a position where they CAN planet bust, but don't need to fear retaliation. There is no real reason for them not too. The leadership has crossed that moral event horizon. They are presumably telling their population that the GA just murdered hundred of millions of people based on an incorrect suspicion that Mesa attacked some of their military targets, so they can totally justify it to their people. They absolutely have the ability to as we saw with Oyster Bay.

So why not just end the GA? Then after the Galaxy sees the GA destroyed and no one able to do anything, I think that should extinguish the EEE.

They have the technical capability to do that. And they're amoral enough not to necessarily shy away if committing a planetary WMD strike would serve their goals.

But despite the current inability of anybody to retaliate getting into the planet busting business risks their long term plans. Some means preclude some ends.


They're long term plan is to subvert the galaxy and end up with their genetics spread far and wide and Beowulf shown to be shortsighted and wrong with the limits they placed on genetic manipulation. But it's hard to keep a secret forever - and destroying whole planets for a tactical or even strategic advantage is the kind of thing that time doesn't really erase. If it ever became known that they'd done so it's very likely the rest of the galaxy would revolt against them. So busting a few planets leaves a potentially fatal skeleton in their closet (even worse than the Houdini one) that always risks coming to light and wrecking their long term goal. So I suspect long term self-interest will keep Darius out of the planet busting business.

kzt wrote:

tlb wrote:Terrorists, provided they do not wear a uniform, are something different. There is also a controversy over those who wear military style fatigues that lack any identifying insignia.

Back when the USSR existed we were told that you needed some sort of distinguishing element. IIRC, the example of a valid element was of everyone typing a red bandana around their right arm.

Yup, that's all Geneva requires--something distinguishable. If you don't have that you tend to get massacres when the troops shoot at anyone who looks like the people who were shooting at them. When the people shooting looked like civilians that means they tend to shoot at civilians.