?

Jonathan_S wrote:Now, of course, we don't have the precise wording of the Edict, nor access to any debates or writings from its framers. Nor from any judicial opinions on either theoretical or actual borderline instances.

This of course presupposes that the SLN cared that much about the wording or borderline cases. The Edict isn't an interstellar treaty or anything, it's a vague policy statement that the SLN is supposed to enforce. I imagine most of the decision on whether to enforce it or not would depend greatly on who violated it, who got obliterated by that violation, and the SLN's attitude on those two things. I think it's quite clear that, had the BoM involved an Edict violation by the Havenites the Solarians would have given them a medal rather than any sort of military retribution (assuming they could do such a thing, which they couldn't).

The League government didn't answer to anyone. So long as the Mandarins went along with the decision, the SNL could have just shrugged and said "meh". Who's going to force them to do otherwise? The citizens? Good joke.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I have a problem with this whole "control of the orbitals" thing as it applies to the MA. If everything in orbit is floating debris except the Lennys, then the MA has control of the orbitals. At that point the MA should be able to issue the demand to surrender. Is there some magic time limit on how long you must have control of the orbitals? Does the MA have to await for some fleet that has to transit from Trevor's Star like 8th Fleet? Or has to await Home Fleet which is sitting in orbit around Sphinx and hasn't even begun to bring up it's wedge - if it TOO hasn't been bynged? The Edict has never envisioned an enemy that could circumvent a lot of the warships and firepower that a more traditional navy has to fight thru before gaining control of the orbitals.

So how long does a fleet have to have control of the orbitals? Hours? Days? Perhaps the MA has to await Henke to arrive with her fleet.

MA stealth has made not only your designated survivor protocols obsolete, but it seems it could shred the current Edict as well. Or at least circumvent the logistics of.

I would assume the control has to be more than just momentary. Basically if there is still a friendly fleet in the system and they're moving to attack (as opposed to a few grossly outgunned ships picketing the outer system) I'd argue you don't yet have practical control of the orbitals.

Now, of course, we don't have the precise wording of the Edict, nor access to any debates or writings from its framers. Nor from any judicial opinions on either theoretical or actual borderline instances.

Arguing by analogy ut basically a submarine can't be said to control a harbor just because it snuck past the patrolling destroyers and forts guarding the harbor mouth and then surfaced. (Because those bypassed destroyers are going to charge in and quickly kill it). But it could be said to control the harbor if the nearest destroyers are a day's sailing away.

Manticore though, with the junction, is a tricky one because the Junction makes the far termini effectively slightly more remote parts of the same star system. With a conventional attack (as we saw during the Battle of Manticore) there's time for forces positioned on the far end of those wormholes to enter the battle (or at the very least be in direct pursuit) before the attacking force - no matter how powerful - could reach Manticore orbit. Their response time might actually quicker that a fleet in Manticore-B depending on how close they are to the far terminus.

And I suspect very little thought in the League or elsewhere has been given to how long orbitals have to be controlled when there isn't a responding fleet in sight - but you know to expect them within an hour or so. So it probably isn't codified since normally any response force not already in the system would take at least a week to summon.

Assuming control has to be more than just "momentary" is just so arbitrary.

At that point, the MA certainly has control of the orbitals. They may not have control of the system, but they do have control of the orbitals. We DO know the Edict doesn't state you must have control of the system, sector or quadrant. It says, control of the orbitals.

The problem with the analogy of the sub off the coast of the US is there's no similar such Edict existing. The sub will simply launch. AND, likewise, that sub still has to be located. Hunt for Red October.

cthia wrote:Assuming control has to be more than just "momentary" is just so arbitrary.

At that point, the MA certainly has control of the orbitals. They may not have control of the system, but they do have control of the orbitals. We DO know the Edict doesn't state you must have control of the system, sector or quadrant. It says, control of the orbitals.

Not so, If there are still sufficiently powerful mobile units in system to push the force in orbit away from the planet, then that force is not occupying; it is only raiding.

If it bombards the planet and is then captured, the commanders can be executed as pirates. If is merely driven off, then it sets its own world up for reprisal.

If the intruders have sufficient force to defeat the defenders, then it should do that and then demand surrender.

This is from Expanding upon the Eridani Edict in the Pearls of Weber:

First, they may only be used by an attacker who controls near-planet space. That is, a raiding squadron which dashes in, passes within weapons range of the planet, and then lopes off again before a relief force can turn up and kick its butt, cannot pop off a few missiles at the planet as it passes without violating the Edict. Before it can fire at targets on the planetary surface, it must have established that the planet has no immediate prospect of relief, and that they (the attackers) are in a position to send down assault forces if they choose to do so. At that point, the attackers are entitled to summon the planet to surrender upon pain of bombardment from space. If the defenders choose not to surrender, then the attackers are justified in using bombardment to take out specific military targets rather than sending their assault forces down to be slaughtered trying to take them with infantry or armored units in an effort to prevent civilian casualties.

Daryl wrote:A saying in our military was that aeronautical engineers build weapons systems, while naval and armoured core engineers build targets. Mobility is important

It’s worth remembering that from 1964 to 1972 we lost more jets and helicopters due to enemy fire or combat related accidents than we currently have in the army, air force, navy and marines.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Assuming control has to be more than just "momentary" is just so arbitrary.

At that point, the MA certainly has control of the orbitals. They may not have control of the system, but they do have control of the orbitals. We DO know the Edict doesn't state you must have control of the system, sector or quadrant. It says, control of the orbitals.

Not so, If there are still sufficiently powerful mobile units in system to push the force in orbit away from the planet, then that force is not occupying; it is only raiding.

If it bombards the planet and is then captured, the commanders can be executed as pirates. If is merely driven off, then it sets its own world up for reprisal.

If the intruders have sufficient force to defeat the defenders, then it should do that and then demand surrender.

This is from Expanding upon the Eridani Edict in the Pearls of Weber:

First, they may only be used by an attacker who controls near-planet space. That is, a raiding squadron which dashes in, passes within weapons range of the planet, and then lopes off again before a relief force can turn up and kick its butt, cannot pop off a few missiles at the planet as it passes without violating the Edict. Before it can fire at targets on the planetary surface, it must have established that the planet has no immediate prospect of relief, and that they (the attackers) are in a position to send down assault forces if they choose to do so. At that point, the attackers are entitled to summon the planet to surrender upon pain of bombardment from space. If the defenders choose not to surrender, then the attackers are justified in using bombardment to take out specific military targets rather than sending their assault forces down to be slaughtered trying to take them with infantry or armored units in an effort to prevent civilian casualties.

Hey, the Pearls are back up, and is that a new format? Or did I just not get another memo. Anyway, thanks for the text.

Personally, I wouldn't refer to any force that can destroy the entire RMN's Home Fleet as pirates.

The first part of your bolded text doesn't apply. It is talking about drive-by shootings and not someone who is actually sitting IN orbit, UNCONTESTED, while demanding a surrender.

And the second part, "No immediate prospect of relief," is still somewhat arbitrary. Stragglers may take up the fight, but the MA isn't silly and arrogant like the Sollies. They're just arrogant, but a lot more capable. And they may disagree whether the enemy can get a powerful enough relief force by the deadline of their demands. Any remaining ships may have to deal with modern ships of the RF. Further stealthed MA forces, etc., etc. And don't forget, the clock is still ticking.

The Edict has simply aged a bit in the new threat environment.

At any rate, you are assuming the MA will just as loosely interpret the Edict if it comes to that. Or that they will care one way or the other. Waiting until they are actually IN orbit before bombardment is already quite a bit coming from them, don't you think? AND, Darius still hasn't been found, which is one reason I stated Manticore may have to honor the threat. Issued from orbit.

As far as capturing MA officers and executing them, I'm pretty sure it'd never come to that. Nanite contingencies.

And if they bombard, they have their ships' records to give the Sollies. "We were in orbit for one hour uncontested. Their time ran out."

The Sollies only gave one hour to comply in specific instances in UH. And do remember, the Sollies have a way of going off the rails themselves as far as interpretations involving the Edict (and anything else written and codified) and probably have no love lost for the Manties.

Which begs the question. If the SL rules against it being a violation of the Edict, what then?

cthia wrote:Assuming control has to be more than just "momentary" is just so arbitrary.

At that point, the MA certainly has control of the orbitals. They may not have control of the system, but they do have control of the orbitals. We DO know the Edict doesn't state you must have control of the system, sector or quadrant. It says, control of the orbitals.

tlb wrote:Not so, If there are still sufficiently powerful mobile units in system to push the force in orbit away from the planet, then that force is not occupying; it is only raiding.

If it bombards the planet and is then captured, the commanders can be executed as pirates. If is merely driven off, then it sets its own world up for reprisal.

If the intruders have sufficient force to defeat the defenders, then it should do that and then demand surrender.

This is from Expanding upon the Eridani Edict in the Pearls of Weber:

First, they may only be used by an attacker who controls near-planet space. That is, a raiding squadron which dashes in, passes within weapons range of the planet, and then lopes off again before a relief force can turn up and kick its butt, cannot pop off a few missiles at the planet as it passes without violating the Edict. Before it can fire at targets on the planetary surface, it must have established that the planet has no immediate prospect of relief, and that they (the attackers) are in a position to send down assault forces if they choose to do so. At that point, the attackers are entitled to summon the planet to surrender upon pain of bombardment from space. If the defenders choose not to surrender, then the attackers are justified in using bombardment to take out specific military targets rather than sending their assault forces down to be slaughtered trying to take them with infantry or armored units in an effort to prevent civilian casualties.

cthia wrote:Personally, I wouldn't refer to any force that can destroy the entire RMN's Home Fleet as pirates.

The first part of your bolded text doesn't apply. It is talking about drive-by shootings and not someone who is actually sitting IN orbit, UNCONTESTED, while demanding a surrender.

And the second part, "No immediate prospect of relief," is still somewhat arbitrary.

There was a whole other thread about whether the Eridani Edict of the Solarian League still applies and basically it does not. However it is still a measuring stick for civilized behavior.

I am not assuming anything about how the Malign would interpret civilized behavior and I do not think that the SLN under Mandarin control behaved properly. I was only talking about the interpretation of how a civilized nation should interpret the rule.

First if a force can destroy an entire fleet then once it has done so or forced the surrender of that fleet, it can demand the surrender of the planet without exception.

If it cannot destroy the fleet, then it is effect a raiding force and is not allowed to shoot at the planet. That is the implication of only "momentary" control of the planetary orbitals. If there is a defensive force in system that is strong enough to defeat or drive the attackers away from the planet, then its position is NOT uncontested.

PS. I do not think the Pearls of Weber that you can access under the FAQ's heading in this forum was ever down. It is the fifth imperium site that people could not use.

tlb wrote:This is from Expanding upon the Eridani Edict in the Pearls of Weber:

First, they may only be used by an attacker who controls near-planet space. That is, a raiding squadron which dashes in, passes within weapons range of the planet, and then lopes off again before a relief force can turn up and kick its butt, cannot pop off a few missiles at the planet as it passes without violating the Edict. Before it can fire at targets on the planetary surface, it must have established that the planet has no immediate prospect of relief, and that they (the attackers) are in a position to send down assault forces if they choose to do so. At that point, the attackers are entitled to summon the planet to surrender upon pain of bombardment from space. If the defenders choose not to surrender, then the attackers are justified in using bombardment to take out specific military targets rather than sending their assault forces down to be slaughtered trying to take them with infantry or armored units in an effort to prevent civilian casualties.

First if a force can destroy an entire fleet then once it has done so or forced the surrender of that fleet, it can demand the surrender of the planet without exception.

If it cannot destroy the fleet, then it is effect a raiding force and is not allowed to shoot at the planet. That is the implication of only "momentary" control of the planetary orbitals. If there is a defensive force in system that is strong enough to defeat or drive the attackers away from the planet, then its position is NOT uncontested.

PS. I do not think the Pearls of Weber that you can access under the FAQ's heading in this forum was ever down. It is the fifth imperium site that people could not use.

Another point is the section after the bolding: refusal to surrender does not imply indiscriminate bombarding of th planet. Threatening to destroy a few cities with nuclear bombs until the leaders surrender is not civilised behaviour. It's a hostage situation, or similar to a protection racket -- "it's a nice city you have by the Jason Bay there, it would be a shame if something happened to it" (read in a smarmy voice). And the fact that Mt. Royal is protected by a shield and defences is not a reason to send a megaton-range nuke to Landing City to take it out.

It allows for orbital bombardment of specific military targets. Since the orbiting fleet has uncontested control of the orbitals, it can take the time to set up precise KEW strikes to take out anti-aircraft, surface-to-air and surface-to-orbit installations, military bunkers, storage warehouses, garrisons, etc.

This is probably also a rule of thumb for how long the uncontested control must hold: if you don't have time to set up precise KEW strikes and/or send marines, you don't have control.

Now, in war, it doesn't mean this civilised behaviour will be followed. If someone does manage to orbit Manticore and ask for the Queen's surrender of all her forces in the system, lest they crack the planet in half, she may well do it. The only thing holding an invader back from this is the threat of retaliation, now or in the future, by remnants of the defender's forces or other polities. The MAlign may be arrogant enough consider itself invincible (like most zealots) and not care for retaliation.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Another point is the section after the bolding: refusal to surrender does not imply indiscriminate bombarding of th planet. Threatening to destroy a few cities with nuclear bombs until the leaders surrender is not civilised behaviour. It's a hostage situation, or similar to a protection racket -- "it's a nice city you have by the Jason Bay there, it would be a shame if something happened to it" (read in a smarmy voice). And the fact that Mt. Royal is protected by a shield and defences is not a reason to send a megaton-range nuke to Landing City to take it out.

It allows for orbital bombardment of specific military targets. Since the orbiting fleet has uncontested control of the orbitals, it can take the time to set up precise KEW strikes to take out anti-aircraft, surface-to-air and surface-to-orbit installations, military bunkers, storage warehouses, garrisons, etc.

https://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/e ... gton/31/0/

"What this means is that a planetary defense missile battery, wherever located, is a legitimate target. The defenders can't stick the missiles in the middle of Central Park in New York City in order to protect them against attack under the terms of the Eridani Edict. If there are weapons there, then they are legitimate targets for attack. By the same token, if two armored divisions dig in to defend New York City and their commander refuses to surrender, then they become a legitimate target. The White House in Washington, DC, would be a legitimate target, as would the Pentagon, because of their command-and-control functions. A civilian powerplant being used to provide electricity to weapons systems, or sensors, or electronic warfare platforms, would also be a legitimate target. However, a factory which produced missiles but had no capacity to fire them, would not be a legitimate target because it poses no immediate tactical threat to the fleet in orbit around the planet or to the assault troops which it might land to take possession of the factory. Similarly, an orbital bombardment attack on the basic economic or industrial infrastructure of the planet would not be justifiable under the terms of the Edict, nor would a "demonstration strike" on a population center intended to terrify the rest of the planetary population into submission.

"Note that to a very great extent, the exact nature of the weapon used is not really relevant. Certain weapons, because of the impossibility of reliably limiting their areas of effect, are more likely to be considered a violation of the Edict, of course. A neurotoxin used against a specific, legitimate target (like, say, a palace where the enemy star nation's monarch and top military commander might be hanging out), would not be considered a violation of the Edict unless it was likely to spread throughout a surrounding city, or something of the sort, and inflict truly massive casualties. The use of a biological weapon -- say, anthrax or the Ebola virus -- very probably would be considered a violation of the Edict because it would probably spread far beyond the immediate, legitimate military target to the civilian population at large. Put another way, a biological or chemical weapon [attack] on the White House which took out everything between M Street to the north, Marine Avenue to the south, the Potomac River Freeway to the west, and 9th Street to the east, would not constitute a violation of the Eridani Edict, but the use of a weapon which spread beyond that area to the city at large, and possibly beyond that to Baltimore, Fredericksburg, etc., would."

cthia wrote:I have a problem with this whole "control of the orbitals" thing as it applies to the MA. If everything in orbit is floating debris except the Lennys, then the MA has control of the orbitals. At that point the MA should be able to issue the demand to surrender. Is there some magic time limit on how long you must have control of the orbitals? Does the MA have to await for some fleet that has to transit from Trevor's Star like 8th Fleet? Or has to await Home Fleet which is sitting in orbit around Sphinx and hasn't even begun to bring up it's wedge - if it TOO hasn't been bynged? The Edict has never envisioned an enemy that could circumvent a lot of the warships and firepower that a more traditional navy has to fight thru before gaining control of the orbitals.

I would take "control of the orbitals" as there is nothing that can meaningfully fire on you while you're orbiting the planet.

So how long does a fleet have to have control of the orbitals? Hours? Days? Perhaps the MA has to await Henke to arrive with her fleet.

I don't believe time is a factor, but rather opposition. You do not control the orbitals while there is any force currently capable of contesting your position. (It need not be able to match you, only able to damage you.)

cthia wrote:The Edict has simply aged a bit in the new threat environment.

At any rate, you are assuming the MA will just as loosely interpret the Edict if it comes to that. Or that they will care one way or the other. Waiting until they are actually IN orbit before bombardment is already quite a bit coming from them, don't you think? AND, Darius still hasn't been found, which is one reason I stated Manticore may have to honor the threat. Issued from orbit.

As far as capturing MA officers and executing them, I'm pretty sure it'd never come to that. Nanite contingencies.

Though there are real politic reasons for still observing the forms of the Edict.
The reason you're capturing the orbitals is so you can demand the planet and it'd defensive forces surrender. In the case of a capital plant so you can demand their entire fleet and other planets surrender.

If you've followed the forms of the Edict you're far more likely to have the rest of their fleet obey the surrender orders. If you instead try to exploit the letter of the law by paying "tag you lose" after sneaking past their main fleet it's far more likely that their fleet, and other planets (if any) will go all Free Polish Navy on you and throw in 100% with their allies / your enemies. So by (in their eyes) cheating you deprive yourself of the intended goal.

And while, yes, the MAlign might choose to totally ignore the Edict and start indiscriminate bombardment, that's also fairly self-defeating. They may not worry much about retaliatory bombardment on Darius[1]; since they'd assume if Darius is found they've already utterly failed. But even knowing there's someone around launching these kind of strikes is damned risky to them and their plans. There's basically nothing better for causing everyone to band together in self-defense to find and eliminate their genocidal maniacs (that alone ruins the MAlign plans to fracture existing associations in order to pull the systems under the control of their cats paws. But it also means that if, at any point in the future, the MAlign and their genetic uplift plans get linked to the MAlign as planet killers then there will be a second even more radical anti-genie reaction utterly wrecking their long term goal too.


----
[1] That's what the Edict was designed to head off -- to keep the defeated side's survivors from launching a genocidal planetary strike in retaliation; by instead substituting a regime change by irresistible outside force. The League's public had seen that once too often and forced a constitutional amendment requiring the SLN to automatically intervene should anybody do that again.