Attacking Darius:

cthia wrote:I was responding to the idea of errant drones. Rogue warships would certainly be the responsibility of the RMN. Fire on your rogue ships or we fire on the planet. In case of drones, they can be ordered to head out of the system. Something, anything to take them out of play. Or, military targets on the planet will take the heat.

"Sure, we'll engage any rogue units. Will you allow us to remain aboard our ships with our weapons armed?"

What do you think the MAlign would answer?

"Otherwise we'd fire on your civilian population," You've just declared you're a terrorist. That actually legitimises the rogue fleet's opposition of you.

Firing on military targets was acceptable until the surrender. After it, once the military has truly laid down their weapons, they're no longer (supposed to be) a threat, so you can't fire on them any more. Executing POWs is also unlawful.

On the other hand, faking a surrender and then picking up arms again is also unlawful. Like spies, those can be summarily executed.

I see. Somehow I think the MA will want to pass on occupation. And who is to say whether LDs will pack weapons suitable for bombardments. Planets may not like what they use. I seem to recall the SLN having weapons specifically for that.

That's their choice. If they don't bring occupation troops, they can't complain that the planet didn't stay occupied. Removing the opponent's ability to wage war is acceptable; attacking civilian populations and the industry required to keep that population alive isn't.

There's a grey area about civilian industries that can be used to support the military effort. In the post above by RFC, he mentioned communication infrastructure.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:I was responding to the idea of errant drones. Rogue warships would certainly be the responsibility of the RMN. Fire on your rogue ships or we fire on the planet. In case of drones, they can be ordered to head out of the system. Something, anything to take them out of play. Or, military targets on the planet will take the heat.

"Sure, we'll engage any rogue units. Will you allow us to remain aboard our ships with our weapons armed?"

What do you think the MAlign would answer?

"Otherwise we'd fire on your civilian population," You've just declared you're a terrorist. That actually legitimises the rogue fleet's opposition of you.

Firing on military targets was acceptable until the surrender. After it, once the military has truly laid down their weapons, they're no longer (supposed to be) a threat, so you can't fire on them any more. Executing POWs is also unlawful.

On the other hand, faking a surrender and then picking up arms again is also unlawful. Like spies, those can be summarily executed.

cthia wrote:I see. Somehow I think the MA will want to pass on occupation. And who is to say whether LDs will pack weapons suitable for bombardments. Planets may not like what they use. I seem to recall the SLN having weapons specifically for that.

That's their choice. If they don't bring occupation troops, they can't complain that the planet didn't stay occupied. Removing the opponent's ability to wage war is acceptable; attacking civilian populations and the industry required to keep that population alive isn't.

There's a grey area about civilian industries that can be used to support the military effort. In the post above by RFC, he mentioned communication infrastructure.

Like I said, I don't see the MA bothering with occupying the planet. If they control the orbitals they will simply issue demands and ultimatums that are to be carried out or else they will bombard the planet; both military targets and civilian locations.

"We did not come to occupy. We came to end the war. Scuttle every single one of your warships or we bombard the planet."

Honor gave a similar ultimatum without controlling the orbitals. Like you said, war is not pretty and the MA has not given any indication that they support the Deneb Accords, the Cherwell Convention or the Edict.

When the US attacked Japan with unprecedented weapons, they didn't go in with bombers and plans to occupy. They went in to end the war. Period.

cthia wrote:When the US attacked Japan with unprecedented weapons, they didn't go in with bombers and plans to occupy. They went in to end the war. Period.

They did have plans to occupy and they did do so. The bombers with unprecedented weapons, occurred because of the massive casualties on both sides in the Battle for Okinawa; from Wikipedia:

The battle was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with approximately 160,000 military casualties combined: at least 50,000 Allied and 84,166 – 117,000 Japanese, including drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms. According to local authorities, at least 149,425 Okinawan people were killed, died by suicide or went missing, roughly half of the estimated pre-war population of about 300,000.

There were estimates that invasion would result in millions of casualties totaled for both sides.

There is a tremendous amount of blame and shame attached to the bombing of cities in both Europe and Japan (which the time was morally questionable, but not against the rules of war); the only good that came out out these last two attacks is that the war was ended.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:When the US attacked Japan with unprecedented weapons, they didn't go in with bombers and plans to occupy. They went in to end the war. Period.

They did have plans to occupy and they did do so. The bombers with unprecedented weapons, occurred because of the massive casualties on both sides in the Battle for Okinawa; from Wikipedia:

The battle was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with approximately 160,000 military casualties combined: at least 50,000 Allied and 84,166 – 117,000 Japanese, including drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms. According to local authorities, at least 149,425 Okinawan people were killed, died by suicide or went missing, roughly half of the estimated pre-war population of about 300,000.

There were estimates that invasion would result in millions of casualties totaled for both sides.

There is a tremendous amount of blame and shame attached to the bombing of cities in both Europe and Japan (which the time was morally questionable, but not against the rules of war); the only good that came out out these last two attacks is that the war was ended.

Hmm... Ok, I'll go ahead and concede that point. I suppose it translates to the same thing when applied to Manticore. But what I meant was that there were no plans to occupy the cities that were bombed, thus, the cities that were totally destroyed. If the MA is prepared to adopt a scorched Earth policy unless the demands they make after controlling the orbitals are met, then occupation... isn't going to be a part of their proclamation.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:That's their choice. If they don't bring occupation troops, they can't complain that the planet didn't stay occupied. Removing the opponent's ability to wage war is acceptable; attacking civilian populations and the industry required to keep that population alive isn't.

A word of caution on that notion. If the MA don't take prisoners, then on the contrary, that may be too bad for Manticore. If the Alignment feels that occupation would result in too many losses then who are you to argue with their logistics. The winner makes the rules. You can get incensed and threaten retaliation at a later date all you want. But for now, comply or die. Like Honor, you do realize that they are genies with very short fuses. Don't you?

Thus far, the MA has ignored all of the Galaxy's rules of war. I doubt the MA even cares about the Deneb Accords, so being a POW in that camp is not recommended. You will probably be tortured then airlocked. And I shudder to think about the sheer brutality and inhumanity of their torture techniques.

They don't care about the Cherwell Convention.

They don't scare about the Edict.

They have no common decency.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:When the US attacked Japan with unprecedented weapons, they didn't go in with bombers and plans to occupy. They went in to end the war. Period.

They did have plans to occupy and they did do so. The bombers with unprecedented weapons, occurred because of the massive casualties on both sides in the Battle for Okinawa; from Wikipedia:

The battle was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with approximately 160,000 military casualties combined: at least 50,000 Allied and 84,166 – 117,000 Japanese, including drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms. According to local authorities, at least 149,425 Okinawan people were killed, died by suicide or went missing, roughly half of the estimated pre-war population of about 300,000.

There were estimates that invasion would result in millions of casualties totaled for both sides.

There is a tremendous amount of blame and shame attached to the bombing of cities in both Europe and Japan (which the time was morally questionable, but not against the rules of war); the only good that came out out these last two attacks is that the war was ended.

Yep. The planned Operation Downfall would have been the invasion and occupation of Japan. (Complete with looking at using additional nukes in more tactical roles against the Japanese defenses)

And actually --- after the surrender they did occupy. General MacArthur, and then General Ridgeway, basically controlled the country as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and head of the occupation forces for 6 years; until mid-1951.

(That's one reason the US was able to respond as quickly as is did when war broke out in Korea; occupation forces in Japan were able to be diverted to Korea. They weren't well equipped or trained for that fight; but they could get then a heck of a lot faster than troops or aircraft from the US)

And expanding on the expected casualties; reportedly the US military is still, nearly 80 years later, using up Purple Cross medals (and IIRC also body bags) stockpiled back then in anticipation of all those casualties.

The allies were relieved that they didn't have to invade. But they had plans to do so and I've no reason to think they wouldn't have followed through with them had Japan not unconditionally surrendered first.

I adore and appreciate the history lessons, I do. But before we get off on yet another exit ramp, let me clarify my point as is related to the discussion. The US was NOT planning to occupy Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They were planning to reduce each of them to rubble.

Relatedly, the whole of Manticore will be equal to the ruins of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if this malignant enemy's hand is forced. There is no need to occupy rubble.

Scuttle all of your ships, or we bombard the planet.

cthia wrote:A word of caution on that notion. If the MA don't take prisoners, then on the contrary, that may be too bad for Manticore. If the Alignment feels that occupation would result in too many losses then who are you to argue with their logistics. The winner makes the rules. You can get incensed and threaten retaliation at a later date all you want. But for now, comply or die. Like Honor, you do realize that they are genies with very short fuses. Don't you?

Thus far, the MA has ignored all of the Galaxy's rules of war. I doubt the MA even cares about the Deneb Accords, so being a POW in that camp is not recommended. You will probably be tortured then airlocked. And I shudder to think about the sheer brutality and inhumanity of their torture techniques.

They don't care about the Cherwell Convention.

They don't scare about the Edict.

They have no common decency.

Of course they don't. We don't doubt that and the GA doesn't doubt that.

But that has as consequences:

1) the GF should not surrender. It should fight to the last. There's no chance that it's going to be humanely treated after it lays down its weapons and there's no guarantee that the civilian populations won't be mistreated even afterwards. So even if you know you're going to die, you should take some of your enemy with you.

2) the GA should not negotiate, because the MAlign will be doing so with bad faith anyway. That means the only way to end the MAlign is to end it, root and branch. And of course, not negotiate if they kidnap someone important.

3) the entire rest of the Galaxy will rally against the MAlign and MAN when the atrocities start flying. They may not have a big and capable navy, but we're talking about three thousand systems and trillions of people. That's a lot of hardware. With the Law of Averages, that also means they could severely shorten the time to do a brute-force search for Darius.

cthia wrote:Like you said, war is not pretty and the MA has not given any indication that they support the Deneb Accords, the Cherwell Convention or the Edict.

When the US attacked Japan with unprecedented weapons, they didn't go in with bombers and plans to occupy. They went in to end the war. Period.

The Malign actually has shown concern about the Eridani Edict in the past (but that says nothing about the end times, as you correctly suggest). They carefully planned Oyster Bay so that it was NOT a violation of the edict.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to rubble; but then the US did occupy all of Japan, including those sites.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Like you said, war is not pretty and the MA has not given any indication that they support the Deneb Accords, the Cherwell Convention or the Edict.

When the US attacked Japan with unprecedented weapons, they didn't go in with bombers and plans to occupy. They went in to end the war. Period.

The Malign actually has shown concern about the Eridani Edict in the past (but that says nothing about the end times, as you correctly suggest). They carefully planned Oyster Bay so that it was NOT a violation of the edict.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to rubble; but then the US did occupy all of Japan, including those sites.

Not to mention Tokyo and dozens of other cities were conventional bombed or fire bombed. The Tokyo Firebombing killed 150,000 in one night if memory serves - yet we occupied Tokyo along with every other city.