237 réponses à ce sujet

[fongiel24]

This is the specific wording of the Codex entry on the Citadel Conventions. It is poorly written, confusing, and possibly contradicts itself, but nonetheless, here is the section concerning WMDs in its entirety.

These diplomatic talks occurred in the wake of the Krogan Rebellions, as a response to the destruction of the conflict and an attempt to distance the Council from the brutal krogan warfare. The Conventions regulate the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. A WMD causes environmental alteration to a world. A bomb that produces a large crater is not considered a WMD; a bomb that causes a "nuclear winter" is.

Use of WMD is forbidden on "garden" worlds like Earth, with ecospheres that can readily support a population. If a habitable world is destroyed, it will not be replaced for millions of years. The Conventions do not forbid the use of WMD on hostile worlds or in sealed space-station environments. Many militaries continue to develop and
maintain stockpiles.

The first bolded section is poorly written because the writer doesn't seem to understand what "nuclear winter" is. "Nuclear winter" doesn't refer to the radiation put off by a nuclear detonation - it refers to the clouds of debris thrown up that act to block out the sun and induce sudden and extreme climate change. High speed kinetic impactors striking a planet could have the same effect as a nuclear bomb, depending on their size and velocity.

The second bolded section appears contradictory. On the one hand, combatants are issued a blanket prohibition on the use of WMDs against "garden worlds" but on the other, WMDs are permitted for use against "hostile worlds". So which is it? My interpretation would be that WMDs are only permitted for use against defended planets that aren't classified as "garden worlds", with "garden world" being defined very narrowly. Under this interpretation, if any of the batarian home worlds qualify as "garden worlds", we'd have to come after them on the ground if we wanted to hit them.

Modifié par fongiel24, 29 octobre 2010 - 10:28 .

[General User]

Poorly worded that they are, the Citadel Conventions on WMDs seem to be designed to preserve the environments and ecospheres of garden-worlds, not their resident populations. A kinetic strike of sufficient force to destroy a city would not necessarily have an affect on the wider planetary environment, and as such would be permissible under the conventions.

Modifié par General User, 29 octobre 2010 - 10:48 .

[Mr. Man]

The arguement about what would cause more 'civilian deaths' is irrelevent. The Batarians are kidnapping humans in the Verge/ Traverse/ Terminus. They are enslaving people that are supposed to be under the protection of the Systems Alliance, which, at this time is doing nothing. The Batarian threat is something that must be countered with overwhelming force as their terrorist activities are unacceptable and must be stopped. I am not advocating genocide; We aren't killing them BECAUSE their Batarians, but because their dangerous. I advocate War instead...something that is very different and completely legitimate if other options fail (and they have).

[DPSSOC]

A thought occurs on how to deal with the Batarian issue permanently and with minimal casualties.  We have in our possession at least one of the Collector probes correct?  What if we find a way to make them ourselves (may be easier if you kept the base) which will allow us to take over Batarian held worlds without resorting to ground warfare.  We skip in, achieve orbital dominance, release the probes, land and detain all Batarians (minus slaves though identifying them may be difficult).  Government officials will be held for trial, as well as any slave owners, and soldiers will be held as POW's in preparation for the influx of detainees we commission the construction of several (if necessary) Purgatory class prison ships, manned by C-sec personnel (to keep things friendly with the Council).  Now the downside is we'd have to move slowly as the total number of detainees could number in the billions and building enough prison ships to house that many is prohibitively costly.

Now I'm sure some people are wondering what I'd do with those not detained.  Those not detained (and not slaves) will be returned to their homes and allowed to continue with their lives with combined Alliance, Council, and C-Sec forces serving as law enforcement as well as offering aid (food, clothing, etc.) should the returned populace be unable to sustain itself.

The slaves will be taken to medical centres to receive treatment (physical as well as mental) and eased back in to free life.  Slaves will of course be sent to centres run by their own race (to ensure they are given proper care).  Batarian slaves will also received treatment (probably from the Asari but who knows) and an attempt will be made to (and I really hate this word) re-educate them.  If they are unable or simply don't desire to live as free men they will be offered the option of being returned to the Batarian government or remaining in the medical centre for long term care.

The terms of the trials for detainees will be simple; if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the detainee owned non-Batarian slaves they will be executed.  Those who did not own non-Batarian slaves will be returned to their homes.

Upon successful conquest of a planet a small fleet will be left in orbit to alert Alliance forces of an attempt to re-take the world by the Hegemony.  This fleet will also serve to monitor and hold any ships trying to enter or leave the atmosphere of the planet.

Once the campaign is completed Batarian space will be deemed a demilitarized zone and regularly patrolled by Alliance and (hopefully) Turian forces.  POW's will be tried under the same conditions as civillians and returned to the worlds they were captured on.  The Batarian government will be issued an ultimatum, they may continue to practice slavery amongst themselves, but if even one non-Batarian is taken by raiders again we will not hesitate to drop the moons of any world they hold on them.

It is important to make this threat and hold to it if the Batarians try pushing it because the Batarian people need to understand, completely, that we won't put up with their crap anymore.  They will be given one chance, just one chance.

[fongiel24]

General User wrote...

Poorly worded that they are, the Citadel Conventions on WMDs seem to be designed to preserve the environments and ecospheres of garden-worlds, not their resident populations. A kinetic strike of sufficient force to destroy a city would not necessarily have an affect on the wider planetary environment, and as such would be permissible under the conventions.

The problem is that "nuclear winter", whether caused by actual nuclear weapons or inert kinetic impactors has a severely detrimental effect on the environment, as well as the people. You can't wipe out a city without causing widespread environmental damage as well. It's the destruction of the city itself that causes "nuclear winter". The detonation of a nuclear weapon or the impact of a kinetic strike throws up tremendous amounts of dust. After this initial shock, the destruction of the city results in widespread fires that throw up more ash and dust into the atmosphere. Whether we use a nuke or a kinetic strike is irrelevant - the longterm damage to the planet's biosphere remains the same.

[General User]

fongiel24 wrote...

General User wrote...

Poorly worded that they are, the Citadel Conventions on WMDs seem to be designed to preserve the environments and ecospheres of garden-worlds, not their resident populations. A kinetic strike of sufficient force to destroy a city would not necessarily have an affect on the wider planetary environment, and as such would be permissible under the conventions.

The problem is that "nuclear winter", whether caused by actual nuclear weapons or inert kinetic impactors has a severely detrimental effect on the environment, as well as the people. You can't wipe out a city without causing widespread environmental damage as well. It's the destruction of the city itself that causes "nuclear winter". The detonation of a nuclear weapon or the impact of a kinetic strike throws up tremendous amounts of dust. After this initial shock, the destruction of the city results in widespread fires that throw up more ash and dust into the atmosphere. Whether we use a nuke or a kinetic strike is irrelevant - the longterm damage to the planet's biosphere remains the same.

Of course you can destroy a city (or even several cities) w/o impacting the wider planetary environment! Of all the 500+ above ground nuclear tests (and two combat strikes) conducted on Earth, none has had a significant planet-wide environmental impact, even collectively, only local radiation/fallout hazards.
 
The only events that have had a planet wide environmental impact are massive volcanoes, and their effects dissipated after a few years, again no long term impact. The dust and ash from destroying an urban center would be nowhere near that generated by a volcano. Not even close, not by a long shot.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2010 - 12:07 .

[Legbiter]

Hell, why not just apologize after the last of their spawn has had their braincase stomped on?

Modifié par Legbiter, 30 octobre 2010 - 12:04 .

[fongiel24]

General User wrote...

Of course you can destroy a city (or even several cities) w/o impacting the wider planetary environment! Of all the 500+ above ground nuclear tests (and two combat strikes) conducted on Earth, none has had a significant planet-wide environmental impact, even collectively, only local radiation/fallout hazards.
 
The only events that have had a planet wide environmental impact are super-massive volcanoes, and their effects dissipated after a few years, again no long term impact. The dust and ash from destroying an urban center would be nowhere near that generated by a volcano. Not even close, not by a long shot.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by low yield nuclear weapons and only one was used on each city. Nuclear testing is done in remote areas where there isn't much flammable material, and again, we're only talking one detonation at a time. Large volcanic eruptions like Krakatau happen rarely and we don't see several of them erupt at once. Super-volcanic eruptions have an effect lasting much longer than a few years. The last big one, the Toba event, occurred some 50,000+ years ago and is speculated to have caused global mean temperatures to drop at least 5-10 degrees even years after the eruption. If Yellowstone ever erupted, it could completely transform the face of the planet.

Remember, we're not talking about taking out one or two cities. We're talking about exterminating the entire population of a planet via orbital bombardment. That means hitting every last one of those extra-flammable population centres on the planet within a time period not exceeding more than a few weeks. Taking out one or two cities might not destroy the biosphere of a planet - hitting every populated centre on that planet at the same time probably would.

Modifié par fongiel24, 30 octobre 2010 - 12:10 .

[Mr. Man]

DPSSOC wrote...

A thought occurs on how to deal with the Batarian issue permanently and with minimal casualties.  We have in our possession at least one of the Collector probes correct?  What if we find a way to make them ourselves (may be easier if you kept the base) which will allow us to take over Batarian held worlds without resorting to ground warfare.  We skip in, achieve orbital dominance, release the probes, land and detain all Batarians (minus slaves though identifying them may be difficult).  Government officials will be held for trial, as well as any slave owners, and soldiers will be held as POW's in preparation for the influx of detainees we commission the construction of several (if necessary) Purgatory class prison ships, manned by C-sec personnel (to keep things friendly with the Council).  Now the downside is we'd have to move slowly as the total number of detainees could number in the billions and building enough prison ships to house that many is prohibitively costly.

Now I'm sure some people are wondering what I'd do with those not detained.  Those not detained (and not slaves) will be returned to their homes and allowed to continue with their lives with combined Alliance, Council, and C-Sec forces serving as law enforcement as well as offering aid (food, clothing, etc.) should the returned populace be unable to sustain itself.

The slaves will be taken to medical centres to receive treatment (physical as well as mental) and eased back in to free life.  Slaves will of course be sent to centres run by their own race (to ensure they are given proper care).  Batarian slaves will also received treatment (probably from the Asari but who knows) and an attempt will be made to (and I really hate this word) re-educate them.  If they are unable or simply don't desire to live as free men they will be offered the option of being returned to the Batarian government or remaining in the medical centre for long term care.

The terms of the trials for detainees will be simple; if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the detainee owned non-Batarian slaves they will be executed.  Those who did not own non-Batarian slaves will be returned to their homes.

Upon successful conquest of a planet a small fleet will be left in orbit to alert Alliance forces of an attempt to re-take the world by the Hegemony.  This fleet will also serve to monitor and hold any ships trying to enter or leave the atmosphere of the planet.

Once the campaign is completed Batarian space will be deemed a demilitarized zone and regularly patrolled by Alliance and (hopefully) Turian forces.  POW's will be tried under the same conditions as civillians and returned to the worlds they were captured on.  The Batarian government will be issued an ultimatum, they may continue to practice slavery amongst themselves, but if even one non-Batarian is taken by raiders again we will not hesitate to drop the moons of any world they hold on them.

It is important to make this threat and hold to it if the Batarians try pushing it because the Batarian people need to understand, completely, that we won't put up with their crap anymore.  They will be given one chance, just one chance.

Interesting. But ultimatly I think it would be a logistical nightmare to house all of those POWs and then reeducate the populace. Much simpler just to attack.

[DPSSOC]

Mr. Man wrote...
Interesting. But ultimatly I think it would be a logistical nightmare to house all of those POWs and then reeducate the populace. Much simpler just to attack.

POW's would be a problem but that would be the case in conventional warfare as well (unless we take a "no prisoners" stance).  This is part of the reason I delegated handling of POW's to C-sec, it leaves the Alliance and allied militaries to deal with the Batarian problem.  Heck come to think of it if you keep them in stasis dealing with POW's is a snap.  No need to feed them, no escape attempts, the ideal prison really.  Forget prison ships we could store them in crates in warehouses.

Also we wouldn't be re-educating the entire populace just the slaves, give them a chance at freedom.  That's the main reason I gave Batarian slave re-education to the Asari, chances are good they wouldn't have many forces dedicated to the fight.  My campaign isn't to liberate the Batarians, they can rot in the hell they've created, it's designed to put the Batarians down and keep them there with minimal loss of innocent life.

[General User]

fongiel24 wrote...

General User wrote...

Of course you can destroy a city (or even several cities) w/o impacting the wider planetary environment! Of all the 500+ above ground nuclear tests (and two combat strikes) conducted on Earth, none has had a significant planet-wide environmental impact, even collectively, only local radiation/fallout hazards.
 
The only events that have had a planet wide environmental impact are super-massive volcanoes, and their effects dissipated after a few years, again no long term impact. The dust and ash from destroying an urban center would be nowhere near that generated by a volcano. Not even close, not by a long shot.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by low yield nuclear weapons and only one was used on each city. Nuclear testing is done in remote areas where there isn't much flammable material, and again, we're only talking one detonation at a time. Large volcanic eruptions like Krakatau happen rarely and we don't see several of them erupt at once. Super-volcanic eruptions have an effect lasting much longer than a few years. The last big one, the Toba event, occurred some 50,000+ years ago and is speculated to have caused global mean temperatures to drop at least 5-10 degrees even years after the eruption. If Yellowstone ever erupted, it could completely transform the face of the planet.

Remember, we're not talking about taking out one or two cities. We're talking about exterminating the entire population of a planet via orbital bombardment. That means hitting every last one of those extra-flammable population centres on the planet within a time period not exceeding more than a few weeks. Taking out one or two cities might not destroy the biosphere of a planet - hitting every populated centre on that planet at the same time probably would.

First of all, I’m not talking about exterminating the entire population of Khar ‘Shan, only as much as would be necessary to compel an unconditional surrender. And that I (and the Citadel Council apparently) view orbital bombardment of civilian population centers as an acceptable tactic to compel the such a surrender.  As such I would deliberately string out the campaign.  One city a week, as a rule of thumb.  Literally just long enough for the dust to settle.
 
The examples of Hiroshima, Nagasaki only prove my point, cities utterly destroyed, minimal environmental impact beyond the local area, and most of that was radiation-based, something that would be entirely absent from kinetic bombardment. Besides who’s to say the kinetic strikes would have to be particularly large in the first place? That’s the thing about kinetic bombardment as a tactic; the destructive yield of a given strike is entirely customizable. Around 10-20 kilotons sounds perfect to me. Enough to destroy the urban centers one at a time, leaving surrounding areas almost entirely untouched.
 
Geology is a subject of great interest to me, may I ask why you believe that a planet wide bombardment campaign would result in planet wide environmental damage? Given the fact that the dust and ash generated by a major volcanic eruption is several orders of magnitude greater than that that would be generated by a planet wide bombardment campaign (1-500 explosions between 10 kilotons and 1 megaton in range).  And even those eruptions have had a limited, temporary effect on the climate.

Modifié par General User, 30 octobre 2010 - 12:53 .

[fongiel24]

[quote]General User wrote...

First of all, I’m not talking about exterminating the entire population of Khar ‘Shan, only as much as would be necessary to compel an unconditional surrender. And that I (and the Citadel Council apparently) view orbital bombardment of civilian population centers as an acceptable tactic to compel the such a surrender.  As such I would deliberately string out the campaign.  One city a week, as a rule of thumb.  Literally just long enough for the dust to settle.

[/quote]

Sorry, my mistake then. I assumed we were talking about complete extermination due to the nature of the thread.

[quote]
 
The examples of Hiroshima, Nagasaki only prove my point, cities utterly destroyed, minimal environmental impact beyond the local area, and most of that was radiation-based, something that would be entirely absent from kinetic bombardment. Besides who’s to say the kinetic strikes would have to be particularly large in the first place? That’s the thing about kinetic bombardment as a tactic; the destructive yield of a given strike is entirely customizable. Around 10-20 kilotons sounds perfect to me. Enough to destroy the urban centers one at a time, leaving surrounding areas almost entirely untouched.

[/quote]

It really depends on the objective. If the objective is to wipe out a civilian population, we'd have to scale the bombardment up to apocalyptic levels. If our objectives are limited to strategic targets only, like enemy leadership, industrial capacity, military bases, etc. than we can scale down the bombardment to almost surgical levels.

[quote]

Geology is a subject of great interest to me, may I ask why you believe that a planet wide bombardment campaign would result in planet wide environmental damage? Given the fact that the dust and ash generated by a major volcanic eruption is several orders of magnitude greater than that that would be generated by a planet wide bombardment campaign (1-500 explosions between 10 kilotons and 1 megaton in range).  And even those eruptions have had a limited, temporary effect on the climate.[/quote]

[/quote]

I'll probably have to concede this point to you because my knowledge of geology is abysmal. My speculation is based on various studies I've read about the possibility of nuclear war resulting in significant climate change. Admittedly nuclear detonations would have a different effect than inert kinetic impactors, but in both cases we'd be possibly talking about entire cities going up in smoke.

[Christmas Ape]

Pacifien wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
I feel like this thread should be allowed to sink, and perhaps a week later one started with a less severe opening. I'd like to discuss the value of military intervention vs. political destabilization as regards the Hegemony without the emotionally weighted specter of 'genocide' hanging over the discussion.

You know, that was exactly my thinking when I closed the thread, but someone felt that editing the title was good enough.

I'm gonna say a thread with the term "genocide support" in its title is already on the inflammatory side of the spectrum.

I don't see anything in there about that, as opposed to "Moderator Says No". Perhaps they just felt there was an overall chilling effect occuring on conversation when up to half the first page's threads are pre-emptively locked as "potentially troublesome". Perhaps they thought the title would be re-written, in the fashion of posts discussing 'forbidden' topics, as opposed to merely censored. Perhaps they underestimated the ability of posters on the internet to cling tenaciously to an argument no-one is making so they can condemn it.
It's all a rich tapestry, I'm sure, in which no-one is completely innocent.
Anyway, taking myself to the as-yet-unpoisoned batarian discussion.