188 réponses à ce sujet

[Tennessee88]

Wulfram wrote...

Human dominance is always going to be chimerical unless they destroy the Turians, Asari and Salarians with the brief technological advantage they might get from reaper tech.

Why is it always assumed that human dominance relies on the destruction of the races currently dominating the galaxy. If they manage to make their military a necessary force while negating the usefulness of the Turians means the other races would be beholden to the Alliance in order to receive their protection. Politics in Mass Effect resembles Boardwalk Empire more than it does current geo-politics. 

[silent_key]

Tennessee88 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Human dominance is always going to be chimerical unless they destroy the Turians, Asari and Salarians with the brief technological advantage they might get from reaper tech.

Why is it always assumed that human dominance relies on the destruction of the races currently dominating the galaxy. If they manage to make their military a necessary force while negating the usefulness of the Turians means the other races would be beholden to the Alliance in order to receive their protection. Politics in Mass Effect resembles Boardwalk Empire more than it does current geo-politics. 

^ This.  Why does everyone jumps to the conclusion that human dominance means crushing everything under the heel of our boot.  Human dominance means a strengthening of human interests to the point that they can't be ignored.  Every political entity strives for dominance in some way shape or form, and achieving said dominance helps those they are representing.  Turians don't give a crap about human interests, neither do any of the other alien species.  Humans must look after humans or no one else will. 

[Wulfram]

Tennessee88 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Human dominance is always going to be chimerical unless they destroy the Turians, Asari and Salarians with the brief technological advantage they might get from reaper tech.

Why is it always assumed that human dominance relies on the destruction of the races currently dominating the galaxy. If they manage to make their military a necessary force while negating the usefulness of the Turians means the other races would be beholden to the Alliance in order to receive their protection. Politics in Mass Effect resembles Boardwalk Empire more than it does current geo-politics. 

So what is your plan for how humanity will "dominate" a bunch of powers, all with far bigger economies and more powerful armed forces?  Will the Asari, Salarians and Turians simply bow before the force of human awesomeness and forget centuries of rulership at our whim?

[AkiKishi]

silent_key wrote...

^ This.  Why does everyone jumps to the conclusion that human dominance means crushing everything under the heel of our boot.  Human dominance means a strengthening of human interests to the point that they can't be ignored.  Every political entity strives for dominance in some way shape or form, and achieving said dominance helps those they are representing.  Turians don't give a crap about human interests, neither do any of the other alien species.  Humans must look after humans or no one else will. 

Humans are too fractuous and short lived to dominate anything. It's like putting the kids in charge of the adults.
At best you would get a situation like Alexander (may even be Shepard) once they die, everything degenerates into a power struggle.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

So what is your plan for how humanity will "dominate" a bunch of powers, all with far bigger economies and more powerful armed forces?  Will the Asari, Salarians and Turians simply bow before the force of human awesomeness and forget centuries of rulership at our whim?

Wulfram, how does a coup normally work? A small group seizes the recognized reigns, locations, and institutions of leadership, and presents a situation in which pushing them out is too hard.

Galactic governance was focused on the Citadel, and with the death of the Council and nearly the entire succession line with the Destiny Ascension and the Geth attack, the Council races lost their means to hold power: they lost most of their hard power (the Citadel Fleets and the Destiny Ascension), they lost control of the universally recognized capital (the Citadel), and with the near total loss of the beuracrats and their own experts the Alliance filled all the empty shoes faster and owns the bueracracy.

The Citadel Council, which has for so long emphasized and made it clear the the glory of the Citadel is the proof of advancement and rulership, can't even realistically try and simply move shop either and re-establish their own super-station-in-exile. For one, it wouldn't be impressive: the next largest space stations in the galaxy are Omega, which no one wants to be compared with, and Acturus, which pales in comparison to the Citadel. For a second, it would be an equivalent admission of defeat. And, most importantly for a third, the Citadel remains the galactic economic hub that the galaxy's infrastructure is geared through. Not simply figuratively, but literally: the Citadel is depicted as the central hub of the Mass Relays, which makes it an economic and military dominance point regardless of politics.

Being weaker than the Aliens in absolute terms, if that's still true after the Battle of the Citadel (the occassional codex numbers frequently counter the narrative), doesn't actually matter. The Humans aren't inclined to move, and even if the other species
hadn't, by story, just had much of their militaries go kaput, trying to
do so would be liable to spark a war that the Council race who
instigates would not 'win', even if/when the Humans lost, because the
Humans don't need to be stronger, but simply strong enough to raze the
galaxy if they fall. Since the Humans were recognized as being able to do that even in a losing war against the Turians before the Battle of the Citadel, after the destruction of well over half the Citadel Fleets doesn't exactly make the picture any rosier for the Council races. They could do it... and they would be throwing themselves on the sword to do so, win or lose.

If smaller countries and economies couldn't dominate larger populations, our history wouldn't exist as it stands. Political/military dominance is what in large part makes way for later economic dominance as well, while losing the first two will see the third whither as well.

[Wulfram]

You're focused too much on the Council. The council only had any relevance because it had the backing of the Asari, Salarian and Turian governments. Without it, those governments will if anything be more capable of taking decisive action.



The losses sustained by the Council races at the battle of the citadel are unclear, and also irrelevant. Whatever they were, they are temporary and will do nothing to effect the long term balance of power which comes from economic strength - and the willingness to use it.



If the council races are so useless militarily, or so devoid of political will, that they couldn't within a decade build a fleet capable of rolling over the Alliance, then, well, we might as well treat humanities dominance as guaranteed anyway.

[FaargAnNorgnal]

Wulfram wrote...

You're focused too much on the Council. The council only had any relevance because it had the backing of the Asari, Salarian and Turian governments. Without it, those governments will if anything be more capable of taking decisive action.

Why did it have their backing though? There must have been a reason. Perhaps it was because, as Dean_the_Young said, the Citadel is the economic hub of the galaxy? Whoever holds it has a lot of influence, that is how humanity can wield disproportionate power.

Wulfram wrote...

The losses sustained by the Council races at the battle of the citadel are unclear, and also irrelevant. Whatever they were, they are temporary and will do nothing to effect the long term balance of power which comes from economic strength - and the willingness to use it.

The underlined part is what is important. Did the old Council races have the willingness to use their forces? The turians did, at least, but the other two it isn't so clear. In fact when they saw the turians preparing to go to war they stopped them.

Even if the (former) Council races have a decade to build up a new armada, so does the Systems Alliance. As Dean said the Systems Alliance does not need a decisive victory over the other races. It doesn't even need a victory at all. It can prevent a war from happening simply by promising that any victory on the part of the old Council races will be a phyrric one.

War is not a simple thing. It is destructive and can cost people money, it can grind ecnomies to a halt. A really destructive war is not in anyone's interests, or at least not in the interests of the people wielding the power. Thus, it won't happen. I think it is important to remember that Council reigned over a last piece since the end of the Krogan Rebellions. That was some 1,200 years or so if I remember correctly. Such a lasting peace would have affected the culture of the Council races. The populace likely can't even imagine going to war again. That is why they were so shocked and afraid in the aftermath of the Battle of the Citadel. They were terrified, like a deer in headlights, and the Systems Alliance used that paralysis to take power.

Humans have never known such a long peace and that might have worked to their advantage.

[Moiaussi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

silent_key wrote...

^ This.  Why does everyone jumps to the conclusion that human dominance means crushing everything under the heel of our boot.  Human dominance means a strengthening of human interests to the point that they can't be ignored.  Every political entity strives for dominance in some way shape or form, and achieving said dominance helps those they are representing.  Turians don't give a crap about human interests, neither do any of the other alien species.  Humans must look after humans or no one else will. 

Humans are too fractuous and short lived to dominate anything. It's like putting the kids in charge of the adults.
At best you would get a situation like Alexander (may even be Shepard) once they die, everything degenerates into a power struggle.

Short lived is traditionally seen as an advantage when it comes to innovation for the same reasons innovation happens historicly. When you have less to work with, you have more incentive to innovate.

Societies that get too 'comfortable' historicly tend to fall into decadence and then fall.

It is a legitimate point about humanity being fractuous, but TIM doesn't seem to be helping in that regard.. if anything he seems to be creating more unrest.

[Wulfram]

FaargAnNorgnal wrote...

Why did it have their backing though? There must have been a reason. Perhaps it was because, as Dean_the_Young said, the Citadel is the economic hub of the galaxy? Whoever holds it has a lot of influence, that is how humanity can wield disproportionate power.

The Council is simply a formalisation of the reality, that if two of the council races agree on something then it happens, because they have the power to make it happen.

 Did the old Council races have the willingness to use their forces?

Ask the Rachni and the Krogan?

[Dean_the_Young]

The Council wasn't merely 'backed' by the Council races: the Council system was a significant part of the governments of the Council races. The national governments of the Council races existed, but were highly intertwined with the Council system, a fact of reality given the length of time and the overwhelming layer of involvement. The difference between the Council races and the Council itself is similar to the difference between the Alliance and the Human-Council: it's vague, it's murky, and the loss of one significantly affects the other.The Council wasn't a separate body, it was an integrated limb.





The exact losses sustained by the Council are unclear, but in the narrative they are said to be highly significant. The Destiny Ascension was said to be about half the Asari military power (or was that the Citadel fleet as well?), and the losses of the Turians and Salarians were depicted as extreme as well if the Humans let them soak up the geth fighting.



'Temporary' is a relative length of time, but a set back is a set back.The races can rebuild, but that doesn't mean they can regain the sort of lead they had: in fact, with the Asari's pacifistic politics driving them out of the galactic defense game entirely, over a third of them don't want to even try to recover what they had. If we assume the metaphor of a race, the Council races lost their lead, and one of them (the Asari) outright quit.



The Salarians and Turians can try for gunboat diplomacy, but gunboat diplomacy is one of those things that historically only works when the natives let it terrify them... and even less so when the natives have their own gunboats with which to strike back. Cowing foreign foes with overwhelming force is highly dependent on being able to strike them while they can't strike back, but the Alliance has more than enough force and means to strike back. Wielding the big stick is only as persuasive as the other person lets it be... and when they know the reasons why you won't actually swing (like, for example, the guarantee of swinging their own stick into you), it isn't persuasive at all.



If the Council races were irrational actors, the threat of outright war might be persuasive. But the Council races aren't irrational actors, and their acquiescence, grudging as it may have been, to Humanity's step up just underscores that their willingness to use force did not outweigh their concern towards not being hurt themselves in return. And without a trump card of force, what happened, happened.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...

FaargAnNorgnal wrote...

Why did it have their backing though? There must have been a reason. Perhaps it was because, as Dean_the_Young said, the Citadel is the economic hub of the galaxy? Whoever holds it has a lot of influence, that is how humanity can wield disproportionate power.

The Council is simply a formalisation of the reality, that if two of the council races agree on something then it happens, because they have the power to make it happen.

The Council is far more than that: the Council has set itself as the primary intergalactic legislature, and the Council species themselves have accepted for thousand(s) of years that the agreement of the Councilors overrides their own government preferences.

The Council is often congruant with the desires of the Council races, but when it's not, the cultural/political culture has long since accepted that when a Council Race disagrees with the Council, the Council is the winning authority.


And the Citadel itself is a dominant economic hub regardless, by virtue of its location and the existing galactic economic infrastructure setup. Money flows past politics without extreme effort.

 Did the old Council races have the willingness to use their forces?

Ask the Rachni and the Krogan?

That's like saying Germans today are bloodthirsty, genocidal war mongers because they invaded half of Europe sixty years ago. Except the gap here is far more than a mere sixty years, which saw one of the more divided, militaristic places in the world become one of the most unified and peaceful.

The Council of a thousand years ago might have been that ruthless and willing. The Council of a thousand year ago, however, is not the Council of hnow.

[FaargAnNorgnal]

Wulfram wrote...

The Council is simply a formalisation of the reality, that if two of the council races agree on something then it happens, because they have the power to make it happen.

They have the power because they have the fleets and the Citadel. Presumably they can block access to it and if that happens your economy can go into recession, or worse. I also think it might be worth considering that the Council has been around long enough that is unofficially part of the independent governments that manage each Council race. They've been at this for many generations, over a thousand years, in all that time the Council has probably ceased being an entirely separate entity.

Wulfram wrote...

Ask the Rachni and the Krogan?

Ask the quarians, the batarians, and the humans? The Council was unwiling to do anything in those cases. Of-course an important distinction is that those events occured only in the last three centuries where-as the Krogan rebellions ended almost 1400 years ago. That's what I'm getting at when I talk about how the lasting peace has changed the culture. They're complacent and they've lost most of their war-capable mindset. They are too hell bent on preventing and avoiding wars, to a (perhaps) problematic degree.

I highly doubt that the Council which existed at the time of the Rachni Wars and Krogan Rebellions was anything like that which exists now in terms of outlook and behavior.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The exact losses sustained by the Council are unclear, but in the narrative they are said to be highly significant. The Destiny Ascension was said to be about half the Asari military power (or was that the Citadel fleet as well?), and the losses of the Turians and Salarians were depicted as extreme as well if the Humans let them soak up the geth fighting.

There is a lot of rhetoric regarding the DA, though. The initial 'assessment' we get of it is from Ashley, who is a groundling and not a naval officer.

The reality is that we don't have any real data on relative ship or fleet strengths. That is wise on the part of the writers, because it means in ME3 they can have any given ship or fleet more or less powerful as need be, within reason of course....

[FaargAnNorgnal]

Moiaussi wrote...

The reality is that we don't have any real data on relative ship or fleet strengths. That is wise on the part of the writers, because it means in ME3 they can have any given ship or fleet more or less powerful as need be, within reason of course....

I do recall that the second novel does state after the battle the Systems Alliance was left as the largest fleet. That was why they lead the counter attack against the geth. So it seems that no matter what the fate of the Council was that humanity escaped with the fewest losses.

I think that maybe we didn't really witness a lot of the battle. The Councilors say, prior to your escape to Ilos, that fleets are stationed at every relay leading into the Terminus Systems. Thus when we see Sovereign and his geth come through the relay they've likely disposed of many Council ships already.

[silent_key]

Wulfram wrote...

Tennessee88 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Human dominance is always going to be chimerical unless they destroy the Turians, Asari and Salarians with the brief technological advantage they might get from reaper tech.

Why is it always assumed that human dominance relies on the destruction of the races currently dominating the galaxy. If they manage to make their military a necessary force while negating the usefulness of the Turians means the other races would be beholden to the Alliance in order to receive their protection. Politics in Mass Effect resembles Boardwalk Empire more than it does current geo-politics. 

So what is your plan for how humanity will "dominate" a bunch of powers, all with far bigger economies and more powerful armed forces?  Will the Asari, Salarians and Turians simply bow before the force of human awesomeness and forget centuries of rulership at our whim?

Let me pull out my trusty "dummy's guide to taking over the fake galaxy," (you know I take it everywhere with me...being the dirty pro-human xenophobe that I am), and I'll get right to outlining my master plan. /sarcasm
You're asking loaded questions that no one has the answers to.  Trying to end discussion by asking someone to explain the impossible is unfair.  If the only way you can argue against human dominance is with a straw man, you may as well not argue at all.

Dominance is a long term goal.  It is something to strive for and is best for human interests.  The Turians, Asari, and Salarians have been the dominant species for a long time.  It is obvious their species as a whole have the most resources, political pull, and luxury.  What is wrong with humanity setting it's goal to become dominant as well?  One that has the position in the galaxy to make demands that benefit their constituents without being pushed aside.  I'm sorry if this offends your idealistic views in some way, but politics only works in your favor if you have the clout to make what you want a reality.

[FaargAnNorgnal]

silent_key wrote...

You're asking loaded questions that no one has the answers to.

Hey now, speak for yourself.

All the pieces to build a long lasting human dominion are there. You don't even have to look that hard for them.

The old Council system lasted thousands of years and was only displaced by a freak incident that nobody could have ancitipated (for the most part).

If humantiy plays its cards right it could be in power for twice as long, longer even.

[silent_key]

FaargAnNorgnal wrote...

silent_key wrote...

You're asking loaded questions that no one has the answers to.

Hey now, speak for yourself.

All the pieces to build a long lasting human dominion are there. You don't even have to look that hard for them.

The old Council system lasted thousands of years and was only displaced by a freak incident that nobody could have ancitipated (for the most part).

If humantiy plays its cards right it could be in power for twice as long, longer even.

lol, my bad .  We can definitely speculate!  I'm interested in discussing the merits/faults of human power in the galaxy, but I'm not going to get into a theoretical, "this is how we do it," discussion that doesn't counter my original argument.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Wulfram]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Council wasn't merely 'backed' by the Council races: the Council system was a significant part of the governments of the Council races. The national governments of the Council races existed, but were highly intertwined with the Council system, a fact of reality given the length of time and the overwhelming layer of involvement. The difference between the Council races and the Council itself is similar to the difference between the Alliance and the Human-Council: it's vague, it's murky, and the loss of one significantly affects the other.The Council wasn't a separate body, it was an integrated limb.

The council races have seperate fleets and governments.  They have no need for the council.

The exact losses sustained by the Council are unclear, but in the narrative they are said to be highly significant. The Destiny Ascension was said to be about half the Asari military power (or was that the Citadel fleet as well?), and the losses of the Turians and Salarians were depicted as extreme as well if the Humans let them soak up the geth fighting.

'Temporary' is a relative length of time, but a set back is a set back.The races can rebuild, but that doesn't mean they can regain the sort of lead they had: in fact, with the Asari's pacifistic politics driving them out of the galactic defense game entirely, over a third of them don't want to even try to recover what they had. If we assume the metaphor of a race, the Council races lost their lead, and one of them (the Asari) outright quit.

I haven't seen any suggestion the Asari quit.  They transferred their responsibility for defence of the citadel to the Turians, which is nothing more than an indication of their willingness to work together against humanity

Nothing has happened to dent the Council races industrial and economic dominance, so nothing has really changed.

The Salarians and Turians can try for gunboat diplomacy, but gunboat diplomacy is one of those things that historically only works when the natives let it terrify them... and even less so when the natives have their own gunboats with which to strike back. Cowing foreign foes with overwhelming force is highly dependent on being able to strike them while they can't strike back, but the Alliance has more than enough force and means to strike back. Wielding the big stick is only as persuasive as the other person lets it be... and when they know the reasons why you won't actually swing (like, for example, the guarantee of swinging their own stick into you), it isn't persuasive at all.

Yet, you seem to believe that the aliens will simply bow before far weaker human might.  All the council races require to make human dominance illusory is the ability to say no.

If the Council races were irrational actors, the threat of outright war might be persuasive. But the Council races aren't irrational actors, and their acquiescence, grudging as it may have been, to Humanity's step up just underscores that their willingness to use force did not outweigh their concern towards not being hurt themselves in return. And without a trump card of force, what happened, happened.

What happened is simply a pause, to allow the council races to rearm.  Humanity's dominance is based on nothing solid, and can only be transitory.  Unless it decides to try genocide.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 février 2011 - 06:51 .

[AkiKishi]

Wulfram wrote...
What happened is simply a pause, to allow the council races to rearm.  Humanity's dominance is based on nothing solid, and can only be transitory.  Unless it decides to try genocide.

The Salarians are probably running simulations. Dominance can mean a number of things and they are not all bad. But I don't see TIMs version being the benevolent kind.
With the mess left on Earth after the Reaper attacks I think humans are going to pretty occupied for a centuary or two just getting back to where they were.

Might apply to everyone depending on how ME3 plays out.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wulfram wrote...


The council races have seperate fleets and governments.  They have no need for the council.

The Council fleets are separate in the same sense that NATO armies are separate from their militaries. The Council fleets are not separate, but drawn from the standing fleets.

The Council races are repeatedly said and given as intertwined and over-seen by the Council, with the Council having superior authority over those 'purely' racial governments on the notable number of occassions that one of the three votes is in dissent.

I haven't seen any suggestion the Asari quit.  They transferred their responsibility for defence of the citadel to the Turians, which is nothing more than an indication of their willingness to work together against humanity

This site lacks a good eye roll smile.

They transfered their section to the Turians, the only government who's actively hostile/opposed to the Humans, and dropped their own share so that they won't have to contribute. In no sense is this cooperating with the Humans, and in every sense they are exiting out of wanting (or being expected to) maintain the sort of standing military force to contribute to traditional Council missions and doings.

Reducing one's military and exiting out of the international military-cooperation scene is generally the standard of 'quiting' in the military-supremacy race. The Asari, having lost their military lead, are exhibiting no desire or interest in rebuilding or returning to the role.

Nothing has happened to dent the Council races industrial and economic dominance, so nothing has really changed.

They have a civilian industry. Not a military-oriented war economy. While they could make their economy such, it would impinge their established economies, and even then their industry isn't such as to make a war easy or attractive. For their economy to matter as much they have to configure it, and even if they configure it they have to ask what they intend to do with it: if they don't outright use it for a war, it's just economic waste, whereas if they do use it for war the Alliance is strong enough and has the abilities to make the costs for them horrendous, even in victory.

For similar reasons that the European is an economic giant (bigger than the US) but a political dwarf, so are the Council species.

Yet, you seem to believe that the aliens will simply bow before far weaker human might.  All the council races require to make human dominance illusory is the ability to say no.

And if any country didn't mind getting gutted, all the military dominance in the world wouldn't help anyone. The Aliens aren't bowing to human might, the Aliens are acknowledging that the Humans seized the tools of power (the Citadel, the inter-galactic legislative/political apparatus, the trade network, the military-deployment rights in the most important area of the galaxy). In part this is because the Humans seized power when everyone else was distracted and accepted it in the confusion, and didn't realize that the Humans weren't just going to leave afterwards. But by then they had established a new status quo, and at the time they couldn't forcifully change it even if they wanted.

The Council races could rebuild their fleets, and the Humans would still hold those tools of power that enable them to dominate. The Alliance isn't threatening to beat up everyone if they don't agree. The Alliance hasn't threatened to beat up anyone if they don't agree. The Alliance hold on power isn't dependant on holding the most forces, the Alliance hold on power is dependant on holding just enough forces that anyone else trying to grab it really regrets it.

And since the Alliance holds the current power and can strike the deals and bargains to break any unified coalition that did exist by playing the Council races against eachother, thus again marginalizing the Council's nominal superiority...

What happened is simply a pause, to allow the council races to rearm.  Humanity's dominance is based on nothing solid, and can only be transitory.  Unless it decides to try genocide.

All politics is transitory. The Council's power was transitory.

The Human dominance is based on that they own what is recognized by everyone as the legitimate power infrastructure, even if they came by it illegitimately. Which is pretty old in politics across history.

[Wulfram]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Wulfram wrote...


The council races have seperate fleets and governments.  They have no need for the council.[/quote]The Council fleets are separate in the same sense that NATO armies are separate from their militaries. The Council fleets are not separate, but drawn from the standing fleets.

The Council races are repeatedly said and given as intertwined and over-seen by the Council, with the Council having superior authority over those 'purely' racial governments on the notable number of occassions that one of the three votes is in dissent.[/quote]

The Council races are repeatedly shown as acting independently of the Council, as are their armies and governments.  They are no more dependant on that council than the Humans are.

[quote][quote]
I haven't seen any suggestion the Asari quit.  They transferred their responsibility for defence of the citadel to the Turians, which is nothing more than an indication of their willingness to work together against humanity[/quote]This site lacks a good eye roll smile.

They transfered their section to the Turians, the only government who's actively hostile/opposed to the Humans, and dropped their own share so that they won't have to contribute. In no sense is this cooperating with the Humans, and in every sense they are exiting out of wanting (or being expected to) maintain the sort of standing military force to contribute to traditional Council missions and doings.

Reducing one's military and exiting out of the international military-cooperation scene is generally the standard of 'quiting' in the military-supremacy race. The Asari, having lost their military lead, are exhibiting no desire or interest in rebuilding or returning to the role.[/quote][/quote]

The Council fleet is a different thing from the Asari fleet, and
there is no indication of that the Asari have reduced military spending.  The only thing which is clearly shown by their actions is their hostility towards humanity and support of the Turians.

[quote]]They have a civilian industry. Not a military-oriented war economy. While they could make their economy such, it would impinge their established economies, and even then their industry isn't such as to make a war easy or attractive. For their economy to matter as much they have to configure it, and even if they configure it they have to ask what they intend to do with it: if they don't outright use it for a war, it's just economic waste, whereas if they do use it for war the Alliance is strong enough and has the abilities to make the costs for them horrendous, even in victory.

For similar reasons that the European is an economic giant (bigger than the US) but a political dwarf, so are the Council species. [/quote]

These political dwarves ran the galaxy for millenia.  And any one of them could easily outmatch humanity alone

[quote]And if any country didn't mind getting gutted, all the military dominance in the world wouldn't help anyone. The Aliens aren't bowing to human might, the Aliens are acknowledging that the Humans seized the tools of power (the Citadel, the inter-galactic legislative/political apparatus, the trade network, the military-deployment rights in the most important area of the galaxy). In part this is because the Humans seized power when everyone else was distracted and accepted it in the confusion, and didn't realize that the Humans weren't just going to leave afterwards. But by then they had established a new status quo, and at the time they couldn't forcifully change it even if they wanted.[/quote]

Human dominance means Alien subservience.  This is tautological.

Nothing humanity has seized is meaningful without the armed force to back it up, and they don't have the economic strength to keep military supremacy.

[quote]The Council races could rebuild their fleets, and the Humans would still hold those tools of power that enable them to dominate. The Alliance isn't threatening to beat up everyone if they don't agree. The Alliance hasn't threatened to beat up anyone if they don't agree. The Alliance hold on power isn't dependant on holding the most forces, the Alliance hold on power is dependant on holding just enough forces that anyone else trying to grab it really regrets it.

And since the Alliance holds the current power and can strike the deals and bargains to break any unified coalition that did exist by playing the Council races against eachother, thus again marginalizing the Council's nominal superiority...[/quote]

Humanity holds it's own territory, and one space station.  It's opposed by the galaxy.

[quote]All politics is transitory. The Council's power was transitory.

The Human dominance is based on that they own what is recognized by everyone as the legitimate power infrastructure, even if they came by it illegitimately. Which is pretty old in politics across history.

[/quote]

The councils power was based on representing the greatest powers in the galaxy.  Humanity is the 4th greatest power, and is demanding that the rest of the galaxy bow to it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 février 2011 - 07:38 .

[FaargAnNorgnal]

Wulfram wrote...

 They are no more dependant on that council than the Humans are.

"If the Council makes a ruling on an interstellar matter we have to follow it. We don't have the fleets or political allies to defy them." - Captain David Anderson, ME1

Wulfram wrote...

Human dominance means Alien subservience.  This is tautological.

Then the reverse is also true, is it not? With that in mind how can you justify not supporting a human positive agenda? 

You say humanity lacks the economic strength to backup its military supremacy. I disagree. Humanity is still growing, and fast. In another 15 or 20 years the colonial population could be as high as a billion or more. Humanity will only get bigger, not smaller. Time is on our side.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I'm pretty sure the Codex said that the humans have the smallest economy or something, even the Elcor or other Associate members have a bigger ones. Humanity's colonial population maybe be growing but all the other races' populations are much larger, and presumably would also be growing.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Wulfram wrote...

The Council races are repeatedly shown as acting independently of the Council, as are their armies and governments.  They are no more dependant on that council than the Humans are.[/quote]Not especially, though if you'd like to bring up your examples I'd be glad to debate the position with you. The Alien governments pursue their interests within the scope set by the Council consensus, but they're far more tied to it than the Alliance, which treats it as a international political instrument of influence than as an effective government.


[quote]
The Council fleet is a different thing from the Asari fleet, and
there is no indication of that the Asari have reduced military spending.  The only thing which is clearly shown by their actions is their hostility towards humanity and support of the Turians.[/quote]The Council fleet is a fleet of ships drawn from the ranks of the species that serves it. The Asari fleet contributes a significant part of its military to the Council fleet (especially in the form of the Destiny Ascension), which is to say that the ships are both Asari and nominally Council at the same time. The Council's military forces are akin to NATO armies, not a separate standing military in and of themselves.

Open military cooperation is one of the primary signs towards a nation's military strength and inclination to use it. Countries that don't contribute are signalling they don't have the ability or interest.

The Asari aren't raising military spending, which in light of the loss of over half their fleet, and the Destiny Ascension in particular, is pretty much a case of not throwing good money after bad. It doesn't matter if they keep military spending at the same level: in order to catch up, let alone pass, the Alliance, the Asari would have to do a major arms buildup... sort of like the Turians are acknowledged as doing.


[quote
These political dwarves ran the galaxy for millenia.  And any one of them could easily outmatch humanity alone[/quote]Those political dwarves were giants when they had the military to back it up. You must remember the difference between before and after the Battle of the Citadel.

After the Citadel, they have to catch up. If they don't work at it, they won't catch up. By the time they can, the Alliance has the windfall of a period of dominance to fall back on. And even in passing the Humans, the Council races have to make a decision to throw themselves on the sword to start a war: threatening with superior force isn't enough if the Alliance doesn't submit without a shot. What the Council races can do, and what they will do, are two different things. Just like what any global power can do, and what it will do, are different.






[quote]
Human dominance means Alien subservience.  This is tautological.[/quote]Actually, it isn't. Dominance/subservience aren't binary.
[quote]
Nothing humanity has seized is meaningful without the armed force to back it up, and they don't have the economic strength to keep military supremacy.[/quote]The Alliance doesn't need military supremacy.


[quote]
The councils power was based on representing the greatest powers in the galaxy.  Humanity is the 4th greatest power, and is demanding that the rest of the galaxy bow to it.
[/quote]The Council were the tree greatest powers in the galaxy. Then they lost their militaries, and the tools of governance.

[Wulfram]

FaargAnNorgnal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

 They are no more dependant on that council than the Humans are.

"If the Council makes a ruling on an interstellar matter we have to follow it. We don't have the fleets or political allies to defy them." - Captain David Anderson, ME1

Yes.  The Council had the backing of the Turian, Asari and Salarian governments, so we had to obey them.  That doesn't mean we're immediately crippled by the council's removal

Wulfram wrote...

Human dominance means Alien subservience.  This is tautological.

Then the reverse is also true, is it not? With that in mind how can you justify not supporting a human positive agenda?

Humanity seeking a strong place in the galaxy, where it can defend it's own interests is fine.  The Council races appear to encourage this, and even before the battle of the Citadel have started the process of allowing humanity to join their ranks.

To seek to force human dominance is a very different thing.

You say humanity lacks the economic strength to backup its military supremacy. I disagree. Humanity is still growing, and fast. In another 15 or 20 years the colonial population could be as high as a billion or more. Humanity will only get bigger, not smaller. Time is on our side.

In a century or two, maybe.  Depends on whether the initial surge continues - and whether we force the rest of the galaxy to stop us.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 février 2011 - 08:28 .