144 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Moiaussi wrote...

Not this again. The Batarians met the Council races in 200 BCE. That is NOT the same as claiming the Verge.

Between 2400 and 40 years before events of ME1, Batarians Hierarchy could have claimed Verge and I highly doubt it happen even few decades before First Contact War.

2,400 years doesn't mean that they built any ships at all.

Yes it does. In 50 years Alliance has just 200 ships, while Batarain Hierarchy was in 2400 years attacking independent colonies and even had small skirmish with Council fleet.

Also it is confirmed that have at least 1 Dreadnought since ME1. It's planet description on one there's some huge skeleton.

If the Batarians have such an amazing navy, why didn't they even so much as posture against the Alliance?

Because Council would aid Alliance in war against Batarain Hierarchy.

Note that they could have lost every ship they had in the Rachni war and/or Krogan rebellions and decided after the latter that having a big navy wasn't working for them.

They could have rebuilt.
Council fleet was rebuild and has a lot more larger fleet then Alliance.

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

Unless Shepard pledges insanity, I don't think his act of genocide can be justified.

Nobody believes in Reapers and only proof Shepard has is Prothein visions and Object Rho vision which he/she didn't had more then once.

At the end of ME2, Shepard gets a repeat vision of the Reaper fleet coming. I agree that he can't prove it but that doesn't mean he didn't have justification, merely that he cannot prove justification.

This is great excuse for Batarain Hierarchy to invade Alliance without Council intervention, unless Alliance scapegoats Shepard.

The Batarians had an excuse the momment that the Alliance started colonizing into the Verge. The Council never said they would intervene on behalf of the Alliance, only that they wouldn't do so on behalf of the Batarians.

They never had a chance to attack openly Alliance without Council intervention.

They assumed Council intervention, but if Shepard wasn't convicted and if the Council stood behind him, why would they assume a lack of Council intervention this time?

Metagaming.

So you personally are the Alliance now? Who knew? The OP asked if WE had reason to fear a Batarian invasion. WE are by definition outside the game.

Baseless speculation.

Why is it baseless? We know for a fact that the Reapers use such tactics and the Batarians have less reason to be on guard than anyone. Given the Batarians shared a dislike for Humans with Saren, it is quite plausable that Sovereign managed to get a little side project going. Saren was attepting everything else, why not that too?

Speculation yes. Baseless, no.

[SalsaDMA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Trying to detonate a WMD is trying to detonate a WMD. It is not, however, detonating a WMD, which has far higher consequences in and of itself.

That's naive.

If you take such a stance in determining your reaction, then you are basicly inviting people to go ahead and attempt to use WMDs against you untill they suceed.

Someone pulls a gun to your face and pulls the trigger.

a) he kills you, dead. Tough luck for you. As far as you are concerned at this point, any consequences done to guy pulling the gun is meaningless for you.

his gun jams, you survive. Your luck, but doesn't change that if the guy had had things go as he wanted to, you'd be dead. Any consequences done to the guy means you need to ensure he, or others, doesn't attempt the same thing again, unless you fancy being dead, ofc. (hey, some people are like that).

Whether you consider it naive or not, attempted murder and murder are crimes nearly universally distinguished by all major judicial systems on Earth at this time. Now, you could argue that 'justice' as a concept is naive: I really couldn't argue with your opinion on that matter, since it's your personal stance. But naive or not, it is a fact.

National judicial systems =/= diplomatic relations between pan-system spanning civilizations.

A national judicial system operates on the basis that it is the 'supreme' power in authority, with the means to impose so. It needs to consider not only detterence in its judgements, but also possible reperations between a claimant and defendant. As such, it is natural to attach a higher 'repair cost' to a succesfull action than to a thwarted action.

When the matter comes to actions we can litterally classify as 'acts of war' between nations or civilizations, stuff falls into an entirely different category, though. Even though they would like to, the council is not a 'supreme power or authority' that can impose its will as a natural matter of cause. Therefore we are at diplomatic relations between nations/civs, rather than a formalized judicial system overseen by a power of authority that can impose its will on the claimant and defendant without impedance.

Look at it this way: If the japanese attacked Pearl Harbour but utterly failed in their attempt to decimate the US fleet anchored there, suffering a massive flop during their attack, do you think the reaction from the U.S would have been different? That they wouldn't have responded to the attack as a direct act of war? Of course not. Irrespective of wether or not the attack had succeeded, the US would have to respond on the intent and attempt of the attack to cripple US naval power.

When we are talking about diplomatic and military relations on the macro scale between 'powers' where there is not a superimposing supreme authority, your judicial system comparisons become null and meaningless as they are covering entirely different scales of operation.

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

Between 2400 and 40 years before events of ME1, Batarians Hierarchy could have claimed Verge and I highly doubt it happen even few decades before First Contact War.

They could have, but they could have done a lot of things. You are presenting speculation as if it is fact. Note that Earth is only one jump away from the Bahak system and first contact didn't occur until after Humanity became spacefaring. Why did the Batarian claim end at the Bahak system?  If the 'local cluster' was likewise claimed by the Batarians in this prior claim you cite them having, would that mean that Earth should have simply surrendered since someone else had already claimed it?

Yes it does. In 50 years Alliance has just 200 ships, while Batarain Hierarchy was in 2400 years attacking independent colonies and even had small skirmish with Council fleet.

Also it is confirmed that have at least 1 Dreadnought since ME1. It's planet description on one there's some huge skeleton.

The Terminus pirates have been 'attacking independant colonies and even had small skirmishes with Council fleets.' We know for a fact that the Teminus navy on their best attempt was no match at all for the Alliance navy, and they couldn't field enough troops to handle a ground action. Small scale pirate raids continue and the Council does still engage them and sends the occasional patrol into the Terminus systems in retalliation.

You haven't proven any significant fleet size at all, only that defensive navies cannot be everywhere all the time.

Because Council would aid Alliance in war against Batarain Hierarchy.

There is no evidence that they would and in fact plenty of evidence that they wouldn't (Krogan rebellions, Morning war, and later the Geth invasion of the Alliance as well as the Skyllian Blitz, and Torfan, which were both Alliance).

They could have rebuilt. Council fleet was rebuild and has a lot more larger fleet then Alliance.

Yes they could have, but you have not proven any significant fleet size in the first place and just because they could have been rebuilt doesn't mean they were.

[CroGamer002]

Moiaussi wrote...

At the end of ME2, Shepard gets a repeat vision of the Reaper fleet coming. I agree that he can't prove it but that doesn't mean he didn't have justification, merely that he cannot prove justification.

In other word, court won't approve his justification unless he/she pledges insanity.

The Batarians had an excuse the momment that the Alliance started colonizing into the Verge. The Council never said they would intervene on behalf of the Alliance, only that they wouldn't do so on behalf of the Batarians.

And since Council told Allaince to colonize Verge, I think Batarian Hierarchy caculated 2+2.

They assumed Council intervention, but if Shepard wasn't convicted and if the Council stood behind him, why would they assume a lack of Council intervention this time?

They would loose excuse for war against Alliance and make any aggression on Alliance illegal.

So you personally are the Alliance now? Who knew? The OP asked if WE had reason to fear a Batarian invasion. WE are by definition outside the game.

Allaince fears the invasion and Council considers Batarian Hierarchy a threat. Isn't that good enough?

Why is it baseless? We know for a fact that the Reapers use such tactics and the Batarians have less reason to be on guard than anyone.

Hmh, why?

Given the Batarians shared a dislike for Humans with Saren, it is quite plausable that Sovereign managed to get a little side project going. Saren was attepting everything else, why not that too?

Sovereign didn't get Saren because he hates humans. He got him because he's a Spectre and wants to defend the galaxy. Did you forget about organic and synthetic alliance thingy that Saren was talking to Shepard on Virmire?


And it's not the same thing to indoctrinate Spectre and to indoctrinate leaders and most of race without anyone knowing.

Speculation yes. Baseless, no.

Yes, it's still baseless.

[SalsaDMA]

On a purely asumptious basis, I think of the Batarians as quite loosely organized. Basicly a collection of merchants that go through their business in various ways, legal or illegal (depending on where they do business). As such I believe their millitary force comprises more of whatever random armed forces the collective of merchants in their systems have, than an actual superimposing authority that makes its presence and rules known in their systems through military might.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but I don't seem to recall either from the books or games any real mentionings of a specific Batarian Military, but plenty of notes about private armed batarian forces.

[Dean_the_Young]

SalsaDMA wrote...


National judicial systems =/= diplomatic relations between pan-system spanning civilizations.

-snip-

It largely does. In fact, it matters even more: nations react far more to things that happened then things that almost happened, in large part because the public conscience doesn't react consistently with 'could have beens'. The public remembers harms that occured, but quickly forgets threats that nearly happened.

Look at it this way: If the japanese attacked Pearl Harbour but utterly failed in their attempt to decimate the US fleet anchored there, suffering a massive flop during their attack, do you think the reaction from the U.S would have been different? That they wouldn't have responded to the attack as a direct act of war? Of course not. Irrespective of wether or not the attack had succeeded, the US would have to respond on the intent and attempt of the attack to cripple US naval power.

This is misaimed comparison because the Japanese still, in fact, attack and cause plentiful harm. A far better one would be 'if the Japanese had set out to sail, but been forced to turned around before launching the raid, and the US government uncovered proof of the Japanese intent to attack, would the US government have responded in the same way?' And the answer, going by prior US policies and examples, would be... no. The US government would make reactions, but lacking the public effect of an actual raid, the impetus to act and the politics surrounding would have been completely different.

The US already passed up a number a casus belli before Pearl Harbor. Why? Because internal US concerns and politics mattered.

When we are talking about diplomatic and military relations on the macro scale between 'powers' where there is not a superimposing supreme authority, your judicial system comparisons become null and meaningless as they are covering entirely different scales of operation.

Indeed: they get usurped by the nature of international relations, of which 'justice' and balancing desires for peace still play a, albeit more varied, role.

[CroGamer002]

Moiaussi wrote...

They could have, but they could have done a lot of things. You are presenting speculation as if it is fact. Note that Earth is only one jump away from the Bahak system and first contact didn't occur until after Humanity became spacefaring. Why did the Batarian claim end at the Bahak system?  If the 'local cluster' was likewise claimed by the Batarians in this prior claim you cite them having, would that mean that Earth should have simply surrendered since someone else had already claimed it?

What the hell are you talking about?!

The Terminus pirates have been 'attacking independant colonies and even had small skirmishes with Council fleets.' We know for a fact that the Teminus navy on their best attempt was no match at all for the Alliance navy, and they couldn't field enough troops to handle a ground action. Small scale pirate raids continue and the Council does still engage them and sends the occasional patrol into the Terminus systems in retalliation.

You haven't proven any significant fleet size at all, only that defensive navies cannot be everywhere all the time.

I was talking about this:

Codex...
Despite being welcomed into the galactic community, batarian aggression
provoked several crises in galactic relations over the years. Sometime
around 1785 CE, a batarian fleet bombarded the salarian colony world of Mannovai; in 1913, the Batarian Hegemony annexed the independent asari colony of Esan; and in 2115, Citadel forces skirmished with batarian forces on the planet Enael.

There is no evidence that they would and in fact plenty of evidence that they wouldn't (Krogan rebellions, Morning war, and later the Geth invasion of the Alliance as well as the Skyllian Blitz, and Torfan, which were both Alliance).

1st Alliance didn't even existed during Krogan Rebellions and Council was attacked by Krogans so what kind of example is that?
2nd Quarains lost embassy do to creating Geth so Council had no reason to help Quarians.
3rd Geth invasion was not full scale military invasion and Council as afraid to trigger the war with Terminus System's while those system's have nothing to do with Geth.
4th Skyllian Blitz and Torfan were problems with pirates. Alliance didn't even needed aid in those.

Yes they could have, but you have not proven any significant fleet size in the first place and just because they could have been rebuilt doesn't mean they were.

Then why is Alliance afraid of war with them and Council thinks they are threat?

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

What the hell are you talking about?!

I am pointing out that the claim was entirely arbitrary.

Earth itself is adjacent to the Skyllian Verge. What 'region of the galaxy' is it actually in? Until first contact, noone else claimed the Sol system. Isn't it strange that the Batarian claim doesn't include it?

Codex...
Despite being welcomed into the galactic community, batarian aggression
provoked several crises in galactic relations over the years. Sometime
around 1785 CE, a batarian fleet bombarded the salarian colony world of Mannovai; in 1913, the Batarian Hegemony annexed the independent asari colony of Esan; and in 2115, Citadel forces skirmished with batarian forces on the planet Enael.

If not for the ground action on Elysium, a small force would have won there too. It does not take a large force to obtain victories over small remote worlds.

I should point out though that in those cases, the Council didn't even kick them off the Citadel nor did they engage in full scale war, which backs up my position that niether the Council nor Batarians have the will to fight when there is any alternative.

1st Alliance didn't even existed during Krogan Rebellions and Council was attacked by Krogans so what kind of example is that?
2nd Quarains lost embassy do to creating Geth so Council had no reason to help Quarians.
3rd Geth invasion was not full scale military invasion and Council as afraid to trigger the war with Terminus System's while those system's have nothing to do with Geth.
4th Skyllian Blitz and Torfan were problems with pirates. Alliance didn't even needed aid in those.

The Council didn't intervene in the Krogan rebellion until an Asari world came under fire. Associate members were given no support. If the Alliance had been there why would they have intervened when they wouldn't for anyone else?

The Quarians didn't lose their embassy until during the Morning War. They were still an associate member at the start but got no support.

Not a full scale invasion? How could they be sure? That could have been just the vanguard. Regardless, that 'non-full invasion' had sufficient firepower to nearly defeat the Citadel fleet. How is that in any way insignificant?

The Blitz and Torfan were just with pirates, but Torfan was not an easy operation. There were heavy Alliance casualties. And even though it was 'just pirates', the Council expresses fear of war with those 'just pirates.'

Then why is Alliance afraid of war with them and Council thinks they are threat?

Where is there evidence of the Alliance being afraid of war with them? There may be politcal reasons for not wanting to go to war, such as cost, and there are likely political reasons for 'playing nice' such as public opinion, but that doesn't equate to them being considered a threat.

As for the Council, they are afraid of everything. Except Reapers of course. They have dismissed those.....

Modifié par Moiaussi, 26 mai 2011 - 07:40 .

[BlackwindTheCommander]

Just to throw it out there I don't condone killing the 300k batarians. Personally never had a problem with them.

Problem was it was necessary, where as the utter eradication of all life on Terra Nova wasn't. If I could have saved the batarian colonists I would have.

[LuxDragon]

Another difference is that Shepard is NOT a known terrorist, and has in fact, been known as the face/voice for either the Citadel or the Alliance. 300,000 batarians are on his head and would paint a bad picture for either the Citadel or the Alliance.

Balak is a terrorist. Period. If he had ties to the batarian government (Proven ties), then war with the Alliance was probably inevitable if the millions of people died.

[LuxDragon]

Which is why Shepard is accused by the Alliance. To show that it wasn't condoned in any way. Just something to appease the batarians.

I suspect the only reason why there's no extradition is because the batarians are no longer part of the Citadel and their laws.

Modifié par LuxDragon, 27 mai 2011 - 04:08 .

[Moiaussi]

thurmanator692 wrote...

The difference is 4.4 million humans almost died. 350k batarians DID die

Isn't that like saying that a police officer should never shoot first under any circumstances? Or better yet, that armies should never fire a shot unless they can guarantee zero collatereral damage regardless of circumstances?

It doesn't make much sense if the 4.4 million have to die first to justify 350k killed in a failed attempt to prevent it.

[SalsaDMA]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This is misaimed comparison because the Japanese still, in fact, attack and cause plentiful harm. A far better one would be 'if the Japanese had set out to sail, but been forced to turned around before launching the raid, and the US government uncovered proof of the Japanese intent to attack, would the US government have responded in the same way?' And the answer, going by prior US policies and examples, would be... no. The US government would make reactions, but lacking the public effect of an actual raid, the impetus to act and the politics surrounding would have been completely different.

Talk about a 'misaimed' example. For the example to be relevant in this context, the japanese would have had to launch their warheads, but the timely intervention of daring soldier would shoot them down before they reached their targets.

You can damn well bet that the US would have attacked in this case.

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

In other word, court won't approve his justification unless he/she pledges insanity.

I never said the courts would acquit him at all (other than by way of the Reapers showing up mid trial as 'star witness'). In fact, I have been saying they have plenty of evidence to put him on trial. I maintain that they do even without "Arrival," just for his work with Cerberus.

And since Council told Allaince to colonize Verge, I think Batarian Hierarchy caculated 2+2.

The 'verge' is literally next door. There is literally nowhere else for humans to go, and the worlds they started to settle were unoccupied. Why do you feel that the Alliance needed to be told anything? They spin it at such, but they spin all sorts of things in their favour, just as the Volus do (as pointed out by the Volus and Elcor ambassadors respectively).

They would lose excuse for war against Alliance and make any aggression on Alliance illegal.

They attacked the Asari and Salarians while an associate member. They also dropped ties with the Council. Why would the Batarians care what the Council considered legal or illegal?

Allaince fears the invasion and Council considers Batarian Hierarchy a threat. Isn't that good enough?

There is no proof that the military or any Alliance analysts have any such fears. The populace and/or elected government might have such fears, but that doesn't make the fears justified. If there was really such a strong 'fear of war' then why the continued agressive expansion into the region? 

Hmh, why?

Because the Batarians have no diplomatic ties with the Council, they are even more likely to see the whole 'Reaper threat' as a hoax to cover military spending and/or to keept he Batarians off guard with. They also wouldn't have access to Shepard's reports or data or those of the STG teams, whereas the Council and Alliance do.

Sovereign didn't get Saren because he hates humans. He got him because he's a Spectre and wants to defend the galaxy. Did you forget about organic and synthetic alliance thingy that Saren was talking to Shepard on Virmire?

And it's not the same thing to indoctrinate Spectre and to indoctrinate leaders and most of race without anyone knowing.

Saren was looking to any and every source to form an army to take on the Council. He looked to the Rachni and to the Krogan and to the Geth. Why wouldn't he also look to the Batarians? As for Sovereign's interest, Sovey was looking for a 'plan B' via Saren. If Sovey was willing to work with a Krogan or Rachni army, why not Batarian?

We know that the Reapers indoctrinate to disrupt and to gain sources of footsoldiers and the Batarians have convenient population levels. Why wouldn't they be used as such? And even if not used as soldiers, why wouldn't the Reapers use their standard tactics on them?

[Dean_the_Young]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Talk about a 'misaimed' example. For the example to be relevant in this context, the japanese would have had to launch their warheads, but the timely intervention of daring soldier would shoot them down before they reached their targets.

You can damn well bet that the US would have attacked in this case.

You mean like how the US attacked after the USS Panay was repeatedly attacked and then sunk by Japanese warplanes in 1937? Or the USS Tutulia on July 30, 1941?

Or how the US responded after Germany sunk the USS Reuben James in October 1941? After priorly torpedoing the USS Kearny and USS Salinas during the same month?


Perhaps those are too distant. Everyone knows about the Second Korean War that started in response to the January 1968 provocation when the USS Pueblo was attacked, captured, and the crew tortured for several months by the North Korean military


Now, the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark in 1987 infuriated the United States so much, everyone remembers how the US (did not) decide to stop supplying arms to Saddam for his war against Iran.


And, of  course, good old Reagan showed the US at its strongest with his response to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

[raist747]

I was surprised Shepard didn't bring his/her Spectre status up (If he/she got it reinstated) in his debriefing. I wonder if it would change things if he/she was acting as a Spectre and not as a Alliance Officer.

Modifié par raist747, 27 mai 2011 - 07:57 .

[BlackwindTheCommander]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

The difference is 4.4 million humans almost died. 350k batarians DID die

Isn't that like saying that a police officer should never shoot first under any circumstances? Or better yet, that armies should never fire a shot unless they can guarantee zero collatereral damage regardless of circumstances?

It doesn't make much sense if the 4.4 million have to die first to justify 350k killed in a failed attempt to prevent it.

Im speaking from a public point of view. If i turned on the TV and saw that 4.4 million almost died, I'd be shock, glad it didn't happen, and go on with my life. If i turned on the TV and saw that 350k DID die, i wouldn't be nearly as okay.

Speaking of which, were the circumstances of the Asteroid X57 incident ever made public? I feel like there would have been more public outcry about it.

[Nathan Redgrave]

O, the irony.

Anyway, there's nothing to suggest that Balak's attack on Terra Nova was endorsed by the Batarian Hegemony--at best, the "rebellion" he hints at in BDtS's Renegade ending could be a batarian equivalent to the Cerberus group. This is essentially why Shepard is going to trial--the Alliance wants to disconnect itself from whatever happened in the Bahak System. If the Alliance couldn't take Balak as an excuse to go to war, the Hegemony can't take Shepard as an excuse to go to war.

I get the feeling that after the Reaper invasion becomes a little more "real" to the denizens of the galaxy, even the Hegemony will be forced to put the Bahak System tragedy into its proper perspective, however.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Moiaussi wrote...

I maintain that they do even without "Arrival," just for his work with Cerberus.

Just going to address this one point:

I submit that this depends partly on Shepard's actions. If Shepard makes choices that favor the Alliance over Cerberus (i.e. giving the Alliance the Rachni experiment intel, etc.), his work with Cerberus could easily be written off as him acting the double-agent on behalf of the Alliance itself. Between this and whether or not he's re-instated as a Spectre (having Spectre status likely gives him a lot more leeway to do things like this), some Shepards could easily turn their work with Cerberus into a solid defense for their loyalty to the Alliance.

But again, this depends on Shepard's actions, and is a definite point in favor of a Paragon Shepard being rewarded while a Renegade winds up being punished. Since the trial most likely won't have a significant impact on anything (although it'd be cool if the people you meet while adventuring throughout ME3 react differently depending on how the trial plays out), this likely won't be a great deal more influential than the Council choice was for ME2, but it'd be cool to see how Shepard's general behavior throughout the games influences his reception in ME3.

[Dean_the_Young]

Any Shepard's already done enough on behalf and for Cerberus so as to be hanged by any jury with an inclination to it.

[Moiaussi]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Im speaking from a public point of view. If i turned on the TV and saw that 4.4 million almost died, I'd be shock, glad it didn't happen, and go on with my life. If i turned on the TV and saw that 350k DID die, i wouldn't be nearly as okay.

I agree with you generally, but it really depends on context. With no 'immenent threat' and all else being equal, I agree, the majority would consider it horrific.

In this case though all else isn't equal. There is still a lot of resentment towards the Batarians. Even so, there is no obvious imminent threat (at least until the Reapers show up at the trial), so you would likely be right, from a public opinion perspective.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 27 mai 2011 - 09:19 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Any Shepard's already done enough on behalf and for Cerberus so as to be hanged by any jury with an inclination to it.

What, saved the galaxy? Most of what "any" Shepard would do are entirely neutral actions that don't relate to Cerberus's goals as an organization in the first place. You know, that lovely sidequest-centric plot structure that ME2 went with. There are a few points where you can act either in support of or against Cerberus, such as the Rachni intel, Overlord, and the Collector Base, but for the most part it's just Shepard doing his usual thing and happening to have the Cerberus logo on his ship at the time.

If Shepard acts in support of Cerberus during this time, there isn't really any reason that the Alliance would know he had, so you're operating from the vague "You were with Cerberus!" accusation.

If Shepard acts in opposition to Cerberus, there are at least two occasions (Rachni intel, Overlord) where the Alliance would be aware of this fact, and it'd be kind of hard to make the vague "You were with Cerberus!" accusation stick when you were quietly slipping the Alliance vital intel and/or rescuing an unfortunate victim of Cerberus cruelty while you were at it. The big thing is Arrival: there's no two ways about that. The Cerberus connection is a bit more variable.