Seventy-Five posts is neccesary to leave the ranks of cadethood. It's explained in the ranks addendum accesible in the upper-right of the screen by the registration, rules and the like. Depending on how much you post Some people do up the ladder quickly, others, like me, not so quickly. I have been registered here since June and I'm still a second lieutenant.
Do you think it was correct that Confed destroyed Kilrah?
- Thread starter Jochen
- Start date
(But not more like the UBW and Confed, as they kinda seem like a Baby-Confed to me.)
I don't think that the idea that the ends justify the means is sadistic or evil in itself. For example, people turn up to a a dreary, boring job day after day to support their families. The job is is simply the means to the end goal, which is looking out for their families. The trouble with the "ends justifies the means" argument is that its spouted on a pretty regular basis by those trying to defend crimes or atrocities and so it ends up being linked with those kinds of behaviours. I agree with you though, "The Prince" is only *one* interpretation of how a ruler should act, and not neccesarily the best one.
PS: Doesn't the idea of Confed involvement in the Kilrathi succession being Vietnam in space suggest that Confed *shouldn't* get involved?
PPS: Battlerhawk, interesting point about the use of the A-Bomb having saved Japan. That's kind of the opposite of what happend to Kilrah, though, isn't it?
Best, Raptor
But in both cases, we're using the end goals to justify how we get there. A dreary, boring job might well go against a person's happiness or satisfaction in life, but there's nothing sadistic or evil about working such a job to support your family so that you gain greater happiness in the end. And to use a more extreme example, when we killed millions of Kilrathi to end the war, we're again saying that the ends justify the means. I don't see anything sadistic in that, per se. I think it's a little simplistic to simply say that "ends justify the means" whenever we want to defend something that can't be defended any other way, but it's also wrong to automatically reject the idea that sometimes the ends do juistify the means. In each case, we have to look at both the means and the ends, and come to a conclusion based on that , rather than making a blanket judgment one way or the other.
Best, Raptor
Best, Raptor
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Please don't insult Israelis.
HeartoftheTiger
Rear Admiral
That's a very interesting poll. I've chosen "no", because I think that destroying Kilrah was not the only option. Actually I had the same idea like Zim: Kill the Emperor (and probably also his heir Trakath)! As far as I know (from the games and the novels), the Emperor had many foes within the Kilrathi, and they only waited for a reason or an opportunity to kill him. I assume the death of the Emperor would have resulted in a civil war, which would have given the Confederation time to recover their forces. Furthermore, they could have supported those factions of the Kilrathi which want to end the war and to settle peace with the humans.
And concerning the A-Bomb: I will never understand why America didn't choose a military target to show their power...
HAVE A NICE DAY
Heart of the Tiger
And concerning the A-Bomb: I will never understand why America didn't choose a military target to show their power...
HAVE A NICE DAY
Heart of the Tiger
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
The Confederation believed, perhaps quite rightly so, that killing the emperor would have made him a martyr and unified the clans *against* Confed. Consider, also, that there were several *inside* attempts at killing him and Thrakhath, all of which failed...
As for World War II -- you're thinking in too modern terms. Bombers didn't hit specific targets back then... you had to flatten entire cities to hit a few factories.
As for World War II -- you're thinking in too modern terms. Bombers didn't hit specific targets back then... you had to flatten entire cities to hit a few factories.
Supdon3
Kal-El
That may be more due to the fact the entire planet is gone, with pretty much all heirs to the throne (that werent stranded on alien moons). Now the clans can create a new center of power from which to rule the Empire. If only the capital city had been destroyed surely some of Thrakhath's clan would have survived as well as a planet geared towards surving that clan. Now theres a clean slate to start over.
But Confed has to weigh up the potential losses in a Vietnam style conflict with the Kilrathi, as opposed to a new anti-Confed Kilrathi Empire emerging.
Confed couldn't take the risk. The best case scenario of killing the emperor is the Kilrathi disintegrate into civil war. The more likely scenario is that the empire will unite under a new leader, who will cement his position by annihilating Confed with that massive armada. Destroying Kilrah yielded 2 essential ingredients for Confed victory: A) Eliminating the focus of Kilrathi culture, thus inflicting a massive pyschological KO; B) Eliminate the massive armada that was mere days from finishing off Confed. Should the Kilrathi continue to fight, they would have to do so from a more even footing.
HeartoftheTiger
Rear Admiral
You forget that the Emperor wasn't very popular on Kilrah even before the failed attempt to destroy earth (as described in "Fleet Action"). Many Kilrathi were tired of the war, and with the new threat of the mantu on the other side of the Kilrathi empire, there were many Kilrathi who thought making peace with the humans (even if it would be just until the mantu are defeated) would be a good idea in order to prevent a war on two fronts. The Emperor was VERY disputed within the Kilrathi, IMHO his death (no matter WHO kills him) and the death of his heir would have been an opportunity for the other clans which none of them would have let go without trying to come to power. Therefore a civil war seems likely to me...
HAVE A NICE DAY
Heart of the Tiger
IIRC, the Mantu had been encountered a long time before the WC3. The Kilrathi believed that they would return eventually, and that they needed to prepare to defeat them, but they wouldn't call off a war against the humans just because there was the possibility of the Mantu making another appearance.
For one thing, the Kilrathi were a lot more successful against Confed than they ever were against the Mantu.
Yeah, as I recall, Thrakhath seemed to be pretty well informed as to whether the Mantu were still occupied or not. (So I'm assuming the Kilrathi kept an eye on them.) Thus being able to have some forewarning before the Mantu would make an attack on the Kilrathi. (Which, BTW, would seem unlikely, as the Mantu were supposed to be relatively isolationalists-by the way of dealing with other cosmic powers.)
Rami Sihvo
Spaceman
Reality check!
I ansver no, morally it is never right to make war crimes to win the war. In WC3 both strategically and tactically it was only way to
acheve higher moral good.
In geneve convention most countries have signed rules of war beacuse after WW2 civilian population
is first to suffer from war. Vengeance is also prohibited, so it should never be reason to acts of war.
Cruelity only increases enemys resistance, not
reduces. Dark side of war is always present in
conflicts. Modern wars have still this curse and
don´t need much encouragement to turn pure chaos like war in Yuogoslavia.
Sorry but, WC is just wonderland version of harsh reality. What if Kilraths have decided to go down
fighting beacuse their home planet was destroyed?
In WCP humans are in peace with them. If kilrathi
were such barbaric cratures, shurely they wouldn´t
depend on human way to surrender?
I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategical necessity and they probably saved lots of US and Japanise soldiers. Morally they werent right beacuse most of casualties were civilians and mostly civilians suffered from radioactive fallout. Still Norden bombsights were good enough to drop the nuke anywhere, but to show power and force Japan to surrender it was decided to blow the nuke from air.
I´t said that first casualty of war is truth, i think moral is next.
I ansver no, morally it is never right to make war crimes to win the war. In WC3 both strategically and tactically it was only way to
acheve higher moral good.
In geneve convention most countries have signed rules of war beacuse after WW2 civilian population
is first to suffer from war. Vengeance is also prohibited, so it should never be reason to acts of war.
Cruelity only increases enemys resistance, not
reduces. Dark side of war is always present in
conflicts. Modern wars have still this curse and
don´t need much encouragement to turn pure chaos like war in Yuogoslavia.
Sorry but, WC is just wonderland version of harsh reality. What if Kilraths have decided to go down
fighting beacuse their home planet was destroyed?
In WCP humans are in peace with them. If kilrathi
were such barbaric cratures, shurely they wouldn´t
depend on human way to surrender?
I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategical necessity and they probably saved lots of US and Japanise soldiers. Morally they werent right beacuse most of casualties were civilians and mostly civilians suffered from radioactive fallout. Still Norden bombsights were good enough to drop the nuke anywhere, but to show power and force Japan to surrender it was decided to blow the nuke from air.
I´t said that first casualty of war is truth, i think moral is next.
I'm thinkin...
Spaceman
Where I come from I'd have to call it "A horse apiece".
I suppose there is no right or wrong answer here but it is fun to read what other people have to say about this issue.
I suppose there is no right or wrong answer here but it is fun to read what other people have to say about this issue.