Rami Sihvo
Spaceman
Well, i have to agree on that 
Do you think it was correct that Confed destroyed Kilrah?
- Thread starter Jochen
- Start date
Battler Hawke
Spaceman
acording to historians the prince is about palitics you can use it for getting jobs. FDR is a good example of the type of man the the book was about.
on the A-bomb the second was a message to Stalin that we can make more.
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
Yes and no. Primarily, the second atomic bomb (the plutonium "Fat Man") was dropped on Nagasaki because the Japanese did not immediately agree to surrender terms. Several members of the Japanese War Department urged the Emperor to continue fighting, even after the first bomb was dropped, and Truman wanted to make it clear that they had no other option -- surrender unconditionally, or be utterly destroyed.
Indirectly, Nagasaki was a message to the Russians that the (uranium "Little Boy") Hiroshima bomb was indeed not just a unique, one-time strike.
Ironically enough, after the Nagasaki drop, the US had no more atomic bombs for several months. Fortunately, noone called the bluff.
Would it have mattered if the Japanese had called the American bluff? If so the Americans could've just pushed back the invasion date until more nukes were ready.
As for the 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. IIRC it is about politics, but it is more a guide for how an autocratic leader might retain his power.
As for the 'The Prince' by Machiavelli. IIRC it is about politics, but it is more a guide for how an autocratic leader might retain his power.
Good to be back, folks.
It took quite a while for new nukes to be readied...really, we only had those two operational.
And to get back on topic, personally, I felt Confed was justified Tembloring (hee hee! "Tembloring") Kilrah. As the Kilrathi would have done the same to us under the circumstances, and actually did in the Losing Ending, it comes down to the survival of the race: us...or them. Confed chose us, and I for one can't disagree.
It took quite a while for new nukes to be readied...really, we only had those two operational.
And to get back on topic, personally, I felt Confed was justified Tembloring (hee hee! "Tembloring") Kilrah. As the Kilrathi would have done the same to us under the circumstances, and actually did in the Losing Ending, it comes down to the survival of the race: us...or them. Confed chose us, and I for one can't disagree.
W
WingZero
Guest
I think making laws during war is one of the dumbest things humanity has ever done. I know U.S.A. does it so that countries dont get mad about what we do. But first of all, 99% of foreign countries already hate the U.S. And second, these war laws are only denying people the truth, war is death, there is no 2 ways about it, there may be a cause, it may be justice, but war will always be death, and nothing more.
Thymerlord
Rear Admiral
One of my favorite lines from Horatio Hornblower(Gregory Peck version)is "This is war, there are rules !" I love that I mean really rules for killing the other guy before he kills you ? What are we playing Battleship now ?
Well, war involves a heck of a lot more than simply enemies meeting on the battle field. You really don't want people shooting civilians in cold blood or raping women en masse, sending entire ethnic groups to death camps, or working POWs to death, and then get away with it simply by saying "Well, this is war and there are no rules." If the rules of war aren't valid, then the Japanese and the Nazis would have been justified in everything that they did, which I think is ridiculous. I agree, there are cases where the rules of war can be applied in a silly or misguided way, but that is true of *any* law. That doesn't mean that things like the Geneva convention are silly or stupid.
Best, Raptor
Best, Raptor
With things like the Geneva convention still in effect, it really wasn't until after the first World War that people began to get this foolish notion that "there are no rules in war." After all, during the 16-1800's, people met on battlefields with their armies and stood and shot at each other. That's because, you didn't fight "like the indians", for it was dishonorable and not part of the rules. During the first World War, we still had it set up to have U-boats, or really any ship for that matter, give warning to merchant/civilian vessels they intended to destroy/raid, so that the civilians would be able to get prepared, get to lifeboats, make an SOS call, and then sit in the water while the enemy blew your ship up.
Mekt-Hakkikt
Mpanty's bane
Careful with that claim, wars in the past have been very brutal for the population too. The war from 1618-1648 must have been especially bad. Armies marched through your village / farm, pillaging, burning and certainly raping everything they could get their hands on if there wasn't a decent commander with them.
True that about the U-Boats having to warn the ship etc... A good thing problem was, it made the U-Boat completely vulnerable, since evey enemy warship knew where they were. A idealistic but not realistic rule.
True that about the U-Boats having to warn the ship etc... A good thing problem was, it made the U-Boat completely vulnerable, since evey enemy warship knew where they were. A idealistic but not realistic rule.
Non realism might have made the rule disappear, but that didn't take rules from war entirely. I'm only using that as an example.
As for the Thirty Years War, the same could be said for nearly every ancient (or at least older) war, as most countries didn't take into count the ideal of preserving the peasantry. While it is true that they would raid to rape/pillage, etc. it is also true that most battlefields were carefully selected, and moved, to have battles at. Except for raids/seiges, battles were placed away from civilians so as not to endanger them. (Whether this was for commerce reasons, or simply to have people to rule, that's another story.) It wasn't until the Napoleonic/American Civil War age that people really began seeing the populace as a valuable asset to harm the military.
As for the Thirty Years War, the same could be said for nearly every ancient (or at least older) war, as most countries didn't take into count the ideal of preserving the peasantry. While it is true that they would raid to rape/pillage, etc. it is also true that most battlefields were carefully selected, and moved, to have battles at. Except for raids/seiges, battles were placed away from civilians so as not to endanger them. (Whether this was for commerce reasons, or simply to have people to rule, that's another story.) It wasn't until the Napoleonic/American Civil War age that people really began seeing the populace as a valuable asset to harm the military.
Rami Sihvo
Spaceman
So, in nutshell, war can´t be never controlled by the rules, but Geneva conventions rules are needed to reduce wars chaotic effects and prevent war
changing to acts of revenge. Any war has potential
to turn as black as war in Bosnia.
That means civilian infrastructure are only targeted when they are in military use, not simply
to kill civilians.
Good disclipline in armed forces is base of soldiers rules, so if invading army has good disclipline there is much less harm to civilians.
That also means soldiers ought to be infromed
about treaties in peace time.
Enemy soldiers are less eager to fight in death
if they know that they are treated accordingly
their status.
changing to acts of revenge. Any war has potential
to turn as black as war in Bosnia.
That means civilian infrastructure are only targeted when they are in military use, not simply
to kill civilians.
Good disclipline in armed forces is base of soldiers rules, so if invading army has good disclipline there is much less harm to civilians.
That also means soldiers ought to be infromed
about treaties in peace time.
Enemy soldiers are less eager to fight in death
if they know that they are treated accordingly
their status.
Mekt-Hakkikt
Mpanty's bane
Well, I agree: During the battles themselves, civilians mostly weren't harmed (except of course you were recruited) but before or after the armies clashed into each other, civilians suffered heavily under the wars.
During the decline of the Roman Empire life really wasn't good for the peasants. First the barbarians would come pillaging, raping and so forth. Then the army would come fight them, but the soldiers would requisition considerable quantities of food. Then along would come the tax collectors. And if that wasn't bad enough plagues tend to follow armies around. And for the final whammy, since warfare and plagues take their toll on the population, there aren't enough people to farm. This means famine. Gee aren't wars great? 
Stunner
Rear Admiral
I say yes in fact I say that the behemoth should have been the thing to do it so it would be dust now not about 3/4th like it looks like in WcP but since it had to be destroyed then I dont care what did it as long as it was by something cause if not the war would have keept on going and might have led to confeds defeat!
