Speradon said:
Still, I'm not convinved that destroying practically an entire civilization, even to protect your own, can be labeled as a "moral" act or even self defense. A self-defense of sorts, yes, but (and I could be wrong about this/mis-remembering something about the game or other sources), I don't think I buy that the Confederation was in a last-ditch-if-we-don't-do-it-now-Earth-is-done-for-and-we're-all-dead scenario, at least not at the point when they decided the T-Bomb plan needed to be executed.
First, Confed did not destroy the Kilrathi civilization. Other Kilrathi remained. There was no effort to kill more Kilrathi once they ceased to be a threat.
And the action is valid, unless you think that the Kilrathi civilization was worth more than the Human. Even so, it would be problematic to say it's immoral for Confed to defend it self in the only way it could at that point.
If you lose the change to use the T-Bomb, Earth gets destroyed, that's how WC3 is played, and that's the frame of reference I'm working with. More importantly, the people who made the decision knew this, and Blair was aware that failure there would meand the destruction of Confed. Some might think Confed still had a chance, but the games dismisses it on the alternate defeat path.
Some aspects are morally problematic, of course.
Bandit LOAF said:
I certainly think the Kilrathi were responsible for the war, but I don't think you'll find a single conflict in history whose origin isn't debated.
That's true, but that doesn't mean the deabte has relevance. In this case, I think we both agree.
The Kilrathi, for instance, have their own thoughts on the origin of the war: "Encounters with the unknown race continue as exploration ships cross normal Kilrathi patrol routes. Vessels are noted to have external firing wepaons and are attacked on sight to prevent further penetration into Kilrathi territory."
Quite interesting. Kilrathi do not co-exist.
No, it isn't. It is, in fact, specifically the cultural explanation (combined, presumably, with blood lust over Angel's death) that convinces Blair:
"BLAIR: But even if we could destroy their Homeworld - They've got an entire army deployed.
PALADIN: Their entire culture is based on a strict, centralized hierarchy: 'All roads lead to Kilrah.' Every Kilrathi lives... and dies for the Emperor. Destroy that hierarchy... and you destroy them.
BLAIR: So what are we waiting for?"
And what about the "our timing might just be right" part where Paladin explains the big Kilrathi fleet there?
Besides, we know for a fact that mankind would soon lose the war. Confed knew that the fleet amassing on Kilrah could not be defeated. That's a major plot point in the game, which includes a losing path. It was a do or die situation.
Besides, it was a known fact that the Kilrathi Empire would not stop trying to destroy Confed unless it was destroyed first. Every single attempt to make peace failed. And that was the last resource.
If Confed decided to nuke Kilrah when they could simply win conventional means, that would be different. But the game makes it cleary not the case.
Do you realize that what you are arguing here is the *exact* same point upon which Tolwyn claimed his project necessary? Simulations predicted the war would be lost, so it is necessary to do X unpleasant, illegal thing.
That's not the same thing at all. Only on a wildy rethorical degree of moral equivalence. There was no tangible threat at WCIV. But, most importantly, the method Tolwyn advocates would not have any effect. Using the Gen-Select on innocent, helpless planets and killing people who have iron-poor blood would not defeat the Space Bugs.
The whole point of Tolwyn was to improve mankind in the long run, to endure millions of years, for some vague day in the futue when a potential and generic enemy worse than the Kilrathi shows up. He did not know in advance that in a couple of years space bugs would pop out of Kilrah to destroy Earth.
The Kilrathi were not superior to mankind in their way of life, as Tolwyn advocated. The bombing of Kilrah saved Confed way of life. Tolwyn was about to destroy it, by turning us on Kilrathi, with a lust for conflict.
So no, it's not the same thing. One thing is to nuke Kilrah to stop the Kilrathi fleet from wiping out Earth in just a few days. Another one is to use bio-weapons against people so society could evolve into a race of super-warriors to defeat space bugs from the future.
One is an action that have a direct consequence.
Another is just a crazy theory based on false premises that, if anything, would prevent Confed from defending itself.
Using bio-weapons that kill people based on their genes does not make mankind stronger. Eugenics is simply wrong. Not just because its immoral and evil, but because it does not produce the effect it claims. As a theory, is wrong. None of the racist nonsense spilled by Paulsen or Tolwyn even begins to make sense.
Nuking Kilrah defeats the Kilrathi, but doing eugenics doesn't defeat Space Bugs.
Was nuking Kilrah immoral? Perhaps, but at least it worked. It was not based on some racist premise that Kilrathi should be destroyed. They were left alone after they ceased to be a threat. And, most important, it is not the moral equivalent of using bio-weapons for eugenic purposes.
Seether is a field commander, not the man orchestrating the conspiracy. He's in essentially the same position as Blair in Wing Commander 3 (though he technically also commands a battalion of infantry).
He's also a ganster who cuts the throat of people who fail him, which is not something Confed officers usually do. But then again, Tolwyn wanted mankind to be more like the Kilrahti, so that's argubaly part of the plan.
I don't think there's any specific evidence of Seether being involved with any of the planning.
It doesn't matter if he planned it or not. He knew what was happening, and why.
The Border Worlds launched a military attack on the Confederation, killed Confederation civilians and seized Confederation property... all while trying to prove their innocence.
Preemptive action for them to defend themselves from an unfair attack that was, in fact, about to be launched by Confed. Or maybe they were savages. So, it was wrong. But assaulting Speradon is not the same as using bio-weapons and certainly doesn't justify it.
Besides, the Tolwyn did not creat the whole plan to protect Speradon from BW raiders. Nothing the BW did or didn't do what why they were being targeted. That's why Tolwyn had to create false actions with BW fighters to give the impression the BW was doing things they were not.
And my initial point is that the Black Lance was not a response to any threat the posed by the BW, and I think we can agree on that.
Destroying the factory at Speradon was specifically targetting innocent people. The Project being wrong doesn't make the Border Worlds the shining knight on the white horse. Speradon was a terrible, terrible and absolutely wrong operation.
If it was a factory building weapons that were going to be used to kill innocent BW citzens, is one thing. It they were pirates rainding factories, is another. I'm not arguing for the morality of the BW, however.
My point is that the BW posed no serious threat to Confed. They did not stand a chance against Confed on an all out war. On that we can agree.
The Border Worlds used the chaos as an excuse to invade Confederation space! That's just absolutely wrong.
What would have them do, seriously? Just sit around and wait for Tolwyn to wipe them out? That is not a rethorical question. And I'm not justifying any wrongdoing in the part of the BW.
There was an aerospace garrison -- if you choose to fly the Lance in that mission, you're attacked.
I remember. When I played the game, I assumed that those were other BW ships answering to the distress call. At any event, this is irrelevant, the Black Lance used Telamon to test their bio-weapon, not because it was a threat.
Again, though, the burden of proof is still on you to counter Paulson's claim that Seether's execution of a prisoner was legal.
I'm not a confed legal expert. If confed has laws allowing the execution of unarmed people who pose no threat, without due process, then those are terrible, horrible, immoral laws and Confed has serious problems. If anything, this justifies any group that wants independence from such an organization that allows such barbaric acts that are incompatible with a civilized society. I mean, Tolwyn’s plan to turn us into Kilrathi was already half-way done.
This all gives a strange impression that the raid of Speradon a terrible thing, but to shot that poor guy is A-Ok.
I don't think you're quite clear on what 'commanding officer' means. It's not some kind of magic position you reach in the military where you can do whatever you want.
He had orders to kill Paulsen?
Blair was in roughly the same place in Wing Commander III as Seether was in Wing Commander IV... but he was still absolutely in the chain of command, beholden to the likes of Eisen, Tolwyn and Taggart.
Seether was part of a renegade faction of Confed attacking Confed forces, there’s nothing normal about that.
I think the moral analogue we established was Hyperion, not Kilrah.
I don’t remember anything on that mission saying there were civilians on Hyperion. And it was an intel mistake, not something planned. I think this is an terrible, terrible analogy.
That's poorly concieved wordplay -- a murderer is someone who has killed illegally.
Only from strict positivist sense. A soviet trooper murdering Ukranians and Poles in the 30’s might be doing something legal, but he’s still a murderer.
If slaughtering civilians from a space fighter makes you a murderer then both Blair and Seether fit the description.
No, it doesn’t, and, is it your point that Blair is as bas as Seether?
I'm fairly sure the allegory intended was the atomic bombings, complete with a mission to rescue Bohr from Denmark, the moral question amongst those building the weapon (explained by Vagabond) and the two weapons being necessary to end the war.
The use of atomic bombs was not necessary to win WW2 and, most importantly, Japan was not about to wipe out the US, and had no chance of winning the war.
That's exactly why the RAF attacked Berlin, though.
And that was wrong.
The US (in Europe, anyway, not in Japan by any measure) was very careful to at least try and attack military targets to the extent that such was possible with 1940s technology... England was not *at all*. They bombed German cities at night specifically to hit enemy civilians in the hopes that doing so would lessen the German peoples will to support the war.
That was terrible. The Allies did commit terrible actions, that are not well known not so much because they won, but because the Axis did much, much worse things. Such an evil makes it harder to see how wrong it is to bomb cities. In fact, in the outbreak of the war, England was very clear about how the Germans were wrong to bomb polish cities, not to mention their on during the Battle of Britain.
The question here, though, about Lieutenant Lee, is more specific. Seether supposedly had the right to execute him because he (Lee) was 'taken in arms' serving a rebel organization.
I find it quite hard, almost impossible to believe that Confed has laws allowing people to execute prisoners without a trial.
No, it wasn't - Wing Commander III makes this clear, that HQ lied to you about Hyperion being a strictly military target. ("Damn, Colonel! So much for HQ's intelligence reports on this place being empty.")
That seems to me that Intelligence was wrong, not that they made a conscious lie. And the comments were about the Kilrathi fighters, not any civilian installations.
The Empire of Kilrah posed in imminent threat. It can be made the equivalent of bombing civilians cities, or even the nuclear bombings of Japanese cities, and that at the maximum. What Tolwyn did was far, far worse and I don't even need to mention what it does comare to.
The Empire of Kilrah posed in imminent threat. It can be made the equivalent of bombing civilians cities, or even the nuclear bombings of Japanese cities, and that at the maximum. What Tolwyn did was far, far worse and I don't even need to mention what it does compare to.
EDIT: I’m not arguing that the nuking of Kilrah was not morally problematic. What I strongly disagree with is the notion that somehow it is the moral equivalent of using bio-weapons for racist, eugenic purposes on mankind itself.
