[Phantom Hoover]

thanks for that eloquent and meaningful contribution to the discussion, gloowa

[The E]

gloowa wins the award for most principled and least helpful post in this thread.

[gloowa]

gloowa wins the award for most principled and least helpful post in this thread.

Thank you.

And yes, it is principled. In my opinion, killing is not acceptable. Ever, under any circumstances, for whatever reason.

As for it being least helpful? Agreed. Will work to avoid that in the future.

[Aesaar]

In my opinion, killing is not acceptable. Ever, under any circumstances, for whatever reason.

There's probably no point in doing this, but **** it, I'm going to do it anyway.

Killing is most certainly acceptable, and in some cases even desirable, in some situations.  Violence is a tool, one that needs to be used very carefully.  It's what you use it for that determines whether it's good or bad. 

And if you tell me you wouldn't kill one person to prevent them from killing a thousand, then I have nothing but contempt for you.

[Buckshee Rounds]

In my opinion, killing is not acceptable. Ever, under any circumstances, for whatever reason.

That is a somewhat naive viewpoint, if you'll forgive me for saying so. Killing is absolutely essential to our survival as a species. We kill to feed ourselves, protect ourselves, develop new methods and technologies and (supposedly) to prevent our global society from destabilising. Human development is driven by competition and the ultimate competition is warfare. War doesn't change human ingenuity or speed up technological progress, what it does do is ramp up production and focuses entire societies on completing very specific goals, all depending on the scale of the conflict. Without warfare forcing huge and sweeping changes we wouldn't have jet planes (in their current state of advancement), rocketry, nuclear power, a plethora of navigational gear from radar to gps etc.

Competition is what put Sputnik in orbit (driven in so small part by a certain Chief Designer's ambitions of political gain and to deflect attention from an ICBM which took too long to fuel) which is coincidentally why we have internet and why you're able to even post in this electronic format.

[General Battuta]

In my opinion, killing is not acceptable. Ever, under any circumstances, for whatever reason.

There's probably no point in doing this, but **** it, I'm going to do it anyway.

Killing is most certainly acceptable, and in some cases even desirable, in some situations.  Violence is a tool, one that needs to be used very carefully.  It's what you use it for that determines whether it's good or bad. 

And if you tell me you wouldn't kill one person to prevent them from killing a thousand, then I have nothing but contempt for you.

You should be careful about entering these discussions now that you have a team badge.

As for the discussion, the Fedayeen have an interesting perspective on this question.

[Aesaar]

Point taken, but you might have quoted a different post, since that one was pretty off topic, and only tangentially related to BP.

[CT27]

Here's an interesting question that came up on a similar thread a while back:

Even if the Elders ordered a UEF surrender, would any of the Fleets listen and lay down their arms?

[Apollo]

Here's an interesting question that came up on a similar thread a while back:

Even if the Elders ordered a UEF surrender, would any of the Fleets listen and lay down their arms?

I doubt Calder would. Not sure about Netreba and Byrne.

[An4ximandros]

Speaking of Netreba... anyone else notice that ALL documents about him have disappeared from in game? or is my game just borked?

 In any case, I would foresee Netreba surrendering for Mars' well being, but possibly not before giving his fleet the chance to "defect" to 3rd fleet.

[MatthTheGeek]

The entry for Calder is still in the tables. Try Ctrl+Shift+S.

[Suongadon]

Speaking of Netreba... anyone else notice that ALL documents about him have disappeared from in game? or is my game just borked?

 In any case, I would foresee Netreba surrendering for Mars' well being, but possibly not before giving his fleet the chance to "defect" to 3rd fleet.

I don't think there ever was a bio/background bit on Netreba in the techroom.

And what would be the point of any of the fleets trying to fight on without being backed up by (what remains of) the Earth/Mars military infrastructure? The UEF ships need are too dependent on regular resupply to wage some sort of large scale guerrilla war. Whether they wanted to or not, I think the UEF admirals would have to abide by a surrender order.

[Drogoth]

On the necessity of killing:

I am repulsed by the idea of killing someone, but I certainly come down on the side of necessity. I would certainly pull the trigger on one man to save a thousand.

If that one man was trying to kill someone else I'd pull the trigger to save one. Provided there was no other option.

However, I think the comment about civilians being collateral damage as acceptable was directed more at the idea of once you are already at war. I doubt the tevs were just nuking shopping malls and apartment buildings. It's not their style. Tev assaults may be brutal and ruthless, but they are laser focused on their objectives. Not only would it serve no purpose to nuke civilian centres for the lulz, it would enrage the UEF population for no reason, and it would waste ammunition.

Steele doesn't do stupid. Odds are there were munitions depots, marine rax's, production facilities or some other economic linchpin important to the UEF war effort on Luna, which apparently got bombed. Especially since it was during the blitz. In fact I can imagine no other way. What kind of mission brief would Steele give?

"Alright people! We're going to take out Rheza Station, the Saab Shipyard, Hydura Station - and hey. We're gonna blow up some hospitals and schools."

"About that last objective sir. Why?"

"Because I like to hear the sounds of screaming civilians! Mwahahaha forward for our evil Tev overlords!"

Yeah I don't buy it.

[Aesaar]

Hence the term collateral damage.  Unintended but unvoidable civilian casulties caused by a strike on a legitimate military target.  Big difference between that and deliberately targeting civilians.

[-Norbert-]

[...]
If you don't think that makes the bombing of Luna an acceptable military action in a time of war, I'm going to point you to the Jovian scorched earth protocols, which saw populated civilians stations destroyed by the UEF military to deny the Tevs a staging area.  Simak station in TBI is an example.  Some would say that's actually worse, because at least the civilians on Luna weren't killed by the ones meant to protect them.

In any case, you cannot condemn the GTVA for the former without condemning the UEF for the latter.

I really don't think the UEF blew civilians up in their scorched earth protocols. Remember why Artemis station was taken by the GTVA. The UEF didn't blow the station up because there were still civilians on board, that couldn't be evacuated in time.
If they really were as calloused as you say, they wouldn't have stopped (or not started) the self destruction and they wouldn't have sacrificed the Nelson in a hopless attempt to buy time.

[An4ximandros]

 Well, we know Sanai, for example, would never have fulfilled orders for scorched earth protocols. So there are captains in the UEF who would not go that far.

[Phantom Hoover]

[...]
If you don't think that makes the bombing of Luna an acceptable military action in a time of war, I'm going to point you to the Jovian scorched earth protocols, which saw populated civilians stations destroyed by the UEF military to deny the Tevs a staging area.  Simak station in TBI is an example.  Some would say that's actually worse, because at least the civilians on Luna weren't killed by the ones meant to protect them.

In any case, you cannot condemn the GTVA for the former without condemning the UEF for the latter.

I really don't think the UEF blew civilians up in their scorched earth protocols. Remember why Artemis station was taken by the GTVA. The UEF didn't blow the station up because there were still civilians on board, that couldn't be evacuated in time.
If they really were as calloused as you say, they wouldn't have stopped (or not started) the self destruction and they wouldn't have sacrificed the Nelson in a hopless attempt to buy time.

you haven't played the blade itself i take it

[Aesaar]

-Norbert- : if you let the Tevs capture Simak Station in TBI, you have to destroy it yourself.  Case Kodiak ultimately doesn't make a distinction between stations that have been evacuated and those that haven't. 

"Simak Station, we have declared Case Kodiak. You must self destruct in the event of a hostile boarding. I don't like it, but this is a military imperative. "

Mence and Sanai failed when they didn't destroy Artemis.

[-Norbert-]

I did play it (though I never had to blow it up myself), but I heard team-members saying that TBI isn't fully canon on several occasions, since it's contradicting established data and is more of an easter egg than anything else (apart from proof of concept maybe).
For example in that mission you can jam slash beams, while in the main campaign slashers are the only beam immune to UEF jamming just to point out the most obvious contradiction.

[Crybertrance]

I did play it (though I never had to blow it up myself), but I heard team-members saying that TBI isn't fully canon on several occasions, since it's contradicting established data and is more of an easter egg than anything else (apart from proof of concept maybe).
For example in that mission you can jam slash beams, while in the main campaign slashers are the only beam immune to UEF jamming just to point out the most obvious contradiction.

Not entirely true. Well the events of TBI are set before the events of WiH, and since the effects of Electronic Warfare/Countermeasures are not a static game, it would be logical to assume that at one point Slash Beams were indeed affected by jamming, but at some point later, the Tevs adapted it to be immune.