[General Battuta]

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).

Well, those team members are pretty ****ing wrong, TBI is completely canon.

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.

That's not a contradiction at all (for the reasons Crybertrance pointed out).

[Gray113]

Drogoth

The bombing of Luna happened before the blitz. It was Severanti who launched the attack in an attempt to get some of the limelight back from Steele.

attack was aimed at industrial plants, broadcast centers, Ubuntu headquarters

The attacks were aimed against the civilian government's infrastructure, not the military's and killed tens of thousands of civilians. I don't know if the GTVA rules of engagement allow for this type of attack but in current international law an attack like this would be seen as a war crime which was why I suggested it as a possibility. For the UEF the distruction of Simak Station would also be a crime under these circumstances as civilians were deliberately sacrificed in order to deny the enemy an advantage.

Edit: Although I feel that if the GTVA were to win then it would be unlikely for them to prosecute their own forces. The war crimes tribunal was suggested as a way to discredit the UEF leadership and turn the populace away from them.

[MatthTheGeek]

To me, industrial plants, communication centers and headquarters seem pretty much military targets.

[Gray113]

So in a hypophetical war If the headquarters of CNN, the BBC and Al jazerra were destroyed then these would be considered valid military targets? The same for the regional political party offices such as the New york senator's offices?

[MatthTheGeek]

Wait what.

CNN and BBC aren't military broadcast centers. Da**** are you talking about.

[Gray113]

It was never stated in game that they were targeting military broadcast centres - just broadcast centres.

[The E]

A broadcast center would be a generic satellite uplink/downlink facility, i.e. one that is servicing the comm needs of more than one carrier, including the government. disrupting governmental communications is a valid military strategy.

[Gray113]

Fair enough

But then If killing tens of thousands of civilians in pursuit of military goals is valid then I suppose the GTVA would not want to open a can of worms by prosecuting UEF personnel for Simak Station which makes that idea pointless then.

[Drogoth]

Was the bombing of Hiroshima a war crime in your eyes?

[Gray113]

Yes it was in my opinion.

[Frak_Tastic]

Right, but the victors write the rules, and the UEF is definitely going to lose if we rule out intervention by the Shivans.

Don't forget the Allies committed plenty of war crimes in WWII.  Dresden, Tokyo, the list goes on.

It all depends on who wins or loses to interpret a "bad act".

[CT27]

To paraphrase a phrase I heard earlier:

"Winners don't commit war crimes".

[Drogoth]

I guess we disagree then.

For a variety of unique reasons that have to do with the bombings, I don't consider either Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes. But pertinent to this discussion would be the criteria that resulted in selecting targets. In the case of Hiroshima, it was an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters.

Despite the other qualifying reasons that I think make Hiroshima not a war crime, had those critical factors not been in place in that city, then yes I would declare it a war crime. While there was a certain 'shock-and-awe' objective, the ultimate target was military in nature - a crippling of a military HQ as well the industrial capacity to fuel war.

I think this is what happened with luna. When you build cities around military infrastructure, civilian casualties are to be expected - and a risk you take on.

[QuakeIV]

Arguably it should be as much a crime to allow unrelated civilian infrastructure to spring up around military targets as it should be to kill said civilians collaterally. 

Though that line of thinking could rapidly degrade to the obvious conclusion that in a lot of ways war could be considered a crime, regardless of how much it may be needed/justified.

With that said go GTVA woo!   

[CT27]

In a GTVA victory scenario, could the GTVA (assuming they get access to UEF AWACS) learn from that technology how to possibly disrupt Shivan beams similar to how their beams were disrupted by the UEF?

[MatthTheGeek]

I'm pretty sure the Tevs already know how to jam beams. They, after all, know how to counteract it. I'd expect the Shivans to know as well.

[CT27]

Is there anything then the GTVA could learn about from captured UEF AWACS, or would there be no advantages to gain there?

[Gray113]

I think that the GTVA is militarily so far ahead of the UEF that there is very little hardware they would seek to replicate.

The UEF advantages in this war come from their pilot training and combined figher/warship tactics which the GTVA may seek to incorporate into their pilot training. Then again these tactics may not be advisable when used with beam mounted warships carrying a high risk from friendly fire

[Mars]

The UEF awacs may well have certain advantages over the Charybdis - the UEF is (according to battuta) better at small electronics. That said the Charybdis fits better with GTVA tactical doctrine.

[Aesaar]

The Charybdis seems like it's primarily a sensor platform to me, while the Oculus is more of a dedicated EW ship.  They can each do both, but they have their specialisations.