Now there's a thought-provoking article that brought tears to my eyes.
It's a particularly interesting one, given the treatise on war that BP:WiH provides.
I destroyed the GEFs without a second thought in the convoy mission, killed the UEF pilots with basically no hesitation, saved the GEF habitat on the asteroid, and accepted the Carthage's surrender (but mopped the floor with the rest of the GTVA forces on scene, disabling the corvettes). I didn't have so much a problem with Fedayeen actions as beliefs - I questioned their motivations.
I stuck with being a rational actor through most of Tenebra.
- Detonating the GEFs I did without a second thought. Not only were these people terrorists who used violence against civilians, their escape would have thrown off the careful operation. As the only options were allow the escape or kill them, I killed them.
- Killing the UEF pilots was distasteful but necessary. Letting my wingmen do it, however, would just be trying to rationalize avoiding responsibility (particularly as I would have had to issue orders to them to do it). If it had to happen, better to take responsibility.
- In the case of the GEF habitat, taking out MacDuff felt like public service. Taking out the GEF fighters was necessary. Destroying the habitat was not. I had options and exercised them - no need to make thousands of people pay for the actions of their leadership with their lives.
- As for Her Finest Hour... interesting mission, and it let me put my opinions on the war itself into practice. I felt the war was unnecessary, and a military victory by the GTVA would be untenable, even before playing UT (which just reinforced my belief). Therefore, I resolved to play the mission in such a way to make it clear to the GTVA that they would pay dearly for a military solution to reunification. I therefore destroyed the gas miners, disabled and destroyed the corvettes (though I think one ended the mission just disabled and not destroyed), destroyed the cruisers and mopped up the fighters. I accepted the Carthage's surrender, though. When she surrendered, it saved thousands of lives on board, it guaranteed a morale boost among the UEF, it took her out of the war, and it provided possibly quite valuable GTVA technology. There was really no reason not to accept the surrender and every reason to do so, unless you let Laporte be entirely motivated by revenge (I didn't). Meanwhile, the rest of the utter destruction in the mission deprives the GTVA of valuable assets in the war - and let's face it, the UEF is basically fighting a guerilla conflict by this point. The GTVA has the raw military power to crush the UEF in a stand-up fight if they pulled assets from throughout the GTVA. They're playing a PR game, and I played the strategy much like the North Vietnamese and Afghanis have done when facing superpowers - make the cost to your enemy, however slight it actually is, an unacceptable loss in the political and social realm.
In my view, all of my actions were rational responses to the available scenarios.
Now, Sitgler's action was an irrational response if you strip away his emotions and humanity. There was literally no downside from a purely tactical/strategic point of view to wiping that bomber and his crew from existence. And this is why, even in total war situations, the humanity of the actors involved is paramount. It is that very humanity that makes reconciliation after the hostilities possible.
The trouble in BP is that we never see that humanity really come out of Steele. That is what drives my Laporte to invoke pure cost-benefit rationalism and psychology and reject some parts of her own humanity. Not that I see her as beyond redemption - I think the Carthage proves that its possible to retain your humanity and still carry out strategic-level operations sometimes.
Regardless, the BP conflict between the GTVA and UEF is not a total war scenario.
