DS9 Novels?

[Rush Limborg]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "war atrocities". War itself is the atrocity. It's an ugly, hideous thing--but when you have to fight it, you have to do what is necessary to win, and to win it as quickly as possible, so as to end said atrocity as quickly as possible.

To call what he did a "war crime", and akin to "torture", is missing the point. Had the guard been allowed to live, and had he been aware of Bashir and Sarina, he would have given that information to his superiors--and the result would have been a diplomatic incident--which it was the entire point of the mission to avoid.

An ugly, hideous action? Perhaps. It's called war. And in war, ugly things have to be done, to avoid a greater "atrocity" in the future.

No such thing as 'war atrocities'?
Garbage.

Exactly this sort of thinking justified the bombing of cities during World War II, targeting civilians in order to undermine the economy of the enemy country.
All this in order to win the war - I mean 'end the war as soon as possible', of course.
And, of course, because, morally, there is no difference between killing civilians and soldiers, in battle, during war - you see, any action during war is immoral.

If you really think that defending your country by fighting - and killing - enemy soldiers and indiscriminately killing civilians are pretty much the same thing, at about the same moral level - then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Funny...I don't recall your "discussing" anything with me, before this post....

But while we're at it--I said nothing about "indiscriminately" killing civilians. Note my constant explanations about why targeting schools and hospitals was inefficient and ineffective.

As for Hiroshima...the alternative involved far more lives being lost--on both sides--and the war being prolonged indefinitely.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The best way to make sure that the Breen cannot hurt you is to make sure that there's no Breen. Ther Federation has cloaks and slipstream. Slip in, torch the planet while jamming subspace and slip out again. Leave no witnesses. They'd never suspect the Federation because they're the "good" guys.

Really? And how long do you honestly expect that to happen before someone catches on? And, assuming such technology could be refitted onto enough Starfleet ships...do you really think such a refit project could happen without someone noticing?

Considering how the Breen were able to steal info on the slipstream tech...I think, to be blunt, one would have to be an idiot to think that.

How about a genetically altered disease that only attacks the Breen? Bashir and Sarina got onto the planet fairly easily. They'd be immune so the could release it, hide out and wait for pick-up after the planet is depopulated. No fleet of ships needed. Just one or two agents and the wind. It almost worked against the founders and they aren't even humanoid. Creating something tailored to the Breen should be much easier.

The wind, indeed.

And how long would that campaign take? And how long, again, before someone catches on that this isn't simply an epidemic--that there's a pattern in the planets infected?

The Founder virus worked because of the Link--something the Breen doesn't have. And before you say, "oh, it could be contagious, like the common cold"--the Breen have face masks, which could easily be upgraded to have filters.

BTW...your claim that "no one would suspect the UFP" is invalid. Why was the Typhon Pact formed in the first place? Because of anti-Federation sentiment.

Sorry, DrBashir, but as I have said over and over and over--though you seem desperate to ignore it--there is a big difference between shooting an unconscious guard who might otherwise report info you'd rather he not...and doing bizarre, long-term campaigns which would be ultimately self-defeating in the long run.


Let me quote again from Sun Tzu:

The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it.

It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it, better to keep a division intact than to destroy it, better to keep a battalion intact than to destroy it, better to keep a unit intact than to destroy it.

Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful--those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all.

Therefore the superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. (i.e., black ops)

The next best is to attack alliances. (i.e., more black ops)

The next best is to attack the army.

The lowest is to attack a city. (i.e., General Order 24, or massive epidemics, or crash-attacks, etc.) Siege of a city is only done as a last resort.

 

[DrBashir]

Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful--those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all.

A disease would fulfll this quite nicely. Or flying a ship into the planet at 0.99 c. Or outfit your ships with thalaron projectors. If Shizon could take out Earth with just one ship, imagine how quickly tou could take out multiple planets with Starfleet.

You're the one that want's the war to end as quickly as possible. One old surplus ship, towed at warp and released to hit the planet at just below lightspeed would make the asteroid impact that took out the dinosaurs look like a firecracker. The Federation seems to be the only major power that has many homeworlds, each with a population in the billions. Colonies of all powers seem to be in the thousands to millions at best. You take out the home planet and most of the Alpha Quadrant powers will collapse. The Federation has the redundancy of multiple home planets to take up the slack.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I recommend you take a good look at the reference work Star Charts. The Breen Confederacy covers a LOT of space--rivaling that of the UFP. I would imagine that yields a lot of redundancies.

Furthermore--here's the other fact you seem to ignore: the Typhon Pact, of which the Breen are a member.

As with any good alliance, an attack on one member is an attack on all. You try to annihilate the Confederacy, you invoke the wrath of the other Pact powers.

Again:

The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "war atrocities". War itself is the atrocity. It's an ugly, hideous thing--but when you have to fight it, you have to do what is necessary to win, and to win it as quickly as possible, so as to end said atrocity as quickly as possible.

To call what he did a "war crime", and akin to "torture", is missing the point. Had the guard been allowed to live, and had he been aware of Bashir and Sarina, he would have given that information to his superiors--and the result would have been a diplomatic incident--which it was the entire point of the mission to avoid.

An ugly, hideous action? Perhaps. It's called war. And in war, ugly things have to be done, to avoid a greater "atrocity" in the future.

No such thing as 'war atrocities'?
Garbage.

Exactly this sort of thinking justified the bombing of cities during World War II, targeting civilians in order to undermine the economy of the enemy country.
All this in order to win the war - I mean 'end the war as soon as possible', of course.
And, of course, because, morally, there is no difference between killing civilians and soldiers, in battle, during war - you see, any action during war is immoral.

If you really think that defending your country by fighting - and killing - enemy soldiers and indiscriminately killing civilians are pretty much the same thing, at about the same moral level - then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Funny...I don't recall your "discussing" anything with me, before this post....

But while we're at it--I said nothing about "indiscriminately" killing civilians. Note my constant explanations about why targeting schools and hospitals was inefficient and ineffective.

As for Hiroshima...the alternative involved far more lives being lost--on both sides--and the war being prolonged indefinitely.

So - is there such a thing as 'war crimes' during war - or not, Supreme Dittodrone?
Answer the question. You're evading an answer with straw-men:
Inefficient? Ineffective? Of course they are.

For example, during World War 2, bombing cities into extinction - by conventional means (I'm NOT referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) - UK/USA did it to a lot of german cities - was efficient/effective because it decreased the german economic base which supported its army.
So - do you condone the bombing of civilians in these conditions or not?

BTW - about Hiroshima:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
The war would have ended in 1945 even without the bombings.
And the statement about more dying without the atomic bombings, far from proven, is highly doubtful.

 

[Rush Limborg]

No such thing as 'war atrocities'?
Garbage.

Exactly this sort of thinking justified the bombing of cities during World War II, targeting civilians in order to undermine the economy of the enemy country.
All this in order to win the war - I mean 'end the war as soon as possible', of course.
And, of course, because, morally, there is no difference between killing civilians and soldiers, in battle, during war - you see, any action during war is immoral.

If you really think that defending your country by fighting - and killing - enemy soldiers and indiscriminately killing civilians are pretty much the same thing, at about the same moral level - then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Funny...I don't recall your "discussing" anything with me, before this post....

But while we're at it--I said nothing about "indiscriminately" killing civilians. Note my constant explanations about why targeting schools and hospitals was inefficient and ineffective.

As for Hiroshima...the alternative involved far more lives being lost--on both sides--and the war being prolonged indefinitely.

So - is there such a thing as 'war crimes' during war - or not, Supreme Dittodrone?
Answer the question. You're evading an answer with straw-men:
Inefficient? Ineffective? Of course they are.

For example, during World War 2, bombing cities into extinction - by conventional means (I'm NOT referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) - UK/USA did it to a lot of german cities - was efficient/effective because it decreased the german economic base which supported its army.
So - do you condone the bombing of civilians in these conditions or not?

My answer is the same as it has always been--and you can call it "evading an answer", I don't really care:

The issue is whether an action is conducted with the intent to end a conflict as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If it is not--you can talk about "crimes". If it is--it's just par for the course. If you're caught in the crossfire, there's a price paid.

I said war itself is the atrocity. Civilians die. They'll die whether you want them to or not--hence, it being an atrocity.

You go out of your way to make sure civilians don't die...the other side will use them as human shields--as Kira made clear to Damar.

So if the intent behind sacrificing civilian lives is to ensure a quick and efficient end to a war--the examples you mentioned, as well as Hiroshima/Nagasaki (claims of hindsight-minded academics to the contrary notwithstanding), and Bashir's shooting the guard--it's par for the course.

If it will cause further headaches in the long run--as I proved "searching out and bombing hospitals/schools" would do--then one should not do it.

If you're just killing civilians with little to no consideration regarding strategic consequences--then one could (and probably would) regard that as a crime. Not a "war crime" (that's an irrational term)--a crime, period.


Now...if that answer does not satisfy you, I apologize...but that's the clearest I can make it.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

You made yourself clear enough.

Bombing cities out of existence is OK if it will shorten the war? Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to save a few thousands of soldiers is fine?
Your entire reasoning strikes me as apologist, a thin excuse for atrocities commited during war.

If the worlds' leaders thought just a little more like you, presently, the middle east would be a radioactive graveyard.

If you actually think that any person/country that did such things has the right to claim moral superiority - or even morality on his part - over anyone during or after the war, you're deluding yourself.
And if you actually think no one can claim moral superiority during or after a war, you're also wrong.

About Hiroshima/Nagasaki - may of the claims from the wikipedia page (and in the sources presented at its end) were made by military commaders (even USA ones) and other personalities, during WWII - no hindsight required.
Indeed, all your rationalisations for these events fall apart under close examination.

 

[Rush Limborg]

You made yourself clear enough.

Bombing cities out of existence is OK if it will shorten the war?

Yes.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to save a few thousands of soldiers is fine?

No.

Your entire reasoning strikes me as apologist, a thin excuse for atrocities commited during war.

If the worlds' leaders thought just a little more like you, presently, the middle east would be a radioactive graveyard.

If you actually think that any person/country that did such things has the right to claim moral superiority - or even morality on his part - over anyone during or after the war, you're deluding yourself.
And if you actually think no one can claim moral superiority during or after a war, you're also wrong.

As I said, I don't really give a darn about your opinion of my arguments. I answer argument with argument. Subjective opinions I don't care for, because they concern the emotions of the parties involved.

About Hiroshima/Nagasaki - may of the claims from the wikipedia page (and in the sources presented at its end) were made by military commaders (even USA ones) and other personalities, during WWII - no hindsight required.

And I'm sure the article presents, in the name of balance, those generals who felt it necessary--and their full arguments thereof. I wonder what Patton and Ike and MacArthur thought of it....

Indeed, all your rationalisations for these events fall apart under close examination.

No more so than your rationalizations--frankly, I'd say less.

But again, I don't give a darn about what you consider to be valid or not. Address my argument with argument: fine. Express opinion about how good a job I'm doing presenting my argument: I. Don't. Care.

 

[DrBashir]

We find out that the Typhon Pact apologized for the Kinshaya's actions in A Singular Destiny. Why would the Federation not make an effort to reach out the the pact rather than threatening to turn a cold war into a hot one by sending not only Starfleet but Klingon ships against the Breen after the Breen attacked Utopia Plania? Because we wouldn't have gotten to see Bashir being lead down the garden path by Sarina holding onto his genitals.

If you're a beleiver in the "shock and awe" that Hiroshima & Nagasaki brought about then why wouldn't taking out the entire Breen homeworld do the same. Hell, build a Genesis device and get a ship close enough to launch it. We know that General Order 24 can be accomplished by as little as one Constitution class ship. How much effort would destroying all life on the planet take as opposed to simply trying to defeat them take?

The Fedeation has Genesis. Nobody else should stand a chance against them. "Mess with us and we'll reorganize your entire planet in favor of it's new matrix" Who cares if it doesn't make a new, life supposrting planet. Your enemies would be totally gone.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The best way to make sure that the Breen cannot hurt you is to make sure that there's no Breen.

And that's not the Starfleet - or UFP - way, and you know it.

So, who'd be next? The Romulans, the Gorn, and so on until they're all eliminated?

Your enemies would be totally gone.

Until you meet new ones. Or you start picking off the least favourite of your allies.

Is this what you want from Star Trek?

 

[DrBashir]

Not the UFP way? What is that exactly? Rush is saying that you can and should do anything that will shorten a war. His premise is that there's no such thing as war crimes. In a war, anything goes if you you believe that it will shorten or at least not prolong the war.

Do you agree with his premise? Would not using Genesis make governments thing twice about attacking the Federation? After all, you can fit the torpedo and control mechanis in a shuttlecraft. You could slip a torpedo onto pretty much any planet. We have yet to see one that our heroes couldn't get onto for whatever reason.

 

[JD]

I'm sorry, but even in war there are certain lines you don't cross and IMO attacking civilians not involved in the war is crossing that line. Sure it might end the war sooner, but I find it hard to believe that there would ever be a situation where that is the only way to end the war. Hell, I have a feeling that there are alot of people out there who would only become more determined to fight, just look at what 9/11 did to America.
That's not to say that there aren't situations where doing things on a smaller scale, like what Bashir did in ZSG might be appropriate, but IMO there's a big difference between that and killing thousands of innocents. I don't know if I agree with it, but a case could be made that anyone working in a military facility is a combatant, and no longer an innocent civilian.

 

[DrBashir]

So the question remains, is there such a thing as a war crime? Or does anything go as long as the war is shorter but may have a much higher body count?

What about a civilization like the Klingons where their entire culture is based on the miltary in some way? What would qualify as a civilian or military target in those cases?

Just because Bashir was told to go on a mission by Starfleet Intelligence doesn't mean that the entire mission is legal. If there are limits on behavior then not all actions will be permissable. Solders are to follow lawful orders given to them by their superiors. Being ordered to machine gun a village isn't lawful and should be refused. Attacking a target because you reasonablly believe that there may be enemy agens in it is reasonable. Attacking a targe just because it MAY be used by the other side at some point isn't.

Shooting someone that is no longer a threat isn't reasonable or lawful.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Not the UFP way? What is that exactly? Rush is saying that you can and should do anything that will shorten a war. His premise is that there's no such thing as war crimes. In a war, anything goes if you you believe that it will shorten or at least not prolong the war.

Do you agree with his premise? Would not using Genesis make governments thing twice about attacking the Federation? After all, you can fit the torpedo and control mechanis in a shuttlecraft. You could slip a torpedo onto pretty much any planet. We have yet to see one that our heroes couldn't get onto for whatever reason.

This, to be frank, is all based on the premise that we are looking at a full-scale war.

If we were--your summary of my views might be valid. It is not.

As of now, we are discussing black ops--on both sides. The war, in this case, is being conducted in the cloak-and-dagger netherworld of espionage.

Here, the point is to do what is to be done while ensuring that an incident will not be instigated.

Bashir did what he felt was necessary to ensure that an incident would not be instigated.

In times of full-scale war, then you can talk about blowing things up--and then, only if doing so is necessary to ending the war as quickly as possible, to limit unnecessary loss of life, military or civilian. IF there is an alternative means to end the war in the desired manner--absolutely, pick the option with less civilian casualties. But you must not tie your hands--as that will invariably be exploited by the enemy, as Kira told Damar.


HOWEVER: Building on what JD said just now--attacking civilians not involved in the war effort tends* to be counter-productive, enraging the enemy, motivating them to fight to the end. It may, and often will, encourage recruitment on their side. Thus, it is not only arguably immoral--it is inefficient.



*(I say tends, as that did not happen with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The emperor surrendered.

However...it should be noted that the reason the US was able to manipulate the Japanese as such was due to a significant technological superiority--nuclear/atomic weaponry. Had the gap been significantly smaller--as, I think, is the case between the UFP and the Breen--Hiroshima/Nagasaki would probably have had the opposite effect. SEE: Mutually-Assured-Destruction Theory.)

Shooting someone that is no longer a threat isn't reasonable or lawful.

Assuming, of course, that said guard was no longer a threat. Again--information, information, information.

 

[DrBashir]

The guard had been shot with a phaser and wasn't going anywhere for a good long time. The fact that he might wake up at some time in the future doesn't make it OK to kill him. Should Kirk & Spock have killed the guards everytime they escaped from custody?

You don't think that slipstream, cloaking devices and the Genesis Device is a technological advantage?

 

[JD]

Sure the Klingons focus a lot of their energy and respect on the military, but not every Klingon is a soldier, and not every part of the planet is controlled by the military, so you'd define a Klingon targets, the same way you'd define targets while fighting any other culture. As for Bashir's actions, I'm not saying they were necessarily the best way to handle the situation, I just don't think they were irredeemably evil thing you think they are. It definitely could have been done in a better manner, and it's certainly not what I would have done in that situation, but it was an extreme situation, and people don't always do the best or right thing in those kinds of situations. Now, I'm not necessarily defending what he did, I just don't think it's as horrible as you do.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The guard had been shot with a phaser and wasn't going anywhere for a good long time. The fact that he might wake up at some time in the future doesn't make it OK to kill him. Should Kirk & Spock have killed the guards everytime they escaped from custody?

If they were involved in a covert operation behind enemy lines--of course they should seriously consider that option!

They were not, in the scenarios you refer to. Your analogy is invalid.

You don't think that slipstream, cloaking devices and the Genesis Device is a technological advantage?

I repeat myself once again:

1. The effort to equip a sufficient amount of the fleet with the equipment you describe would require a massive renovation project which will NOT go unnoticed by the Pact.

2. You don't think the Typhon Pact will unite against the UFP after an assult against the Confederacy, like you describe?

Such would draw the Quadrants into a full-scale war. I'm sorry...but the Federation is certainly in no shape to fight a full-scale war. Or are you somehow unaware of the premises behind the post-Destiny novels...?

Even if it were not affected as it were by the Borg--a strike against the Breen would bring in all the Pact allies. The UFP's allies would come to the aid of the UFP--and then: full-scale war.

Sorry...but the scenario you propose is invalid.

 

[DrBashir]

You mean the way that the pact came to the defense of the Kinshaya? Oh wait, they made the Kinshaya apologize for attacking the Klingons. So, Kinshaya attack Klingons, Klingons counter attack. Kinshaya apologize. No war.

Breen attack Federation. Federation counter attacks. ALL OUT WAR! WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Gothca.

Kirk should have killed the Romulan guard when he was stealing the cloaking device? Should Spock have killed the Romulan Commander when he had the chance?

What about the Klingons on Organia? Kill them all?

 

[David Brennon]

And I'm sure the article presents, in the name of balance, those generals who felt it necessary--and their full arguments thereof. I wonder what Patton and Ike and MacArthur thought of it...

According to this quotes site

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

At least Ike and MacArthur thought poorly of the decision.

 

[Rush Limborg]

You mean the way that the pact came to the defense of the Kinshaya? Oh wait, they made the Kinshaya apologize for attacking the Klingons. So, Kinshaya attack Klingons, Klingons counter attack. Kinshaya apologize. No war.

Breen attack Federation. Federation counter attacks. ALL OUT WAR! WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Gothca.

Nope. The Breen, I would contend, is a far more powerful influence in the Pact than the Kinshaya was, number one.

Number two--a full-scale assault would hardly be considered by the Pact a valid counter-attack. Did the Klingons do what you're proposing? I doubt it--especially considering how the Kinshaya apparently was stable enough to be able to apologize and remain in the Pact, despite the demand that they apologize.

Kirk should have killed the Romulan guard when he was stealing the cloaking device? Should Spock have killed the Romulan Commander when he had the chance?

They would have been within their rights to. Of course, Spock understood the scope of the opportunity he held in his hands--to capture the commander, who doubtless had a great deal of useful information.

What about the Klingons on Organia? Kill them all?

As anyone who's watched the episode remembers...Kirk and Spock were ready to fight to the death, and take Kor down--and as many Klingons as possible with him. The Organians stopped them.

And I'm sure the article presents, in the name of balance, those generals who felt it necessary--and their full arguments thereof. I wonder what Patton and Ike and MacArthur thought of it...

According to this quotes site

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

At least Ike and MacArthur thought poorly of the decision.

Interesting. Now for the big question:

If the "quotes" referring to (read: hearsay, not actual quotes) MacArthur's alleged views is correct in that the Japanese were openly willing to discuss surrender...what was Truman's motive for (allegedly) not even consulting the chief general in the Pacific--and what was his motive for dropping the bombs?

As for Ike's lines...note the ellipses. It is quite possible we do not have the full story, from that site. (And by that, I mean: I have often seen websites take famous historical figures' words out of context, and making said figures seem to say the exact opposite of what they meant.)