Chris Roberts

Delance said:
It is not really genocide, since the objective was not to wipe out the Kilrathi, but to prevent the Kilrathi from wiping out mankind. No effort was made to destroy the Kilrathi as a race. The Empire and the Culture that demanded the Kilrathi to destroy Earth, perahps. It was self-defense.

This takes me back to my initial question. If the Kilrathi had T-Bombed (or otherwise destroyed) Earth in order to prevent mankind from wiping them out, would you still argue the action as self defense on the part of the Kilrathi?

Confed wanted to win the war. They, perhaps, believed the only way of doing so (or, maybe, the best/fastest/easiest way of doing so) was to destroy Kilrah. If we extend "winning the war" to include your thought that their `objective was to prevent the Kilrathi from wiping out mankind', it still holds that the method Confed chose was wiping out the Kilrathi. Yes, scattered remanants of Kilrathi culture remain and not every single one of them died. But, in essense, that's wiping out a civilization along with the bulk of its culture and way of life. Sure, there are some who're left to continue that way of life, but not very many.

You could argue that Confed's actions are genocidal. Three definitions of genocide are:
--The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
--the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
--systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

An argument could be made, I suppose, that the T-Bomb wasn't "systematic" or that the "entire" Kilrathi race wasn't wiped out. Still, if you don't call Confed's action(s) genocide, what do you call it? Self-defense just doesn't seem to cut the mustard, at least not for me.
 
Delance said:
It is not really genocide, since the objective was not to wipe out the Kilrathi, but to prevent the Kilrathi from wiping out mankind. No effort was made to destroy the Kilrathi as a race. The Empire and the Culture that demanded the Kilrathi to destroy Earth, perahps. It was self-defense.
First up, please re-read my post - I just edited it to add a few more things, and it seems you already managed to respond to it before I did so ;).

Now, in regards to this. Yes, it absolutely was genocide. Nobody has any doubts that Nazi Germany or the Soviets commited genocide... but I don't think anybody could possibly argue that the Nazis or the Soviets ever presented a direct threat to mankind as a species (which the charge of genocide as you seem to understand it would imply). Genocide just means "killing people" - it's simply the term used to describe something even bigger than mass-murder. So, clearly, Blair took part in genocide.

Your argument for Blair's perspective is interesting, but Paladin do tell Blair there was a massive Kilrathi fleet ready to make the final offensive against Earth, and there's every indication that Confed would lose. The question is, was it fair to take that chance? And of course he is furious about what happened to Angel. But was that the sole reason? He only finds out about the fleet later on, and at the same time they are preparing to use the T-Bomb.
Well, this is the point where my post, after edition, provides an answer (Blair was misinformed about the state of the Sixth Fleet - so he could be misinformed now, too). Blair simply doesn't have the whole picture. Neither does Paladin, in fact - in this particular situation, Paladin knows what the Kilrathi are planning, but he probably does not know (and if he knows, he's definitely not telling) how Confed is planning to respond. The German Ardennes offensive in 1944 was also supposed to be a "final" offensive that would cut off the British army and force them to sue for peace - but it certainly didn't turn out quite that final. Similarly, the Japanese attack at Midway was supposed to force the American fleet into a final showdown, and ultimately force America to sue for peace - but that didn't happen either, even though simple mathematics indicated that the Japanese are guaranteed to win. And in WC, there's also McAuliffe and the battle(s) of Earth to think of - by this point in time, Confed has thrice managed to stop huge Kilrathi offensives intended to end the war in one battle. Is there any reason for Blair to believe this fourth time will be different?
 
The geneva convention(s) established a great deal more than just universal treatment of prisoners. It just seems that a lot of people only remember the POW part.

Not in 1946.

Quite interesting. Kilrathi do not co-exist.

Of course they do -- they're a slave-based society. They don't co-exist in the way we *want* them to.

And what about the "our timing might just be right" part where Paladin explains the big Kilrathi fleet there?

... you mean an offhand remark made months after the conversation I quoted? The question was why the weapon was designed, not what coincidence did it happen to fall into after years of development.

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.

I seem to recall the same claim made about the Hakara Fleet... and then after the war, the Vorghath.

... and that Kilrah's goal was to enslave mankind, not to destroy it.

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.

It's exactly the same thing and it's crazy that you think this. Just think about the incredible contradiction you're dealing with here. You're zealous about trotting out Tolwyn's claim that his analysts have proven that the war will be lost in a matter of months as proof that the Confederation had to do something immoral to win...

... and then when the same man claims that the same analysts have said that something *else* immoral needs to be done to save mankind, you stick your fingers in your ears and sing because it isn't something you want to hear or accept.

Where's the logic? How can you have it both ways?

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.

No, no, no, no, no. This is nothing but newsgroupthink. As much as we want to demonize Tolwyn (well, as much as you want to demonize Tolwyn), there is no citation *anywhere* that suggests that his plan would weaken the Confederation in the way Wing Commander fans decided for several years. This is a very clear case of 'I don't want to believe this so I'll tell everyone it's wrong'.

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.

The gangster thing is cute, but it's not remotely accurate -- so stop saying it. It seems pretty clear that Seether's orders were to protect The Project at all costs... and when Paulson made clear that he would expose Tolwyn to protect himself, Seether was required by these orders to execute him.

We can't simply decide that because we don't like Seether he must be some happy go lucky murderer who goes around killing for pleasure. That is doing *everyone* a disservice.

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.

Pre-emptive action for them to defend themselves? That's insane. The Confederation is going to decide whether or not to go to war with us in several weeks, lets help stop that by launching a petty strike that will ultimately only kill innocent people and anger the giant towards whom we are trying to prove our innocence.

That's "we think we have a right to leave the union peacefully -- now lets prove it by invading New York before anyone notices."

Lets be clear on some things - the Border Worlds didn't even know they were fighting the Confederation... and, in fact, as you are very fond of insisting, they weren't - they were fighting a "renegade faction". Even if they were I don't see how anything gives them the right to commit crimes of their own.

What are you thinking (or: what were they thinking?). "Gee, someone is attacking our transports, someone is attacking Confederation bases... I guess this means we should get some shots in while the getting is good!"

The Border Worlds rebellion was just as guilty as Tolwyn of comitting atrocities during the conflict... and they did so out of sheer, poorly plotted opportunism instead of because of any kind of ideology.

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.

They were pirates raiding factories. You do not fight for independance by launching a pre-emptive strike on the country you would like to leave.

As for whether or not they stood a chance against the Confederation, I can't make that argument either way. Wars are not always decided by who has the strongest military -- who would have thought that a bunch of agrarian colonies could win their independance from the strongest military in the world during the American Revolution?

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.

Well, that's easy -- because I, personally, would have had them deal with their own issues in Circe, a system that at the very least apparently opted to join their rebel union.

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.

You're back to the start of your circle: The Confederation used Hyperion to test their temblor-bomb, not because it was a thread.

And no, they weren't other Border Worlds ships answering the distress call -- remember that Wilford specifically ordered you there. They attack your Lance because they've just seen other Lances destroy their planet.

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.

Attacking Speradon was illegal, shooting Lt. Lee was not - that has nothing to do with right or wrong (I, of course, would say that both are very wrong).

The Confederation seems to specifically have laws allowing the execution of terrorists 'taken in arms' against the government. (Lee was not *unarmed* in any legal sense, mind you -- we're talking about a uniformed military officer who was shot down piloting a fighter against Confederation targets.)

He had orders to kill Paulsen?

In all likelyhood.

Seether was part of a renegade faction of Confed attacking Confed forces, there’s nothing normal about that.

Colonel Blair was also part of a renegade faction of the Confederation attacking Confederation forces -- the Union of Border Worlds' Outerworlds Fleet.

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.

Then you're missing a large point in Wing Commander III. Before the mission you talk to Vagabond, who tells you that the Confederation has a "nasty habit" of labeling everything a military target... and then you fly the mission, which involves finding defenseless Kilrathi buildings on the planet... and then the end comm is about how the planet wasn't so uninhabited after all.

This isn't something I'm inventing by any means -- it's something Wing Commander III very specifically discusses. We're not talking about subtle writing here... Vagabond goes right out and says all this.

No, it doesn’t, and, is it your point that Blair is as bas as Seether?

If you're going to classify one as a 'murderer', I think you have to apply the term to both. I know you have trouble with broad terms, but that in no way is saying that they're the same.

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 great, but it's still clearly the analogy they were going for in Wing Commander 3. Wing Commander has *always* been the Pacific Theater in space and it is absolutely absolutely absolutely not a coincidence that the game ended the way it did. (Down to the surrender ceremony...)

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.

Which was a lie, mind you, since England's entire war plan from even before the fall of France involved keeping themselves in the position to launch air strikes that would convince the German people not to support the war.

I find it quite hard, almost impossible to believe that Confed has laws allowing people to execute prisoners without a trial.

That's great, but unless you can provide some sort of counter to what seem to be established facts then you're just making things up.

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.

Then you're seeming wrong. Wing Commander III has a very clear subplot about this *exact* moral issue.

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.

Okay, so you draw the line - at what point between Tolwyn's intelligence saying the current war is going to be lost and Tolwyn's *same* intelligence saying that the next war will also be lost do things separate, and how do you account for this?
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Attacking Speradon was illegal, shooting Lt. Lee was not - that has nothing to do with right or wrong (I, of course, would say that both are very wrong).
The Confederation seems to specifically have laws allowing the execution of terrorists 'taken in arms' against the government. (Lee was not *unarmed* in any legal sense, mind you -- we're talking about a uniformed military officer who was shot down piloting a fighter against Confederation targets.)

There are other precidents too. Angel is more than happy to execute maniac when he disobeyed a direct order to return to the claw and in doing so got another pilot killed.

I don't know about during the second world war but up till the start of the last century, most of the worlds armies considered acts of treason punishable by death and on the battlefied most often no trial was legally necessary.
 
AD said:
There are other precidents too. Angel is more than happy to execute maniac when he disobeyed a direct order to return to the claw and in doing so got another pilot killed.

I don't know about during the second world war but up till the start of the last century, most of the worlds armies considered acts of treason punishable by death and on the battlefied most often no trial was legally necessary.


And that was completely out of line as well...Angel would have been court martialed and punished severely. I remember being rather outraged at that scene. Yes, Maniac had screwed up, yes his disobedience led directly or indirectly to the death of a fellow pilot, but field execution has only been justifiable if there was serious cause to believe that there was no other action that would have rectified the situation. Maniac's disobedience and guilt would have to have been proven by a military proceedings, Angel had no legal authority to shoot him. If he had been inspiring mutiny and she had no recourse (i.e. was unable to lock him up or otherwise disable his threatening actions etc) then her action to execute him would likely still have been reviewed by a military board and then possibly she would have been acquitted of charges leveled against her. If she had just shot him for disobeying orders she would have never flown in Confed again. I found that scene a bit annoying personally.
 
Maj.Striker said:
And that was completely out of line as well...Angel would have been court martialed and punished severely. I remember being rather outraged at that scene. Yes, Maniac had screwed up, yes his disobedience led directly or indirectly to the death of a fellow pilot, but field execution has only been justifiable if there was serious cause to believe that there was no other action that would have rectified the situation. Maniac's disobedience and guilt would have to have been proven by a military proceedings, Angel had no legal authority to shoot him. If he had been inspiring mutiny and she had no recourse (i.e. was unable to lock him up or otherwise disable his threatening actions etc) then her action to execute him would likely still have been reviewed by a military board and then possibly she would have been acquitted of charges leveled against her. If she had just shot him for disobeying orders she would have never flown in Confed again. I found that scene a bit annoying personally.

They were potentially jepoardizing the entire operation by their actions. I don't know if the actual legal charter is ever spelled out in the WC universe but it seems none of the other half dozen or so people around during that scene remotely attemt to object (other than blair because it's his friend). If they at all respected her and it was supposedly an illegal action then you would think more than the newbie would step in and try and stop her. And Blair doesn't even try that hard. Its as if he feels that he'd rather she not, but he'll go along with it if thats her final descision. He doesnt even try and step between her and maniac. (althoug that might just be selfishly valueing his own life). ( it's possible the book sheds more light on that particular situation though.
 
The question was why the weapon was designed, not what coincidence did it happen to fall into after years of development.

The weapon was designed to destroy Kilrah. It was used as a last resource.

You are right about the briefing, I mixed the up. Now I’ve looked it up and got it straight.

The final briefing, the one that matters the most, says that not only this action would cripple their war effort and damage the fleet around it.

I seem to recall the same claim made about the Hakara Fleet... and then after the war, the Vorghath.

Well, we know that the claims were as a matter of fact wrong in those cases, but right in the last one. And yet, perhaps, the use of a super weapon would be justifiable in both of those cases. And Confed would probably use one if they had one, wouldn’t you agree?

... and that Kilrah's goal was to enslave mankind, not to destroy it.

How does that change anything?

It's exactly the same thing and it's crazy that you think this. Just think about the incredible contradiction you're dealing with here. You're zealous about trotting out Tolwyn's claim that his analysts have proven that the war will be lost in a matter of months as proof that the Confederation had to do something immoral to win...

... and then when the same man claims that the same analysts have said that something *else* immoral needs to be done to save mankind, you stick your fingers in your ears and sing because it isn't something you want to hear or accept.

Where's the logic? How can you have it both ways?

That’s an argument fallacy. Just because Tolwyn was right once doesn’t mean he is necessarily right every single time. He can be right about one thing, and wrong about another. His first analysis was made based on solid facts, the second on a crazed, evil ideology.

No, no, no, no, no. This is nothing but newsgroupthink.

I don’t understand how any of it is wrong. Perhaps you could explain how using bio-weapons would make mankind stronger, or how Paulsen’s and Tolwyn’s speeches were factually correct? Or, perhaps, by which means the eugenics would’ve helped defeat the Space Bugs? The sole source for any of that is just Tolwyn’s ideology, and the games makes a good case against it.

As much as we want to demonize Tolwyn (well, as much as you want to demonize Tolwyn), there is no citation *anywhere* that suggests that his plan would weaken the Confederation in the way Wing Commander fans decided for several years.

I'm not sure I follow you. You need a citation to know eugenics don’t work?

Unless you are saying that the use of the Gen-Select would be:

a) Beneficial
b) Justifiable

I don’t know in what we disagree.

On a personal note, this is not about demonizing Tolwyn. This is not even about his character. It’s about understanding how the ideology behind Black Lance is wrong.

This is a very clear case of 'I don't want to believe this so I'll tell everyone it's wrong'.

I believe that part is right.

The gangster thing is cute, but it's not remotely accurate -- so stop saying it. It seems pretty clear that Seether's orders were to protect The Project at all costs... and when Paulson made clear that he would expose Tolwyn to protect himself, Seether was required by these orders to execute him.

So Seether was under orders to kill people in order to prevent them from exposing the leader of a conspiracy to the authorities. And to murder a witness in order to prevent his leader from facing charges is unlike what gangsters do.

We can't simply decide that because we don't like Seether he must be some happy go lucky murderer who goes around killing for pleasure. That is doing *everyone* a disservice.

Who decided that were the people who made WCIV showing Seether murdering with much gusto, stereotypical villain laughter and all.

Arguably, what we can’t decide is that the bad guy who WCIV makes every effort to display as a raging lunatic is somehow a stern, loyal and almost naive soldier who was legally following orders.

The Border Worlds rebellion was just as guilty as Tolwyn of comitting atrocities during the conflict... and they did so out of sheer, poorly plotted opportunism instead of because of any kind of ideology.

And please tell me you do realize that the "sheer, poorly plotted opportunism" is much, much better than the "ideology" in question could ever be. Petty land-grabs are mild compared with the dehumanizing intellectual hatred contained in the sentence “discarding certain elements”.

And that’s one of the reasons any argument for moral equivalence won’t hold water against a more detailed analysis. The list of things Tolwyn did in the name of the BW, alone, outmatches the misdeeds of the militia.

What, again, in no way justifies whatever transgressions the BW was actually responsible for.

Well, that's easy -- because I, personally, would have had them deal with their own issues in Circe, a system that at the very least apparently opted to join their rebel union.

Me too. Not only that, but Circe was under attack by pirates and mercenaries Tolwyn was paying to kill civilians and cause destruction. Where did he even get all that money?

You're back to the start of your circle: The Confederation used Hyperion to test their temblor-bomb, not because it was a thread.

Even in light of all this, the circumstances of Hyperion and Telamon are very, very different. Granted, Hyperion might have been problematic, but it’s not the moral equivalent of Telamon.

I understand what you are saying, but I like to note the very significant differences that separate both situations to avoid oversimplifications.

The Confederation seems to specifically have laws allowing the execution of terrorists 'taken in arms' against the government. [/i]

That's really terrible if true.

(Lee was not *unarmed* in any legal sense, mind you -- we're talking about a uniformed military officer who was shot down piloting a fighter against Confederation targets.)

He was unarmed and restrained when he was shot, and that's what matters from a legal sense.

In all likelyhood.

Not that it matters, but we can both agree it killing Pauslen was not legal, regardless of orders.

Colonel Blair was also part of a renegade faction of the Confederation attacking Confederation forces -- the Union of Border Worlds' Outerworlds Fleet.

And there's nothing regular about that, which is what I said. I agree that both Bair and Seether part of Confed regular forces.

The difference is that Seether was working against Confed from inside, and Blair was working for Confed from the outside.

Then you're missing a large point in Wing Commander III. Before the mission you talk to Vagabond, who tells you that the Confederation has a "nasty habit" of labeling everything a military target... and then you fly the mission, which involves finding defenseless Kilrathi buildings on the planet... and then the end comm is about how the planet wasn't so uninhabited after all.

This isn't something I'm inventing by any means -- it's something Wing Commander III very specifically discusses. We're not talking about subtle writing here... Vagabond goes right out and says all this.

I was not saying you were inventing anything. And know I remember more this part. That's really bad. But still not the moral equivalent of using bio-weapons on Telamon.

That's great, but it's still clearly the analogy they were going for in Wing Commander 3. Wing Commander has *always* been the Pacific Theater in space and it is absolutely absolutely absolutely not a coincidence that the game ended the way it did. (Down to the surrender ceremony...)

That's great and I agree to you in general terms but, the specific circumstances about use of the super weapon are still radically different.

A small observation – the pacific theater analogy ends with WC3. WC4 has a mix of American History (Civil War, Confederation versus the Union, Independence War) and some ideological aspects of World War II, which had a less important role on the previous games.

That's great, but unless you can provide some sort of counter to what seem to be established facts then you're just making things up.

It was rhetorical disbelief.

Okay, so you draw the line - at what point between Tolwyn's intelligence saying the current war is going to be lost and Tolwyn's *same* intelligence saying that the next war will also be lost do things separate, and how do you account for this?

That's a logical fallacy. It's not the "same" intelligence at all. That's like saying that because part of Einstein’s research was correct, than all his research must to be correct.

But to address the specific question, one thing is a projection based facts and numbers that can be more or less known. The other is a speculation about a potential future threat based not on material data, but on ideology. Even worse, the remedy prescribed to solve the first problem is surely known to work, while the second one, again, is based solely on ideology, and not on reality.

The fact that mankind was about to lose the war doesn't depend on Tolwyn's intelligence because we can see the Kilrathi fleet from the deck of the Kilrathi flagship. By the time the enemy fleet is massing around Kilrath, it becomes quite clear. If the T-Bomb fails, mankind loses. We can know that for an absolute fact, because that's what happens and the game shows us.

And don't ignore the part about the tangible and imminent threat against a theoretical and remote one because it's essential to the argument.

And that eugenics doesn't work is something that is known for a fact. Unless you want to start a debate about how eugenics is evil and wrong, I fail too see why push the issue of Tolwyn being wrong on what he was doing on WCIV, because that's exactly what he was doing. It's not merely evil and immoral, it doesn't work, doesn't provide any good results, it's bad, and wherever it was used resulted in nothing but death and destruction, it never, ever, absolutely not made anyone stronger, or more apt to fight.

Just as clear as like WC3 is an analogy to the pacific theatre on WW2, The Black Lance is an analogy of 20th Century totalitarian ideologies, down to their uniforms, ideological grounds, rhetoric and M.O. We don't need a in-universe citation to know how bad it is because it’s self-evident. We don't need in-universe sources to know what's wrong with Paulsen's talk in the Lex and Tolwyn's speech on Axius.
 
The weapon was designed to destroy Kilrah. It was used as a last resource.

You are right about the briefing, I mixed the up. Now I’ve looked it up and got it straight.

The final briefing, the one that matters the most, says that not only this action would cripple their war effort and damage the fleet around it.

No, the final briefing is the one that matters the *least*. It's the self-justifing one - as close to after the fact as you can get. It's the claim that's made *after* the money has been spent, the time has been used and the weapon has been built. In terms of discussing the morality of the weapon you have to look at the reason it was created, not the extraordinary coincidence that happened the day the bomb was ready.

The atomic scientists, for instance, came out and complained that the bomb was immoral and wrong... after they'd developed it for the Army. A little late, isn't it?

Well, we know that the claims were as a matter of fact wrong in those cases, but right in the last one. And yet, perhaps, the use of a super weapon would be justifiable in both of those cases. And Confed would probably use one if they had one, wouldn’t you agree?

I don't think there's any way to establish (to Blair or to anyone) that the Confederation would absolutely lose the war if it couldn't destroy Kilrah.

How does that change anything?

Because it proves that all we're dealing with is the downfall of the Terran Confederation, an organization that in this very thread you call 'terrible', and not the extermination of all mankind.

That’s an argument fallacy. Just because Tolwyn was right once doesn’t mean he is necessarily right every single time. He can be right about one thing, and wrong about another. His first analysis was made based on solid facts, the second on a crazed, evil ideology.

The issue isn't whether or not he's right in either case -- it's that they're both examples of exactly the same ideology... but you support one and hate the other. How?

I don’t understand how any of it is wrong. Perhaps you could explain how using bio-weapons would make mankind stronger, or how Paulsen’s and Tolwyn’s speeches were factually correct? Or, perhaps, by which means the eugenics would’ve helped defeat the Space Bugs? The sole source for any of that is just Tolwyn’s ideology, and the games makes a good case against it.

I can explain that very easily: Wing Commander said so.

How can ships travel faster than light? Wing Commander said so.

20th century science isn't suddenly and magically applicable in criticizing Wing Commander's clearly opposing intentions because you decide you hate Geoff Tolwyn.

I'm not sure I follow you. You need a citation to know eugenics don’t work?

Unless you are saying that the use of the Gen-Select would be:

a) Beneficial
b) Justifiable

I don’t know in what we disagree.

On a personal note, this is not about demonizing Tolwyn. This is not even about his character. It’s about understanding how the ideology behind Black Lance is wrong.

You do understand me, I need a citation to know that eugenics doesn't work in Wing Commander. Not whether or not it is *right*, but whether or not it is a sound scientific concept in the 27th century -- because as best I can tell, as offensive as Tolwyn's *ideas* are, no one ever says his science is bad.

So Seether was under orders to kill people in order to prevent them from exposing the leader of a conspiracy to the authorities. And to murder a witness in order to prevent his leader from facing charges is unlike what gangsters do.

Yes, Seether was almost certainly under orders, which included the ability to use deadly force, to keep a Black Project secret. This is what military officers do.

Who decided that were the people who made WCIV showing Seether murdering with much gusto, stereotypical villain laughter and all.

Arguably, what we can’t decide is that the bad guy who WCIV makes every effort to display as a raging lunatic is somehow a stern, loyal and almost naive soldier who was legally following orders.

We cited the novel, part of the Wing Commander continuity, at the very beginning of this thread to point out that what you're saying just isn't the case.

And please tell me you do realize that the "sheer, poorly plotted opportunism" is much, much better than the "ideology" in question could ever be. Petty land-grabs are mild compared with the dehumanizing intellectual hatred contained in the sentence “discarding certain elements”.

And that’s one of the reasons any argument for moral equivalence won’t hold water against a more detailed analysis. The list of things Tolwyn did in the name of the BW, alone, outmatches the misdeeds of the militia.

What, again, in no way justifies whatever transgressions the BW was actually responsible for.

Nope, I think it's much worse. Tolwyn was crazy, he believed he was doing the right thing. Wilford was sane and he believed he was doing the wrong thing -- and he did it anyway.

Me too. Not only that, but Circe was under attack by pirates and mercenaries Tolwyn was paying to kill civilians and cause destruction. Where did he even get all that money?

Black Projects budget, presumably.

Even in light of all this, the circumstances of Hyperion and Telamon are very, very different. Granted, Hyperion might have been problematic, but it’s not the moral equivalent of Telamon.

I understand what you are saying, but I like to note the very significant differences that separate both situations to avoid oversimplifications.

Okay, then by all means *note them* -- because all you've done so far is whimper and whine that anyone would dare point out that something be equal to what you've somehow decided is the worst atrocity in the universe. 'They're not the same!!!!!' isn't the same thing as explaining how they aren't the same.

That's really terrible if true.

Then Delance has pronounced the truth terrible, which does not change a thing. "Oh, that's terrible" is not an argument and it is never something that will be able to make me say that a particular point is wrong.

He was unarmed and restrained when he was shot, and that's what matters from a legal sense.

No, it very clearly isn't, because we've already established that shooting him *was* legal.

Not that it matters, but we can both agree it killing Pauslen was not legal, regardless of orders.

I don't think we can agree as to who it was illegal *for*, though.

And there's nothing regular about that, which is what I said. I agree that both Bair and Seether part of Confed regular forces.

The difference is that Seether was working against Confed from inside, and Blair was working for Confed from the outside.

Not in the least. Who, pray tell, was responsible for the capture of the bio-convergence scientist who allowed The Project to develop it's GE weapon in the first place? And then the lab she used to do this research? Oh, well, that was Colonel Christopher Blair, Terran Confederation Space Forces... but he was only following orders!

But, surprise, surprise, someone else who is at the exact same point in the chain of command who follows the exact same orders *is* a criminal who *is* responsible for his actions. Funny, isn't it?

I was not saying you were inventing anything. And know I remember more this part. That's really bad. But still not the moral equivalent of using bio-weapons on Telamon.

Seems to me that the purpose of the plot in Wing Commander III is to raise *exactly* the same question: genocide vs. losing the war.

That's great and I agree to you in general terms but, the specific circumstances about use of the super weapon are still radically different.

A small observation – the pacific theater analogy ends with WC3. WC4 has a mix of American History (Civil War, Confederation versus the Union, Independence War) and some ideological aspects of World War II, which had a less important role on the previous games.

Wing Commander IV is none of those things.

That's a logical fallacy. It's not the "same" intelligence at all. That's like saying that because part of Einstein’s research was correct, than all his research must to be correct.

It is the same evidence. Tolwyn is applying the same process to both situation - and, in fact, the exact same research applied to the first (war will be lost) goes into the second pronouncement.

But to address the specific question, one thing is a projection based facts and numbers that can be more or less known. The other is a speculation about a potential future threat based not on material data, but on ideology. Even worse, the remedy prescribed to solve the first problem is surely known to work, while the second one, again, is based solely on ideology, and not on reality.

Except this is something you made up. We know the Confederation knows about the Nephilim and that they are a thread -- this is *entirely* you wanting to complain about Tolwyn instead of being interested in debating anything germaine to the Wing Commander universe.

The fact that mankind was about to lose the war doesn't depend on Tolwyn's intelligence because we can see the Kilrathi fleet from the deck of the Kilrathi flagship. By the time the enemy fleet is massing around Kilrath, it becomes quite clear. If the T-Bomb fails, mankind loses. We can know that for an absolute fact, because that's what happens and the game shows us.

That's not true at all and you know it. Blair doesn't know any of these things... and for the large part they aren't even true. You can't ever cite the alternate losing endgame as evidence of anything because it just doesn't happen.

All we know is that if Blair dies or is captured that the war cannot be won. That tells us *nothing* about the absolute value of the T-Bomb -- and you can find the same truth to pretty much any 'losing endgame' you'd like to cite. Blair is the variable, nothing more.

Blair dying early in Wing Commander 2 doesn't prove that the war is lost if K'Tithrak Mang isn't destroyed... it just proves that he's necessary to something in the future that can *NEVER BE KNOWN* (if it proves anything at all, which it doesn't, because 'what if' isn't a relevant citation in the first place).

And don't ignore the part about the tangible and imminent threat against a theoretical and remote one because it's essential to the argument.

No, it isn't, because you're just outright wrong about the facts. The Nephilim, including their massive strength and hostile intentions, were identified by the Confederation *before* the Terran-Kilrathi War even started.

And that eugenics doesn't work is something that is known for a fact. Unless you want to start a debate about how eugenics is evil and wrong, I fail too see why push the issue of Tolwyn being wrong on what he was doing on WCIV, because that's exactly what he was doing. It's not merely evil and immoral, it doesn't work, doesn't provide any good results, it's bad, and wherever it was used resulted in nothing but death and destruction, it never, ever, absolutely not made anyone stronger, or more apt to fight.

Because this is silly 20th century rhetoric that is *history* to Wing Commander IV. Its something obnoxious and pointless that only agwc ever obsessed over. It's the same logic you apply to bitch that lasers aren't real and that space fighters can't travel faster than light. Clearly in 2673 they do and they can.

It's shiny and happy to say that Tolwyn's plan had no merit because some post-World War 2 politically correct scientist told you so... but it doesn't apply here. All that 1996-1999 crap about this was nothing but mutual masturbation -- we don't like Tolwyn so lets apply our current science in a ridiculously exclusive way to make him look small in addition to his loss in terms of ideals.

Clearly Tolwyn and a lot of other people believed that whatever form of eugenics they had perfected in 2673 - clearly beyond any of our thinking on the matter - worked... and nothing in Wing Commander says it didn't. (In fact, Blair et. al. stand around wondering if he was right afterwards with absolutely no criticism of the science.)

Just as clear as like WC3 is an analogy to the pacific theatre on WW2, The Black Lance is an analogy of 20th Century totalitarian ideologies, down to their uniforms, ideological grounds, rhetoric and M.O. We don't need a in-universe citation to know how bad it is because it’s self-evident. We don't need in-universe sources to know what's wrong with Paulsen's talk in the Lex and Tolwyn's speech on Axius.

Again, you're far, fer, fer too caught up on labels. Something being morally wrong (Tolwyn's speech, Paulson's talk) doesn't make it scientifically unachievable.
 
Ok, here's a question that somebody should have asked a long, long time ago - how do we know that the eugenics didn't help Confed win the war? We know the whole thing started early in the war, we know Seether was in the academy around 2654, we know he disappeared shortly afterwards, presumably into some black ops squadron... what this means is that Seether most likely spent fifteen years of the war fighting on the frontlines. Other GE subjects probably did too. We don't know what they did, but surely they weren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs - given how huge the war was, there's a thousand ways they could have helped to keep the Confederation in the war. Heck, maybe it was GE pilots that made the CVE strikes such a huge success. The Lexington in Armada could have also been packed with such pilots. Such pilots may have helped Angel get to Kilrah, they may have fought in the battle of Earth, and so on, and so on...
 
Quarto said:
Such pilots may have helped Angel get to Kilrah, they may have fought in the battle of Earth, and so on, and so on...

Hehe... I had a discusion about the Black Lance involvment during the war with LOAF yesterday on IRC... For the most part your right. But regarding angel, it seems unlikely that the Black lance would have been involved if paladin was unaware of their existence per WCIV.
 
Quarto said:
Ok, here's a question that somebody should have asked a long, long time ago - how do we know that the eugenics didn't help Confed win the war? ...

What about the technology or facilities? I would think that the time to design the Dragon and build that Axion(sp) station would have at least had it as a late-war project.
 
t.c.cgi said:
What about the technology or facilities? I would think that the time to design the Dragon and build that Axion(sp) station would have at least had it as a late-war project.
Hehe, yeah, the Dragon was a late-war project - it was called the Excalibur, remember? :) That is to say, the Dragon was developed from the Excalibur. But yeah, Axius itself probably would have been there during the war - and of course, we can imagine that the Confederation started working on the Vesuvius project immediately after the battle of Earth, since the Vesuvius is supposed to have been influenced by Kilrathi technology from the Hakaga supercarriers.

AD said:
Hehe... I had a discusion about the Black Lance involvment during the war with LOAF yesterday on IRC... For the most part your right. But regarding angel, it seems unlikely that the Black lance would have been involved if paladin was unaware of their existence per WCIV.
Well, yeah, it is unlikely, but it was just an example :). It's definitely not impossible, though - after all, Seether doesn't have a big "GE" sign tattooed on his face, and Paladin, as the guy who won the "The General Most Likely To Be Captured By The Enemy" award definitely would not know about anything he did not need to know.
 
But yeah, Axius itself probably would have been there during the war...

In fact, we know it was. Wilford mentions in the novel that the base was a center for black budget research during the war (and that he was briefed on its existence just before the war ended when he took over sector command for that area).

But yes, an excellent point. We know that Seether was a product of the GE program in the mid-2650s, not in 2673... and that he fought in the war -- so it must have had some effect on the conflict.
 
I seem to remember Hawk stating that he had flown with Seether at some point in the war. Any further info on that?
 
Dragon1 said:
I seem to remember Hawk stating that he had flown with Seether at some point in the war. Any further info on that?


From wc4:
Jacob Manley said:
"When I first signed on with confed there was a rookie pilot on my ship..."

I think LOAF said something about Hawk graduating in '56. What does hawk mean by first signing on... Either way He says seether quickly go transfered out into covert ops or something like that. He doesnt say anything about their actual service together, Only that they were on the same ship. He was familiar with seether enough to recognize the mine manoever, but that could possibly be by reputation rather than actually ever having flown with him.

I don't remember it the novel fleshes out any details about hawks early career though.

I take from this though that hawk and seether both entered active duty around the same time.
 
Quarto said:
Ok, here's a question that somebody should have asked a long, long time ago - how do we know that the eugenics didn't help Confed win the war?

The G.E. project could've helped winning the war, true. If Hawk already know Seether to be a great pilot from the Academy, and Hawk fought in the war, this appears to be he case, even if the extent of it remains unknown. When I speak of eugenics on my posts, I'm specifically making a reference to the Gen-Select Bio-Weapon. There's no indication that those were used.

Doesn't it make you wonder about whether Confed wouldn't have been able to win outright, had they not made the decision to nuke Kilrah?

That's an excellent point, and I completely agree with you. The T-Bomb didn't sound that expensive, but the Behemoth could've mean the carriers necessary for Confed to win the war with conventional means.

Quarto said:
Additionally, it's hard to see how Blair could be sure that the Confederation was on the verge of losing the war.

Agreed. Corroborating what you and LOAF said, I think it was not necessaly inevitable that Confed would lose the final battle, since they had already won before against terrible odds.

The prediction available to them that Confed was about to lose the war could've been proven wrong.

Blair very strongly disagrees with Tolwyn's plans to use the Behemoth... and then comes to accept genocide as a solution after finding out about Angel's death. So Blair seems to have been thinking more about revenge than saving humanity.

The might've resulted in genocide, but the objective was not it. Regardless, it's clear Blair's disposition to nuke Kilrah improved after he had more reasons to hate the Kilrathi.

So let's consider this: would it be justifiable to use the T-Bomb to win the war before the Battle of Terra, or any other situation were there was a very real risk of Confed losing the war?


Bandit LOAF said:
No, the final briefing is the one that matters the *least*. It's the self-justifing one - as close to after the fact as you can get. It's the claim that's made *after* the money has been spent, the time has been used and the weapon has been built. In terms of discussing the morality of the weapon you have to look at the reason it was created, not the extraordinary coincidence that happened the day the bomb was ready.

The atomic scientists, for instance, came out and complained that the bomb was immoral and wrong... after they'd developed it for the Army. A little late, isn't it?

Let me surprise you right here and say that I agree with you. I really do. If indeed the T-Bomb, or the nuke, is an intrinsically wrong weapon for which there can be no justification, complaining about it later is meaningless.

However, if the case had to do with the specific use of the device, i.e., it would be justifiable or not to use it on some situations depending on the circumstances

So, are they? Honestly, I don’t know. Let’s begin with the real world example, nukes. I find compelling arguments both ways. It might be an intrinsically evil means, one that can’t ever be justified. Or maybe there are some circumstances that would make it acceptable to use them.

The moral debate about nukes is so complicated that are indeed good arguments both in favor or against the morality of having them and not having them. Because if you abandon your nukes while your enemy have them, you are encouraging them to use it against you.

Your example of the military scientists is quite good. I think it makes no sense for them to complain it’s an evil weapon, but they had the right to complain it was used on an evil way.

What I’m saying is that I do held a strong and very well justified belief that Bio-Weapons made with eugenic purposes are intrinsically wrong and can never be justified in any circumstances. Not because they are bio-weapons, but because eugenics is universally morally wrong and unjustifiable. Bio-weapons probably fit the same category, but I’m unsure.

Now, to the T-Bomb. In theory, it’s a morally neutral device since it could be used against an empty planet, or a planet with solely military installations. But that’s a weak argument, because it’s not the way it was meant to be used. It was designed, I assume, to destroy Kirah, which has civilians. We can band the Behemoth on the same category of Planet Killers.

When it comes to destroying homeworlds, there is a very strong case that those weapons are intrinsically wrong, therefore unjustifiable. On the other hand, there is a very strong case for the justification of their use on WCIII. Not by any merits of this kind of weapon, but from a completely external angle: not using them would have terrible consequences.

The issue then becomes weighting what is more terrible, and making a choice out of the available alternatives. This is a dangerous situation, prone to sliperry slopes. It’s not clear, and it appears to be on a gray zone. I tend to accept the use of the T-Bomb as a terrible, yet absolutely necessary means to saving Confed and preventing mankind from being conquered and enslaved by an evil alien Empire.

I don't think there's any way to establish (to Blair or to anyone) that the Confederation would absolutely lose the war if it couldn't destroy Kilrah.

Again, I agree with you: Blair could not know that with absolute certainty, neither could anyone on Confed like Tolwyn, Paladin, Confed Intel and Confed HQ. This information is known only to the gamers, because we know the alternate ending, but that bears no effect to the characters. This also means that the research on the subject was not necessarily accurate.

Because it proves that all we're dealing with is the downfall of the Terran Confederation, an organization that in this very thread you call 'terrible', and not the extermination of all mankind.

Agreed, I might have been overly dramatic about the extermination of all mankind. But we can’t discard the possibility that mankind might not survive forever under Kilrathi rule, much less thrive. And since they were not interested in keeping more slaves, since they seem to have no shortage of them. They would not be so caring in handling the occupation and minimizing loss of life.

But when we weight in the damage caused by the T-Bomb, it’s also not equal to the extermination of all Kilrathi, but the destruction of their homeworld, and most of their fleet around it. If anything, the Kilrathi were much better off surrendering than Mankind would ever be. More to the point, there is good reason to assume Thrakkath was more interested in destroying Earth than making it a colony or a beach house, since apparently Kilrathi doesn’t like water. Do they lick themselves? Do they spit hairballs?

The issue isn't whether or not he's right in either case -- it's that they're both examples of exactly the same ideology... but you support one and hate the other. How?

Because they are not the same ideology at all. Making a projection that mankind was about to lose the war to the Kilrathi did not require any ideology. Radio Rollins could do that for you for free. It was a statement of fact. It had absolutely, absolutely nothing to do with eugenics at all.

I’m not disputing the overall concept that another major threat might appear in the future, and that Confed should prepare batter for that. Again, this still has nothing to do with ideology. You can know all those things.

Eugenics, on the other hand, are ideology, and a very bad one. More importantly, they are demonstrably wrong and don’t work in the way their defenders claim, and the WC game acknowledges this fact. More on this later.

I can explain that very easily: Wing Commander said so.

How can ships travel faster than light? Wing Commander said so.

20th century science isn't suddenly and magically applicable in criticizing Wing Commander's clearly opposing intentions because you decide you hate Geoff Tolwyn.

But Wing Commander doesn’t say, anywhere, that using bio-weapons would make mankind stronger, that Paulsen’s and Tolwyn’s speeches were factually correct, and that eugenics would’ve helped defeat the Space Bugs.

Tolwyn and Paulsen said all those things, but they are not true. He’s the bad guy, the villain, not everything he says at this capacity must be acknowledge as unquestionable truth. Thrakkath tells the emperor everything is fine and Confed has no chance of averting destruction, but we know he is wrong about his facts.

When the villain of the game says things to justify the action that the game itself declares are wrong, we have no reason to assume that the ‘science’ behind this justification is beyond questioning. While the specific issue might not have been specifically addressed, it’s not far fetched to assume it was deemed wrong when Tolwyn was persecuted and conicted for his actions in trying to implement his ideology. Politically, his ideas were rejected, what demands the existence of an opposing set of ideas negating his, even if they are not made explicit.

You do understand me, I need a citation to know that eugenics doesn't work in Wing Commander. Not whether or not it is *right*, but whether or not it is a sound scientific concept in the 27th century -- because as best I can tell, as offensive as Tolwyn's *ideas* are, no one ever says his science is bad.

All right, now I understand you, and I’ll try to explain it on a throughout manner.

The claims made by Tolwyn are not novel and don’t involve any speculative technology. The only new science WC in this regard is the nano-tech weapon. Gen-Select device, on itself, is a sci-fi tech that exists because WC tell us, like jump drives.

Eugenics, on the other hand, is not even a scientific concept at all, much less sound, but an ideology, and that’s why it’s not needed to be countered on scientific level. I assume this was so self-evident the authors felt no need to make overt claims.

I don’t debate that the technology of the Gen-Select is scientifically sound and exists on WC, it does what it’s supposed to do, kill people by actively selecting the ones that doesn’t fit a certain criteria.

The eugenics ideology behind the makeup of this weapon are a completely different deal, and they are not the same as the science and technology behind it.

Your basic idea is not wrong and I’m not disagreeing with it.

I’m simply pointing out that the eugenics ideology is not part of the science and technology part of WC we must assume to be true, but a set of beliefs particular to Tolwyn and the Black Lance that are not shared by the rest of Characters and Factions, and we shouldn’t assume them to be universally held true.

As you recall, all of the eugenics ideology was merely a theory, it never happened. It was never put in practice on the WCU A theory that was never tested can’t be said to work for certainty. The gen-select device works perfectly and kills the people it’s supposed to kill, but we never, ever see the supposed results of race improvement.

By itself, the fact that it was never put to the test allow us to know it is merely a theory at best and that it can’t be know with certainty that it works.

Most important, we also know that Tolwyn’s ideas are not universally accepted as true because, upon hearing them, the majority of the senate rejects them. It’s reasonable to assume that opposing views exist on WC that eugenics work is not an universally accept truth, and that no one questions it. Wing Commander does certainly does not say that.

And if Eugenics is not a belief universally held to be true by everyone on Wing Commander, we know for a fact that there is at least a possibility that it’s wrong.

Yes, Seether was almost certainly under orders, which included the ability to use deadly force, to keep a Black Project secret. This is what military officers do.

That’s also what gangster do, use deadly force to keep authorities from learning the existence of an illegal activity. Why can’t he be both? We know the project was illegal, and it was never legit. It was done against direct instructions of the senate. The G.E. program was cancelled, and the Senate never approved the development or use of Bio-Tech weapons.

Who he was keeping the secret from? Confed’s enemies? No. He was keep it secret from the legitimate Confed leadership who had the authority and the right to know what was happening. And that’s not even remotely what the military do.

If a Faction of the US Air Force was shooting down American Commercial Airplanes to justify the use of a Bio-Weapon against an American interest, and this was completely unknown and in fact against direct orders from the legitimate leadership of the US, and an American Air Force Colonel killed someone to prevent them from revealing this plot to the US Senate, I don’t think it would be classified as a legitimate order.

The ‘gangster’ part might have been a little dramatic exaggeration, but there was nothing legitimate or regular on that action.

We cited the novel, part of the Wing Commander continuity, at the very beginning of this thread to point out that what you're saying just isn't the case.

But the game, where the murdering with gusto and maniacal laughter happened, are also part of the continuity. At least during this moments he was, well, like that, because the game shows it.

Nope, I think it's much worse. Tolwyn was crazy, he believed he was doing the right thing. Wilford was sane and he believed he was doing the wrong thing -- and he did it anyway.

Well, I agree with most of what you say here. Tolwyn was crazy, and he believed that he was doing the right thing. We know he was not. If you can agree with me here, I’d see no reason for further disagreement on that regard.

About Wilford, you must look back to the moment where he ordered the Raid. He suspected there was some conspiracy against the Border Worlds that would lead to a war with Confed. If such a war was to break, the militia would be in desperate need for weapons, and raiding a confed shipyard would be a legitimate move. However, war didn’t break out, and it become a petty act of piracy. The basic goal of acquiring weapons to protect civilians against aggressions is not wrong on itself, even tough the means were.

That on a practical level. In abstract, "sheer, poorly plotted opportunism" is much, much better than the "ideology" in question could ever be, and we know that because “ideology” has killed much, much more people in much worse ways than opportunism ever did.

Black Projects budget, presumably.

No misappropriation of funds? How unimaginative. Confed Back Projects must have an incredible budget. Confed craft, BW craft, Expensive Heavy Fighters with exotic engines , fission guns and built-in cloaking capability, the Pelius device, the Flashpak, Bio-Weapons, an Infantry battalion, fashion-designed black uniforms, a hidden space base, mercenaries.

Well, maybe, after the Behemoth, that was peanuts.

Okay, then by all means *note them* -- because all you've done so far is whimper and whine that anyone would dare point out that something be equal to what you've somehow decided is the worst atrocity in the universe. 'They're not the same!!!!!' isn't the same thing as explaining how they aren't the same.

All right, I’ll just do that. I’ll break it down topics and make a nice table for easier understanding, and will even include the similarities, in all fairness.

Code:
                              Hyperion                 Telamon
1. War                        Yes                      No
2. Strategic Value            No?                      No
3. Civilians/Military         Yes                      Yes
4. Target                     The Planet               Population 
5. Purpose                    Weapon Test              Weapon Test
6. Declared Obj.              Win present War              Win future War
7. Means                      Destruction of Kilrah    Eugenics
8. Effects                    Immediate                Not Demonstrated
9. Authorization              Yes?                     Illegal Weapon

1. Existence of a declaration of war, simple and straightforward.
2. Strategic Value, unsure about Hyperion, none for Telamon
3. Presence of Civilians and Military, per our discussion, on both planets
4. The Specific Target of the Weapon. The T-Bomb acts on tectonic planets and destroys unstable planets, and the Gen-Select targets certain individuals with specific genes and kills them.
5. The Purpuse, on both cases, was to test the weapon.
6 and 7. The declared overall objective of the T-Bomb was to win the war by the means of blowing up Klrah, while the declared objecvice of the Gen-Select was active eugenics, i.e., killing certain people deemed unfit to live. If the overall objective was to improve mankind this way, in order to win future that would presumably require some kind of wide deployment of this weapon, but that is never revealed. The only mention I remember is when Blair, without rebuttal, speaks of billions.
8. The full effects of blowing up a planet are immediate and can be easly observed on shor term. It goes boom, and that's the end of the story. Eugenics would require a long time and observation to have noticable effects, all that happens in short term and the observation time available in the game is that a lot of people die.
9. While I assume the development and use of the T-Bomb was granted by the Confed leadership, we know for certain that the contrary can be said about the Gen-Select device.

We can assume that, inside WCU, despite the polemic around it, the T-Bomb was found to be generally acceptable weapon because, while the Gen-Select was not. In all likehood, this is the case in both in the senate and on the mainstream public opinion, considering the reactions shown towards those weapons.

And, again, this is not an argument for Hyperion or the T-Bomb, but against the moral equivalence to the Telamon and the Gen-Select. Even tought we can find both to be wrong and unacceptable, they are still not quite the same thing.

Not in the least. Who, pray tell, was responsible for the capture of the bio-convergence scientist who allowed The Project to develop it's GE weapon in the first place? And then the lab she used to do this research? Oh, well, that was Colonel Christopher Blair, Terran Confederation Space Forces... but he was only following orders!

But, surprise, surprise, someone else who is at the exact same point in the chain of command who follows the exact same orders *is* a criminal who *is* responsible for his actions. Funny, isn't it?

When Blair became aware about the situation, he did something about it. Seether, however, knew what it was about all along. Blair was not a willing participant on the activies of the Black Lance and was being deceived. Can you say the same about Seether? Was him being deceived? Did he fought against the conspiracy once he knew the truth? Did he make an effort to warn the Senate about forbidden bio-weapons, as was the duty of any military officer?

Seems to me that the purpose of the plot in Wing Commander III is to raise *exactly* the same question: genocide vs. losing the war.

Well, genocide is a somewhat vague terminology that will fit in a number of things. That doesn’t mean that a specific action that arguably can be described as genocide, i.e., the bombing of Kilrah, would necessarily mean that any and every genocide was to be acceptable in the same way in order to win a war. It was only found acceptable on WC3, and that’s still under debate, because it was a last resource. On WC4, there was not even a war to launch a last resource on.

It is the same evidence. Tolwyn is applying the same process to both situation - and, in fact, the exact same research applied to the first (war will be lost) goes into the second pronouncement.

No, you misunderstood me. I was not talking about the part that claims that Confed is going to lose a war. But the remedy prescribed. Blowing up the enemy homeworld is self-evidently a means to win the war, or at least cripple the enemy. But you could never know for sure until you tried. It was tested, and it worked. Using bio-weapons against yourself was not really ever tested at all on the WCU, and there’s no way to know for sure it would produce the desired result.

Besides, it can’t be the same process, because he had very detailed information about the Kilrathi and what was to be required to defeat them. There was no such thing for the Nephilim. As you demonstrated, Confed has known about them for even before the Kilrathi war, but they didn’t have a lot of details. If Tolwyn knew, for example, that blowing up Kilrah would spawn Space Bugs, he might have factored in on his research that doing that was a bad idea. But this part about the amount of information they have is not important to my point, because I don’t disagree at all with the notiont that Confed was at risk of losing the war.

The problem, again, is the part about the eugenics. And, as matter of fact, we know it’s wrong! Confed fared very well against the Space Bugs so far in two major encounters (or one, depending on how you see WCP and WCSO). And Confed did defeat the Space Bugs without ever using bio-weapons as prescribed by Tolwyn. This prediction wasn’t correct.

The only way to prove with certainty that Tolwyn’s research was completely correct would be to have Confed lose the war against the Space Bugs because it didn’t perform the eugenics, and to have mankind facing extinction, *because that’s what Tolwyn predicted would happen*.

And since *that didn’t happen at all*, we can’t say the eugenics part was right with certainty. And that’s all I was saying.

Tolwyn tells us that without using Eugenics to “discard certain elements” and be made strong, mankind would “face extinction”, and to really accept this as unquestionable truth would require mankind to lose the next war and be destroyed with absolute certainty.

Tolwyn’s research says the species that is weak faces extinction. But then you made a good point that to be weak and lose a war to the Kilrathi would NOT mean mankind was going to face extinction. If that’s the case, it goes against he most important part of his entire argument.

If anything, and Tolwyn’s research was absolutely correct, being strong and winning the war could never brought about a far worse enemy, what *did* happen after Kilrah was blown up *according to his plans*. And also losing the war, being weak, would mean necessary mean facing extinction, what, according to you, wouldn’t happen.

WC tells us that being strong does not necessarily improve the probablity of survival (Space Bugs because we beat the Kilrathi), and being weak doesn’t necessarily contribute to extinction (Defeat on the Kilrathi war does not equal extinction).

Except this is something you made up. We know the Confederation knows about the Nephilim and that they are a thread -- this is *entirely* you wanting to complain about Tolwyn instead of being interested in debating anything germaine to the Wing Commander universe.

Even after WCP, very, very little is known about the space bugs. Confed didn’t knew on WC3 that, for example, that blowing up Kilrah would bring them against us. Besides, I was not making an argument against the idea that the Space Bugs were a big threat.

As displayed above, the predictions that mankind would necessarily lose the war against an enemy worse than the Kilrathi without eugenics, which was what Tolwyn was saying, have been proven wrong. The condition that would prove it right is if Mankind loses a war and faces extinction because it didn’t do eugenics.

That's not true at all and you know it. Blair doesn't know any of these things... and for the large part they aren't even true. You can't ever cite the alternate losing endgame as evidence of anything because it just doesn't happen.

All right, I agree with you on this one. It didn’t happen. So, we can’t know for sure mankind would lose the war, with certainty, if the T-Bomb fails. This also means, of course, that the research indicating it would was not necessarily completely accurate.

All we know is that if Blair dies or is captured that the war cannot be won. That tells us *nothing* about the absolute value of the T-Bomb -- and you can find the same truth to pretty much any 'losing endgame' you'd like to cite. Blair is the variable, nothing more.

It does shows that if Blair fails to deliver the T-Bomb, or is unable to acquire it, the Confed loses the war. But that’s a fairly irrelevant point to our current discussion.

Blair dying early in Wing Commander 2 doesn't prove that the war is lost if K'Tithrak Mang isn't destroyed... it just proves that he's necessary to something in the future that can *NEVER BE KNOWN* (if it proves anything at all, which it doesn't, because 'what if' isn't a relevant citation in the first place).

I fully agree. The same goes when people tell Blair that Confed would lose the war if he fails this or that mission. Or when Tolwyn claims that, without eugenics, mankind would lose the war to a future enemy. The future enemy shows up, and Confed wins the battle without ever using gen-select.

No, it isn't, because you're just outright wrong about the facts. The Nephilim, including their massive strength and hostile intentions, were identified by the Confederation *before* the Terran-Kilrathi War even started.

When and how were still open questions, I assume. What is the source of this info, I want to read it (of course I’m not doubting you, I just really curious).

Because this is silly 20th century rhetoric that is *history* to Wing Commander IV. Its something obnoxious and pointless that only agwc ever obsessed over. It's the same logic you apply to bitch that lasers aren't real and that space fighters can't travel faster than light. Clearly in 2673 they do and they can.

That’s not the same thing at all. You want to know what’s the same? The logic applied to compare Wing Commander III to World War II and Wing Commander IV to World War II. Also, the same logic that compares the T-Bomb from Wing Commander with a 20th Century nuclear weapon is the same that compares Eugenics from Wing Commander with 20th Century Eugenics.

And it’s quite clear that the Gen-Select do work and kills the people its designed to kill. It’s a tech that exists in WC and not right now, like space fighters traveling faster than light. There’s no dispute about this. But all we ever see the Gen Select do is to kill people. The tech works. But if, as you say, they couldn’t *completely trust* the research indicating Confed was inevitably going to lose the war without the use of the T-Bomb or the Behemoth, then the same can be said about the research indicating that Confed would lose a future war without the use of the Gen-select.

It's shiny and happy to say that Tolwyn's plan had no merit because some post-World War 2 politically correct scientist told you so... but it doesn't apply here. All that 1996-1999 crap about this was nothing but mutual masturbation -- we don't like Tolwyn so lets apply our current science in a ridiculously exclusive way to make him look small in addition to his loss in terms of ideals.

That has nothing to do with post-World War 2 politically correct scientist. Any one of those would attempt to disregard specific genocides and eugenics that were politically incorrect to criticize.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Tolwyn being small or big. I understand that might’ve been the focus of the debate in times past, but that doesn’t alter the reality that his ideas are wrong now and wrong inside the WCU. Defending the feasibility of eugenics inside WC won’t ever do any good to Tolwyn’s image.

Clearly Tolwyn and a lot of other people believed that whatever form of eugenics they had perfected in 2673 - clearly beyond any of our thinking on the matter - worked... and nothing in Wing Commander says it didn't. (In fact, Blair et. al. stand around wondering if he was right afterwards with absolutely no criticism of the science.)

Of course Tolwyn and a lot of other people believed it could work. And they do say how, by killing people that don’t fit the criteria fed to the gen-select device, so it’s in no way beyond any of our thinking in the matter. What is described on WC to great extent is exactly the same we have today, with superior technology. The principle behind it is no different at all.

More importantly, nothing on WC says that Tolwyn’s ideas on eugenics were universally accepted and everyone in Confed agreed with them, and if that was the case, there would be no need to hide them. Tolwyn was found guilty, his ideas were presented and rejected. This means, to the very least, that people who disagree with Tolwyn on this matter do exist. If even the bombing of Kilrah is subject to debate, to presume that there would be a general consensus on this subject is far fetched.

Again, you're far, fer, fer too caught up on labels. Something being morally wrong (Tolwyn's speech, Paulson's talk) doesn't make it scientifically unachievable.

No it doesn’t, but there’s no indication it does. But the fact is that what they were discussing, killing a lot of people based on predetermined standards is scientifically achievable today. They just use nanotechnology to do that, instead of machineguns.

Eugenics is not a science, it’s an ideology. No amount of perfection would make it *work*, it would only make it kill people with better technology, which is precisely what happens on WCIV.
 
Eugh, this is getting hard to even keep track of (...says the guy who on several occasions engaged in political debates so lengthy that he had to split his posts in three :p), especially with the same stuff being said by the same people in two separate threads. Allow me to step in again with a few quick, unrelated thoughts.

1. We shouldn't really put the GE programme and Tolwyn's Gen-Select craziness together. We know (or at least are given reasons to believe) the GE programme is something that was designed and implemented during the war as an attempt to improve Confed's long-term chances of winning the war (an objective which GE may have actually achieved - we don't know). On the other hand, the Gen-Select bioweapon was designed after the war, and the ideology behind it may have been too - the impression one gets when reading False Colors is that Tolwyn has only just finished convincing himself. So, we don't know to what degree these two things were linked right from the start - it may be that the idea of "separating the wheat from the chaff" was a post-war extension of the original plan, as a reaction to what had happened in the last year of the war (in much the same way in which the Belisarius Group was a reaction to the last year of the war).

2. If a country today declared that it would use nuclear/chemical/biological weapons to destroy its enemies as a last resort in a losing war, we would consider this to be neither moral nor justified. We've actually seen how the world reacts to such arguments - one of America's arguments for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was so crazy and evil that if he develops weapons of mass destruction, he may use them as a last resort. Just about everybody (outside of the "war is always evil" crowd) agreed with this argument, the only point of contention was whether or not Saddam Hussein was actually developing such weapons. So... as much as we might hate to admit it, we have to consider that if Saddam Hussein was crazy and evil because he was willing to bring down a pox on his enemies in the event of total defeat... then the same criteria must apply to the Confederation, willing to destroy its enemies in the event of total defeat. It's elementary ethics - if somebody killed your parents, you certainly are justified and morally right to kill him... but you are not justified or morally right to kill his parents.

3. Were the Kilrathi ever actually a threat to mankind, or the Confederation? It might seem strange to ask this question, but it's worth thinking about. How much of a difference to the Confederation would the destruction of Earth have made? The loss of the homeworlds' industries and shipyards would have been a heavy blow, but by this point, the Confederation was as huge as the Empire in terms of territory, and unlike the Empire, it was fairly decentralised (remember Jukaga's comments in Action Stations, his predictions about the Empire's inevitable defeat if the war goes long-term). We do in fact know, from the WC3 novel, that the Kilrathi Empire was as exhausted as the Confederation - and historically, occupying forces have always been exposed to higher losses than forces standing on the front lines. So it may be that for the Kilrathi, the destruction of the centre of the Confederation wouldn't have helped defeat the entire organisation, but merely would have forced them to spread their forces out on a far larger front, taking far greater losses than ever before. I'm not saying, mind you, that this invalidated the "if we don't use it, we're doomed" arguments presented by the Confederation - in all likelihood, using the Temblor bomb reduced the total casualties on both sides. At the very least, it changed billions of potential human casualties into billions of actual Kilrathi casualties, and it certainly would be downright stupid to expect a government to prefer for its own people to die merely for the sake of not killing the enemy's people.

4. In regards to eugenics - it's interesting to note that ultimately, even Tolwyn admitted that his plan was wrong. Look at the WC4 novel in the bit where he hangs himself. His last thoughts before doing so were about how too late, he realised that it wasn't necessary to bring all of mankind up to genetic standard, just as long as there was the elite GE forces to defend the rest. This tells us two things - one, that his plan had indeed been crazy and stupid, involving wiping out all the unworthy elements of mankind (since it's hard to see what else "bringing mankind up to genetic standard" could mean), and two, that he himself realised in the end that this plan was flawed (although from his point of view, it seemed to be flawed primarily because it led to the rest of mankind violently opposing the Black Lance, not because letting the unworthy elements survive was somehow better).
 
Quarto said:
3. Were the Kilrathi ever actually a threat to mankind, or the Confederation?

I'd say that a war of total elimination, as was mentioned in FA (during the private conversation between Baron Jugaka and Tolwyn, IIRC... don't have my copy handy at the moment, though, and we've already established my memory sucks :p ), would be a threat to mankind. :)

We already know the Kilrathi have no problems with completely obliterating an enemy so that nothing survives of the race, also thanks to FA, specifically the former Hari empire. As for spreading out after rendering Earth totally baren, remember that most of the fleet from before the false armistice was stood down. Had the Kilrathi succeeded, what was available to stand against the kats during the fighting retreat leading up to BoT would've been pretty much taken out of the picture. That's even ignoring the 7 other Hakagas that were coming online in the near future, which would've pretty much nailed down the Kilrathi ability to dust off humanity as a whole with the majority of the TCN fleet out of the picture.
 
Back
Top