what would a flashpack do?
- Thread starter $tormin
- Start date
Yes I remember.
But nukes DO kill people slowly and painfully. They work essentially like very very big conventional bombs...they might instantly vapourise everyone inside a 10 mile radius but for a good distance outside that they will cause the good old fashioned burns, blast, and other multiple injuries that happen when buildings fall on top of people. You can rest very assured that nukes will kill thousands of people slowly and painfully, even before radiation sickness and cancer sets in.
In any case, the torpedos we've all fired at Kilrathi warships are nuclear warheads, (antimatter, IIRC).
Bioweapons, like nukes, kill over days. Nerve gas is quicker but in common with nukes and bioweapons they are indiscriminate. And this is where a flashpak is different. Attach a flashpak to the side of a Kilrathi destroyer and you can be reasonably certain that no innocent people will come to harm.
Maybe we'll have to agree to differ, but I think a weapon can only be defined as immoral if either it causes more pain and suffering than is needed to accomplish the task (which may not be specifically to kill); or it causes significant risk to noncombatants. I don't think either is necessarily true of the flashpak.
Speaking of Blair's reaction...didn't he use a flashpak late in the game?
Flashpaks? They exist NOW, folks.
Everyone seems to have forgotten something here on this board.
The "flash-pak", as described in the WCIV novelization, exists at this moment.
It's called a fuel-air bomb, and the idea is this:
Upon drop, the bomb waits a period of time then starts ejecting a fuel, usually a kerosene derivative.
Whent he bomb them impacts, a small explosion sets off the fuel trail, scorching everything that the fuel covered on the way down.
The same effect, inside silos, is called a "dust explosion".
We use these NOW, folks.
Let's face it, weapons of ANY kind, by most of the moral systems in practice these days, are immoral.
But they are sometimes necessary in the real world.
Everyone seems to have forgotten something here on this board.
The "flash-pak", as described in the WCIV novelization, exists at this moment.
It's called a fuel-air bomb, and the idea is this:
Upon drop, the bomb waits a period of time then starts ejecting a fuel, usually a kerosene derivative.
Whent he bomb them impacts, a small explosion sets off the fuel trail, scorching everything that the fuel covered on the way down.
The same effect, inside silos, is called a "dust explosion".
We use these NOW, folks.
Let's face it, weapons of ANY kind, by most of the moral systems in practice these days, are immoral.
But they are sometimes necessary in the real world.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, no, no -- I'm not going to argue whether or not society is *right*, I can simply explain how it *is*. Is it hypoctical to view blowing someone up with a 500 lb bomb as okay, and killing them with an invisible gas wrong? I don't know -- it's beyond the scope of this discussion. The question is whether or not the flashpaks are considered moral... based on Blair's reaction to learning how they work, they clearly are *not*... simple and clearcut.
As for the fuel trail thing -- that's not quite how flash paks work... they attach to the outside of a structure, and heat it until the oxygen inside burns up. In the case of starships, engines and munitions ignite very quickly and cause them to explode. With a building or similar target, it could take far, far longer...
As for the fuel trail thing -- that's not quite how flash paks work... they attach to the outside of a structure, and heat it until the oxygen inside burns up. In the case of starships, engines and munitions ignite very quickly and cause them to explode. With a building or similar target, it could take far, far longer...
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
Well, either way the flashpack is still pretty tame as far as weapons go. I personally would much rather get burned away in an instant as opposed to say getting shot in the stomach.
I'm sure most of the arguement of it would have come in the fact that it's probably pretty easy to produce and kill alot of people really fast. That's my best estimation as to why it's conisdered immoral.
I'm sure most of the arguement of it would have come in the fact that it's probably pretty easy to produce and kill alot of people really fast. That's my best estimation as to why it's conisdered immoral.
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. It is designed to kill, as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That is its purpose.
To me, the Flashpak is not an inhumane weapon. Conventional explosives could take off a limb, leaving you slowly bleeding to death, or just puncture the hull, leaving you to suffocate as the air slowly leaks out of your ship. The flashpak kills in seconds. Boiling, shooting, freezing, vaporizing ... they're all the same. Dead is dead. Inhumane is not the weapon, it's how you use it.
Current non-conventional weapons, such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, are generally considered to be inhumane because they are weapons of mass destruction and target victims indescriminantly. There is no way to differentiate between a soldier and a civilian. At the moment, killing (large numbers of) civilians is considered unacceptable (by most civilizations anyway. Certain religions seem to think it is a good thing to do to infidels).
In some respects, the gen-select device could be considered a VERY humane weapon - if used correctly. If your planet is overrun by Kilrathi foot-soldiers, simply release an anti-Kilrathi gen-select weapon into the atmosphere. 100% Kilrathi kills, 0% civilian. Perfect. Using it against a Kilrathi planet could be considered inhumane, but is there any difference between that and just lining them all up and shooting them in the head?
The Flash-pak is a nice toy. One FP can take down a carrier, but then, so can 2-3 torpedoes. Since we don't see them in use in Prophecy, I guess we can use several possible excuses, including but not limited to :
1. Versatility. We know the FP has problems in that it is ineffective against the Versuvius' hull. Are there other situations where it proves ineffective? Is it that superior to a good torpedo in all situations?
2. Reliablity. From memory the FP attaches itself to the hull of a vessel, activates, and fries the interior of the ship. Does this equate to a 100% guaranteed kill? Do they ever bounce off? or not activate properly? The Black Lance were testing their new weapons against the Borderworlds. Were the tests successful?
3. Effectiveness. We know the Versuvius hull is impervious to FPs (if you can keep them out of the hanger bay). Are there other defences against the FP if you know it's coming.
4. Delivery. The only vessels I saw launching FPs were Dragons (I always chose to use it
). Do FPs need a special delivery system, designed to launch flashpaks. What is the range of a FP compared to a torpedo?
5. The ever-reliable "just because we don't see it ..." argument. The FP has limitations. Perhaps it is not the type of weapon to find on a carrier on her shakedown voyage (remember the Midway has no Vampires or Devastators at the start either). Perhaps FPs were unsuccessfully used against the bugs in the first few encounters. Perhaps analysis of the Bug ship materials found that FPs would be ineffective, so they were never used.
To me, the Flashpak is not an inhumane weapon. Conventional explosives could take off a limb, leaving you slowly bleeding to death, or just puncture the hull, leaving you to suffocate as the air slowly leaks out of your ship. The flashpak kills in seconds. Boiling, shooting, freezing, vaporizing ... they're all the same. Dead is dead. Inhumane is not the weapon, it's how you use it.
Current non-conventional weapons, such as chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, are generally considered to be inhumane because they are weapons of mass destruction and target victims indescriminantly. There is no way to differentiate between a soldier and a civilian. At the moment, killing (large numbers of) civilians is considered unacceptable (by most civilizations anyway. Certain religions seem to think it is a good thing to do to infidels).
In some respects, the gen-select device could be considered a VERY humane weapon - if used correctly. If your planet is overrun by Kilrathi foot-soldiers, simply release an anti-Kilrathi gen-select weapon into the atmosphere. 100% Kilrathi kills, 0% civilian. Perfect. Using it against a Kilrathi planet could be considered inhumane, but is there any difference between that and just lining them all up and shooting them in the head?
The Flash-pak is a nice toy. One FP can take down a carrier, but then, so can 2-3 torpedoes. Since we don't see them in use in Prophecy, I guess we can use several possible excuses, including but not limited to :
1. Versatility. We know the FP has problems in that it is ineffective against the Versuvius' hull. Are there other situations where it proves ineffective? Is it that superior to a good torpedo in all situations?
2. Reliablity. From memory the FP attaches itself to the hull of a vessel, activates, and fries the interior of the ship. Does this equate to a 100% guaranteed kill? Do they ever bounce off? or not activate properly? The Black Lance were testing their new weapons against the Borderworlds. Were the tests successful?
3. Effectiveness. We know the Versuvius hull is impervious to FPs (if you can keep them out of the hanger bay). Are there other defences against the FP if you know it's coming.
4. Delivery. The only vessels I saw launching FPs were Dragons (I always chose to use it
). Do FPs need a special delivery system, designed to launch flashpaks. What is the range of a FP compared to a torpedo?5. The ever-reliable "just because we don't see it ..." argument. The FP has limitations. Perhaps it is not the type of weapon to find on a carrier on her shakedown voyage (remember the Midway has no Vampires or Devastators at the start either). Perhaps FPs were unsuccessfully used against the bugs in the first few encounters. Perhaps analysis of the Bug ship materials found that FPs would be ineffective, so they were never used.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Once again, the question is not whether or not the FLashPak is a useful weapon, whether or not the concept of weapons being moral makes sense, whether or not our society would consider it moral... the question is whether or not it's moral in WCIV. Blair clearly shows that it *isn't*.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
*sigh*
*pounds head into wall*
*pounds head into wall*
Have to disagree with that one. I think Blair shows that its USE (by the Black Lance against civilian transports) is immoral. I also didn't use it against the superbase (attacking the base, whether with the Flashpak or 'conventional' torpedoes seemed immoral to me). I/he had no qualms about using it against the Versuvius - the Versuvius was a military target, blowing it up was the objective, and using the Flashpak was the quickest and most effective way to do it.
Or are you talking about the book?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, talking about the game... he and Dekker open Dr. Brody's file about how the flashpak works, and they're both horrified. Should have put a bullet in his head when you had the chance...
I'm sure it's possible to use a horrific weapon in a completely moral manner -- case in point... but something like a torpedo is *designed* for use against military targets, the flashpak was designed to kill indiscriminately... that, presumably, is the problem society would have with it.
I'm sure it's possible to use a horrific weapon in a completely moral manner -- case in point... but something like a torpedo is *designed* for use against military targets, the flashpak was designed to kill indiscriminately... that, presumably, is the problem society would have with it.
Not meaning to be rude, but I feel it is difficult to classify a weapon, particularly a target-specific one such as the Flashpak as 'immoral' or 'inhumane'. It is just another way (albeit unpleasant to us) way of killing people. Compared to the random and long-term effects of biological, chemical, or radiation weapons it is downright pleasant.
The reaction of Blair and Dekker is simply one that most of us would feel upon being introduced to an entirely new form of killing people. If you read books like Shogun, etc. (from which I have obtained most of my non-anime knowledge of Japan ) the Samurai were horrified by the introduction of the gun in much the same way I imagine Blair and Dekker were. The gun gave the power to kill to anyone. No longer was combat a matter of strength, speed and skill, or honor.
So my argument is that the Flashpak is no more immoral then most weapons, and certainly a lot less than many. The immorality comes from how and against whom it is used.
The reaction of Blair and Dekker is simply one that most of us would feel upon being introduced to an entirely new form of killing people. If you read books like Shogun, etc. (from which I have obtained most of my non-anime knowledge of Japan
) the Samurai were horrified by the introduction of the gun in much the same way I imagine Blair and Dekker were. The gun gave the power to kill to anyone. No longer was combat a matter of strength, speed and skill, or honor.So my argument is that the Flashpak is no more immoral then most weapons, and certainly a lot less than many. The immorality comes from how and against whom it is used.
mpanty
Keen Commander
Well... why was Gas Warfare abandoned in WWI? Because it was immoral...
Ok, also because it was dependent on wind, and sometimes you ended up gassing your own troops (NOT funny BTW)... but it WAS immoral...
All weapons are bad, we know that. But weapons that kill with the least suffering possible are "better" in a way than those that provoke atrocious sufferings...
Would you rather die burnt alive or have your head chopped off? Such weapons are "crimes against humanity"...
Perhaps with the Flashpak death would be quite instant as well... you'd suffer for a few seconds, then nothing... indeed, I don't see where the difference lies in "just blowing up", for the Flashpak example I mean...
Ok, also because it was dependent on wind, and sometimes you ended up gassing your own troops (NOT funny BTW)... but it WAS immoral...
All weapons are bad, we know that. But weapons that kill with the least suffering possible are "better" in a way than those that provoke atrocious sufferings...
Would you rather die burnt alive or have your head chopped off? Such weapons are "crimes against humanity"...
Perhaps with the Flashpak death would be quite instant as well... you'd suffer for a few seconds, then nothing... indeed, I don't see where the difference lies in "just blowing up", for the Flashpak example I mean...