inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 20, 2021 13:38:06 GMT
"Extermination" as a military strategy is against international law. It is a fact written into the game that the Reapers themselves are controlled by the Catalyst. Leviathan tells us that (so it doesn't matter how much the player "trusts" the Catalyst. We also know they are diverse... each a nation representing a civilization from a billion years of galactic history... so, unless the player believes that all civilizations throughout history held exactly the same POV, then each Reaper, if sentient (i.e. self-aware and capable of expressing opinions) would like hold different views on what they are being "controlled" to do. That is, some are likely doing it against their own will. They are slaves to an AI dictator. To destroy them all is to engage in military "extermination" (aka: genocide... when the victims are human). No! They are being controlled! And they will fight you, to the last one. And changing one dictator for another, doesn't fix it. Let their unholy existence end and let the ... I don't know, quintillions of souls be finally put to rest. Wouldn't you rather be dead, than surf as goo in a gigantic abomination's body, that defiles everything you stood for? I would. I'm dead, either way. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 20, 2021 13:39:32 GMT
I agree with the above. Bioware could have written better endings... given the player an "ideal" solution... but they probably did not feel themselves that there is an "ideal" solution to war or an "ideal" way to establish a lasting peace after a war ends. History shows we do exactly what the Normandy's War Room guards say... we "follow war with more war."
Still, expunging all but one ending doesn't solve that either. "Extermination" as a military strategy is against international law. It is a fact written into the game that the Reapers themselves are controlled by the Catalyst. Leviathan tells us that (so it doesn't matter how much the player "trusts" the Catalyst. We also know they are diverse... each a nation representing a civilization from a billion years of galactic history... so, unless the player believes that all civilizations throughout history held exactly the same POV, then each Reaper, if sentient (i.e. self-aware and capable of expressing opinions) would like hold different views on what they are being "controlled" to do. That is, some are likely doing it against their own will. They are slaves to an AI dictator. To destroy them all is to engage in military "extermination" (aka: genocide... when the victims are human).
Why do we need an ending with lasting peace? Isn't it enough to just not have the entire galaxy harvested by Space Cthulhu? I'm not even talking about an "ideal solution" I'm talking about a solution that doesn't amount to a war crime on a galactic scale. Something that doesn't amount to "Saren was right all along" Something that doesn't leave a not inconsiderable number of players more than half-convinced that SHepard was being indoctrinated by the Reapers. ANd keep in mind, I hate Destroy too. I just think it says something about the endings where galactic genocide is considered by the audience to be the "least bad" option.
Because death is still death and it is still a tragedy. Not caring about it simply because you will not live to see it is the source of the problem. Short term thinking, never able to look beyond the here and now causes history to repeat it self and will cause blood to stain the ground time and time again. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
The larger the scale of the war the larger and more violent the final act will have to be to end it. US dropping nukes on Japan was a horrific act that killed thousands and left even more suffering form debilitating illnesses. But it stopped a ground invasion that would have cost an estimated 5x the number of lives on both sides. There was nothing valiant and heroic about dropping the nukes on Japan. It was just the ruthless calculus of war. Kill a few thousand Japanese civilians to get them to back down to avoid killing a few hundred thousands Japanese citizens and a few hundred thousands US citizens in a ground invasion.
A game ending were it pretty blatantly shows that war is shit and there are no real heroes just survivors is a good ending to me because not a lot of games are willing to go down that route.
Mass Effect as a whole stayed fairly grounded as far as a sci fi video game is capable of remaining grounded.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,305
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 20, 2021 13:41:23 GMT
Bioware didn't write themselves in a corner. They have their get-out-of-jail-free-card. The guy did say some of the details have been changed/lost over time. Those details can be anything Bioware wants them to be. Remember the guy has changed his story at least once already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 13:45:16 GMT
Bioware didn't write themselves in a corner. They have their get-out-of-jail-free-card. The guy did say some of the details have been changed/lost over time. Those details can be anything Bioware wants them to be. Remember the guy has changed his story at least once already. OK, so what I'm saying is that IF they change it in the way you want them to (by going with Destroy only), I'm not willing to buy it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 13:48:20 GMT
"Extermination" as a military strategy is against international law. It is a fact written into the game that the Reapers themselves are controlled by the Catalyst. Leviathan tells us that (so it doesn't matter how much the player "trusts" the Catalyst. We also know they are diverse... each a nation representing a civilization from a billion years of galactic history... so, unless the player believes that all civilizations throughout history held exactly the same POV, then each Reaper, if sentient (i.e. self-aware and capable of expressing opinions) would like hold different views on what they are being "controlled" to do. That is, some are likely doing it against their own will. They are slaves to an AI dictator. To destroy them all is to engage in military "extermination" (aka: genocide... when the victims are human). No! They are being controlled! And they will fight you, to the last one. And changing one dictator for another, doesn't fix it. Let their unholy existence end and let the ... I don't know, quintillions of souls be finally put to rest. Wouldn't you rather be dead, than surf as goo in a gigantic abomination's body, that defiles everything you stood for? I would. I'm dead, either way. Extermination as a military strategy is still against international law. The "belief" that the enemy wants to fight you to the last one of them doesn't change that.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jul 20, 2021 13:50:11 GMT
Extermination as a military strategy is still against international law. The "belief" that the enemy wants to fight you to the last one of them doesn't change that. So it is OK for them to wipe you out, but not defending yourself? Is that the reason? |
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,305
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 20, 2021 13:51:42 GMT
Bioware didn't write themselves in a corner. They have their get-out-of-jail-free-card. The guy did say some of the details have been changed/lost over time. Those details can be anything Bioware wants them to be. Remember the guy has changed his story at least once already. OK, so what I'm saying is that IF they change it in the way you want them to (by going with Destroy only), I'm not willing to buy it. But you want them to do whatever to please you as long as it doesn't involve the red for you to buy
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,305
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 20, 2021 13:52:50 GMT
No! They are being controlled! And they will fight you, to the last one. And changing one dictator for another, doesn't fix it. Let their unholy existence end and let the ... I don't know, quintillions of souls be finally put to rest. Wouldn't you rather be dead, than surf as goo in a gigantic abomination's body, that defiles everything you stood for? I would. I'm dead, either way. Extermination as a military strategy is still against international law. The "belief" that the enemy wants to fight you to the last one of them doesn't change that. You know that law doesn't apply to the reapers, right? We destroy them or they destroy us.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,292 Likes: 50,652
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,652
Iakus
21,292
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 20, 2021 15:40:53 GMT
Why do we need an ending with lasting peace? Isn't it enough to just not have the entire galaxy harvested by Space Cthulhu? I'm not even talking about an "ideal solution" I'm talking about a solution that doesn't amount to a war crime on a galactic scale. Something that doesn't amount to "Saren was right all along" Something that doesn't leave a not inconsiderable number of players more than half-convinced that SHepard was being indoctrinated by the Reapers. ANd keep in mind, I hate Destroy too. I just think it says something about the endings where galactic genocide is considered by the audience to be the "least bad" option. Hey, I didn't write them into that corner.. they did it to themselves... starting in ME1 with their "pet" unknowable enemy and how they portrayed that enemy in different ways throughout the Trilogy. Your solution is to just not buy the next game regardless of what they do. My line in the sand is a little more lenient... I'll accept a start where they continue to allow that the player could have chosen any of the options already presented. If they toss them out... they'd have to toss them all out and create an entirely new "ideal" ending to ME3 for me to be satisfied enough to buy that game. If the choose the most heinous of their current endings (that being destroy in my eyes), I'm definitely not buying anything more from them, period. See, my line in the sand was "Don't turn Shepard into a monster" which they already crossed. Twice with EC. The fact that Shep is virtually worshipped in the future doesn't alter that (echoes of the Dalish Creators and Evanuris there) So, yeah, they will have to either toss out or MASSIVELY retcon the endings to get me interested in the Milky Way again. Period. And yes, that includes Destroy.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,292 Likes: 50,652
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,652
Iakus
21,292
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 20, 2021 15:43:18 GMT
"Extermination" as a military strategy is against international law. It is a fact written into the game that the Reapers themselves are controlled by the Catalyst. Leviathan tells us that (so it doesn't matter how much the player "trusts" the Catalyst. We also know they are diverse... each a nation representing a civilization from a billion years of galactic history... so, unless the player believes that all civilizations throughout history held exactly the same POV, then each Reaper, if sentient (i.e. self-aware and capable of expressing opinions) would like hold different views on what they are being "controlled" to do. That is, some are likely doing it against their own will. They are slaves to an AI dictator. To destroy them all is to engage in military "extermination" (aka: genocide... when the victims are human). No! They are being controlled! And they will fight you, to the last one. And changing one dictator for another, doesn't fix it. Let their unholy existence end and let the ... I don't know, quintillions of souls be finally put to rest. Wouldn't you rather be dead, than surf as goo in a gigantic abomination's body, that defiles everything you stood for? I would. I'm dead, either way. "You—whatever species you came from, before the Reapers decided to preserve them? They’re dead. They died thousands of years ago..." [REAPER deactivates.] "...and now they can rest in peace." Shepard Paragon interrupt on Rannoch
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,292 Likes: 50,652
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,652
Iakus
21,292
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 20, 2021 15:46:16 GMT
Why do we need an ending with lasting peace? Isn't it enough to just not have the entire galaxy harvested by Space Cthulhu? I'm not even talking about an "ideal solution" I'm talking about a solution that doesn't amount to a war crime on a galactic scale. Something that doesn't amount to "Saren was right all along" Something that doesn't leave a not inconsiderable number of players more than half-convinced that SHepard was being indoctrinated by the Reapers. ANd keep in mind, I hate Destroy too. I just think it says something about the endings where galactic genocide is considered by the audience to be the "least bad" option.
Because death is still death and it is still a tragedy. Not caring about it simply because you will not live to see it is the source of the problem. Short term thinking, never able to look beyond the here and now causes history to repeat it self and will cause blood to stain the ground time and time again. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Another story for another time.[/div]
The larger the scale of the war the larger and more violent the final act will have to be to end it. US dropping nukes on Japan was a horrific act that killed thousands and left even more suffering form debilitating illnesses. But it stopped a ground invasion that would have cost an estimated 5x the number of lives on both sides. There was nothing valiant and heroic about dropping the nukes on Japan. It was just the ruthless calculus of war. Kill a few thousand Japanese civilians to get them to back down to avoid killing a few hundred thousands Japanese citizens and a few hundred thousands US citizens in a ground invasion.
A game ending were it pretty blatantly shows that war is shit and there are no real heroes just survivors is a good ending to me because not a lot of games are willing to go down that route. [/quote] Probably because games are supposed to be fun and entertaining. I am not so emotionally dead that I need to violate whole populations in order to feel something...[/div]
[/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 16:02:00 GMT
OK, so what I'm saying is that IF they change it in the way you want them to (by going with Destroy only), I'm not willing to buy it. But you want them to do whatever to please you as long as it doesn't involve the red for you to buy The "red" is the line I will not cross. I will not uphold breaking international law on the use of "extermination" as a military strategy for ANY reason. I will not financially support a company that says there is a valid reasion for using "extermination" to end a war. There is one way they could get me to buy a "red" ending game... and that is then to completely condemn Shepard as the worst war criminal in galactic history... and move forward from that point. However, I don't think you'd go along with that, would you?
My not buying it is a personal decision. I don't need you to approve of it to know that, for me, it would be the right decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11913
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 16:13:02 GMT
Extermination as a military strategy is still against international law. The "belief" that the enemy wants to fight you to the last one of them doesn't change that. You know that law doesn't apply to the reapers, right? We destroy them or they destroy us. In principle, international law applies to every sentient being we know of. So, it applies to Reapers. They would be "war criminals" for trying to "exterminate"us, but we are clearly told that is not the intention of every Reaper... we are told they are being controlled by a single AI (and that AI is indeed a war criminal). That still doesn't give "us" the legal right to try to exterminate them. As Anderson say, there's always another way. Control (i.e. changing the dictator) is a more acceptable way, under international law, than genocide. Sure, it has risks and it doesn't always work out that well... but in the eyes of humanity today... it is the more acceptable option to end a war... and it has been done throughout history. People believe generally that people must governed in some way... if not democratically, then by virtue of a monarchy or a dictatorship.
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not dropped with the intent of exterminating the Japanese people who, it was believed at the time, had the will to fight to the last man... prolonging the war and costing many more casualties. Even so, it was dropped with the intention of provoking a surrender (i.e. breaking that will to fight to the last man). In the case of the Reapers, the new AI in control assumes the ability to "break that will" in the Reaper population and redirect it in other ways as it (i.e. Shepard) sees fit. As written, the Destroy ending only has the intention to exterminate the entirety of the Reaper population. No other "reason" for it is given within the game.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Nov 17, 2024 22:23:52 GMT
31,578
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 20, 2021 16:30:41 GMT
The atomic bombs dropped during WW2 actually weren't done for the intention of forcing the Japanese to surrender. That may be the reason said, but America had already been wiping entire cities and most of their population off the map with the firebombing campaign. Hiroshima was targeted because it wasn't bombed earlier so as to be used as a test to see how effective the bomb was, similar to the atrocity the British caused in Germany with the firebombing of Dresden. In truth the atomic bombs were dropped to send a message to the Soviet Union to back off since they were moving to invade and take Japan and also show how the US would win if they picked a fight (this being brought up to stop the Berlin blockade a little later since Truman told Stalin if it isn't lifted "Moscow going's to get very hot."). Which is part of the tragedy since if the Soviet Union did start, Japan would have surrendered to the United States since at least then their culture would be preserved.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
26,305
themikefest
15,636
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 20, 2021 16:37:22 GMT
But you want them to do whatever to please you as long as it doesn't involve the red for you to buy The "red" is the line I will not cross. I will not uphold breaking international law on the use of "extermination" as a military strategy for ANY reason. I will not financially support a company that says there is a valid reasion for using "extermination" to end a war. There is one way they could get me to buy a "red" ending game... and that is then to completely condemn Shepard as the worst war criminal in galactic history... and move forward from that point. However, I don't think you'd go along with that, would you? My not buying it is a personal decision. I don't need you to approve of it to know that, for me, it would be the right decision.
Like I said. Unless they do something to make you happy, you won't buy, but you also moan and groan about people wanting what they want. You know that law doesn't apply to the reapers, right? We destroy them or they destroy us. In principle, international law applies to every sentient being we know of. So, it applies to Reapers. They would be "war criminals" for trying to "exterminate"us, but we are clearly told that is not the intention of every Reaper... we are told they are being controlled by a single AI (and that AI is indeed a war criminal). That still doesn't give "us" the legal right to try to exterminate them. As Anderson say, there's always another way. Control (i.e. changing the dictator) is a more acceptable way, under international law, than genocide. Sure, it has risks and it doesn't always work out that well... but in the eyes of humanity today... it is the more acceptable option to end a war... and it has been done throughout history. People believe generally that people must governed in some way... if not democratically, then by virtue of a monarchy or a dictatorship. I'm sure the previous cycles would like a word or two about that. And how many bombs would it take to drop on the reapers for them to surrender? And how many people in the galaxy would complain if the reapers are wiped out? I would say zero since if the reapers weren't destroyed, all those lives that survived would have been harvested.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 20, 2021 19:46:05 GMT
other story for another time. And that is why I am fairly certain we will wipe our selves and most life off this planet before we ever advance to the stars. Or if we do we will end up in a Warhammer 40k equivalent future.
The entire trilogy is you shooting things in the face before moving to the next location to shoot things in the face. You are literally gaining enjoyment by living out a power fantasy driving by killing anyone you think is wrong or bad. The game actually confronting you on that aspect is actually fairly interesting to me. If for no other reason then most games never bother to.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,292 Likes: 50,652
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,652
Iakus
21,292
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 20, 2021 19:51:40 GMT
other story for another time. And that is why I am fairly certain we will wipe our selves and most life off this planet before we ever advance to the stars. Or if we do we will end up in a Warhammer 40k equivalent future. This is how history works! There is no single defining end. Things are always in motion, always changing. Neither history nor stories just stop. Like Zathras says in Babylon 5: "You are the beginning of the story, and the middle of the story, and the end of the story that creates the next great story." Yeah, and you may have noticed I complained a lot about that too. Pointless slaughter or random mercs instead of working on solving the real problems, like finding a way to stop Space Cthulhu from mulching the galaxy.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
36,928
colfoley
19,137
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Jul 20, 2021 19:53:47 GMT
But you want them to do whatever to please you as long as it doesn't involve the red for you to buy The "red" is the line I will not cross. I will not uphold breaking international law on the use of "extermination" as a military strategy for ANY reason. I will not financially support a company that says there is a valid reasion for using "extermination" to end a war. There is one way they could get me to buy a "red" ending game... and that is then to completely condemn Shepard as the worst war criminal in galactic history... and move forward from that point. However, I don't think you'd go along with that, would you?
My not buying it is a personal decision. I don't need you to approve of it to know that, for me, it would be the right decision.
I can just imagine what would happen though if this were the case. We know the Catalyst is controlling the Reapers and are having them run a very specific program to wipe out all life in the galaxy. it is they who are trying it. It is they who are committing genocide against multiple different species throughout the galaxy for their own ideological needs to balance synthetic and organic life. It is they who then take the genetic soup the essence of all these species were, pound it into a new Reaper, and then brainwash them into continuing the cycle. It is literally us vs. them, which don't get me wrong IS hard to say and it IS Immoral. But I am not going to stick to my morals if it means the death of every species in the Galaxy. Could you just imagine the scenario? Somehow the forces of the Galaxy kill all but one Reaper, lets make this fun and say its a destroyer...but its all like 'damn we can't kill it because of our morality'...and then it slowly indoctrinates everyone and kills everyone anyways, the Cycle continues. And if we are going to go this far and have this black and white view on morality then none of the choices work. If mass murder is immoral and cannot be used in cases of extreme threat to ones species, or life, then so would mass brainwashing (control) and since I view Synthesis as genocide as well...there goes that one. Only choice that is workable under this morality system is simple refusal. Frankly you shouldn't want to buy BioWare if they were to cannonize any of the choices. Though I did just think of another ending they could have gone for here, if the Catalyst is the problem (if) then its removal might break the control over the Reapers and then they'd be like 'oh crap...look at what we did.' Of course many of them might not be able to live with what they were forced to do and would probably self destruct... You know that law doesn't apply to the reapers, right? We destroy them or they destroy us. In principle, international law applies to every sentient being we know of. So, it applies to Reapers. They would be "war criminals" for trying to "exterminate"us, but we are clearly told that is not the intention of every Reaper... we are told they are being controlled by a single AI (and that AI is indeed a war criminal). That still doesn't give "us" the legal right to try to exterminate them. As Anderson say, there's always another way. Control (i.e. changing the dictator) is a more acceptable way, under international law, than genocide. Sure, it has risks and it doesn't always work out that well... but in the eyes of humanity today... it is the more acceptable option to end a war... and it has been done throughout history. People believe generally that people must governed in some way... if not democratically, then by virtue of a monarchy or a dictatorship.
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not dropped with the intent of exterminating the Japanese people who, it was believed at the time, had the will to fight to the last man... prolonging the war and costing many more casualties. Even so, it was dropped with the intention of provoking a surrender (i.e. breaking that will to fight to the last man). In the case of the Reapers, the new AI in control assumes the ability to "break that will" in the Reaper population and redirect it in other ways as it (i.e. Shepard) sees fit. As written, the Destroy ending only has the intention to exterminate the entirety of the Reaper population. No other "reason" for it is given within the game.
There is honestly a high tooled arrogance in this position. Human laws cannot apply to non human situations. 'Inetnational law' can only apply, at best, to our situation here on Earth. Now I am sure there is interstellar law from the Council provisions which probably has a lot of simularities to our interntional law...which they then probaby we have seen them violate several times throughout the series like most governments tend to.  But the point ultimatley is basic precepts of human morality and custom cannot really be applied in an alien situation, that is a very dangerous standard to have.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Nov 17, 2024 22:23:52 GMT
31,578
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 20, 2021 19:58:32 GMT
Now I am sure there is interstellar law from the Council provisions which probably has a lot of simularities to our interntional law. There is. We hear it mentioned a few times, banning things like bio weapons, asteroid drops, etc. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 20, 2021 20:04:45 GMT
The atomic bombs dropped during WW2 actually weren't done for the intention of forcing the Japanese to surrender. That may be the reason said, but America had already been wiping entire cities and most of their population off the map with the firebombing campaign. Hiroshima was targeted because it wasn't bombed earlier so as to be used as a test to see how effective the bomb was, similar to the atrocity the British caused in Germany with the firebombing of Dresden. In truth the atomic bombs were dropped to send a message to the Soviet Union to back off since they were moving to invade and take Japan and also show how the US would win if they picked a fight (this being brought up to stop the Berlin blockade a little later since Truman told Stalin if it isn't lifted "Moscow going's to get very hot."). Which is part of the tragedy since if the Soviet Union did start, Japan would have surrendered to the United States since at least then their culture would be preserved.
The last 2 major battles with Japan cost a lot of lives and resources. Japanese civilians had been trained and showed a willingness to fight. The use of Kamazi attacks only added to that suspicion. The estimated casualties were so high that they ordered so many purple heart medals that they are still giving out back stock of them today
During the surrender speech the Soviet Union is not mentioned. Only the atomic weapon being dropped on them. I'm not saying the USA didn't get get some benefits by flexing to the SU as a side benefit. But the key reason was to reduce the war with Japan quickly and with minimal use of resources.
|
|
Sundance31us
N5
Mostly Harmless
BSNer since 2010
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 3,826 Likes: 8,374
inherit
Mostly Harmless
9974
0
8,374
Sundance31us
BSNer since 2010
3,826
Mar 15, 2018 11:36:29 GMT
March 2018
sundance31us
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/gTLlB6P.png
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Sundance31us on Jul 20, 2021 20:07:02 GMT
Easy there... If our discussion becomes too political a mod will woop in.  |
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,292 Likes: 50,652
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,652
Iakus
21,292
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Jul 20, 2021 20:12:50 GMT
Easy there... If our discussion becomes too political a mod will woop in. Well, depending on whether the mod agrees with you or not...
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Nov 17, 2024 22:23:52 GMT
31,578
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 20, 2021 20:14:12 GMT
The atomic bombs dropped during WW2 actually weren't done for the intention of forcing the Japanese to surrender. That may be the reason said, but America had already been wiping entire cities and most of their population off the map with the firebombing campaign. Hiroshima was targeted because it wasn't bombed earlier so as to be used as a test to see how effective the bomb was, similar to the atrocity the British caused in Germany with the firebombing of Dresden. In truth the atomic bombs were dropped to send a message to the Soviet Union to back off since they were moving to invade and take Japan and also show how the US would win if they picked a fight (this being brought up to stop the Berlin blockade a little later since Truman told Stalin if it isn't lifted "Moscow going's to get very hot."). Which is part of the tragedy since if the Soviet Union did start, Japan would have surrendered to the United States since at least then their culture would be preserved.
The last 2 major battles with Japan cost a lot of lives and resources. Japanese civilians had been trained and showed a willingness to fight. The use of Kamazi attacks only added to that suspicion. The estimated casualties were so high that they ordered so many purple heart medals that they are still giving out back stock of them today
During the surrender speech the Soviet Union is not mentioned. Only the atomic weapon being dropped on them. I'm not saying the USA didn't get get some benefits by flexing to the SU as a side benefit. But the key reason was to reduce the war with Japan quickly and with minimal use of resources.
The Japanese Air Force was practically nonexistent at that point, where bombers could fly over almost always unimpeded, hence why there were now only token fighter forces flying with them as opposed to earlier in the war. And yes the atomic bomb was more efficient, no longer needing squadrons of bombers with hundreds of firebombs but now just one bomber with one bomb. The US never needed to invade Japan. They prepared for it in case, but they knew they wouldn’t have to. Especially once the Soviets began invading Manchuria right at the time the bombs were being dropped, which as I said would have led to Japan surrendering to the US since at least then they wouldn’t be culturally destroyed. |
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Nov 17, 2024 22:23:52 GMT
31,578
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jul 20, 2021 20:15:24 GMT
Easy there... If our discussion becomes too political a mod will woop in. Is this to the discussion I’m in? If so I’m not making it political. Just stating historical fact. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11886
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 20:27:02 GMT
I was told I couldnt talk about politics even in terms of history, a mod even sent me a message saying it and if I did it again they would ban me.
|
|
But the point ultimatley is basic precepts of human morality and custom cannot really be applied in an alien situation, that is a very dangerous standard to have. 
