The Two General's Problem

penny wrote:At any rate, I just do not think the GA’s options will be clear-cut against this foe. Let’s say the GA fights its way into orbit around Darius. Only if a navy controls the orbitals can it demand a surrender.

What if it is not clear, or is disputed, who is in control of the orbitals? Against a totally stealthed enemy how do you know you have the upper hand? Especially if your fleet is still taking losses?

I’ve always questioned the specificity of it all. In other words, simply occupying the orbitals, like a pawn who has reached the eighth rank, should not in itself boil down to controlling the orbitals???

Regardless. What do you do if your enemy refuses to surrender regardless of the tactical situation? Personally, I would not be surprised if the MAN throws the planet under the bus.

Moreover, can the GA target a civilian structure on planet if said structure is the location of the civilian leadership/Onion?

Up until now the Edict was NOT a treaty, just a policy statement by the Solarian League. In the future it may become a treaty, but it does not matter if the Malign does not sign it. It is simply a statement of policy about what will be done to anyone who commits certain acts. That is similar to NATO's Article 5 which commits all members to treat an attack on one, as an attack on all; note that the treaty is not limited to only attacks by one member on another.

We have discussed in a previous thread the question of whether one can have command of the orbitals if the battle in space is still ongoing. I continue to believe that command of the orbitals requires the fighting in space to be over.

But once there is no more fighting outside the planet, then there are options beyond just bombardment; there are assault shuttles and sting ships and so on. There is even the option of what was done at Masada and just blockade/quarantine the planet until some future government asks for terms.

penny wrote:I fear the MAN will test the effectiveness of the Edict. Do consider that the MAN is not a signatory.

Well, no one is a signatory. It isn't a treaty. It was a unilateral threat -- an edict if you will -- that was then codified into the League's old constitution. "Never again. Do these things and we will end you and your government. Rouse not our righteous ire"

But that aside. The MAlign might test it. They might feel they've nothing to lose. (Though, outside of spite, I don't see what they'd gain by mass murder of planetary populations. It's certainly not going to establish that they were right and Beowulf wrong on the subject of allowable genetic modifications)

penny wrote:
I question the GA’s responsibility of adhering to the Edict when dealing with an enemy who both is not a signatory of the Edict and is not someone who respects its ideals.

The GA might have some moral responsibility to stamp down hard on anybody adopting the tactic of killing plantary populations wholesale. But they don't have any legal responsibility to enforce the Edict. They weren't a signature and it's not part of any of their constitutions.

Still, I don't see any of them violating their own moral enough to resort to indiscriminate planetary bombardment. They don't need to to win, and doing isn't worth the downsides -- even on a purely pragmatic level.

penny wrote:At any rate, I just do not think the GA’s options will be clear-cut against this foe. Let’s say the GA fights its way into orbit around Darius. Only if a navy controls the orbitals can it demand a surrender.

What if it is not clear, or is disputed, who is in control of the orbitals? Against a totally stealthed enemy how do you know you have the upper hand? Especially if your fleet is still taking losses?

I’ve always questioned the specificity of it all. In other words, simply occupying the orbitals, like a pawn who has reached the eighth rank, should not in itself boil down to controlling the orbitals???

Regardless. What do you do if your enemy refuses to surrender regardless of the tactical situation? Personally, I would not be surprised if the MAN throws the planet under the bus.


Moreover, can the GA target a civilian structure on planet if said structure is the location of the civilian leadership/Onion?

What do you do if an enemy refuses to surrender despite your control of the orbitals? (whether or not it's because they dispute you have that control?)

Well you don't indiscriminately bombard their cities -- not unless you're also a bunch of immoral monsters. Some mix of wiping out all their exoplanetary industry, hitting groundside military targets that don't involve WMDs near civilian populations; sending down pinnaces/assault shuttles/sting craft for more precise (and lower collateral damage) strikes, landing ground troops; or besieging the system and destroying anything that tried to break atmo.

Pretty much what the Edict allows. Not because that's what the Edict says you're allowed to, but because that aligns pretty well with the least immoral way to wage the war.

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:I fear the MAN will test the effectiveness of the Edict. Do consider that the MAN is not a signatory.

Well, no one is a signatory. It isn't a treaty. It was a unilateral threat -- an edict if you will -- that was then codified into the League's old constitution. "Never again. Do these things and we will end you and your government. Rouse not our righteous ire"

But that aside. The MAlign might test it. They might feel they've nothing to lose. (Though, outside of spite, I don't see what they'd gain by mass murder of planetary populations. It's certainly not going to establish that they were right and Beowulf wrong on the subject of allowable genetic modifications)

penny wrote:
I question the GA’s responsibility of adhering to the Edict when dealing with an enemy who both is not a signatory of the Edict and is not someone who respects its ideals.

The GA might have some moral responsibility to stamp down hard on anybody adopting the tactic of killing plantary populations wholesale. But they don't have any legal responsibility to enforce the Edict. They weren't a signature and it's not part of any of their constitutions.

Still, I don't see any of them violating their own moral enough to resort to indiscriminate planetary bombardment. They don't need to to win, and doing isn't worth the downsides -- even on a purely pragmatic level.

penny wrote:At any rate, I just do not think the GA’s options will be clear-cut against this foe. Let’s say the GA fights its way into orbit around Darius. Only if a navy controls the orbitals can it demand a surrender.

What if it is not clear, or is disputed, who is in control of the orbitals? Against a totally stealthed enemy how do you know you have the upper hand? Especially if your fleet is still taking losses?

I’ve always questioned the specificity of it all. In other words, simply occupying the orbitals, like a pawn who has reached the eighth rank, should not in itself boil down to controlling the orbitals???

Regardless. What do you do if your enemy refuses to surrender regardless of the tactical situation? Personally, I would not be surprised if the MAN throws the planet under the bus.


Moreover, can the GA target a civilian structure on planet if said structure is the location of the civilian leadership/Onion?

What do you do if an enemy refuses to surrender despite your control of the orbitals? (whether or not it's because they dispute you have that control?)

Well you don't indiscriminately bombard their cities -- not unless you're also a bunch of immoral monsters. Some mix of wiping out all their exoplanetary industry, hitting groundside military targets that don't involve WMDs near civilian populations; sending down pinnaces/assault shuttles/sting craft for more precise (and lower collateral damage) strikes, landing ground troops; or besieging the system and destroying anything that tried to break atmo.

Pretty much what the Edict allows. Not because that's what the Edict says you're allowed to, but because that aligns pretty well with the least immoral way to wage the war.

I simply question that sort of business as usual against a ruthless enemy who is destroying pinnaces and shuttles with energy weapons emplaced around likely targets. Etc., etc. And an enemy continuing to attrit units of the enemy who is now in orbit.

penny wrote:What do you do if an enemy refuses to surrender despite your control of the orbitals? (whether or not it's because they dispute you have that control?)

Well you don't indiscriminately bombard their cities -- not unless you're also a bunch of immoral monsters. Some mix of wiping out all their exoplanetary industry, hitting groundside military targets that don't involve WMDs near civilian populations; sending down pinnaces/assault shuttles/sting craft for more precise (and lower collateral damage) strikes, landing ground troops; or besieging the system and destroying anything that tried to break atmo.

Pretty much what the Edict allows. Not because that's what the Edict says you're allowed to, but because that aligns pretty well with the least immoral way to wage the war.

I simply question that sort of business as usual against a ruthless enemy who is destroying pinnaces and shuttles with energy weapons emplaced around likely targets. Etc., etc. And an enemy continuing to attrit units of the enemy who is now in orbit.[/quote]

If the enemy refuses to cooperate and continues to fight - the Deneb accords allow you to use increasing force to fight them. If they endanger their populace after the orbitals have been obtained - the populace loses their protected status.

Jonathan_S wrote:What do you do if an enemy refuses to surrender despite your control of the orbitals? (whether or not it's because they dispute you have that control?)

Well you don't indiscriminately bombard their cities -- not unless you're also a bunch of immoral monsters. Some mix of wiping out all their exoplanetary industry, hitting groundside military targets that don't involve WMDs near civilian populations; sending down pinnaces/assault shuttles/sting craft for more precise (and lower collateral damage) strikes, landing ground troops; or besieging the system and destroying anything that tried to break atmo.

Pretty much what the Edict allows. Not because that's what the Edict says you're allowed to, but because that aligns pretty well with the least immoral way to wage the war.

penny wrote:I simply question that sort of business as usual against a ruthless enemy who is destroying pinnaces and shuttles with energy weapons emplaced around likely targets. Etc., etc. And an enemy continuing to attrit units of the enemy who is now in orbit.

Theemile wrote:If the enemy refuses to cooperate and continues to fight - the Deneb accords allow you to use increasing force to fight them. If they endanger their populace after the orbitals have been obtained - the populace loses their protected status.

The Deneb Accords have more to do with the treatment of enemy soldiers, than what conditions allow bombarding a planet. As Jonathan_S and others said, an active enemy site is NOT protected by being emplaced among civilians; however you might use a smaller KEW than usual against it, if sting ships or ground forces can't help.

PS: Fixed the attributions.

tlb wrote:As Jonathan_S and others said, an active enemy site is NOT protected by being emplaced among civilians; however you might use a smaller KEW than usual against it, if sting ships or ground forces can't help.

Right, the ships in orbit can hold indefinitely if they just point their wedges towards the planet: nothing coming up from it can harm the ships. Any missiles launched from the ground will be moving too slow to be effective and will be picked off easily by the point defences. The only way a planet can be relieved from an orbital blockade is if another force threatens the orbiting ships from space. Hence the rules: if you can capture and hold the orbitals, you can demand surrender.

If the planet refuses to submit, you can bombard its military installations until it does. You can then destroy some infrastructure, like power generation and transportation installations (like the space port, though you may need to capture that instead). At some point, the populace should wise up and demand from their leaders that they surrender.

The problem with the escalation is that civilisation can't go on without power or food production. Then you have a humanitarian disaster on your hands. This also happens if there are military emplacements using the civilians not as human shields but as hostages, though one could argue "lesser of two evils" and "needs of the many:" killing some civilians to liberate them from their tyrants.

In the case of Darius, the problem will likely be that the populace has been indoctrinated. Aside from a fifth column attempting to liberate the planet, this is a case of total war. The rules change again. If the planet of Darius Gamma refuses to submit, though, it might be simply best to bomb its capacity to go back into space, thus containing it until there is a regime change.