Pistols, SMGs, Shotguns and the Military

[flykiller]

In my TU,

well, an appeal to general principles has a bit more merit than "because I say so" - if, of course, any can be identified.

a review of basics might be in order. what are the laws of war for? what are they meant to accomplish? why would anyone want them? why would they be instituted in place of total war? what made someone stand up one day and say, "today we're going to do things this way and not the way we've always done them"?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
What I was railing against was the utter lack of imagination and the blatent cultural tunnel vision implicit in the baldfaced assertion that the Geneva Convention will somehow resonate 36 centuries from now. The Geneva Convention is only paid lip service now, why in Gehanna should it mean anything thirty six hundred years from now?

I'll agree with that. I've never envisioned the Imperium as operating under the Geneva Conventions. They probably have some military regulations about treatment of prisoners and behavior of personnel during warfare ops, but it probably doesn't look like the Geneva Conventions (especially not when the Imperium regularly nukes its opponents).

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
I had one fellow tell me in all sincerity that the Imperium 'must' have engaged in 'hearts & minds' campaigns aimed at the masses during it's early expansion otherwise it would have been brought down be revolt after revolt.

Well, that sounds like an awfully smart "fellow".

For the Imperium most certainly could not have successfully defeated a rebellion on every world its expansion engulfed and still had anything on those worlds left over afterward worth having. (Yeah, it could have nuked them all, but we know it didn't do that.)

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
completely ignoring the total of human history that occurred before 1900.

Conquering people frequently leads to rebellious activity, and oppressing them (especially horrifying oppression) leads to rebellious activity far more frequently, and has done so throughout the entirety of human history, all the way to the present date.

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade:
It's a government of men and not laws, remember?

Not really. I've heard that Marc made that statement (even if no one I've ever asked has been able to provide a cite I can look up), but it's still one of the most bald-faced ridiculous things I've ever heard.

I've gotten to wondering if he wasn't misquoted or taken out of context.

If there are no laws, then what are the Rules of War? The Imperial Edicts? The SPA? I know! They're just suggestions. Cleon I only thought nuclear weapons use being restricted to his forces was a guideline. If the Emperor shows up and dismisses a noble (as Gavin did in 992), he didn't really mean it. It was completely ok if "men" decided otherwise and did what they wanted, no problem, no treason, and no execution.

No nation can exist without laws, and the bigger the nation, the bigger the set of laws backing it. Especially with a collection of Ministries involved. A Ministry is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are all about laws. With Imperium being largely bureaucratic, it follows that laws are everywhere.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Though I see what you are getting at:

Whenever I hear 'government of men and not laws' I can't help but think this is someone's PR spin control machine in action.

Every government is a government of laws. Every government is also more importantly a government of bureaucracy.

I will now bump netiquette out the window and just say:

Me too! Yes, I agree completely. That's right. Etc.

 

[Anthony]

When I think of a 'government of men, not laws', I can think of plenty of examples of such government. They are, however, uniformly bad governments, because what it generally means is a dictatorship of some sort or another where the people at the top do as they like, rather than being constrained to following rules. I also don't expect such a government to last more than one generation.

 

[mike wightman]

In the modern world perhaps.
But back into history, feudal monarchies were exactly this sort of system - the King even had divine mandate to grant his authority - and many lasted for several centuries.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
In the modern world perhaps.
But back into history, feudal monarchies were exactly this sort of system - the King even had divine mandate to grant his authority - and many lasted for several centuries.

I do not place the functions of the current 3I on exactly the same level as medieval Terra.

Cleon I used a heavily modified version of the feudal system of government for the Imperium, but he wrapped it around a civil service bureaucracy (and, IMTU, tossed in a variety of safeguards against the well-known flaws of that system), and thus integrated it with the rule of law.

In any event, the above refers to "kings" and their authority, but "a government of men, not laws," can only refer to the subordinates of the "king/emperor".

I'm not disputing the Emperor's authority, he is the source of law and power in the 3I. What I'm saying is that his direct underlings have lots of laws and rules and policies to obey (if not, then why do all nobles swear oaths of obedience?). The nobility, especially the ruling nobility, are undoubtedly given "leeway" in case of need when facing unusual situations. However, if the Emperor received intelligence reports that one Norris, newly appointed Archduke of Deneb, has taken to torturing people to death before supper every night; or starting a war with the Darrian's because the Darrian Ambassador looked at him funny during a party on Regina; or is angering all his subordinate Subsector Dukes with flagrant violations of Noblesse Oblige and spurrious orders to repaint the Subsector Navy's to match color schemes; well then, that's going to be the end of Norris (no matter how useful he was in winning the 5th frontier war).

And if you think equating apparently insane and/or random actions with, "a government of men," well, I can detect no logical difference between the behavior of those not constrained by law, and those acting in an insane or random manner. And yes, I define "insane" as those who act completely on their own behalf, with no regard for others, in a manner that benefits only themselves, frequently for no reason others can determine (other than greed, power, or the sick lust for observing or participating in the suffering of others).

 

[kaladorn]

Rain, you live in a world full of insane people by that definition

Seriously, to correct one point I need to redact:
The Geneva Conventions have very different flavours over the years. If you just take the basic four, or the first three, they have a very different feel to when you've added on Protocols I and II. The US is not signatory to protocols I and II. So, if you signed the first 3 or 4, but not the last two amendments, you may well have a very different view on how irregulars/terrorists/illegal combatants should be handled in OotW.

I'll agree with the sentiment that the Imperium must have a number of laws. At the same time, we have canonical evidence that they are willing to be fairly brutal against enemies and even revolutionaries. So, given this is so, have they
A) Writen some rules and then ignored them
or
B) are the rules written to allow this kind of thing including orbital bombardment and the like?

Furthermore what are Vilani sentiments like? What are other human minor races and non-human minor races to contribute? How much do Solomani historical values play into things? This is the kind of thing one would need to think about.

I'm fairly certain the original Geneva Conventions came about to ensure the protection of captured prisoners who were uniformed combatants. They were agreed upon by powers of equal nature (all human nations with roughly the same concerns) such that reciprocity was a key part of the underlying logic and raison d'etre.

How does this apply in a TU? We've got other large national entities like the SWC, the ZC, the SC, etc. and with them, you'd expect some form of such conventions to be established. but you've also got a lot of less predictable enemies - pirates and privateers, local insurgents, the Vargr, the K'kree, etc, for whom reciprocity might not happen and who may well not respect or honour any treaties signed anyway. So, how do you apply the LoW then? How do you write the LoW to handle these situations? Something tells me in 58 centuries, there would be some good solutions that wouldn't leave the Imperium fighting with one hand tied behind its back.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I think the "Imperial Laws of War" apply to local governments, non-governmental bodies, and especially Mercenaries.
I expect they prohbit orbital bombartment, biowar, and persistant chemical weapons. Probably non-persistant chemicals and tac nukes permitted wihin strict limits.

Massive economic dislocation not permitted, so no mass casualties and the infrastructure (roads, trains, power) must be left alone or repaired rapidly. The Imperium might have tolerated the Germans invading Poland, France, and the low countries, but the London blitz calls for interference.

OTOH, the Imperial Laws of War only apply to Imperial forces at their own discretio
Don't under-rate that. IMHO the Laws of War exist to allow soldiers to live with themselves, afterwards.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I think the "Imperial Laws of War" apply to local governments, non-governmental bodies, and especially Mercenaries.
I expect they prohbit orbital bombartment, biowar, and persistant chemical weapons. Probably non-persistant chemicals and tac nukes permitted within strict limits.

Massive economic dislocation not permitted, so no mass casualties and the infrastructure (roads, trains, power) must be left alone or repaired rapidly. The Imperium might have tolerated the Germans invading Poland, France, and the low countries, but the London blitz calls for interference.

OTOH, the Imperial Laws of War only apply to Imperial forces at their own discretion
Don't under-rate that. IMHO the Laws of War exist to allow soldiers to live with themselves, afterwards. And Imperial Marines have nightmares, too.

 

[kaladorn]

I don't doubt for a moment that Mercenaries have to be covered (esp in the Imperium!). I also expect there would be covenants and specifications related to WMDs of any form (they wouldn't define that necessarily, or else that leaves the door open for someone to find one not covered like the near-C rock...).

I think the prohibition on economic dislocation only applies at the 'between the planets' level. That is to say, if no one is impeding the function of starports and of interstellar commerce, things happening inside planetary boundaries are planetary affairs.

So, in context, the blitz would not apply. The entire WW2 thing is 'on planet' unless someone tries to impede the starports or interstellar commerce. Shooting at a starport is a bad idea. Shooting at a Scout or Naval base is a suicidal idea. Now, if some terrorist destroys it and it can't be traced back, well, that's maybe a different story. But you'd better do a clean job or word will get out, then Uncle Strephon's Hammer will drop on you.

LoW do offer some protection for troops, but that's a side effect. It's not causation. I think it does give the troops an out versus following unlawful orders to commit attrocities, but I think other human rights frameworks help here too. And I don't see this as 'why things sprung into being' though it is a handy corollary, I'll admit.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

kaladorn, I wasn't sufficiently clear in my post, as I agree with your sentiment ("the Imperial LoW are likely obeyed in large part in most of the secure regions of the Imperium"). I was thinking of the outer areas - you know, where the adventure is.

Rain, you are a glass-half-full kind of guy, huh?

That's cool by me!

LoW is essentially a codification of numerous codes of war that go back millenia (RL). Humans have very often formalized their rules of warfare - they haven't always been "civilized" rules. I (IMHO) think the human condition is universal, and it wouldn't matter if it was Vilani, Solimani, etc. history - it would be full of codified LoW that would often be ignored by folks.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The Pessimist sees the glass as half empty
The Optimist sees it as half-full.
The Engineer sees a glass with 100% redundancy
The Manager immediately replaces everyone's glasses with smaller, less wasteful, ones.

Unfortunately, I only have sub-planetary analogies. But I think on a balkanized world conflicts that result in serious, long term economic dislocation (including civilian mass casualties) will be frowned upon.

Good for Mercenaries. Quick, clean, professional ops encouraged. Drawn-out, meat grinder ops that cause world-wide depressions, loss of trade (and Imperial revenue) strongly discouraged.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

And, no merc unit really wants to play in one of those drawn-out, meat-grinder ops. The margin is no good. Those are only for "nationalistic" militaries and revolutions.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Unfortunately, I only have sub-planetary analogies. But I think on a balkanized world conflicts that result in serious, long term economic dislocation (including civilian mass casualties) will be frowned upon.

Good for Mercenaries. Quick, clean, professional ops encouraged. Drawn-out, meat grinder ops that cause world-wide depressions, loss of trade (and Imperial revenue) strongly discouraged.

Don't get me wrong, we're talking about the difference between what I thought you meant by Intervention (ie capital I intervention with the Marines and the Navy). That requires something significant to pull them in.

OTOH, smaller (but yet significant) conflicts that start to have long term impacts on planetary economies (that's really what matters... casualties only matter in that sense...sadly...) will undoubtedly provoke some form of displeasure. Call it small i intervention.

Mercs, intel, black ops, pressure from nobles, pressures or embargos of trade (you can't do it to the Empire, but the Empire can do it to you), and perhaps things like the Empire picking a winner and throwing a few bucks in via a megacorp (so it doesn't look like the Imperium picking sides). Or maybe it takes the form of the Imperial bureaucracy making everything from that planet paperwork intensive and slow... enough to start getting the attention of the people in power.

I can see a lot of pressure put on, but that wasn't what I was considering when I suggested this would not spark Intervention. That was 'full tilt' Intervention, not just some pressures and small nudges to tip the balance one way or another.

 

[kaladorn]

One point about Mercs: A drawn out meat grinder is fine as long as the meat is local and you're just doing commando or cadre work. You just don't want to be the meat in the grinder. Long term contracts with good payscales are fine, as long as risk to assets can be mitigated.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Rain, you live in a world full of insane people by that definition

It's a heavy burden, but somehow I manage to live with it.

Fortunately, the demographic of that type is scarce on CotI, it's why I hang around.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I'll agree with the sentiment that the Imperium must have a number of laws. At the same time, we have canonical evidence that they are willing to be fairly brutal against enemies and even revolutionaries. So, given this is so, have they
A) Writen some rules and then ignored them
or
B) are the rules written to allow this kind of thing including orbital bombardment and the like?

Hmm, that'll bear some thinking on.
</font>

• &#147;The IN Guide to the Conduct of Warfare&#148;</font>
• &#147;Imperial Mandate on Personnel Conduct in Warfare&#148;</font>

Or something like that.

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Furthermore what are Vilani sentiments like? What are other human minor races and non-human minor races to contribute? How much do Solomani historical values play into things? This is the kind of thing one would need to think about.

</font>

• Vilani: A consensus and non-confrontational society. Something similar to the Geneva convention would, I think, find a welcome home there.</font>
• Vargr: We're joking here, right? There are some Vargr nations that it might be possible to have such an agreement with, but how long could it last? In some Vargr nations, the idea would not find a warm welcome.</font>
• K'Kree: It's hard to say. If one of the other races have K'Kree captured, I think the herd-driven K'Kree would go to great lengths to get them back, even if it meant turning over carnivores to freedom. If there were no K'Kree offered in exchange, I don't think they could do it.</font>
• Hiver: "Oh, keep them! We'll see what happens (and how they manipulate you!)."</font>
• Aslan: I'm not at all sure here. It would probably be on a case by case, clan by clan basis.</font>
• Droyne: "Ok, after we disguise ourselves like Ancients and slip past the guards . . ."</font>
• Darrians: "Just use the Star Trigger and let Grandfather sort it all out."</font>
• Chirpers: "cheep!"</font>

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by kaladorn:

I can see a lot of pressure put on, but that wasn't what I was considering when I suggested this would not spark Intervention. That was 'full tilt' Intervention, not just some pressures and small nudges to tip the balance one way or another. [/QB]

Has that sort of "intervention" ever worked? Why would Imperial bureacrats waste their time?

My idea of intervention is a cruiser and a platoon of Marines with FGMP-15s. Mommy spank, think "Wind and the Lion".

Intervention is a squadron of BBs and a couple of regiments of Marines. Think Iraq 2003.

 

[Golan2072]

Solar Triumvirate intervention is, if the issue is relatively minor, a cruiser and a platoon of Marines with Gauss Rifles, a few PGMP12s and fighter support (provided by the cruiser's squadrons). Ofcourse, if something major happens (such as a majot colony trying to switch sides to the Alliance, or, god forbid, to the Matriarchate), the offending world should expect atleast one PAG (Planetary Assault Group) to step on them; a PAG is several Marine brigades with heavy space assets (several cruisers, many destroyers, supply and fuel ships) and significant artillery (primarly light MRLs) and armor support.

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
<snip>
What are other human minor races and non-human minor races to contribute?

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
<list edited for brevity>

Dang! Now that's an interesting idea; how each race regards prisoners/LoW issues.
I could see where it might vary within a species, too; K'Kree and Droyne warriors might never surrender but would follow their own laws very closely (not much to follow for a K'Kree, probably)
Aslan females, being more pragmatic might be fairly close to human practice (whatever that is) but would males consider surrender dishonorable?

I think you've nailed the Vargr. They'd probably sell the treaty along with any prisoners at the first leadership change, if not before.

One thing you can pull from our history; whatever laws of war are in effect, they usually aren't applied uniformly across racial and ethnic divides. This might not be the case in the Imperium, especially on border worlds containing mixed populations. On the other hand, it might even be worse.

 

[Golan2072]

IMTU:
The Solar Triumvirate treats POWs in the way that most RL "strong states" treat them - that is, lock them up in POW camps and maybe even use them as slave labour, but rarely kill them. Turture is also used to extract information but isn't extremely commonplace.
Laws of war? Well, according to itself, the Triumvirate is the only legal polity; the rest are usurpers and rebels and, if at war with it, are treated accordingly, though excessive cruelty is rarely practiced (bad PR and it instigates resistance and retribution).

The Serpentis Quadrant Alliance treats them a little better, that is, usually guarantee passable living conditions for them in the POW camps/prisons and rarely use them for labour (the Alliance believes only in the work of willing free people); interrogation is usually far less violent but employs extensive non-conventional methods such as psionic "brainraping" and truth drugs. The Alliance tries not to harm civilian populations much but doesn't spare it's rod from enemy troops; as long as civilians are kept out of the conflict, expect the Alliance to use several "dirty" methods such as cluster bombs, napalm, chemical/biological warfare and nukes. Not to mention propaganda psionics, propaganda and psychological warfare. But if civilians are within the danger range, the Alliance usually limits its arsenal.

The Consortium fights dirtily and mistreats POWs (up to and including using them in biomedical experiences). It's a military junta's corporate-backed dictatorship, so don't expect it to wear velvet gloves when dealing with opposition, from outside OR from within.

I'll have to think a little more about the Matriarchate in this regard, but it's generally going into a little wierder territory.