Rules of War

[Gnusam Netor]

Some time ago I read some of David Brins book-series about the Uplift Saga. Liked them alot, especially Sundiver and Startide rising. In those books the galactic community have rules for how the various civs wage war in order not to destroy too much of the real estate they are fighting over. Is something similar in place in the traveller 'verse?

I guess it makes sense. Systems like Glisten, with their I assume massive space-archologies all over the system, would be incredibly vulnerable to the odd kamikaze ship loaded with massive TL15 bombs jumping in and *BOOM*.

Are there rules of war in place and do combatants respect them? I suspect major players, like the 3I, would follow the rules, provided that everyone else did so too. History had taught us that some rules are usually followed after the consequences are known when not following them. A lot of mustard gas and nerve gas were used to try to break the stalemate in the trenches in Belgium and France in WW1. It wasn't used at all on any of the frontlines in WW2.

As we all know, they found their use elsewhere but "he" didn't want to use it if that would mean getting pay-back on his own troops.

Brins 'verse have a complete parallel galactic community to the oxygen breathers, the hydrogen breathers. The hydrogen-breathers don't care very much of planets with oxygen, thus they don't care if oxygen real estate gets destroyed. thus no rules are followed when oxygen civs battle with hydrogen civs. What happens when the opponent don't care about that particular planet, will they follow the rules anyway? In the Uplift saga, millions of years of the rules in place and followed, combined with every civ wanting to keep them made even "evil" civs wanting to "play by the book".

What happens when "Osama" the wealthy and disgruntled lunatic gets angry on someone, say the space port people in Glisten?

Do I make any sense? if not, I made you read this far didn't I?

 

[deadlock]

Greetings and salutations,

IIRC, GURPS: Ground Forces and/or GURPS: Star Merc mention Rules of War in the OTU.

There are always Rules of War no matter the TL of the civilizations involved. The only thing is one side may not understand the other's sides rules, especially a higher TL facing a foe with a lower TL. Even our own planet has gone through this. Look at the war against the Native Americans during The United States' expansion. The Whites did not understand the Native Americans scalping and called it barbaric. I do not fully understand it myself, but it is the best example I can think of at the moment.

As far as the "Osama" the wealthy and disgruntled lunatic is concerned, he will use "terror" tactics to destroy his enemies. He will use a 'dirty bomb' of some sort, release a disease into society, propaganda, etc. Now, if this "Osama" is a leader of a planet at war with another planet, then h may follow Rules of War or he may forgo then in the opening battles in hopes that an advantage in the war can be gained. And depending on how much he wants to win, hatred, etc, he may forgo the RoW throughout the war.

For the Rules of War that are applied on our planet, check into the Hague Laws and the numerous Geneva Conventions. You can also check the Wikipedia

Hopefully I have not rambled too much and this helps you out.

 

[Border Reiver]

I hope this a direct quote from Library Data but as I'm in the back of an Ambulance standing by at a road construction protest (more specifically waiting for the sappers to dig into the protesters tunnels so the police can arrest them) I can't check.

To mitigate most of the potentially disastrous aspects of armed conflict, the "rules of war" evolved as an accumulation of unwritten concepts, which were established on a case-by-case basis. The rules of war have never been officially codified, both to prevent them being seen as an Imperial endorsement of war and to keep formal precedent from preventing Imperial intervention whenever the Imperium deemed it necessary. The main aim of the rules is maintaining the economic and military well-being of the realm. They give the Imperium the right to intervene only when local military action threatened this well-being. The primary causes of instability, as viewed by Imperial analysts, have been long-term economic dislocation and excessive extraplanetary influence.

A) long-term social or economic dislocation is suffered when a region loses its ability to carry on at its prewar level of activity.

B) Excessive extraplanetary influence is even more vague. Historically, the Imperium has tolerated the use of force as a necessary outlet for built-up political and social pressures. In such cases, a short war is deemed preferable to continuing tension, sabotage, political agitation, etc. However, attempts by extraplanetary forces, such as offworld governments or large commercial interests, to seize control of a world's affairs are beyond the scope of the "safety valve" rationale.

"Assistance" is tolerated so long as it is deemed appropriate to the level of legitimate interest in the affairs of the world held by the extraplanetary organization. For example, the Imperium has often tolerated the provision by megacorporations of providing training cadre, arms equipment, etc. on a limited scale, and even of training fully equipped striker units to local governments. However, when it appeared that the primary burden for the conduct of the war has been carried by an extraplanetary power, the Imperium has intervened, claiming the power is using the misfortune of a local dispute as a pretext for aggression.

Unlike the above rules, one prohibition is clear and firm throughout the Imperium: the use or possession of nuclear weapons of any type.

Ok...I've rememdered I've a PDF of the Imperial Encyclopaedia and it seems right. So most anything goes but NO NUKES

 

[Border Reiver]

One other thing to remember, we are talking about Imperial Culture here and thus some elements of Vilani practice may be deemed acceptable, more specifically the execution of all prisoners of war to prevent a strain on the economic/logistic system. Completely logical move on their part.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Marquis Deadlock:
Greetings and salutations,

Greetings to you too sir.

hmm i actually own a copy of GT Ground forces, maybe I should also read it sometime?

You are right of course. There are several types of conflicts, ranging from the fairly equal sided conflicts ala the Frontier wars or the Rim war, to some "pacification" or "policing" type conflicts that have a stellar empire vs. some low-tech rebels. Or the Universe vs Osama...

What I had in mind is what kept the Solomani from not destroying Earth when they realised that they couldn't defend it? And all other similar situations where one sides realises "We are loosing" or "all is lost, why not unleash Armageddon, we have the power to do so".

Ok, so I kind of answered that in my previous post, The Sollies think that they will take Earth back some day, but still. MAD indicates that both sides during the cold war were prepared to destroy the planet. Geneva convention or not.

I don't know, i ramble alot too

(I shouldn't have brought up "Osama". Since protecting civilization against lunatics is another topic really)

 

[Gnusam Netor]

That is along the line i like to think to, old practices die hard. But i don't understand your example with executing POWs.

Originally posted by Border Reiver:
Unlike the above rules, one prohibition is clear and firm throughout the Imperium: the use or possession of nuclear weapons of any type.

Yes, i think i have read that too somewhere, no nukes. However even rocks are dangerous if thrown fast enough. What keeps them from using all kinds of world destroying applications that do not involve any fusion or fission?

 

[deadlock]

As far as the different types of wars and the rules thereof, it would depend on the goals of the warring parties. Most wars are fought to acquire land and/or resources; therefore, the RoW are usually followed with a few infractions by both sides. The rules are basically ignored during wars of genocide.

I think pride kept the Sollies from destroying Earth when they realized they were going to lose and the fact that the ruling party would have to answer to every other Solomani in the galaxy if it destroyed Earth.

I can see it now. The ruling party announces that it has destroyed the Earth so the Imperials could not have it. You just gave the Imperials a big boost in their military forces because the people you governed did/would not agree with the decision. I would not claim to work for the government at that point because that is a citizen's cue to put a bullet in your head.

I don't know, i ramble alot too.

Rambling can be good. Sometimes you answer your own question(s), cause people to think about the topic a little deeper, and when you say something people think is profound, it makes a deep impact.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It's the same then as now - there's an unwritten agreement not to cross a certain line, because doing so could lead to MAD. Which is what happened towards the end of the Rebellion.

 

[deadlock]

The example that Border Reiver gives about the Imps executing POWs is not that hard to follow. Well, not that hard for me to follow.

If a side takes POWs, then they are responsible for maintaining their well-being (food, clothing, medical, exercise) during the course of the war. Doing so will add additional strains on logistics (POWs will need food, clothing, shelter), the economy (stuff for the POWs will need to be paid), military strengths (guards will need to be assigned), and building materials (POW camps will need to be built). Thus by executing the POWs after extracting any useful information from them, the capturing side does not have to maintain the POWs well-being. Of course, executing the POWs will bring the wrath of the opposing side and/or those outside of the conflict.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Ok, I understand the whole "killing POWs" bit better now, but I don't think I agree. First because the other side of the conflict will apply the same methods right away and we have a nasty, to the death, style of conflict then.

Maybe one of the reasons for the swift conquest of Ziru Zirka by the terrans was because the average Vilanii grunt realised they would survive if they surrendered?

With that i'm trying to say that it is rational to treat POWs well, the unsurrendered enemy are more likely to surrender if they know they have a good chance of surviving.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gnusam,

The Imperial 'Rules Of War' in the OTU are much like our Real World 'Hague Convention'. As such, they boil down to two general suggestions:

1 - Don't Get Caught

B - If You Do Get Caught, Cover Your Ass.

The second 'suggestion' means you either need to be powerful enough to simply ignore the rules, powerful enough that punishing you isn't worth the cost, or have friends that are that powerful and who will protect you.

Canon abounds with exceptions to the so-called Imperial Rules Of War.

No nukes or WMDs? How about the fate of the Imperium's 1188th Lift Infantry Brigade on Malefolge? It was destroyed in a biowar attack by its local 'allies', allies that now rule that planet. Imperial troop killed by WMDs and those responsible now rule the planet? Right.

No economic harm? How about the general war on Aramanx/Aramis? It's been sputtering on and off for decades with LSP bankrolling one nation and the other hiring Vagr corsairs. No huge economic dislocations there, right?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[deadlock]

The Imps will let a war rage unchecked as long as trade & commerce are not disrupted and no WMDs are used. As soon as trade & commerce is disrupted and/or WMDs are used, the side that did so can expect a visit from the Imperial Navy and Imperial Marines to pound civility into them and the Imperial Army to make sure the lessons of the pounding remain in place.

As far as the on again/off again war on Aramanx/Aramis, there will be economic dislocations. Then again, no matter who goes to war for whatever reason, there will be economic hardships regardless of the best intentions. Heads of families will go off to war, leaving the spouse to take care of the children (if there are any), home, and bills. Businesses will lose employees as they are called for war. Some businesses will hire new people; some will suffer, especially if the absent employee has a rare skill needed by the business. The military personnel involved in the war are spending their credits in the bars and stores in and near the war zone instead of where they live.

In the case of Aramanx/Aramis, the hiring of mercenaries (the Vargr) can be a boon and a curse. The credits earned by the Vargr will be spent in local businesses but may also drain the government's coffers as well as some needed supplies and comforts for the local populace.

As far as the Rules of War are concerned in a conflict, at least one side will manipulate them to fit their own needs based on their interpretations and such. No matter how one looks at it, something somewhere is going to get screwwed. Therefore, just bend over and hope it does not last long.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"If a side takes POWs, then they are responsible for maintaining their well-being (food, clothing, medical, exercise) during the course of the war. Doing so will add additional strains on logistics"

I'm not sure that's significant here. We're talking about interstellar states with 1000s of worlds. In any case, they can just stick POWs in low berths until the war's over.

 

[jatay3]

Gnusam Netor
Avatar Image
Knight
CID # 6311

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 07:56 AMJanuary 20, 2006 07:56 AM Profile for Gnusam Netor Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Some time ago I read some of David Brins book-series about the Uplift Saga. Liked them alot, especially Sundiver and Startide rising. In those books the galactic community have rules for how the various civs wage war in order not to destroy too much of the real estate they are fighting over. Is something similar in place in the traveller 'verse?

I guess it makes sense. Systems like Glisten, with their I assume massive space-archologies all over the system, would be incredibly vulnerable to the odd kamikaze ship loaded with massive TL15 bombs jumping in and *BOOM*.

Are there rules of war in place and do combatants respect them? I suspect major players, like the 3I, would follow the rules, provided that everyone else did so too. History had taught us that some rules are usually followed after the consequences are known when not following them. A lot of mustard gas and nerve gas were used to try to break the stalemate in the trenches in Belgium and France in WW1. It wasn't used at all on any of the frontlines in WW2.

As we all know, they found their use elsewhere but "he" didn't want to use it if that would mean getting pay-back on his own troops.

Brins 'verse have a complete parallel galactic community to the oxygen breathers, the hydrogen breathers. The hydrogen-breathers don't care very much of planets with oxygen, thus they don't care if oxygen real estate gets destroyed. thus no rules are followed when oxygen civs battle with hydrogen civs. What happens when the opponent don't care about that particular planet, will they follow the rules anyway? In the Uplift saga, millions of years of the rules in place and followed, combined with every civ wanting to keep them made even "evil" civs wanting to "play by the book".

What happens when "Osama" the wealthy and disgruntled lunatic gets angry on someone, say the space port people in Glisten?

Do I make any sense? if not, I made you read this fa
---------------------------------------------
"osama"-or Ine Givar would lose it's importance. Osama's chief power is in playing PR. The 3I can deal with such simply by interdicting information about them. Rumors will get through but nothing else.
Communications lag is a protection to the Imperium for it encourages isolation.

 

[jatay3]

Gnusam Netor
Avatar Image
Knight
CID # 6311

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 10:36 AMJanuary 20, 2006 10:36 AM Profile for Gnusam Netor Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by Marquis Deadlock:
Greetings and salutations,
Greetings to you too sir.

hmm i actually own a copy of GT Ground forces, maybe I should also read it sometime?

You are right of course. There are several types of conflicts, ranging from the fairly equal sided conflicts ala the Frontier wars or the Rim war, to some "pacification" or "policing" type conflicts that have a stellar empire vs. some low-tech rebels. Or the Universe vs Osama...

What I had in mind is what kept the Solomani from not destroying Earth when they realised that they couldn't defend it? And all other similar situations where one sides realises "We are loosing" or "all is lost, why not unleash Armageddon, we have the power to do so".

Ok, so I kind of answered that in my previous post, The Sollies think that they will take Earth back some day, but still. MAD indicates that both sides during the cold war were prepared to destroy the planet. Geneva convention or not.

I don't know, i ramble alot too
----------------------------------------
to answer the first question, the Solimani destroying Earth would be like Frenchmen destroying Paris.

And MAD only indicates that both sides during the Cold War wanted the other to think that they were prepared to destroy the planet. We will never know the real intention fortunatly enough.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Marquis Deadlock:
As soon as trade & commerce is disrupted and/or WMDs are used, the side that did so can expect a visit from the Imperial Navy and Imperial Marines to pound civility into them and the Imperial Army to make sure the lessons of the pounding remain in place.

M. Dreadlock,

Malefolge? Aramanx? Seen any squadrons and transport heading that way lately?

The only Imperial Rule of War is: Don't Get Caught And, When You Do, Cover Your Ass.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

The canonical rules of war as just a set of excuses to justify Imperial interference after the fact. They are not a set of statutes that will triger Imperial interference no matter what.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

Border Reiver
Avatar Image
Baronet
CID # 5112

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 10:06 AMJanuary 20, 2006 10:06 AM Profile for Border Reiver Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote One other thing to remember, we are talking about Imperial Culture here and thus some elements of Vilani practice may be deemed acceptable, more specifically the execution of all prisoners of war to prevent a strain on the economic/logistic system. Completely logical move on their part.
---------------------------
yes but know one will surrender next time.

In real life "Vilani logic" is applied quite often. But mostly on the close-tactical level when things are more urgent. Most prisoners captured are captured from negotiated surrenders or from rounding up fugitives after a battle is over.
Thus if you ever have the misfortune to be in an overrun position do not surrender-the enemy will probably kill you and tell their officers it was all a mistake in the heat of battle. They might even be telling the truth. Instead hide and wait until things cool down and then decide if you wish to surrender.

 

[Border Reiver]

You'd better believe it...the tales I could tell.

 

[jatay3]

Bill Cameron
Avatar Image
Marquis
CID # 877

Icon 1 posted January 20, 2006 01:08 PMJanuary 20, 2006 01:08 PM Profile for Bill Cameron Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by Marquis Deadlock:
As soon as trade & commerce is disrupted and/or WMDs are used, the side that did so can expect a visit from the Imperial Navy and Imperial Marines to pound civility into them and the Imperial Army to make sure the lessons of the pounding remain in place.M. Dreadlock,

Malefolge? Aramanx? Seen any squadrons and transport heading that way lately?

The only Imperial Rule of War is: Don't Get Caught And, When You Do, Cover Your
---------------------------------
Yes and no. The necessity of avoiding getting caught has effects. It also makes for a good campaign.
I wouldn't want to be in a game where the PC's do atrocities. But what if the PC's are expected to do some morally neutral-or even praiseworthy- act that would be annoying to the Imperium if found out.
For instance take Marc Oberlindes rescue of his son from prison(I like to imagine that Sergai beat up a local prince for insulting a lady: I find the Oberlindes attractive and I wouldn't want Sergai to actually deserve his sentance). Suppose the PC's are hired to carry out the rescue mission. Suppose further that the planet's ruler has high influence
in the Imperial government-high enough to ensure that the Impies would object strongly if the operation is not done "right". The PC's would have to do it in a way so that little attention would come upon them until the incident was so old that no one cared except the ungentlemanly prince that Sergai Oberlindes beat up.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by jatay3:

to answer the first question, the Solimani destroying Earth would be like Frenchmen destroying Paris.

And MAD only indicates that both sides during the Cold War wanted the other to think that they were prepared to destroy the planet. We will never know the real intention fortunatly enough.

I don't think they would destroy Earth either...
Obviously they didn’t, the outcome of the Rim war is known after all. If it would have come to that, the destruction of Earth, I would assume that they would have blamed it on the Imperials anyhow.

What if though, let’s say in some other war, what stops either side from using weapons that would, after the proper escalation and loosing-control-of-the-situation, from ultimately destroying what is fought over? On a galactic scale I mean and remember that it did happen earlier with the Ancients.

We have yet to experience an armed conflict between two nations with nukes, so who knows really. Sometimes the loosing side abstaining from using their entire arsenal seems to work as per my mustard gas analogy, but not always as per my Ancients analogy. However are there rules in place that most follow as per my Uplift analogy?

(BTW, why do you "quote" my avatar image?)