Post Invasion Ethics & Morality

[The Romulan Republic]

This is silly. "Do what we say or else." That is it. Cut and dry. There is ZERO resistance the MW can offer that is going to even breach the shields of an Imperial Shuttle, let alone an invading fleet.

While I get the point perfectly well, no statistic I've heard convinces me that this is anything but hyperbole. A Star Destroyer might survive a fleet lobbing off photon torpedos, but a shuttle? Next I suppose you'll argue that a probe droid could take down Deep Space 9.

I think he was being rhetorical. Sure small ships might get destroyed (especially TIE fighters during the initial invasion, being without shields and all), but the big ships? I doubt it. We've gone over stuff like this before.

Of course we have. And I'm not disputing the presence of a vast gap in power. If you've read what I've posted, you'll know that I never claimed the big ships would go down. Its just that I don't see the need for hyperbole.

Though I'll acknowledge that a hyperdrive equipped shuttle might survive engaging a Federation fleet in the sense that it could just flee.

[The Romulan Republic]

TIEs have shields!

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

Even if they do, though, it doesn't mean that Ties wouldn't take losses. Any shields they have would likely be kiloton-level at best, wouldn't they?

In fact, if I were commanding a Star Wars force in the Trek galaxy, my orders might be something like this: "All ships, do not launch fighters. Engage with ship to ship weapons only. No point wasting a few pilots."

I mean, the main use of fighters seems to be to engage other fighters or bombers, and Trek doesn't seem to use those a lot.

[Formless]

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

I could be wrong, but don't they need at least minimal particle shields due to the speeds the canon suggests they fly at?

[Darth Hoth]

TIEs have shields!

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

Mike Wong discusses it here, and it has come up several times before on this board also.

[Ghost Rider]

TIEs have shields!

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

Even if they do, though, it doesn't mean that Ties wouldn't take losses. Any shields they have would likely be kiloton-level at best, wouldn't they?

In fact, if I were commanding a Star Wars force in the Trek galaxy, my orders might be something like this: "All ships, do not launch fighters. Engage with ship to ship weapons only. No point wasting a few pilots."

I mean, the main use of fighters seems to be to engage other fighters or bombers, and Trek doesn't seem to use those a lot.

Or I don't know, dumbfuck...deliver MT - GT level warheads like they have equipped for SW warships.

So you're going to demonstrate Trek swatting Wars speed Fighter craft, correct? Becasue throughout the thread you've been making these assertions with no proof.

[Baffalo]

TIEs have shields!

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

Even if they do, though, it doesn't mean that Ties wouldn't take losses. Any shields they have would likely be kiloton-level at best, wouldn't they?

In fact, if I were commanding a Star Wars force in the Trek galaxy, my orders might be something like this: "All ships, do not launch fighters. Engage with ship to ship weapons only. No point wasting a few pilots."

I mean, the main use of fighters seems to be to engage other fighters or bombers, and Trek doesn't seem to use those a lot.

The reason Trek uses capital ships rather than fighters is because they have the tactical brilliance of a goldfish. It's similar to the way people thought at the end of WWI: Fighters are no match for capital ships! Despite being proven wrong, many navies invested heavily in Battleships and other large capital ships until it was ultimately proven (through heavy losses for little gain) that the battleship's days as the primary element of the fleet was over.

There are multiple instances throughout Trek where their reliance on capital ships has come at a cost, especially when there's only one ship in range to respond to a crisis. It's gotten so bad I started calling it Lone Ranger syndrome! Sure, a capital ship is impressive, but it would make much more sense to use fighters, since you can drop off fighters and pick them up later. You're not limited to keeping the ship in one location. I know I'm rehashing Wong's stuff, but since you can't seem to find it on your own, I'm presenting it here.

As far as just keeping all the fighters inside their bays, it's still practical to deploy them. Even if something is no threat to the carrier, you don't put the ship in danger for no reason. Just like you don't enter enemy territory with your shields down, your fighters are your primary defense and offense. Since most Federation tactics discussed involve large numbers of ships, you need those fighters to respond to threats before they reach the carrier proper. That way, if any ships make it to the carrier itself, they're already damaged and can be picked off, or if they can overwhelm the ship, they can jump to lightspeed and escape.

[Bounty]

Are you genuinely arguing for the tactical brilliance of having snub fighters instead of starships in space combat? because there's so much wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to begin.

[Baffalo]

Are you genuinely arguing for the tactical brilliance of having snub fighters instead of starships in space combat? because there's so much wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to begin.

Sorry it's confusing. Going back over it I realize I should make a few clarifications.

Fighters give the side using them more options. They're not a sign of tactical brilliance, but rather they can serve more functions than a starship by itself, since you can deploy fighters, jump to another system, deploy some more, and move on. You're not limited to a single starship in one location. The fighters might not be a match for a full fledged starship on their own, but they can sound the alarm and hide, or harass the enemy long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

There are multiple episodes and movies for Star Trek where they only use one starship because it's the only one in range. Though now that I think about it, in some instances you want a full capital ship to deal with a situation, though why they insist on building the larger vessels instead of many smaller ships is beyond me. As was pointed out in another thread, quantity beats skill.

And as far as Star Trek tactical brilliance... that's still on the level of a goldfish.

[The Romulan Republic]

TIEs have shields!

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

Even if they do, though, it doesn't mean that Ties wouldn't take losses. Any shields they have would likely be kiloton-level at best, wouldn't they?

In fact, if I were commanding a Star Wars force in the Trek galaxy, my orders might be something like this: "All ships, do not launch fighters. Engage with ship to ship weapons only. No point wasting a few pilots."

I mean, the main use of fighters seems to be to engage other fighters or bombers, and Trek doesn't seem to use those a lot.

Or I don't know, dumbfuck...deliver MT - GT level warheads like they have equipped for SW warships.

Congratulations, you've just stated an obvious fact which doesn't really refute my reasons for critiquing the use of Wars fighters.

Of course fighters can do that. But cap ships can achieve the same effects with turbolasers and ion canons, and probably more cost-effectively.

So you're going to demonstrate Trek swatting Wars speed Fighter craft, correct? Becasue throughout the thread you've been making these assertions with no proof.

I never claimed they would suffer heavy losses nor that they would be easy for Trek craft to hit, so I don't see why I should be expected to demonstrate it. But Wars fighters are comparatively fragile (fighters in Star Wars use kiloton-level guns, per the ICS), and I question their utility against Trek ships because I'm not confident that there's anything they can do to Trek ships (GT level warheads? Try PT level turbolasers blasts) that the other ships from corvette-level up can't do as well or better. Their main use in Star Wars seems to be to go after enemy fighters and bombers. So unless its one of those rare times when Trek fields fighters, their main use is probably negated. Nor, I'm sure, are you going to argue that Trek fighters or shuttles (on the rare occasions we see them in combat) would be able to threaten Wars ships in the way that enough bombers can in Star Wars. If there's no point in launching fighters, why do so and risk needless losses from a lucky hit or a collision with wreckage or even friendly fire? At the kinds of ranges Star Wars fighters normally engage at, these kind of things are probably going to happen in a major fleet action.

Now, I might have been overly hasty in dismissing the need for fighters against Trek fleets, but as you can see I was not without reasons. Nor did I claim that they would be particularily vulnerable.

As for "assertions," I claimed that:

a) Standard Ties probably have kiloton-level shields at best (going off of the kiloton-level fighter guns from the ICS, the supposed technological stasis of Star Wars, and the fact that fighters in Star Wars easily blow each other up with a few hits),

b) That fighters in Star Wars are used mainly for engaging other fighters (They have secondary uses it is true, but is this not the main one?),

c) That fighters are rarely used in Trek, (more so in recent Trek I'll concede), and

d) That I might not use fighters if engaging a Trek fleet on the grounds that it would waste "a few pilots" lives (Are you claiming that between friendly fire, debris, and lucky hits, zero pilots would be lost? Or that fighters would still be useful enough to warrant the cost of fielding them? I could possibly agree with the latter, but not the former).

[The Romulan Republic]

TIEs have shields!

Source? Not just for the higher-end crap like the Defenders, but for standard Tie Fighters?

Mike Wong discusses it here, and it has come up several times before on this board also.

I don't hang around the Star Wars.com forums much, and I won't claim to have read every post in the Star Trek vs Star Wars forum here, much less remembered every post I've ever read. Having seen the evidence, however, I'm not going to dispute it at this time.

[Ghost Rider]

Or I don't know, dumbfuck...deliver MT - GT level warheads like they have equipped for SW warships.

Congratulations, you've just stated an obvious fact which doesn't really refute my reasons for critiquing the use of Wars fighters.

Of course fighters can do that. But cap ships can achieve the same effects with turbolasers and ion canons, and probably more cost-effectively.

So you can prove said cost effectiveness?

Again, the point is you made the bit about Wars fighters engaging other Wars fighter and that translates immediately to Trek, disregarding the power differences. Oh wait, you're a fucking idiot.

If said fighters can achieve this and the force magnification is greater, then you can prove this would inefficient use of resources given the standard of battle with the Imperial Navy.

So you're going to demonstrate Trek swatting Wars speed Fighter craft, correct? Becasue throughout the thread you've been making these assertions with no proof.

I never claimed they would suffer heavy losses nor that they would be easy for Trek craft to hit, so I don't see why I should be expected to demonstrate it. But Wars fighters are comparatively fragile (fighters in Star Wars use kiloton-level guns, per the ICS), and I question their utility against Trek ships because I'm not confident that there's anything they can do to Trek ships (GT level warheads? Try PT level turbolasers blasts) that the other ships from corvette-level up can't do as well or better. Their main use in Star Wars seems to be to go after enemy fighters and bombers. So unless its one of those rare times when Trek fields fighters, their main use is probably negated. Nor, I'm sure, are you going to argue that Trek fighters or shuttles (on the rare occasions we see them in combat) would be able to threaten Wars ships in the way that enough bombers can in Star Wars. If there's no point in launching fighters, why do so and risk needless losses from a lucky hit or a collision with wreckage or even friendly fire? At the kinds of ranges Star Wars fighters normally engage at, these kind of things are probably going to happen in a major fleet action.

So instead, they ignore the fucking order of battle because why again? Yes, after the first few they realize Trek poses no fucking threat and they can use anti fighter weapons to kill the other ships they wouldn’t use the fighter, but to claim they wouldn’t is essentially being an idiot to what canon has demonstrated time and time again.

Now, I might have been overly hasty in dismissing the need for fighters against Trek fleets, but as you can see I was not without reasons. Nor did I claim that they would be particularily vulnerable.

As for "assertions," I claimed that:

a) Standard Ties probably have kiloton-level shields at best (going off of the kiloton-level fighter guns from the ICS, the supposed technological stasis of Star Wars, and the fact that fighters in Star Wars easily blow each other up with a few hits),

b) That fighters in Star Wars are used mainly for engaging other fighters (They have secondary uses it is true, but is this not the main one?),

c) That fighters are rarely used in Trek, (more so in recent Trek I'll concede), and

d) That I might not use fighters if engaging a Trek fleet on the grounds that it would waste "a few pilots" lives (Are you claiming that between friendly fire, debris, and lucky hits, zero pilots would be lost? Or that fighters would still be useful enough to warrant the cost of fielding them? I could possibly agree with the latter, but not the former).

Again, they engage fighters on THEIR power level. When a non military craft can outdo the fucking capital ships, then yes you are not talking about the same fucking power level....but this escapes you and you retort with "But they wouldn't waste the lives!!!". At this point they can ram their ships and kill the Federation, but on the first battles, no military is going to utilize that tactic.

So again, either read up on the subject or stop making fucking assumptions. This is not the first fucking time you’ve opened up your mouth and then gone “Oh I didn’t know.”.

[Thanas]

Oh and yes, I do know that the Germans were tricked into surrendering their arms and lost the war without it ever touching German soil. Just an analogy.

WTF?

Have you ever taken history in high school or why are you perpetrating the Dolchstoßlegende?

[The Romulan Republic]

So you can prove said cost effectiveness?

No. It was speculation, and I have no way to back it up beyond a reasonable doubt at this time. Therefor, I will concede that point.

Again, the point is you made the bit about Wars fighters engaging other Wars fighter and that translates immediately to Trek, disregarding the power differences. Oh wait, you're a fucking idiot.

What the fuck?

First of all, the sentence structure of that quote is fucking awkward to read. And second of all, I did not disregard power differences. I did not claim that Wars fighters were equivalent to Trek fighters, for example, nor that their weapons would be as ineffective against Trek capital ships as against Wars ones.

For the record, my doubts regarding the use of Wars fighters rest on the effectiveness of Wars capital ships in being able to get the job done, and the ineffectiveness of Trek fighters/bombers at harming them. If I were ignoring the power differences, I would have much less of a case.

My issue with Star Wars fighters against Star Trek forces is not based on any misguided assumption that, because they are used a certain way in Wars, they must be used the same way in Trek. Rather, it is based on the idea that they are simply not needed for either anti-fighter work or attacking heavier ships. If you've read and understood my posts, you know that.

If said fighters can achieve this and the force magnification is greater, then you can prove this would inefficient use of resources given the standard of battle with the Imperial Navy.

Let me get this straight: you're asking if, presuming that fighters can get the job done better, it would be more efficient for them to be used? I'd say the answer is rather obvious, but again rather irrelevant, since the point of contention is weather fighters are needed to do the job better.

If fighters are unneeded to do the job (a matter I will admit is debatable), then why deploy them anyway? Just by virtue of being part of the traditional "standard of battle?"

So instead, they ignore the fucking order of battle because why again? Yes, after the first few they realize Trek poses no fucking threat and they can use anti fighter weapons to kill the other ships they wouldn’t use the fighter, but to claim they wouldn’t is essentially being an idiot to what canon has demonstrated time and time again.

First, I dare you to name one place in this thread where I have ignored canon.

Second, you just acknowledged that upon finding the fighters weren't needed, they would stop using them. I can't help but feel that this validates my point somewhat.

Again, they engage fighters on THEIR power level. When a non military craft can outdo the fucking capital ships, then yes you are not talking about the same fucking power level....but this escapes you and you retort with "But they wouldn't waste the lives!!!". At this point they can ram their ships and kill the Federation, but on the first battles, no military is going to utilize that tactic.

I didn't say they wouldn't waste lives, since it is abundantly clear that the Empire cares jack shit about a few pilot's lives. And I certainly never said anything about how they would/should respond to the first battle. I said I might not use fighters, because I doubt there's a need to (never mind that you just agreed that upon finding out the fighters aren't needed, they would no longer use them).

As for the reasons why, I already laid that out. It stands to reason based on the ICS stats that even with shields the fighters can withstand kiloton level firepower at best. In a pitched fleet engagement, they would be vulnerable to losses from lucky hits, collisions with debris, and friendly fire, unless (I will acknowledge this possibility) they can engage Trek ships from much greater ranges and/or at much greater speeds than they normally engage Wars ships. In any case, I question weather they are needed, since Capital ships can do the blowing up just fine, and Trek fighters/bombers shouldn't pose a threat unless your assessment of the power differences is way off.

So again, presuming that Cap ships can do the job, and that Trek fighters/bombers are no threat, what justification is their for a Wars navy to use fighters?

So again, either read up on the subject or stop making fucking assumptions. This is not the first fucking time you’ve opened up your mouth and then gone “Oh I didn’t know.”.

I'm not omniscient? What a shock.

I am willing to listen to new information, and to concede when I couldn't prove something or was proven wrong. I was not however aware that perfect knowledge of every subject in the history of the vs debate was expected here.

I will acknowledge that I sometimes speculate and theorize without solid proof, and that when I do so, I should be clear that I am speculating, and not putting forward a claim or argument. In this case, however, and presuming you are referring to my ignorance on the topic of fighter shields, I simply asked for a source about a claim on a subject in which I lacked knowledge. It happens.

[Baffalo]

Oh and yes, I do know that the Germans were tricked into surrendering their arms and lost the war without it ever touching German soil. Just an analogy.

WTF?

Have you ever taken history in high school or why are you perpetrating the Dolchstoßlegende?

I was taught that the end of WWI came via a treaty that made Germany the losers, mostly by pinning the blame on them and making them surrender their weapons. If this isn't the case please correct me.

[Connor MacLeod]

First, deflector shields. We don't know for sure if all TIEs have shields any more than we know all rebel fighters have shields simply on the basis of the movies. Trying to extrapolate from a limited pool of data isn't a good idea, because if we go by the movies alone, shields aren't going to provide massive improvements in defense that might justify adding in shield generators (which we know, by logic, are going to add to the internal volume/overall mass of the ship, and there are valid reasons for excluding such devices if they are bulky, or if you are going for cheapness.)

There ARE valid reasons (and this has been mentioned so many goddamn times I wish people would do a search before bringing it up - AGAIN) in that shields will consume (some) power which detracts from maximum available engine power. They also consume internal volume for the generators, radiators, heat sinks, projectors and such.. volume that can be dedicated to other things (more/better weapons, greater engine power, etc.) They also take up mass, which is going to decrease performance (making the power drain issue even worse.) And, of course, there is the cost issue (you have to pay to have the generators mounted in and for the cost of their upkeep and purchase and such.)

A TIE, based on the sources I've seen (some DK books, some of the RPG stuff, a few pocket books by DWR) hint athat TIEs cary heavier guns (individually) than an X-wing, as well as being a compact and highly manuverable target (narrow head-on profile, high accel and manuverability relative to cost due to low mass and high thrust, etc.) They have EW capability as well, and at least some decent armoring (can take a few hits at least) and they are cheap and easy to replace. X-wings are tougher but slower, and their guns need to be "overclocked" to maximize their destructive potential (as per the OT:ICS). Shields are liekly to preserve both pilot and ship, which the Alliance cannot replace as easily as the Empire. The Empire does not need to add shields, since adding it does detract from some of their advatanges (IE accel and manuverability) but they CAN if they need to (and have, suchas Vader's squadron.)

Another key point is that shields on a fighter are not neccesarily 100% reliable. As noted many times before (various sources: Lando calrissian trilogy, WEG stuff, Black Fleet crisis, etc.) shields can have weak points or gaps due to various factors. Fighters have fewer generators than much bigger ships, and are therefore much more porous (hence the importance of angling shields to maximize protection.) and hence lucky shots are liklier to get through. Which may very well be what we see in the movies (coupled with the TIEs havinv heavier guns.)

As far as the Post-Endor EU and NR fighter shields... well, there are several factors:

- The alliance was alot poorer than the NR (even in the Rogue Squadron era) and had to make do with what they could, while post Endor they'd managed to make inroads and gain/hold territory, which carries the beneift of resources and infrastructure. They can afford to obtain better/more effective shielding than when they were freedom fighters/terrorists/guerillas/whatever you want to call them

As a sidenote here,a nother possible variation of the above is that there were some technical advancements over time. not neccesarily a massive increase in durability of shields, per se -but it could be that generators are made more compact, or given better coverage, to allow fewer shots to get through "weak spots", for example. Or maybe they radiate energy away faster (a good pilot could avoid enough hits to allow his heat sinks ot empty out before the enemy can overload them, hence why training and experience could be a huge benefit here.)

- Rogue Squadron was a rather high-profile group, so naturally one would assume that such groups would be able to obtain the best/most high quality equipment. for that matter their mechanics were hinted at being able to "tweak" things for better performance. The performance of their fighters wouldn't neccesarily reflect other squadrons. (As for the Wraiths before anyone mentions that, they were a pet project of Wedge Antilles, who is a high profile and famously popular commander. someone who can both get the best as well as someone you want to preserve as much as possible. Ackbar certainly did.)

- The Imperials they tended to face were under-trained,a nd likely under-equipped. Basically a reversal of situations, but not neccesarily a change in doctrines for the Imperials (with some exceptions, EG Thrawn) They aren't going to be as effective (or as able) to breach defenses compared to pre-ROTJ Imperials (like we see in the movies.)


As far as torpedoes go that depends on how you think they work and what you believe the yields on them are. But how fighters fight in SW isnt neccesarily the same as how they would againt other universes (things like EW, defensive weaponry, sensors, performance, and so on can differ.)

[Baffalo]

The X-Wing series had a great subplot touching upon that very topic. The droid they were using to get parts and such knew that you could only get things two of three ways: Fast, Cheap, and Reliable. You could get something fast and cheap, but it tended to be low quality junk, you could get something cheap and reliable, but it'd take forever to get in, etc. Anyone who's worked in inventory control (ordering supplies and such) knows the exact same problem. The boss wants it cheap and fast, the people using it want it fast and reliable, and you want it cheap and reliable.

Since the X-Wings was designed by Incom and then the design team defected with the only prototype, that means that any units produced would've had to have been made using off the shelf parts and a few custom pieces ordered from whatever companies would supply the rebellion. I've seen the cut aways and I noticed a few pieces looked to be similar to the Y-wing, which had been the de facto fighter for the Alliance prior to the introduction of the X-Wing, which probably means any Y-Wings that broke down for good were scrapped and used to build new X-Wings.

There also seems to be a wide variation on the standard X-Wing design. Whether this was from the Alliance equivilent of an R&D department or just local variations throughout the rebellion is unknown, but that seems to support the theory that mechanics tweaked the design for individual pilots, and a few variants became popular.

After that, it becomes two governments engaged in a war for control, and we know from reading EU what happens.

[Samuel]

Oh and yes, I do know that the Germans were tricked into surrendering their arms and lost the war without it ever touching German soil. Just an analogy.

WTF?

Have you ever taken history in high school or why are you perpetrating the Dolchstoßlegende?

I was taught that the end of WWI came via a treaty that made Germany the losers, mostly by pinning the blame on them and making them surrender their weapons. If this isn't the case please correct me.

The end came because Germany ran out of food and recruits to put into the meat grinder and they were faced with the option of starving and being over-run. The reason Thanas got pissed and used letters that do not appear on a standard keyboard is the way you put it sounded like the stabbed in the back myth that was propagated and helped the Nazis come to power. Which Germans (and historians) tend to get pissed about if people repeat it as factual.

I didn't say they wouldn't waste lives, since it is abundantly clear that the Empire cares jack shit about a few pilot's lives.

The Empire may be evil, but they generally aren't choatic stupid. If there are two options and one doesn't require their troops dying, they will take the second one.

[Thanas]

WTF?

Have you ever taken history in high school or why are you perpetrating the Dolchstoßlegende?

I was taught that the end of WWI came via a treaty that made Germany the losers, mostly by pinning the blame on them and making them surrender their weapons. If this isn't the case please correct me.

The end came because Germany ran out of food and recruits to put into the meat grinder and they were faced with the option of starving and being over-run. The reason Thanas got pissed and used letters that do not appear on a standard keyboard is the way you put it sounded like the stabbed in the back myth that was propagated and helped the Nazis come to power. Which Germans (and historians) tend to get pissed about if people repeat it as factual.

Samuel got it in one.

Sorry for jumping down your throat, but the choice of words like "tricked into surrendering without the enemy invading Germany" really evoke the Dolchstoßlegende as they are the central tenets of that lie.

[Stark]

That said, the idea that you can't 'lose' a war until you've been entirely conquered is a pretty common one these days - the idea of negotiated peace or the result of a war being obvious long before it's finished isn't so popular.

[Baffalo]

WTF?

Have you ever taken history in high school or why are you perpetrating the Dolchstoßlegende?

I was taught that the end of WWI came via a treaty that made Germany the losers, mostly by pinning the blame on them and making them surrender their weapons. If this isn't the case please correct me.

The end came because Germany ran out of food and recruits to put into the meat grinder and they were faced with the option of starving and being over-run. The reason Thanas got pissed and used letters that do not appear on a standard keyboard is the way you put it sounded like the stabbed in the back myth that was propagated and helped the Nazis come to power. Which Germans (and historians) tend to get pissed about if people repeat it as factual.

Thanks for the info. I did not know that, but you learn something new everyday.

I didn't say they wouldn't waste lives, since it is abundantly clear that the Empire cares jack shit about a few pilot's lives.

The Empire may be evil, but they generally aren't chaotic stupid. If there are two options and one doesn't require their troops dying, they will take the second one.

Exactly. Soldiers, like weapons, are a finite resource, that can only be replenished so fast. The Empire has stormtroopers and pilots that require training, and the only way to get them out faster is to skimp on training. Sure, you get more troops, but you end up losing more troops to inexperience. Since the Empire has many troops who rose through the ranks from basic training and officer training (there are probably a few exceptions otherwise I would say all), they've been the grunts on the front lines at some point. Unless they've just lost all bearing on reality, they're thinking of their own experiences on the front, and won't expend lives so easily.

That said, the idea that you can't 'lose' a war until you've been entirely conquered is a pretty common one these days - the idea of negotiated peace or the result of a war being obvious long before it's finished isn't so popular.

Well, let's back the clock up to 1989. Let's say the Soviets decided to invade the US, and they actually managed to get a foothold right where you live. Are you going to walk out with a nice welcome basket? Or are you going to resist because they're on your turf? They're not leaving anytime soon, so it's pointless right? It's a concept called Nationalism. You're proud of your home and you want to protect it from foreign invaders.

[Stark]

Thanks for the info. I did not know that, but you learn something new everyday.

You should stop making ignorant comments when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Well, let's back the clock up to 1989. Let's say the Soviets decided to invade the US, and they actually managed to get a foothold right where you live. Are you going to walk out with a nice welcome basket? Or are you going to resist because they're on your turf? They're not leaving anytime soon, so it's pointless right? It's a concept called Nationalism. You're proud of your home and you want to protect it from foreign invaders.

What are you talking about? Look to the left. I'm an Australian, you fucking cretin.

It's actually quite hilarious that you believe nationalism is a positive thing, when the last two hundred years have shown how it can be used just like religion to control a population. I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume you're a teenager. Your simpleminded psychic reading of my attitudes is a fascinating insight into YOUR mind.

It's sad that you misunderstand the point, however. If there's a war, and you're decisively losing and persisting will only cost more lives and ruin your country more before you're defeated, what's the point even WITH nationalism? Keep grinding up your population to no end? Cripple your country and peopel for generations? The Germans in WWI were well aware of their strategic situation - it's part of the madness of war that many DO believe that it's better to be obliterated than reach a negotiated peace. People like Hitler, lol.

[Baffalo]

Thanks for the info. I did not know that, but you learn something new everyday.

You should stop making ignorant comments when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I was taught that as history. It was what I thought was the truth, and I hadn't come across anything to change that fact. If I don't know something, I'd rather have someone tell me and correct me than allow me to continue to comment ignorantly. So is that still stupid, or am I doing something smart trying to learn?

Well, let's back the clock up to 1989. Let's say the Soviets decided to invade the US, and they actually managed to get a foothold right where you live. Are you going to walk out with a nice welcome basket? Or are you going to resist because they're on your turf? They're not leaving anytime soon, so it's pointless right? It's a concept called Nationalism. You're proud of your home and you want to protect it from foreign invaders.

It's actually quite hilarious that you believe nationalism is a positive thing, when the last two hundred years have shown how it can be used just like religion to control a population. I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume you're a teenager. Your simpleminded psychic reading of my attitudes is a fascinating insight into YOUR mind.

It's sad that you misunderstand the point, however. If there's a war, and you're decisively losing and persisting will only cost more lives and ruin your country more before you're defeated, what's the point even WITH nationalism? Keep grinding up your population to no end? Cripple your country and peopel for generations? The Germans in WWI were well aware of their strategic situation - it's part of the madness of war that many DO believe that it's better to be obliterated than reach a negotiated peace. People like Hitler, lol.

Whoa whoa whoa... I never said nationalism was always good. I was saying that the reason people don't simply give up is nationalism. Not all nationalism is good, but neither is it entirely bad. The way the Nazi's used it was bad, that much is true. But healthy pride in your country isn't bad. I may not always agree with the government, but does that mean I have to automatically hate the country I live in? You're reading things into my comments that simply aren't there.

And not everyone can see the end is inevitable. A good example from our own boards would be Star Trek: First Contact, when Captain Picard wants to keep fighting the Borg rather than destroy the Enterprise. Everyone around him knew the Borg were closing in and winning, but they weren't the ones in command. They obeyed Picard. The same can be applied in Nazi Germany, in that some officers blindly followed orders rather than try to save themselves or their troops. Others had so much blood on their hands they didn't care. And still others weren't going to let the allies invade their country. Does that mean none of the commanders surrendered? No. If anything, we can say that no one really knows what people will do when the cards are down and they've been dealt the losing hand.

What are you talking about? Look to the left. I'm an Australian, you fucking cretin.

Did I miss something? I don't know how your being Australian relates to this.

[Stark]

I was taught that as history. It was what I thought was the truth, and I hadn't come across anything to change that fact. If I don't know something, I'd rather have someone tell me and correct me than allow me to continue to comment ignorantly. So is that still stupid, or am I doing something smart trying to learn?

LOL. It's nice to see a confirmation for my earlier comment (which was largely directed at Americans, but braodly at ignorant people everywhere) that people just can't get their head around the idea of a war ending without simpleminded nonsense like conquering your enemy.

Whoa whoa whoa... I never said nationalism was always good. I was saying that the reason people don't simply give up is nationalism. Not all nationalism is good, but neither is it entirely bad. The way the Nazi's used it was bad, that much is true. But healthy pride in your country isn't bad. I may not always agree with the government, but does that mean I have to automatically hate the country I live in? You're reading things into my comments that simply aren't there.

Right, except Germany, a fiercy nationalistic state, did so. So... what? Maybe your understanding of history, politics and military psychology is flawed!

You're pathetic dilemna between 'healthy pride' and 'hate country' is pretty sad.

And not everyone can see the end is inevitable. A good example from our own boards would be Star Trek: First Contact, when Captain Picard wants to keep fighting the Borg rather than destroy the Enterprise. Everyone around him knew the Borg were closing in and winning, but they weren't the ones in command. They obeyed Picard. The same can be applied in Nazi Germany, in that some officers blindly followed orders rather than try to save themselves or their troops. Others had so much blood on their hands they didn't care. And still others weren't going to let the allies invade their country. Does that mean none of the commanders surrendered? No. If anything, we can say that no one really knows what people will do when the cards are down and they've been dealt the losing hand.

Captain Picard is one man, in a low position, with incomplete access to information, who is massively biased - this is in no way a reflection of the operation of government or military high command in a time a country is fighting the greatest war in history. It's sad but true that the Federation isn't even up to WWI standards of intelligence and research (by research I mean understanding of the situation and facts, not +1 guns).

Did I miss something? I don't know how your being Australian relates to this.

PROTIP - even if I was some mindless nationalism drone, I wouldn't give a fuck about America.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Empire may be evil, but they generally aren't choatic stupid. If there are two options and one doesn't require their troops dying, they will take the second one.

I merely meant that they don't go to extraordinary pains to minimize casualties. I don't see them deliberately wasting troop's lives in general.

Though they are tactically stupid on numerous occasions, like most sci-fi militaries. We all know the examples, but I can list the main ones if its deemed nessissary.

[Baffalo]

The Empire may be evil, but they generally aren't choatic stupid. If there are two options and one doesn't require their troops dying, they will take the second one.

I merely meant that they don't go to extraordinary pains to minimize casualties. I don't see them deliberately wasting troop's lives in general.

Though they are tactically stupid on numerous occasions, like most sci-fi militaries. We all know the examples, but I can list the main ones if its deemed nessissary.

Are you sure they did stupid things in all those occasions? Or did they go in with insufficient knowledge of the situation and made a few bad calls? That can affect any military, even real ones. It's easy to watch a movie where you know what both sides are doing and when one side makes a mistake go, "That's so stupid! I could've done better!" I'm not implying you did it in this example, but it's easy. Could you please provide a few examples?