What did Captain Zavala do next? and the SL's reaction.

SWM wrote:

Torlek wrote:I can make an argument that the "minimum force necessary" is a KEW on the Governors Mansion.

You could make that argument, but it would be a foolish argument. There's no way that you can argue that a weapon that takes out an entire city block and kills the planetary leader and numerous other civilians is necessary force, let alone minimum force, when you can use a surgical strike that kills only military officers engaged in active resistance.

Let me say once again--Zavala did not have authority to attack the system government. He did not have the authorization to claim the orbitals, which effectively means seizing the system. It was not one of the options in his mission parameters.

Absolutely right, SWM, and Torlek, note that Terekhov at Mobius, after seizing the orbitals, called upon the authorities there to request surrender (as based on protocol) and was justified in taking the necessary and proper military action when that surrender request was refused.

At no time did Captain Zavala call on the government(s) of Saltash to surrender to the SEM. As SWM argues so well, he had no authority to do so and Mike Henke would have peeled a strip off his back if he had tried it.

I can see you feel strongly about this, Torlek, and that is not a bad thing (I've been one of a very few voices calling for a raid on the Sol System), but I think, to borrow from an old Dutch uncle, that you are "up the wrong tree barking" on this one.

Torlek wrote:

SWM wrote:You could make that argument, but it would be a foolish argument. There's no way that you can argue that a weapon that takes out an entire city block and kills the planetary leader and numerous other civilians is necessary force, let alone minimum force, when you can use a surgical strike that kills only military officers engaged in active resistance.

Let me say once again--Zavala did not have authority to attack the system government. He did not have the authorization to claim the orbitals, which effectively means seizing the system. It was not one of the options in his mission parameters.

I have been making the argument that the boarding operation was extremely risky (and admittedly disregarding it worked out in the book as a counter argument to that position). If we accept for the sake of argument that the boarding operation would have been too risky, a limited orbital strike becomes the "minimum force required". Am I overlooking another option?

Yes, I agree that the boarding operation was risky. But you misunderstand the meaning of "minimum force required." Minimum force required is not measured by minimizing your own casualties--it is measured by minimizing opposing casualties, and in particular minimizing opposing civilian casualties.

But before you can consider an orbital strike a minimum force, or a required force, or even a permitted force, certain conditions have to be met. First, you must claim control of the orbitals, which is a declaration that you are seizing control of the planet. Second, before you can even consider an orbital strike, the planetary government must reject the surrender demand, either explicitly or by continuing military resistance. Executing an orbital strike without those two conditions is at best a terrorist attack, and is also potentially a violation of the Eridani Edict. Even if you meet those conditions, it is an extreme act of aggression to sieze an entire planet.

Zavala did not have the authorization to do that. His mission parameters allowed only limited engagement, not open warfare against the planet. Within the parameters of his mission, Zavala had only limited options. The option which would have been safest for his own people would be to launch missiles at the station. However, his mission parameters actually prioritized minimizing civilian casualties over minimizing his own casualties. He was not here to make an enemy of the planet--he was here to get Manticore's people back, making it clear that Manticore would do what was necessary to protect its people while at the same time trying to avoid atrocities which would damage Manticore's efforts at diplomatic resolution.

Zavala had very few options which would keep civilian casualties low. The option he chose kept civilian casualties to zero.

Torlek wrote:I have been making the argument that the boarding operation was extremely risky (and admittedly disregarding it worked out in the book as a counter argument to that position). If we accept for the sake of argument that the boarding operation would have been too risky, a limited orbital strike becomes the "minimum force required". Am I overlooking another option?

Yes, you're overlooking two points:

1: the Planetary Government(s) was not the entity holding the Manticoran Ships and Crews, It was the Solarian System Governor and OFS Gendarmerie holding the hostages.

2: Capt. Zavala had the space station where the prisoners were actually held outgunned by a factor just about infinity. He could use his PDLC or energy weapons to slice pieces off of the station to get the same result as bombarding the planet. (Which, he threatened to do if the prisoners or his boarding party were harmed, IIRC.)

Torlek wrote:

SWM wrote:You could make that argument, but it would be a foolish argument. There's no way that you can argue that a weapon that takes out an entire city block and kills the planetary leader and numerous other civilians is necessary force, let alone minimum force, when you can use a surgical strike that kills only military officers engaged in active resistance.

Let me say once again--Zavala did not have authority to attack the system government. He did not have the authorization to claim the orbitals, which effectively means seizing the system. It was not one of the options in his mission parameters.

I have been making the argument that the boarding operation was extremely risky (and admittedly disregarding it worked out in the book as a counter argument to that position). If we accept for the sake of argument that the boarding operation would have been too risky, a limited orbital strike becomes the "minimum force required". Am I overlooking another option?

It had been made clear to the Gendarmes what the cost of harming even a single hostage was going to be. That was the argument against threatening to kill a hostage, which was in fact made, and that was the response.

And the discussion of using a KEW is starting to approach necrotic equine abuse.

Torlek wrote:

SWM wrote:You could make that argument, but it would be a foolish argument. There's no way that you can argue that a weapon that takes out an entire city block and kills the planetary leader and numerous other civilians is necessary force, let alone minimum force, when you can use a surgical strike that kills only military officers engaged in active resistance.

Let me say once again--Zavala did not have authority to attack the system government. He did not have the authorization to claim the orbitals, which effectively means seizing the system. It was not one of the options in his mission parameters.

I have been making the argument that the boarding operation was extremely risky (and admittedly disregarding it worked out in the book as a counter argument to that position). If we accept for the sake of argument that the boarding operation would have been too risky, a limited orbital strike becomes the "minimum force required". Am I overlooking another option?

Yes, the very most commonly used option. The option that Dueñas was expecting. Diplomacy. If Dueñas had pushed it up to the diplomitic level, he expected Manticore (like every other Verge system) to fold. No one in OFS had ever had anyone successfully resist before; he didn't understand the difference, or believe any combat reports.

Even in today's real life, you don't go to extreme uses of weapons of mass destruction (KEWs fall in that category) unless you exhaust all diplomatic means. We didn't nuke Iran during the hostage crisis; we didn't nuke Sudan (where bin Laden was at the time) after the embassies were attacked in Zimbabwe and Kenya. We didn't nuke Beirut after the attack on our Marines there. We didn't nuke Libya in response to the downed aircraft at Lockerbie, Scotland.

The boarding operation was not any more risky than the risks the navy took before the war, using frigates for anti-piracy. Just part of the job, iow.

Rob

SWM wrote:But before you can consider an orbital strike a minimum force, or a required force, or even a permitted force, certain conditions have to be met. First, you must claim control of the orbitals, which is a declaration that you are seizing control of the planet. Second, before you can even consider an orbital strike, the planetary government must reject the surrender demand, either explicitly or by continuing military resistance. Executing an orbital strike without those two conditions is at best a terrorist attack, and is also potentially a violation of the Eridani Edict. Even if you meet those conditions, it is an extreme act of aggression to sieze an entire planet.

As a tangentially nitpick, I believe that's only the conditions for orbital bombardment to compel surrender.

If ground to orbit defenses attempt to engage your ships I'm pretty sure you're allowed to bombard military targets related to them (including their command and control nodes) to suppress that fire.

Similarly if you dropped Marines on a raid I'm pretty sure you're allowed to perform fire support for them, using anything from pinnaces, up through assault shuttles, and even orbital bombardment against forces resisting your raid.


But of course neither of those apply to the scenario at hand.

Jonathan_S wrote:

SWM wrote:But before you can consider an orbital strike a minimum force, or a required force, or even a permitted force, certain conditions have to be met. First, you must claim control of the orbitals, which is a declaration that you are seizing control of the planet. Second, before you can even consider an orbital strike, the planetary government must reject the surrender demand, either explicitly or by continuing military resistance. Executing an orbital strike without those two conditions is at best a terrorist attack, and is also potentially a violation of the Eridani Edict. Even if you meet those conditions, it is an extreme act of aggression to sieze an entire planet.

As a tangentially nitpick, I believe that's only the conditions for orbital bombardment to compel surrender.

If ground to orbit defenses attempt to engage your ships I'm pretty sure you're allowed to bombard military targets related to them (including their command and control nodes) to suppress that fire.

Similarly if you dropped Marines on a raid I'm pretty sure you're allowed to perform fire support for them, using anything from pinnaces, up through assault shuttles, and even orbital bombardment against forces resisting your raid.

But of course neither of those apply to the scenario at hand.

You're probably right that you could return fire if under attack, even if you aren't trying to claim the orbitals and demand surrender. Good point.

Looks like I have to retread my position in light of the overwhelming opposition

I am still of the opinion that a hostage rescue operation carried out by sailors, who are untrained for that sort of mission, had little time to plan and prepare and against well armed, prepared and entrenched opponents with some military training, SHOULD have ended in a general bloodbath (including death hostages). Think Munich 1972.

How about laying siege to the Gendarmes section of the space station instead and waiting until the run out of necessities and come out.

Torlek wrote:I am still of the opinion that a hostage rescue operation carried out by sailors, who are untrained for that sort of mission, had little time to plan and prepare and against well armed, prepared and entrenched opponents with some military training, SHOULD have ended in a general bloodbath (including death hostages). Think Munich 1972.

How about laying siege to the Gendarmes section of the space station instead and waiting until the run out of necessities and come out.

The success of a siege would depend on what kind of supplies the Gendarmerie had; and how long the hostages could survive when deprived of those supplies to feed the Gendarmes.

If the hostages were being held by spacers, or were being held on the ground somewhere, you might well be right. They weren't though. The hostages were held by poorly trained thugs whose main job was to intimidate planetary populations -- eg NOT spacers.

If the rescue wasn't led by someone with combat experience and tactical training assisted by her bodyguard, the former Marine, you might well be right as well. Also, ASTR, that the rescue team had received some training in boarding operations from Matteo in anticipation of the lack of Marines forcing sailors into that role.

The actual rescue operation made use of the fact the Gendarmes weren't spacers and tended to think of the outside of the space station as inhospitable and deadly; sort of a moat or river securing their flanks. It was a tactic that wouldn't occur to ground-pounders, but was glaringly obvious to spacers.

Weird Harold wrote:The success of a siege would depend on what kind of supplies the Gendarmerie had; and how long the hostages could survive when deprived of those supplies to feed the Gendarmes.

On a space station there is lot of vital things you can run out fast. Just disabling the cooling system alone could make could make the living conditions very uncomfortable.

If the hostages were being held by spacers, or were being held on the ground somewhere, you might well be right. They weren't though. The hostages were held by poorly trained thugs whose main job was to intimidate planetary populations -- eg NOT spacers.

Complete amateur hostage takers, without any training whatsoever or even the first clue what they are doing manage, manage to get hostages killed. It is not like shooting hostages is all that hard. Especially in a situation, where the rescuers were unable to secure the hostages immediately.
The Gendarmes had military arms and SOME training.

If the rescue wasn't led by someone with combat experience and tactical training assisted by her bodyguard, the former Marine, you might well be right as well. Also, ASTR, that the rescue team had received some training in boarding operations from Matteo in anticipation of the lack of Marines forcing sailors into that role.

True but that does not constitute a competent hostage rescue team. Two people who had some tangential skills and had a little time to instruct the others??? Actual hostage rescue people train for months and years.

The actual rescue operation made use of the fact the Gendarmes weren't spacers and tended to think of the outside of the space station as inhospitable and deadly; sort of a moat or river securing their flanks. It was a tactic that wouldn't occur to ground-pounders, but was glaringly obvious to spacers.

True, they had still plenty opportunity to try something stupid.