The dilemma goes: either you kill a lot of people now or you do nothing in which case many more people, maybe even including those that you would have killed, are instead killed by someone else. What do you do? I responded to one fictional example here.
How often does anyone face such a dilemma? How could anyone be sufficiently certain either that there were only two choices or that these were those two choices? In Larry Niven's and Jerry Pournelle's The Mote In God's Eye, Admiral Kutuzov sterilizes a planet in order to prevent a sector rebellion. Although the Imperial Parliament and Navy approve his action, surely Kutuzov is guilty of war crime and genocide by any civilized standard? What value is there in a peace bought entirely through force and intimidation? The Empire has surely forfeited its right to any loyalty from the population of that sector?
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
You raised good questions about Niven/Pournelle's Second Empire of Man as we see it in THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE. And, as I recall, there were many in the Empire who were at least uneasy about Admiral Kutuzov's actions. Which resulted in him being regarded with distaste.
For the OPPOSITE of Kutuzov being too willing to use the most extreme measures, see Admiral Thomas Walton in Chapter XV of WE CLAIM THESE STARS, who declared of an enemy planet which had attacked the Empire: "I don't want to be a butcher at Ardazir, either...all their little cubs, who never heard about war-- But what can I do?" The end of the chapter ends with Sir Thomas Walton described as "...one of the last brave and wholly honorable men in all Terra's Empire." Surely an exaggeration, but still telling!
I'm surprised we see no further mention of Admiral Walton in at least A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS and A STONE IN HEAVEN.
Sean
Paul and Sean:
With regard to the use of extreme measures, David Drake's *RCN* series has a main character, Adele Mundy, whose parents and sister died in a massive purge to prevent a civil war on her home planet (her sister SHOULD have been exempt, being only 10 years old, but "mistakes happen" and the little girl's severed head was nonetheless displayed on a spike alongside her parents'). Corder Leary, who ordered the purge, was thereafter regarded askance even by his allies. Not by his friends -- because he had no friends.
(It's commented that Corder Leary is "extremely punctilious about power relationships.... You always knew where you stood with [him]; or, more precisely, where at his feet you were to kneel.")
Adele became the closest friend of the other main character, Corder's son Daniel, despite their families' history. At one point in a later story, she realizes that if faced with the same sort of crisis, she would deal with it THE SAME WAY: drown the possible revolt in lots of blood. She's not very happy with that self-knowledge.
Hi, David!
Very interesting comments. It's a DAMNABLY hard question to be posed to any leader who was not a monster: use SOME force now to avoid needing to use far more later (and correspondingly larger casualties)?
All the same, I still prefer Admiral Walton, with his reluctance to too quickly use the most extreme measures. And I'm glad Dominic Flandry found the means to avoid Walton being forced to take those extreme measures.
Sean
Sean:
I should've added that at the same time that Adele realized she would've dealt with such a crisis just as Corder Leary did, she also knew DANIEL Leary would NOT do so, were he in charge of the government -- "The most he might have done was to look the other way while his advisor, Lady Mundy, saved the Republic." So Daniel is more like Walton ... which doesn't make him any more of a pushover than Walton was.
Hi, David!
Hmmm, it seems to me that a leader who allows others, acting in his name, to take the most controversially extreme measures needed to resolve a crisis is even more responsible than his subordinates. I think Admiral Walton would not have flinched from this responsibility if he had been forced to make a choice.
Sean
Post a Comment