The single large Avalonian continent, Corona, straddles the North Pole. Winter in northern Corona means snow. Further south, the main city, Gray, gets cold winds but no snow. Around the island of St. Li in the Oronesia archipelago, winter means a lot of rain - described as rushing, shouting, washing and caressing - with rainbows between the heavy showers. Tabitha Falkayn likes to go naked in the rain but also spends a lot of time indoors, talking and listening to music with her guest, Philippe Rochefort. On a clear evening, they walk along the beach through the soft air. Full, white, dazzling Morgana brightens the sea, the dunes and the tops of trees. Sand grits underfoot, warming bare feet. She leads him to a tree-sheltered headland with thick, soft Terran grass and a view of Morgana and the sea.
Rochefort says that all this will be burned and poisoned if the insanely arrogant Avalonians leave no alternative. There is always an alternative. Terra could have a policy of simply not doing that.
18 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, that "alternative" you suggested for Terra would mean Ythrian freebooters would conclude they could get away with continuing those "bloody clashes."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Something would have to be done about the freebooters - a police action - but not bombarding Avalon.
Paul.
War is not a police action.
It's not about individuals and it's not remotely like what the police do.
Basically it's about beating on people, collectively speaking, until they do what you want or just die.
I am not sure that the border clashes warranted war. They were actions not by the Domain but by small groups of Ythrians.
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with Stirling, you can't stop raids and large scale banditry with mere police actions. The US and UK are not using ordinary police trying to stop Iranian controlled Houthi pirates in the Red Sea!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But bombarding Avalon is not the answer - as events prove, in fact.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except I don't think the besieging Imperials would have bombarded Avalon indiscriminately. They would have focused on destroying defenses.
Ad astra! Sean
The 'customs' of war -- there are no laws, law is an expression of sovereign power - don't forbid -killing- civilians.
They only forbid -targeting- civilians. That is to say, aiming for them with the objective of killing them.
Eg., in 1944 in the month before D-Day we engaged in an extensive bombing campaign against the French railways, to prevent the Germans from using the rail net to move their reserves around after the Normandy invasion.
That worked.
It also killed about 30,000 French civilians who happened to be in the wrong place when the B-25's came calling, railway workers and their families, mostly, but also passengers.
That's about 1,000 a day.
War crime? Of course not.
They weren't targeted, they were just in the way. C'est la guerre -- there's a reason war is generally not considered a Good Thing in and of itself.
In war, the order of priorities is: a), accomplishing the mission, b), reducing your own losses as much as possible, and c) everything else a distant third.
Until the last little while, it seems to have slipped the Western public's mind just how destructive large-scale conventional warfare is.
Take a look at a picture of Berlin or Tokyo in 1945, or Seoul in Korea in 1952, after it had been fought over 5 times.
All you'll see is rubble. The pictures don't convey the stench of tens of thousands of rotting bodies -under- the rubble, though.
I would add that in war, 'moderation is idiocy'. Attempts to play nicey-nice (like ceasefires, etc.) just prolong the conflict and at worst prevent a decisive result.
If you're going to have a war, hit as hard as you can to get it over as quickly as possible. It's all about seeing who has the biggest fist, after all.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, which is exactly why Israel is refusing to end its war against the Hamas scum, not till it's satisfied that gang has been destroyed.
And that murderous thug Putin is having his military forces deliberately attack strictly civilian targets. The Russians are knowingly killing civilians in non-military locations.
Nothing like the Anglo/Americans attacking militarily useful French railroads in 1944!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know people who would say "Zionist scum" but I think that such language is inappropriate. I confidently predict that that "that gang" will not be destroyed. The resistance is deeply rooted and will continue as long as the conflict continues in its present form. Of course, having made a definite prediction, I could be proved wrong. I read that Netanyahu wants Hamas destroyed by the beginning of Ramadan.
It is interesting that discussion of a fictional future war links directly with discussion of current events.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, everything I've learned about the Hamas creatures makes such language correct and appropriate. They are jihadist fanatics, murderers, rapists, and torturers who did things like roasting babies alive.
I have no sympathy for the so called Palestinians. Their fanaticism, stupidity, and brutality has forfeited whatever support I might have had for them. I agree with what Nethanyahu wants to achieve.
Anderson's stories are hard headed and realistic, that is why they are so often relevant to real events.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I saw a film clip in which IDF soldiers exulted about killing Palestinian babies.
I DO confidently predict that a particular resistance organization will not be totally eradicated. The conflict as it is being conducted now will simply continue indefinitely until something else changes like when Israel no longer serves US interests so the US stops arming and funding Israel and defending it in the UN.
You seem to be dismissing an entire population as fanatical, stupid and brutal and that cannot be right.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, you are sympathizing for the wrong side, a bad cause.
And too many Palestinians are exactly as I described them. War will continue until Israel completely crushes its enemies. To say nothing of how Iran, for its own reasons, arms and funds these terrorist gangs. Overthrow the Muslim Shia theocracy in Tehran and these terrorists will immediately become much weaker!
Ad astra!
Sean,
What of the point that Israel is entirely propped up by the US which will not have interests in that region indefinitely?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe Israel will survive, with or without the US!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that that is completely unrealistic. Any entity, whether an individual human being or a nation state, exists only in certain conditions and prospers only in a sub-set of those conditions. Changing the conditions changes the entity until it becomes unrecognizable, then non-existent. Nothing remains unchanged if important conditions change around it. Israel wins because it is massively funded and armed by the US. Palestinians lose not because they are, collectively, stupider than anyone else but because they are fighting the US. Removing US support will massively change that situation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because Israel is a real nation with a solid and diverse economy. Also, I can turn your argument against yours by saying that if/when the thuggish theocracy in Iran is overthrown, scum like the Hamas and Hezbullah terrorists (to say nothing of the Houthi pirates) would lose the arming and funding Iran now gives them. That would immediately be devastating to these horrible creatures!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Organizations funded by a regime will lose that funding when the regime is overthrown. Well, sure...
Paul.
Post a Comment