Extraordinary but true: rereading a single early short story by Poul Anderson brings up descriptive passages, literary cross-references, moral and political issues, the works.
"...Dushanovitch-Alvarez, half idealist and half buccaneer, was assembling the Unionist fleet..." (p. 80)
Really? Does buccaneering work in space? (Gunnar Heim makes space privateering work in Anderson's The Star Fox.)
The Moral Problem
Lieutenant Robert Crane, fighting on the Unionist side, learns that his brother, Benjamin, is a spaceship captain on the Humanist side.
Dushnovitch-Alvarez announces that Admiral K'ung's threatened nuclear bombardment of Earth:
"...would be regarded as genocide and all officers partaking in it would be punished under Union law." (p. 81)
- assuming that the Solar Union survives this war, of course.
Robert Crane, who obviously has a personal issue here, protests that:
"...this was not a normal police operation, it was war, and executing men who merely obeyed the government they had pledged to uphold was opening the gates to a darker barbarism than the fighting itself." (ibid.)
Really? Darker than nuclear bombardment of a population? Unless the rebels surrender, K'ung will:
"...start bombing with nuclear weapons. That, of course, would kill perhaps a hundred million civilians, flatten the factories, poison the sea ranches...he'd turn the planet into a butcher shop." (p. 77)
War crime. Genocide. K'ung's men should arrest him as soon as he issues this threat. What is K'ung thinking of? What good will a murdered planet be to either side? Robert is prepared to condone this because his brother might be involved?
Too understaffed to demote Lieutenant Crane, the Unionist Navy publicly reproves him for insubordination and he earns the disapproval of his messmates. That makes him volunteer for a mission that brings him face to face with his brother, the crux of the story.
We here and now support opposed sides in current conflicts. "Cold Victory" is simultaneously escapist and highly relevant. Quite an achievement.
Would we like to fly out through the Solar System? Some of us would. Would merely doing that free us from the conflicts back on Earth? Clearly not. Certainly not while the human race continues to produce K'ungs.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Not going to happen, that arresting of Admiral K'ung. Men who believe in their oath and the rightfulness of their cause will obey their orders. Captain Crane was right to protest.
Anyway, Admiral K'ung was counting on not needing to bombard, believing the threat to do so would make the anti-Humanists on Earth give up and surrender. And that was happening, as many of the anti-humanists were indeed surrendering.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No oath or cause can justify killing populations of civilians and flattening and poisoning their environment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except only some will agree, others will not. I continue to agree with Capt. Crane.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, I don't deny that someone will disagree with what I say!
But mass murder of a population and destruction of its environment as a legitimate military action?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It's what the US did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. And it did break the will of the Japanese, who finally surrendered, ending WW II. Which made it unnecessary for the US to invade the Japanese home islands, to face fanatical resistance leading to American losses of half a million men. To say nothing of Japan almost certainly being destroyed as a nation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Defend Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No way. Something else could have been done like demonstrating the bombs out at sea. Would it have been necessary to invade instead of just blockade?
Paul.
Besides, the destruction threatened in "Cold Victory" was far greater than just one atom bomb on each of two cities.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, because the atom bombings finally broke the will of Japan to fight on, saving the lives of half a million Americans (which is what was est. to be probable US losses in an invasion of Japan).
There was, I believe, some consideration given to using a demonstration. But, in 1945 the US had only two atom bombs ready. expending one for a demonstration was not thought likely to work if Japan remained obdurate and only one was left to be used (even if the other was used on a target). Whether a demonstration or blockade, the war would have dragged on for at least a year or more, with incalculable consequences. No responsible Administration in DC could have tolerated that if it was possible to end the war more quickly.
As for "Cold Victory," except Admiral K'ung's strategy was working, the anti-Humanists on Earth were surrendering.
Sean,
But you are just weighing one set of bad consequences (the effects of two nuclear attacks) against another hypothetical set, the war dragging on.
No one should ever do or even threaten to do what K'ung threatened to do.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, sometimes the best any responsible can do is choose the least bad option. And I believe the right choice was made in 1945.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't. I agree with Einstein. Nuclear weapons should never be used.
Paul.
Post a Comment