Sisko's Worst Command Decisions

[Lighthawk]

One thing I'd like to consider in this: Seafort, you've repeatily through out this discussion brought up the legality of certain actions. This isn't any sort of attack on you, but merely a question brought up by this point you keep raising. What makes you think there would be any sort of laws of war between say the federation and dominion? The bio weapon attack on the Founders comes to mind, as well as Sisko gassing a planet. Did anyone at any point actually ever declare these actions illegal?

Even if there are laws of warfare, what makes you think they'd be anything like what we have today? Hell, a lot of our current ideas of proper warfare are pretty damn new in the scheme of things. Major cities were considered fair game in WWII, and chemical weapons were used in WWI. That's not even a century ago. Chemical weapons got outlawed I'd say just because they are too nasty, no one anywhere wants to deal with that. As for killing civilians and blowing up civilian targets, honestly that's been a stradegy for most of war's existance. Hell, how many vietnamies (bad spelling, I know) got mowed down by trigger happy solider's from copters with no real regard for whether or not they were actually the enemy? The only real reason that civilians have become off limits is because of smart weapons and modern communications. We don't have to flatten everything within two miles of a target to reasonably hit it any more, and with news groups able to report on a military strike within minutes of it happening, it makes it much easier for people nowhere near the conflict to get morally upset over unnecassary civilian casualties. But as I said, this is pretty new stuff. I could well imagine many members of the federation might not have shifted to this mind set like humans did. They might well still consider civilians acceptable targets.

Granted, given the mind set of the federation, I would imaging they do have certain restrictions in warfare, but then again, we're taking about how many different cultures, with how many different views on war? Who's to say what is or is not legal, especially against an aggressive alien culture.

[SomosFuga]

There is the Kithomer Accord but i don't think the Dominion is part of it.

[Reliant121]

I doubt it, the AQ/BQ powers were unaware of the existence of the Dominion when the Khitomer accords were set up (that ambiguous period around 2300-2350)

[Captain Seafort]

What makes you think there would be any sort of laws of war between say the federation and dominion?

Laws of war don't apply "between" powers, but to those that have signed specific treaties or domestic legislation - whether or not the opposing power has signed up to them is irrelevant.

The bio weapon attack on the Founders comes to mind, as well as Sisko gassing a planet. Did anyone at any point actually ever declare these actions illegal?

Not in so many words, but both were described as un-Federation/un-Starfleet actions.

Hell, a lot of our current ideas of proper warfare are pretty damn new in the scheme of things. Major cities were considered fair game in WWII, and chemical weapons were used in WWI. That's not even a century ago.

And the trend has been towards becoming ever-more restrictive.

Chemical weapons got outlawed I'd say just because they are too nasty, no one anywhere wants to deal with that.

Wrong - they're banned because they're indiscriminate, not because they're nasty.

As for killing civilians and blowing up civilian targets, honestly that's been a stradegy for most of war's existance.

Yes. So what?

Hell, how many vietnamies (bad spelling, I know) got mowed down by trigger happy solider's from copters with no real regard for whether or not they were actually the enemy?

Thousands. All of which acts were illegal, albeit usually brushed under the carpet.

The only real reason that civilians have become off limits is because of smart weapons and modern communications. We don't have to flatten everything within two miles of a target to reasonably hit it any more, and with news groups able to report on a military strike within minutes of it happening, it makes it much easier for people nowhere near the conflict to get morally upset over unnecassary civilian casualties.

Correct - this is why the rules regarding targeting are different for different countries. The US is held to a much higher standard than, say, Pakistan, because it has the technical ability to take out a strategic target without flattening half the neighbourhood. The Pakistanis do not. By the time of Trek, especially in the example of the attack on the Maquis world, the rules would naturally have become even more restrictive, partially due to superior sensor resolution, partially because being at the top of the gravity well makes them a lot less vulnerable to attack and reduces any force-protection argument considerably.

I could well imagine many members of the federation might not have shifted to this mind set like humans did. They might well still consider civilians acceptable targets.

Then provide evidence for this.

Granted, given the mind set of the federation, I would imaging they do have certain restrictions in warfare, but then again, we're taking about how many different cultures, with how many different views on war? Who's to say what is or is not legal, especially against an aggressive alien culture.

As I said above, the nature of the enemy is irrelevant, and if you wish to base your argument on differing standards between Fed members then provide evidence of this. Overall, given the frequent and vocal disdain expressed by Starfleet officers towards anything resembling a military, I expect their rules are far more restrictive even than today's.

[Vic]

I think that the good Captain's first point is that warfare accords spell out how we will conduct ourselves in war. To say that we will do so only with signees of those accords but not with anyone else is quite hypocritical. And even in the Federation hypocrisy is severely frowned upon, although it does happen.