In the first battle of ORB

[Killer Tomato]

He was saying it was unreasonable for Shinn to blame Attha. I am arguing it is perfectly fair for Attha to blamed for his decisions and their results.

Unreasonable for Shinn to blame Attha? How so? Maybe on the macro level, but not on the micro level. Look at the number of people of who blamed the US government for not preventing 911.

And I guess I'd agree that it's the Orb's govt failure. Look at how the Swiss managed to avoid getting trampled by the Nazi juggernaut. Orb basically handed the initiative over to their enemy when they decided to just sit still and do nothing.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I haven't heard of any nations adopting self-immolation as a survival technique before. Besides, it wouldn't even work as a determined occupier would simply repair any such damage. All it would accomplish is the impoverishment of the country after the attacker is driven out, or leaves. Actions of this nature aren't born out of negotiation tact; they're born out of desperation.

I thought you knew better than this, 4Tran. That was probably the single most foolish statement I've ever seen you make, since if not for such a tactic, as someone born in the Soviet Union, I very well may have been speaking German for my primary language if not for the Russians burning all of the fields upon retreating so that by the time the German army got to just outside of Moscow, they were out of food and dressed for the summer.

And after that, Russian Winter+low resources=goodbye German army.

Probably the most boneheaded move of all of WW2.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

I thought you knew better than this, 4Tran. That was probably the single most foolish statement I've ever seen you make, since if not for such a tactic, as someone born in the Soviet Union, I very well may have been speaking German for my primary language if not for the Russians burning all of the fields upon retreating so that by the time the German army got to just outside of Moscow, they were out of food and dressed for the summer.

And after that, Russian Winter+low resources=goodbye German army.

Probably the most boneheaded move of all of WW2.

Outright declaring war on the US with no means to fight them should also rank up there. Outright freeing US convoys to Russia, so that the American factories could ship the Russian boots, highly refined aviation fuels, and supply trucks needed for the Russian steamroller was rather stupid: "factories that can only produce razor blades" my butt.

[Demongod86]

True enough. However, the US was already explicitly letting Britain borrow funds and such to stop Germany.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

You haven't? Threats to destroy oil infrastructure if invaded during times of tension aren't uncommon (Venezuela does it constantly, though few pay attention anymore. Iran is a better example), and have been tied to fluxuating oil prices when the world market gets a bit unsure of its supply. It's a political tool used to remind both the other countries and their populations of how fragile the infrastructure is, and how important it is for it to stay intact.

I haven't ever heard it as an instrument of policy in the place of a standard military response to enemy aggression. They're usually not treated all that seriously because oil field fires, while requiring a great deal of effort to put out, can be. Even the devastation of the Kuwaiti oil fires only took 8 months to completely restore.

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Building a mass driver is a matter of year(s), not days, and the threat to destroy it is the negotiations tactic, while carrying it out is what comes after the enemy attacks. If "repairing" the Mass Driver was all it took, then it would be much easier, quicker, and more profitable for the EA to rebuild the Panama driver than it ever would for the Orb driver. And since the Orb not only rebuilt their driver quickly, but also also remained a major economic and technological power, it was hardly "impoverishing."

The EA had already planned their primary attack at the Victoria mass driver. The invasion of Orb was more of a side jaunt to show the world that maintaining neutrality was not possible.

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

I will admit my error in that. It still doesn't change that Athha made his choice when faced with a circumstance. And when the fight came, they could have had EA assisstance to fight against ZAFT. That puts them at a much better position than against the EA on their own. ZAFT orbital drops against prepared positions (as such a small island as Orb generally can be considered) were generally disastrous, and the EA navy that attacked Orb can also be the EA navy that helps fight against the ZAFT force attacking Orb.

Uzumi didn't "make a choice" so much as he was resigned to his decision. PLANT would have been forced to attack Orb in the event of an Orb-EA alliance, and a battle of Orb with escalated forces stood to be much more devastating than the EA-Orb battle. And of course, looking at the post-war picture, an alliance with the EA would have led to even more dire effects.

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

But when you stand against a stronger neighbor without aid, you really shouldn't be surprised when you get mauled. Assuming that neutrality is going to save your citizens when neutrality is not a choice, though, is a fool's errand.

And sometimes conflict was unavoidable. Remember that the EA literally had no casus belli whatsoever for war upon Orb.

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

He was saying it was unreasonable for Shinn to blame Attha. I am arguing it is perfectly fair for Attha to blamed for his decisions and their results.

That's not what you were doing - all you did was reiterate that Shinn's reaction was realistic. Guess what? No one is arguing against such a point: in fact, Shinn tends to be applauded for being a realistic character.

Originally Posted by Killer Tomato

Unreasonable for Shinn to blame Attha? How so? Maybe on the macro level, but not on the micro level.

In what way do you think that attributing blame in that manner is reasonable?

Originally Posted by Demongod86

I thought you knew better than this, 4Tran. That was probably the single most foolish statement I've ever seen you make, since if not for such a tactic, as someone born in the Soviet Union, I very well may have been speaking German for my primary language if not for the Russians burning all of the fields upon retreating so that by the time the German army got to just outside of Moscow, they were out of food and dressed for the summer.

I was implicitly referring to a situation where "the threatened country is small, and can't gain from a scorched earth strategy", thus any comparisons to Barbarossa aren't in play. More specifically, I was referring to burning one's oil wells as an alternative to a regular military defense in the face of attack.

Spoiler for World War II Off-topic:

By the way, the historical record suggests that the Soviet scorched earth policy was less effective than relocating the factories to the Urals. A much better example of that strategy in use would be against La Grande Armee in 1812.

[Nvis]

-Kusanagi parts in space.
-They don't have anywhere to run on Earth.
-Send them to place + destroy mass driver = good escape route
-Kira/Athrun no-kill policy kind of a disadvantage too.

[Double 120%]

Originally Posted by Nvis

\
-Kira/Athrun no-kill policy kind of a disadvantage too.

I'm not sure they had a no-kill policy that early in seed did they? Didn't Asuran kill one of the druggies later on too?



Anyway, I think the Archangel with Buster and Strike could have easily led a counter attack and destroyed the EA fleet, while Freedom and Justice kept the druggies busy, and Orb mobile suits and defenses kept the EA mobile suits busy. But Murrue refused to use the Lohengrin cannons on earth because of "environmental damage," and nerfed the Archangel's most powerful weapon. Environmental damage would be my least concern when my country is being attacked.

Funny considering how many times the Minerva fired its Tannhauser on earth without regard. And the EA even set up a Lohengrin turret on earth to boot. I didn't really see any environmental damage when they used it.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Double 120%

I'm not sure they had a no-kill policy that early in seed did they? Didn't Asuran kill one of the druggies later on too?



Anyway, I think the Archangel with Buster and Strike could have easily led a counter attack and destroyed the EA fleet, while Freedom and Justice kept the druggies busy, and Orb mobile suits and defenses kept the EA mobile suits busy. But Murrue refused to use the Lohengrin cannons on earth because of "environmental damage," and nerfed the Archangel's most powerful weapon. Environmental damage would be my least concern when my country is being attacked.

Funny considering how many times the Minerva fired its Tannhauser on earth without regard. And the EA even set up a Lohengrin turret on earth to boot. I didn't really see any environmental damage when they used it.

Kira started his no kill policy when he left Plant with Freedom. I couldn't tell you when Athrun adopted that policy however.

[RedWing]

Did Athrun ever adopt that policy?

[Rising Dragon]

Occasionally. There were a few scenes where he only blew off limbs and heads instead of cockpits using the Justice. Just as there was at least one scene in SEED where Kira killed using the Freedom--he cut a battleship in half with the Meteor's beam sword. He didn't look very happy doing it, either.

[Aquaman OS]

Athrun only had a no kill policy against Orb forces in Destiny and occasionally Zaft. He seems to have no qualm with killing EA forces though.

[Rising Dragon]

Originally Posted by Aquaman OS

Athrun only had a no kill policy against Orb forces in Destiny and occasionally Zaft. He seems to have no qualm with killing EA forces though.

Well they did have a tendency to launch weapons of mass destruction at his people at the drop of a hat...