Poll: Annexing an Alien World

[senordesol]

Hey there fellow Escapists. I wrote a book! It's currently being judged for the Amazon 'ABNA' contest, but I've got a blog up that features some teasers about what you'll find when it's released. (http://woundedworlds.blogspot.com/)

But this is a discussion forum, so I will borrow the topic of discussion from the plot of my novel. The main conflict centers around the annexation of an alien world. We have just liberated it from a hostile extraterrestrial force that still poses a threat to both ourselves and the natives. The General Staff agrees that the only chance of eliminating the hostile threat for good is to join liberated worlds into a cohesive alliance and the quickest way to do that is annexation.

The natives are on the fence about this, but while they're mulling it over they've taken to hunting down and brutally executing enemy collaborators. However their terms for 'collaboration' extends to anyone who has assisted the enemy occupation forces in any way during the occupation; file clerks, secretaries, security guards -- all of these are fair game. This DOES NOT extend to those who were pressed into slavery, only to those who were paid/rewarded for their services.

People are dying by the thousands -their families the objects of disdain- and though they were not technically slaves, it is obvious that most had little choice but to have served the occupiers. Your action or inaction in this matter will decide a successful annexation. What do you do and why?

 

[Rawne1980]

I went for other because there is only one way to ensure everyone is equal and we don't die in the process.........

 

[Esotera]

I definitely wouldn't do nothing as it would be seen as indecision by everyone involved, even if it ended up being the best option.

Seeing as we won the campaign, I'm assuming we can impose ourselves upon the native, I'd therefore try and establish a fairer justice system whilst appeasing the natives by allowing the hunt of those implicitly involved in enemy collaboration (soldiers, etc). This might lead to a few problems with small rebel factions but would stop most infighting and get us ready to face the more important threat.

 

[Heronblade]

Doing nothing in the face of genocide is never an option while possessed of the means and opportunity to prevent it.

In the interest of avoiding pissing off the locals too badly, negotiations and political pressure will be attempted first.

If that fails, plan B involves offering asylum to targeted individuals. (any who appear to have collaborated willingly will be held and then returned to their own people if/when a fair trial is promised)

If the natives continually interfere with those attempting to flee off planet, force will be used to intervene, LTL if remotely possible.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Hey there fellow Escapists. I wrote a book! It's currently being judged for the Amazon 'ABNA' contest, but I've got a blog up that features some teasers about what you'll find when it's released. (http://woundedworlds.blogspot.com/)

I was intending to enter that (but finished it a bit on the late side and my piece was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long...) -_- Anyway, best of luck to you.

OT:

Quick question (actually two): what is the racial composition of your 'General Staff' and what, precisely, is its function (i.e. political vs military responsibilities, powers and influence)?

Based on what you've provided, I will front the following two answers based on two hats: my author's hat; and my military analyst's hat.

1) As an author, I'd annex... the next book will be about their rather brutal rebellion against their human overlords (getting all blood drunk thanks to first antagonist race hunting & bashing). And a whole humanity needs to learn their lesson thing-y, and does better next time around.

2) As a militarist... answer's quite complex, as it depends on their level of societal and technological sophistication and their laws of war as well as those of the enemy in question. As best as I could, I'd arrange a bilateral treaty of mutual defence and contribution to war efforts and depending on direction and proximity of threat, arrange material aid or financial aid as fits the situation. As ever 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. For the sake of future relations, help them, by all means, but leave them in no doubt that they're in our debt.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

This is a really interesting question.

A lot of it hinges, I guess, on exactly how evil the enemy forces that the collaborators worked with were. If we're talking Space Nazis, I'm a lot more hesitant to help out collaborators, because the anger of the natives would be more-or-less justified, and the chances of losing native support would be magnified. And if the enemy aliens were Space Nazis, the collaborators are less sympathetic.

If the enemy force was no more or less heinous than the human forces (say, Space Napoleon) and hadn't done anything that would count as a war crime or a crime against humanity, I would be strongly in favour of granting the collaborators protection. In that scenario, it's the natives who come off as bad guys - they're willing to summarily execute civilian collaborators for no real crime other than submitting to military occupation.

On retrospect, even if the enemies were Space Nazis...no. I still wouldn't sit there and watch them get slaughtered. A war crime is a war crime, and it doesn't become okay to murder civilians en masse just because you decided they were bad people. If it risks the successful annexation, well, do the natives really have a choice? We can annex them anyway, and they can co-operate or they can continue being mass-murdering douchebags, and we'll treat them exactly like the other mass-murdering douchebags.

Ideally, you'd step in and force the native authorities to institute a war crimes tribunal and then oversee the process to ensure that it's done fairly. That was basically what they did at Nuremberg, and it ended up with a whole load of hangings anyway, so the natives are probably going to get what they want.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Depends on the severity of the enemy faced. If the level of evil we are talking about approaches that of the German fascists then I would be happy to grant them their war of extermination. If we can salvage some capacity to make war for ourselves then I would attempt to rehabilitate the captives.

 

[Erttheking]

Gonna have to go with option four. Also please tell me when this book comes out.

 

[uzo]

Soo ... is humanity the 'good' guys in this, or are we all a bit morally fuzzy?

If you're going for the fuzzy morality thing, annex and assist in the hunt.

If it was my call, annex but do not try to stop the hunt. If we start imposing our laws and values upon them, no matter the consequences for the natives, then they have simply swapped one tyrant for another. How would modern Americans feel if the US were annexed by an Islamist nation in a desperate war against China - and they started imposing Sharia law.

I think you'd be wishing the Chinese won, at that point.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Soo ... is humanity the 'good' guys in this, or are we all a bit morally fuzzy?

If you're going for the fuzzy morality thing, annex and assist in the hunt.

If it was my call, annex but do not try to stop the hunt. If we start imposing our laws and values upon them, no matter the consequences for the natives, then they have simply swapped one tyrant for another. How would modern Americans feel if the US were annexed by an Islamist nation in a desperate war against China - and they started imposing Sharia law.

I think you'd be wishing the Chinese won, at that point.

By this logic why are we even helping them eliminate their oppressers at all? If it is a part of the oppresser's culture to invade worlds and force their inhabitants into near slavery while rewarding willing contributors then why stop them? Thats their law. Also wouldn't aiding the collaborators be a equally valid option since mabey accepting defeat and working with the enemy is a part of their values? We should always strive for justice, the natives' culture can piss off. The second they started murdering innocent civilians for not standing against the enemy they lost right to claim cultual saftey, they don't have the right to kill others for not following their values. As for your real world example, I would fight Sharia because sharia law is unjust and morally wrong. If Sweden invaded in counter to China and began ruling with their law then I would let it stand and hope for independence once the war had ended.

 

[Timedraven 117]

I chose option four. But by intervening i would instead say, "Hey lets all take them on a train to a 'vacation'." Like what Hitler did except we are actually taking them off planet to someplace they won't be persecuted.

This way, they think they are dead, while we can take the moral high ground. It works for al sides. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[senordesol]

Hey there fellow Escapists. I wrote a book! It's currently being judged for the Amazon 'ABNA' contest, but I've got a blog up that features some teasers about what you'll find when it's released. (http://woundedworlds.blogspot.com/)

I was intending to enter that (but finished it a bit on the late side and my piece was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long...) -_- Anyway, best of luck to you.

OT:

Quick question (actually two): what is the racial composition of your 'General Staff' and what, precisely, is its function (i.e. political vs military responsibilities, powers and influence)?

Based on what you've provided, I will front the following two answers based on two hats: my author's hat; and my military analyst's hat.

1) As an author, I'd annex... the next book will be about their rather brutal rebellion against their human overlords (getting all blood drunk thanks to first antagonist race hunting & bashing). And a whole humanity needs to learn their lesson thing-y, and does better next time around.

2) As a militarist... answer's quite complex, as it depends on their level of societal and technological sophistication and their laws of war as well as those of the enemy in question. As best as I could, I'd arrange a bilateral treaty of mutual defence and contribution to war efforts and depending on direction and proximity of threat, arrange material aid or financial aid as fits the situation. As ever 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. For the sake of future relations, help them, by all means, but leave them in no doubt that they're in our debt.

Thanks for the well wishes, good luck next year! The General staff consists (in the current timeframe the novel is set) of humans who make up a cabinet and Joint Chiefs. The General Staff serves in an advisory capacity and only has command authority when executing the will of the President under the blessing of a Congress (yes, I decided to preserve a certain governmental structure in particular on this one...sort of.).

The people on the ground though are the Civilian Service Corps -a new quasi-military branch of the State Department. It is their job to understand the cultures they are sent to and convince them to join the fight against the Empire. Technically, the CSC has no authority over unintegrated alien populaces but... lets just say that particular state of affairs is not satisfactory for every character in my story.

So, to answer your question more concisely: The general staff consists of a bunch of stuffy old humans light years away from the main conflict.

 

[senordesol]

Soo ... is humanity the 'good' guys in this, or are we all a bit morally fuzzy?

If you're going for the fuzzy morality thing, annex and assist in the hunt.

If it was my call, annex but do not try to stop the hunt. If we start imposing our laws and values upon them, no matter the consequences for the natives, then they have simply swapped one tyrant for another. How would modern Americans feel if the US were annexed by an Islamist nation in a desperate war against China - and they started imposing Sharia law.

I think you'd be wishing the Chinese won, at that point.

Definitely in the 'fuzzy' area. For us, it's tough to know how to proceed. We're desperate for allies against the main enemy, but -to your point- imposing our will on the native populace is not going to make any fast friends. I took great pains to try to make every character sympathetic, but none could be classified as wholly a 'good guy'.

 

[spartan231490]

Take the collaborators off-world, to earth. Probably take virtually all humans off the alien world, leaving only a small embassy like place, or perhaps a military base, to assist in negotiations.

 

[uzo]

*snippy*
By this logic why are we even helping them eliminate their oppressers at all? If it is a part of the oppresser's culture to invade worlds and force their inhabitants into near slavery while rewarding willing contributors then why stop them? Thats their law. Also wouldn't aiding the collaborators be a equally valid option since mabey accepting defeat and working with the enemy is a part of their values? We should always strive for justice, the natives' culture can piss off. The second they started murdering innocent civilians for not standing against the enemy they lost right to claim cultual saftey, they don't have the right to kill others for not following their values. As for your real world example, I would fight Sharia because sharia law is unjust and morally wrong. If Sweden invaded in counter to China and began ruling with their law then I would let it stand and hope for independence once the war had ended.

OP states that they are a hostile force. I've assumed that we didn't just leap into a star system and attack some random planet because we felt like it - he used the word 'liberate' which to me suggests this conflict was already in full swing by the time it came to the planet concerned. Perhaps I've assumed too much...?

For a better real world example, which is factual rather than our earlier hypotheticals, look at Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. There you can see how 'welcomed liberators' can rapidly become a despised occupation force. It has happened time and again on our own planet, with our own species. What makes you think imposing your morality upon a different species is going to end any better? Christ man, we're just as likely to get bogged down fighting their insurgents and partisans more than fighting our actual, mutual enemy! You'll be diverting our war effort to deal with an issue that is not our jurisdiction.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

Wipe out the collaborators, gain the trust of the natives, and then unleash a plague upon them and take all of their land and resources. Humanity is a growing species and we need some living space.
>

 

[senordesol]

OP states that they are a hostile force. I've assumed that we didn't just leap into a star system and attack some random planet because we felt like it - he used the word 'liberate' which to me suggests this conflict was already in full swing by the time it came to the planet concerned. Perhaps I've assumed too much...?

For a better real world example, which is factual rather than our earlier hypotheticals, look at Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. There you can see how 'welcomed liberators' can rapidly become a despised occupation force. It has happened time and again on our own planet, with our own species. What makes you think imposing your morality upon a different species is going to end any better? Christ man, we're just as likely to get bogged down fighting their insurgents and partisans more than fighting our actual, mutual enemy! You'll be diverting our war effort to deal with an issue that is not our jurisdiction.

Clarifying:

Empire invades Other Planet. Empire invades Earth. Significant concerted resistance occurs on both planets (though not in tandem). Earth liberates itself first, co-opts Imperial technology. One of Earth's nations liberates Other Planet. Other Planet's Resistance Leaders become new Political Leadership. New Political Leadership seeks to kill all collaborators.

Hope that helps.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I would stay out of their business it it were me. The moment they touch us, we blow them up though.We are not the police of the universe and it is not our responsibility.
Risk vs Reward people. What reward do we get for helping them? Sure, if the hunted helped us with something, or we were particularly friendly with them we would save them. I would not risk myself for some random people I don't even know though.

 

[crimson sickle2]

I would "negotiate" with the natives in a way where they will set aside the collaborator killing until later (until we can burn the documentation) or just put it aside indefinitely. If we liberated them, then the prisoners of war are ours. Allow the collaborators to go to another alliance planet if all else fails. Only difference to option five: back up plan isn't behind authorities, but through them, we're stronger if anything else and can probably just force the authorities to do what we say.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

snip

Yes, they are a hostile force, thus we liberated the native people. I am just saying that our liberation of the natives is imposing our moral values on the oppressors, namely the value that says "conquering and subjegating others is wrong". I can see your point on not wanting to cause a rebellion, I just really dislike the "traded one tyrant for another" wording. Slaughtering people by the thousands with no trial for very minor crimes that they committed to survive is not justice, and stopping that is not tyranny. Keeping the natives from comitting mass murder is hardly the act of a tyrant, said mass murder however is the act of a tyrant, that is my point. Moving on, I would say that allowing the slaughter is not only a sign of weakness on our part but certainly a immoral action on our part. While I don't want to fight them I do not think allowing them to kill thousands of innocents is a acceptable price for their help. Besides they need us as muc as we need them, they are in our debt for their liberation and since we are clearly stronger than they are, they need us to fight our mutual foe and keep them from retaking their planet. We could simply offer them the deal of "stop murdering innocents, set up a fair trial system, or we will leave you to the empire.", we hold all the power here.