Shit, my bad, I didn’t realise that using a nuclear weapon instead was that much better
he didn’t use a nuclear weapon, either.
since it changes the type of weapon from a Weapon of Mass Destruction that turns a planet inhospitable to a Weapon of Mass Destruction that turns a planet inhospitable.
turning a planet inhospitable isn’t the same as trying to kill all of the civilians living on that planet. and - yes - that does make a difference.
So… Sisko behaved with the same level of disregard for sentient life as a terrorist?
he didn’t do that, either. he very well knew the maquis could easily evacuate, and knew they had a new planet to resettle afterward. and, before he fired the torpedos, he gave them every bit of warning.
Not really. Attacking civilians is bad.
nobody’s arguing that here, and I’ve already stated - several times - that I agree.
but the argument is “is it a war crime?”. and you really haven’t made your case. I remain unconvinced.
is it a crime– I already said that it probably is. should it be a war crime. probably. but is it a war crime? maybe, but I don’t think we know enough to say. that’s a question of Federation law, and we can’t know the answer here.
he didn’t use a nuclear weapon, either.
turning a planet inhospitable isn’t the same as trying to kill all of the civilians living on that planet. and - yes - that does make a difference.
he didn’t do that, either. he very well knew the maquis could easily evacuate, and knew they had a new planet to resettle afterward. and, before he fired the torpedos, he gave them every bit of warning.
nobody’s arguing that here, and I’ve already stated - several times - that I agree.
but the argument is “is it a war crime?”. and you really haven’t made your case. I remain unconvinced.
is it a crime– I already said that it probably is. should it be a war crime. probably. but is it a war crime? maybe, but I don’t think we know enough to say. that’s a question of Federation law, and we can’t know the answer here.