Oh ok, as long as he didn’t throw the chemicals in their face, making the air they breathe toxic and fatal does not count as a chemical weapons attack.
well, Sisko didn’t use a chemical weapon-- he released radiogenic particles (trilithium) into the upper atmosphere which irradiated the planet. he also provided the inhabitants ample time to escape its effects. it didn’t make the air poisonous. technically, it was Eddington who used a biological weapon one the Cardassian planet which did make their air toxic, and Sisko was responding to that.
see, you’re treating this like a black-and-white situation when it’s all very morally gray. and I’m not arguing what Sisko did was right or moral-- I’m trying to say that you’re trying to define a complex situation through the narrow lens of a legal technicality, and that we would need to know more about both Federation law and Sisko’s intent and foreknowledge before making a judgement.
so: is what Sisko did a crime? probably. would the Federation technically consider it a war crime? I don’t think we know enough about the circumstances to say.
well, Sisko didn’t use a chemical weapon-- he released radiogenic particles into the upper atmosphere which irradiated the planet. he also provided the inhabitants ample time to escape its effects. it didn’t make the air poisonous.
Shit, my bad, I didn’t realise that using a nuclear weapon instead was that much better for people when they would die from it. You’re right, this COMPLETELY changes the situation, 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.
technically, it was Eddington who used a biological weapon one the Cardassian planet which did make their air toxic, and Sisko was responding to that.
So… Sisko behaved with the same level of disregard for sentient life as a terrorist? Who is a bad guy that we need to chase down at all odds and do whatever we must to catch?
see, you’re treating this like a black-and-white situation when it’s all very morally gray.
Not really. Attacking civilians is bad. If you’re mad at Israel for bombing hospitals, bombing planets with nukes that would kill the civilian inhabitants is also bad.
Again, the federation is meant to be better than us. It’s explicitly stated multiple times through TNG. Compare and contrast the shit Sisko gets up to and the speech he himself gives to eddington with Picard’s speech about “the first duty of every starfleet officer…,”
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.
well, Sisko didn’t use a chemical weapon-- he released radiogenic particles (trilithium) into the upper atmosphere which irradiated the planet. he also provided the inhabitants ample time to escape its effects. it didn’t make the air poisonous. technically, it was Eddington who used a biological weapon one the Cardassian planet which did make their air toxic, and Sisko was responding to that.
see, you’re treating this like a black-and-white situation when it’s all very morally gray. and I’m not arguing what Sisko did was right or moral-- I’m trying to say that you’re trying to define a complex situation through the narrow lens of a legal technicality, and that we would need to know more about both Federation law and Sisko’s intent and foreknowledge before making a judgement.
so: is what Sisko did a crime? probably. would the Federation technically consider it a war crime? I don’t think we know enough about the circumstances to say.
Shit, my bad, I didn’t realise that using a nuclear weapon instead was that much better for people when they would die from it. You’re right, this COMPLETELY changes the situation, 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.
So… Sisko behaved with the same level of disregard for sentient life as a terrorist? Who is a bad guy that we need to chase down at all odds and do whatever we must to catch?
Not really. Attacking civilians is bad. If you’re mad at Israel for bombing hospitals, bombing planets with nukes that would kill the civilian inhabitants is also bad.
Again, the federation is meant to be better than us. It’s explicitly stated multiple times through TNG. Compare and contrast the shit Sisko gets up to and the speech he himself gives to eddington with Picard’s speech about “the first duty of every starfleet officer…,”
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.