Star Wars, Highly Illiogical Captain

[ScreamingDoom]

That's hard to say canonically, as far as I can tell. But it can't be "Jedi" and "Sith", because we have a whole bunch of canon Light and Dark Siders (mostly Dark Siders) who are neither.

Is Ashoka Dark Side because she's not a Jedi? Or Light Side because she's not a Sith?

Is Ventress Light Side following her departure from Dooku's side? She was never a Sith. What about the other Nightsisters?

...

This is getting somewhat circular. You're arguing that Light Side=Jedi by using an Old Republic Jedi definition of Light Side.

Well, I was referring more to the specific philosophies that the groups hold rather than the groups themselves. As others have stated, it's virtually impossible for an actual person to adhere completely to either philosophy; it's more the dogmatic reaction and the lack of consideration.

Basically, the difference between using the Prime Directive as a guide or trying to adhere to it mechanically.

Maybe look at the Mortis arc (despite my mixed feelings about it). Unless you dismiss it as deception or hallucination, it gives us physical personifications of the various aspects of the Force (although would also corroborate the existence of a grey or neutral side).

Yeah, I always assumed it was some sort of Force-induced shared hallucination, a metaphor writ large, as opposed to actually literally happening. Then again, I think Artoo was there (it's been a while since I saw that arc) as well and hallucinations don't affect droids, so maybe it did literally happen.

I would (broadly, probably oversimplisticly) describe them as "the Selfish Side" and "the Selfless Side". Which isn't quite the same as pleasure/no pleasure. Or maybe "the impulsive side and the non-impulsive side".

You can be Light Side and feel emotions, as long as you don't let them drive you toward fundamentally selfish/impulsive actions. That would be my preferred take, anyway.

That's actually not bad, really. Again, though, the respective Sith and Jedi philosophies exemplify those poles. It's the dogmatic assertions of them that's the problem.

That's an interesting definition, but surely the nature of the goal would matter as well? Only it seems to you that it doesn't.

In Kreia's philosophy, no. The nature of the goal itself does not matter. That said, one can certainly add more restrictions to the goal (this is what flavors the grey).

Suppose your goal was to end suffering by exterminating or mind controlling every life form in the universe. Now, I'd call that Dark.

And peace and serenity could be a goal to achieve, if not necessarily the right method to achieve that goal.

Right, and this is what gives the shades of gray. If your goal is to end suffering in the universe and you had no restrictions on how to achieve that, then killing or mind controlling everything might make sense. If you wanted to end suffering, but added a restriction of not removing the free will of others (either by destruction or mind control), then you would find other means to do it.

The point is to consider your options and make a plan based on those options to achieve the goal.

I actually question weather the officer's argument logically follows from the Sith Code. The Sith Code praises unrestrained passion as the route to freedom and power- overly simplistic and self-indulgent, in my opinion, but not necessarily obligating one to destroy a defeated enemy.

I'd prefer to just say that the office was an idiot following a particularly rigid interpretation.

Fair enough. I can certainly see the argument there.

I'd also say that the Jedi Code is not all that inflexible. Particularly since there are two main versions IIRC (though I'm not sure that any of the codes are still canon).

I'm only aware of the one in KoTOR, honestly.

And in any case, I would say that neither Order, in practice, really lived up to its ideals. And certainly neither is synonymous with Light Side and Dark Side. That is an oversimplification.

Agreed (and this fact is part of the reason Kreia hates them both so much -- they're incomplete), but the point is that the philosophies of each are meant to exemplify the Light and Dark sides, not that the organizations themselves are able to perform them (they obviously can't, considering how many Jedi go to the Dark Side and how many Sith end up doing things Lightly).

But the means matter, not just in and of themselves but because they effect your ability to actually achieve your goals. This is something that "ends justify the means" types always seem to miss- perhaps because "the ends justify the means" is, in my experience, usually an excuse to justify the means you want to use, regardless of weather they're necessary.

Though I feel like maybe we're getting a little sidetracked/muddled, here.

Right, but if the means don't accomplish the goal (or do so inefficiently), then you're not using the right means.

Again, there's not a problem with attaching specific limitations on the goal, as long as they are considered and not just knee-jerk assertions of right or wrong.

You do realize that Kreia is an individual with individual biases, not the objective voice of truth on the nature of the Force or morality, right?

Oh, absolutely. I'm not defending Kreia here, I'm just trying to describe her philosophy as I understand it. I think she's clearly insane and may be completely wrong.

[Crowley]

I remembered another thing that bugs me about Force Awakens, and I admit this is more of a personal annoyance than a general problem: The First Order taking children to raise them to become soldiers. This seems like an excessively wasteful method compared to drafting and training adults. The only reason I can see for doing things this way is to indoctrinate the children into absolute loyalty, but then Finn defects the first time he's ordered to do something morally questionable. Admittedly Finn is the only one of his unit to do so, but in general those guys don't seem to be significantly more fanatic about fighting for the First Order than the average soldier. Also, based on Finn telling his story, they take children who are old enough to remember their parents and formed a bond with them, and thus harbor resentment over it.

[Dînadan]

. Also, based on Finn telling his story, they take children who are old enough to remember their parents and formed a bond with them, and thus harbor resentment over it.

Well the Jedi took Vader at an age old enough to have formed a bond with his mum and he wound up being one of the most feared men in the Empire, so maybe they just wanted to emulate that?

;p

[Robovski]

I would expect soldiers trained since childhood to have better aim.

[Deledrius]

The only reason I can see for doing things this way is to indoctrinate the children into absolute loyalty, but then Finn defects the first time he's ordered to do something morally questionable. Admittedly Finn is the only one of his unit to do so

The impression I got from the movie was that something Force-related probably snapped him out of it. His destiny was elsewhere. I'm sure the EU material undermines this reading, but the movie is shot in a way that treats that moment as something special and unusual.

[Madner Kami]

He's definitly force-sensitive, probably even going to be one of the prime force users somewhere down the line. The saber-fight against Kylo gave that away more than anything else, though I wouldn't be surprised if they let that sink into the background and forget about it, because people accurately predicted it.

[Admiral X]

I remembered another thing that bugs me about Force Awakens, and I admit this is more of a personal annoyance than a general problem: The First Order taking children to raise them to become soldiers. This seems like an excessively wasteful method compared to drafting and training adults.

It also reminds me a lot of the Halo mythos as far as how Spartans were created.

[Dînadan]

I would expect soldiers trained since childhood to have better aim.

To be fair their instructors would probably have been OT Stormtroopers, so probably got high praise and a gold medal if they hit two shots out of a full clip ;p

[The Romulan Republic]

Edit: On the marksmanship thing: I know its a joke, but is their actually any real evidence for OT stormtroopers being generally bad shots? At least in the films (I'm sure "Rebels"*, and probably old EU stuff, is full of them missing for no good reason).

In A New Hope, Obi-wan calls them "precise", noting them specifically for this quality. They seize Leia's ship with little difficulty. The only time they fail badly in a prolonged gunfight is aboard the Death Star, and in that case, they were ordered to put on a show while letting the captives escape, so if anything, their "failure" there speaks to their precision again.

In The Empire Strikes Back, we see little combat involving storm troopers, but they seem to manage to overwhelm the Hoth Base very quickly. I guess their Cloud City performance wasn't very good, but their is the possibility that, again, they were trying to keep their prisoners alive.

In Return of the Jedi, on Endor, the scout troopers hold their own against a Jedi (one who is shortly thereafter shown to now be on Vader's level) for a while, the Imperials easily capture the Rebel strike team on Endor (admittedly not a test of marksmanship), and while they lose the Battle of Endor, one of them does manage to hit Leia in the shoulder while behind cover.

And, of course, people missing is common enough in real-life firefights.

*My explanation for "Rebels"' shit performance for the Imperials in the first season is that that Lothal was a backwater at the time, and probably didn't have the highest quality of troops. Note how one of Tarkin's first acts was to execute some of the local officers for their failures. There would probably be, realistically, a huge range of quality in Imperial troops. I'd probably break them down into three main groups:

Backwater garrison troops. See Lothal. Mostly local conscripts or guys who flunked out of the more prestigious positions, with corrupt or incompetent officers, who aren't usually expected to do much more than intimidate the local peasants into more or less toeing the line, keep their equipment operational, and look presentable on the off-chance that an Imperial big-wig shows up.

Elite Core Troops. Probably highly disciplined, fanatically loyal, and very well-equipped, but not necessarily having much front-line combat experience.

I've seen something like this as a fan explanation for how Palpatine's "best" troops on Endor failed so badly, IIRC- that "best" meant something like "politically reliable" rather than "competent/experienced." That would especially make sense if he brought his own troops out from Coruscant.

Front line response forces. See Death Squadron, the 501st. Legion. Elite/veteran mobile legions/squadrons used to respond to flashpoints. Likely the best-quality troops, and held to the most exacting standards (Vader's frequent executions for failure make a little more sense in that context).

I remembered another thing that bugs me about Force Awakens, and I admit this is more of a personal annoyance than a general problem: The First Order taking children to raise them to become soldiers. This seems like an excessively wasteful method compared to drafting and training adults.

It also reminds me a lot of the Halo mythos as far as how Spartans were created.

Do we know that that's their only, or even primary source of soldiers?

Of course, child soldiers are a horrifyingly common phenomenon in the real world, but in modern times, its usually relegated to poorer regions and forces with less resources.

However, I expect the goal is less efficiency and more indoctrinating absolute loyalty. Its also possible (correct me if any canon material contradicts this) that the kids are not being put on the front line, but that their involvement is more like being at a full-time military school, with possibly some behind-the-lines support duties as they get older.

[Beastro]

but in modern times, its usually relegated to poorer regions and forces with less resources.

It takes a back seat to education and it being a prerequisite for modern military service. How much modern ideas of adolescence effected that and how much it effected modern ideas of adolescence is chicken and egg, IMO.

Even beforehand it was for mixed reasons with the military trying to grab every able body that was willing to sign up just like today, only in the time before the 20th Century when 13 was the literal Coming of Age age and not just a trite little birthday to tell a teenager that they were a man or woman now and had to take on more responsibilities around the house.

For the navy it was to teach the intricacies of seamanship in a time when in places the traditions of sail still held firm (and in many cases into the early 20th Century Clippers continued in operation that required the handling of sailing equipment) and so apprenticeship was the traditional means of training with it starting around 11-13 (in the Age of Sail RN if you didn't join at that age you were so much older on the hierarchy of promotion that you'd be too old to attain flag rank and the emphasis was so much boys were registered as having joined and started serving when they were as young as babies to get them started on the officer track as early as possible by their benefactors, like friends of family, uncles, etc), which in places like Britain remained in place until after WWII when the stresses of the war forced the adoption of the American system of military-like training so much it was ruled that the older system was too damaged to be returned to despite near universal demand for it's readoption by the RN.

WWII was about the end limit for a modern country being able to have teens serve, following behind the rest of modern society in the need for better education to allow men to to viable recruits.

Its also possible (correct me if any canon material contradicts this) that the kids are not being put on the front line, but that their involvement is more like being at a full-time military school, with possibly some behind-the-lines support duties as they get older.

The other could be as auxilliers like the Hitler Jugend were. Why have a fully grown and trained solider pulling rear-eschalon duty when you could get teens to do most of the supply and grunt work for AAA or take over idle garrisoning duty in quieter places like within Germany itself?

This all fits the Nazi Germany motif kicking around and the sensible pressures one would expect the Imperial Remnants to be in.

That said, it doesn't really strain credulity to me that decades of galactic warfare have resulted in weapons technology advancing by TFA. I mean, North Korea's nuclear arsenal is kind of pathetic today, as nuclear arsenals go, but it would have made them the world's greatest military power during WW2.

No it wouldn't have because it completely ignores conventional forces and the reality of nuclear weapons production at the time - the US was at least able to produce a trickle of serviceable devices in WWII only taking a break in the late 40s after the war to shift production from a handcrafted ordeal to an entirely modern industrialized one.

The two eras are in no way comparable when it comes to nuclear weapons.

On top of that every power in the WWII era would use such a weapon and have every incentive to do so.

The NorKs want aid to keep their regime going and keep the higher ups cosy. The most effective way to do that they've found is to threaten a war no one (including themselves) wants because in the end going down that path would open a whole can of worms that no one could resolve easily since North Korea is effectively a desert wasteland by modern standards.

A hint of how they operate with this is mind is how when China brings them train shipments of aid, they tell the conductors to step out and get a drive back to the border, since their infrastructure is so terrible they cannot pass up stealing an entire train, locomotive and railcars all, to replace their rotting stockpile.

North Korea is an entire nation of modern highwaymen threatening wayfarers with the mere threat of nukes and just enough development in them to keep the threat the teeny tiniest bit credible.

But then, I actually find politics interesting. Or as John Oliver called it "sports for nerds."

Politics was the original professional sport of adults.

I assume the American revolution did some of that along with the North in the civil war

The level and focal points of production were minor. That was pre, or right on the eve of, industrial revulsion production , even in later 19th Century wars like the Franco-Prussian one the Prussians did not do such things but relied on requisition and limited it to food and other common items.

All the more so, before industrialized warfare a solider needed very little a civilian did not right down to them making their own bullets with whatever lead they could get their hands on alongside powder that were bother within grabbing distance from a civilian population that universally had a higher degree of firearms the world over than today.

Back then it wasn't "work in this factory to help us win this war against your nation", but "give us your food and whatever supplies we need to keep fighting and not starving, we'll pay you if we can with what cash we might have, give you bills of sale to redeem if you can after the war, just don't make us take it by force".

About the closest thing in the War of Independence that approaches modern warfare was the Expulsion of the Loyalists into Canada for opposing the war, something almost totally alien to war in the world then and for some time until Nationalism was universally adopted where your little ethnic patch of Poles or Czechs suddenly cared to be ruled by their own.

It very much was the harbinger of Nationalism, desires for national purity, and the mass migrations and expulsions of the 20th Century.