[SUBMITTED 7.10.19] Double Tap To Attack

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Fairly topical, but also a long established issue. I don't think it's been covered, but could be wrong.

DRAFT 2:

TITLE:
Double Tap To Attack

VALIDITY:
Has a military

DESCRIPTION:
Blackacre -- a nation with less than cordial relations with @@NAME@@ famed for its dubious morals -- has shocked the international community with its recent bombing raids on military targets in the strategically inferior nation of Sableyard. The frequency and intensity of the bombing is considerable, but international condemnation is following the employment of "double-tap bombing" strategies, whereupon the target area is attacked with a second bombing run a short time after the first, with the express intention of attacking rescue crews and emergency workers.

OPTION 1
"This is a great opportunity to take the moral high ground," suggests your gleeful Minister of Optics, dancing on the spot like an excited five-year-old. "We just join with the international community in decrying the Blackacreans as barbarians, and make a public commitment to recognising that double-tap attacks are a war crime. In terms of geopolitical strategy, there's no better place to be than standing alongside the finger-wagging morally superior nations."

OUTCOME:
it's only okay to kill and maim your enemies if you are nice about it


OPTION 2
"Diplomatic protests are all well and good, but isn't it more important that we check Blackacrean aggression in general?" queries your Minister of Geopolitical Strategy, without looking up from the model fighter jet @@HE@@ is painting. "While Blackacre's nuclear arsenal make all-out war a non-option, we could definitely gift arms and logistics support to the brave Sableyardians to help them defend themselves. A squadron or five of fighter jets would give them a fighting chance."

OUTCOME:
the irony of "peacekeeping" as a casus belli is lost on @@PLURALDEMONYMS@@


OPTION 3
"While the Blackacreans are undoubtedly evil, one cannot help but note the speed with which they are attaining victory in Sableyard," notes General Alma Penny, fixing you with her slush-grey eyes. "One should not be afraid to learn from enemies, but we should seek to improve their strategies. Direct additional funding towards my Creative Warfare thinktank, and we will deliver to you more effective strategies still, from warheads that carry a delayed second and third explosive charge within a single ballistic device, to second-strike gun-drones, to chemical and biological agents that achieve the same objective even decades after the initial delivery. The goal of war is to win. Don't lose sight of that."

OUTCOME:
the price of peace is eternal soil contamination by military-grade toxins


OPTION 4
"Why are we so quick to be passing judgement on the actions of Blackacre?" complains isolationism advocate Greta Grusinskaya. "There's no such thing as the international community, only a multitude of nations that are responsible only for their own people. Our foreign policy should be one of non-interference and non-judgement, while demanding others respect our own sovereignty in turn. The so-called world stage is for actors and performers. Serious nations keep to themselves."

OUTCOME:
@@LEADER@@ is often misquoted as having said "I want to be alone"

DRAFT 1:

TITLE:
Double Tap To Attack

VALIDITY:
Has a military

DESCRIPTION:
Blackacre -- a nation with less-than-cordial relations with @@NAME@@ -- has shocked the international community with its recent bombing raids on the strategically inferior nation of Sableyard. The frequency and intensity of the bombing is considerable, but international condemnation is following the employment of "double-tap bombing" strategies, whereupon the target area is attacked with a second bombing run a short time after the first, with the express intention of attacking rescue workers and survivors returning to their destroyed homes.

OPTION 1
"This is a great opportunity to take the moral high ground," suggests your gleeful Minister of Optics, dancing on the spot like an excited five-year-old. "We just join with the international community in decrying the Blackacreans as barbarians, and make a public commitment to recognising that double-tap attacks are a war crime. In terms of geopolitical strategy, there's no better place to be than standing alongside the finger-wagging morally superior nations."

OUTCOME:
it's only okay to kill and maim your enemies if you are nice about it

OPTION 2
"While the Blackacreans are undoubtedly evil, one cannot help but note the speed with which they are attaining victory in Sableyard," notes General Alma Penny, fixing you with her slush-grey eyes. "One should not be afraid to learn from enemies, but we should seek to improve their strategies. Direct additional funding towards my Creative Warfare thinktank, and we will deliver to you more effective strategies still, from warheads that carry a delayed second and third explosive charge within a single ballistic device, to second-strike gun-drones, to chemical and biological agents that achieve the same objective even decades after the initial delivery. The goal of war is to win. Don't lose sight of that."

OUTCOME:
the price of peace is an eternal soil contamination by military-grade toxins

OPTION 3
"Why are we so quick to be passing judgement on the actions of Blackacre?" complains isolationism advocate Greta Grusinskaya. "There's no such thing as the international community, only a multitude of nations that are responsible only for their own people. Our foreign policy should be one of non-interference and non-judgement, while demanding others respect our own sovereignty in turn. The so-called world stage is for actors and performers. Serious nations keep to themselves."

OUTCOME:
@@LEADER@@ is often misquoted as having said "I want to be alone"

[Trotterdam]

The frequency and intensity of the bombing is considerable, but international condemnation is following the employment of "double-tap bombing" strategies, whereupon the target area is attacked with a second bombing run a short time after the first, with the express intention of attacking rescue workers and survivors returning to their destroyed homes.

While I agree that this is an issue worth attention, it's also worth noting that even the first bombing was probably a war crime, since the mention of rescue workers and homes implies that these bombings are targetting civilians. I'd be uncomfortable choosing an option that goes "well okay, you're allowed to attack civilians with impunity, so long as you don't also kick them when they're down".

"This is a great opportunity to take the moral high ground," suggests your gleeful Minister of Optics, dancing on the spot like an excited five-year-old. "We just join with the international community in decrying the Blackacreans as barbarians, and make a public commitment to recognising that double-tap attacks are a war crime. In terms of geopolitical strategy, there's no better place to be than standing alongside the finger-wagging morally superior nations."

So, are we actually doing something, like imposing trade sanctions or shooting their evil bombers out of the sky or whatever, or are we just writing strongly-worded letters?

OUTCOME:
the price of peace is an eternal soil contamination by military-grade toxins

Delete the "an" from this sentence.

Blackacre -- a nation with less than cordial relations with @@NAME@@ famed for its dubious morals

Hyphenate "less-than-cordial"

Also, I would suggest dropping the "famed for its dubious morals". The grammar is a little awkward because you're giving two different descriptions without any break between them, and it's kinda redundant since the following description of the scenario makes it pretty clear that these aren't the good guys. Alternatively, prepend an "and" to at least aid in legibility.

[Australian rePublic]

Does @@NAME@@ really wanna piss off Blackacre? That's the real question here

[Daarwyrth]

The subject of the issue is incredibly interesting and you've handled the text expertly. The premise is clearly outlined and the options you present are balanced and diverse, in the sense that each is a viable alternative.

While I agree that this is an issue worth attention, it's also worth noting that even the first bombing was probably a war crime, since the mention of rescue workers and homes implies that these bombings are targetting civilians. I'd be uncomfortable choosing an option that goes "well okay, you're allowed to attack civilians with impunity, so long as you don't also kick them when they're down.

It's more reasonable to assume that Blackacre is bombing strategic locations, not just at random, but civilian casualties are collateral damage, as is almost always the case in every single war. Yes, it's despicable, but I haven't heard of a war yet where no civilian casualties had fallen. The second bombing run to kill rescue workers etc etc, that most definitely is a war crime and therefore the author handled the explanation adequately if you ask me.

So, are we actually doing something, like imposing trade sanctions or shooting their evil bombers out of the sky or whatever, or are we just writing strongly-worded letters?

Is it really necessary to specify what we're doing? I think this can be left vague as it's clear that whatever the international community will do, it will have an impact on Blackacre or is supposed to have one. I am of the opinion it doesn't need to be specified what exactly the international community wants to do in response. The ambiguity works here.

Delete the "an" from this sentence.

Agreed, without "an" it works better.

Also, I would suggest dropping the "famed for its dubious morals". The grammar is a little awkward because you're giving two different descriptions without any break between them, and it's kinda redundant since the following description of the scenario makes it pretty clear that these aren't the good guys. Alternatively, prepend an "and" to at least aid in legibility.

I think the "famed for its dubious moral" can be kept in the text, but inserting "and" I would definitely recommend as well, as it sounds more grammatically correct then.

Does @@NAME@@ really wanna piss off Blackacre? That's the real question here

@@NATION@@ and Blackacre already have bad relations as established throughout the issue base. I don't see why pissing off the country would be problematic here, since it's what the two countries have been doing the entire time. Remember when Blackacre tried to kill @@LEADER@@?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

While I agree that this is an issue worth attention, it's also worth noting that even the first bombing was probably a war crime, since the mention of rescue workers and homes implies that these bombings are targetting civilians. I'd be uncomfortable choosing an option that goes "well okay, you're allowed to attack civilians with impunity, so long as you don't also kick them when they're down".

You're right. Draft 2 will take out the implication that the initial targets were non-military.

Delete the "an" from this sentence.

Will do, thanks.

Hyphenate "less-than-cordial"

Hmm. Yeah, you could be right there.

Also, I would suggest dropping the "famed for its dubious morals". The grammar is a little awkward because you're giving two different descriptions without any break between them, and it's kinda redundant since the following description of the scenario makes it pretty clear that these aren't the good guys. Alternatively, prepend an "and" to at least aid in legibility.

Good call.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Does @@NAME@@ really wanna piss off Blackacre? That's the real question here

Not sure it is.

[Chan Island]

Not sure I like the implication of the first option being to do nothing except fingerwag and send a strongly-worded letter. I for one would be tempted to help Sabreyard fight back in some way, and there are many ways that can be done in ways that will make opponents of doubletapping uncomfortable. Say by arming Sabreyard's nasty government with anti-aircraft weapons, or by straight up deciding to send @@DENONYM@@ bombers to bomb Blackacre's civilians just to show them how much they will like them apples.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Fair point. Added a new option in the second position for a more militaristic response.