In response to the revisionist argument advanced by Neo-Imperialists that the Empire was not the evil force portrayed by the propogandists of the New Republic, the defenders of the New Republic frequently cite the destruction of Alderaan by the so-called "Death Star." In response to one of my earlier posts, for example, blogger Perry Eidelbus emailed me as follows:
... the Empire embarked on a policy of fear and destruction -- via the Death Star -- to keep star systems "in line." This is hardly something that a benevolent Empire does, especially if its subjects love it. The Empire may be at war, but it destroyed Alderaan, a peaceful planet that had no weapons. Even after Leia gave the location of the old Rebel base (trying to avert Alderaan's obliteration), Tarkin ordered the countdown to continue anyway. It was a demonstration of power, because as he boasted, no planet would oppose the Empire now that the Death Star's abilities were proven.
Blogger Jason Minard likewise emailed as follows:
Very nice glossing over of a weapon used to blow up planets and everyone that was there. Blockade the planet? Bah, just blow it up. If there is no rebellions, just a small band of those longing for their crap-philosophical aristocracy, then there is certainly no reason to blow up a planet. Tarken doesn't care whether or not the planet has any rebels, he only cares that Dantooine is "too remote a planet to make an example". Blowing up Alderran has nothing to do with the "Rebellion", it is simply a tool of fear used to keep the star systems in line.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that a key planetary member of the rebellion was completely lacking in legitimate military targets. (Note by the way, the interesting historical parallel with the firebombing of Dresden, as to which historians sharply disagree over the presense or absence of military targets justifying that attack.) Indeed, as revisionist historian Jonathan Last has observed:
The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.
But [we have] no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. [E]very bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. [For example], she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.
Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Let us accept arguendo, however, the claims of Princess Leia and her apologists that Alderaan was peaceful and had no military targets.
Even so, one could argue that the destruction of Alderaan was not inconsistent with just war theory. To be sure, many just war theorists claim that the tradition requires both discrimination between civilian and military targets and proportionality. Yet, as LTC Peter Farber, an instructor at the Academy, has written: "there is no single, coherent just-war position. Rather, there are clusters of ideas that have waxed and waned through time, and they have not evolved into a transhistorical system of simple moral rules." Hence, as Farber notes, theorists long defended strategic bombing within the just war tradition:
... 1) it preserved and protected the just against the criminal (note the Augustinian emphasis here), 2) the civilians supporting their national leadership were equally responsible for the decisions made by that leadership, and 3) the vigorous prosecution of the war prevented an even greater loss of human life.
While the destruction of Alderaan may be regretable, it seems clearly defensible under this understanding of the ethics of strategic warfare. Indeed, as Tarkin noted, the very purpose of destroying Alderaan is to end the war more quickly. Hence, just as was the case with strategic bombing in earlier times, "the vigorous prosecution of the war" could be justified as an effort to prevent "an even greater loss of human life."
Personally, of course, I find the notion that just war requires discrimination and proportionality morally and ethically attractive. Indeed, I regard that understanding of just war vastly superior to the norms of strategic bombing. My defense of the Alderaan incident thus is mostly by way of playing devil's advocate. Yet, after reading Farber's essay, I must acknowledge that people of good will can and have differed on this issue. Hence, I am not quite as prepared as I might once have been to concede that the Alderaan incident is as morally straightforward as the New Republic's apologists claim.
In closing, let me remind you of something a great Jedi philosopher of an earlier age wrote:
Treason never prospers, for if treason prospers, none dare call it treason.
And what is the New Republic, if not prosperous?
