NationStates Jolt Archive

Hypothetical scenario:

Aliens attack Earth. Their weapons are far in advance of ours (though not so advanced that victory is inevitable on their part).

But it soon becomes apparent that their intentions are not to conquer the Earth - merely one part of it. Specifically, they seek to conquer one specific country, one that is not yours, or even an ally of yours (Iran, for example).

What should the world do? Should we risk destruction at the hands of the invaders, or abandon one country to their onslaught?

Iran is an ally of mine.

Beat them back, and then conquer Iran for ourselves.

If they've come all this way just for that, then I want whatever they were after.

Iran's not so bad and I figure they would go out on a line for us so lets not be dicks

plus what else am I going to do on a Sunday night?

Allowing any kind of beachhead seems a bit foolish.

Ally with the aliens, and gain access to their technology in case they turn out to have greater territorial ambitions.

Beat the crud out of them, find out what they wanted in Iran, and refuse them a beachhead anywhere.

Ally with the aliens, and gain access to their technology in case they turn out to have greater territorial ambitions.

So, basically, make them our allyens?

So, basically, make them our allyens?

Just for that, I hope that the aliens eat you first. ;)

Well, any alien wanting to co habit this planet would surely negotiate, or just arrive in peace, rather than take by force.

If an invasion was to take place, I do feel a defence should be globally united.

No doubt defense would be united. Who the hell wants those green freaks running around our planet anyway?!@? The must be destroyed!@ And probably made into slaves! It's easier to feel alright about oppressing an extraterrestrial species anyway!

Seriously though, defense would be united across the world. Why would we want them to establish a power base, especially if they're violently taking Iran?

Alien Invasion will unite the people in efforts against the evil invading menace.

*Continues reading WorldWar series by Turtledove*

Beat the crud out of them, find out what they wanted in Iran, and refuse them a beachhead anywhere.

Good luck with that. When you and your stick will be deleted from the timeline thanks to the multidimensional weaponry wielded by our extraterrestial adversary, we won't even remember your nullified existence!

Screw Iran, especially if the Aliens only have the goal of, for whatever reason, taking over Persia and making it their own (maybe they like the artwork, climate or aesthetic, who knows). Negotiate with them to the best degree possible, see if we can rent a couple of their ships, and go start screwing the hell out of other planets.

We form X-COM

Allowing any kind of beachhead seems a bit foolish.
That's silly. Iran is a desert; you can't have a beach in a desert because there is no water!

Personally I think the aliens are smarter than us & their spaceships probably don't run on oil & their definately smarter than GW Bush... so they probably wont go guns ablazing into the middle east...

I think the aliens would just come to earth, bribe, threaten and manipulate our leaders and take over the whole world without ever revealing their presence. They could even be here now :o

Hypothetical scenario:

Aliens attack Earth. Their weapons are far in advance of ours (though not so advanced that victory is inevitable on their part).

But it soon becomes apparent that their intentions are not to conquer the Earth - merely one part of it. Specifically, they seek to conquer one specific country, one that is not yours, or even an ally of yours (Iran, for example).

What should the world do? Should we risk destruction at the hands of the invaders, or abandon one country to their onslaught?

Now if we know the first condition is absolute, that they only wanted one country, the most utilitarian thing to do is to set up evacuation rather than war. It can save many lives and help establish a positive/neutral relationship with the aliens.

Unfortunately since is impossible to know for certain what the Alien wants to do next. So avoiding total war seems impossible as human race risk annihilation through the failure to act.

Now if we know the first condition is absolute, that they only wanted one country, the most utilitarian thing to do is to set up evacuation rather than war. It can save many lives and help establish a positive/neutral relationship with the aliens.

Unfortunately since is impossible to know for certain what the Alien wants to do next. So avoiding total war seems impossible as human race risk annihilation through the failure to act.

Reminds me of all the settings for WW II actually. Course far be it from me to say any green alien dudes are going to be Hitler. But not knowing the intentions of what an enemy is going to do. I seriously doubt a bunch of aliens are going to stop with just one country. Course we are applying human attributes to a group that isn't human. Are they out for world domination after conquering one country? It's really hard to say. A human foe. Well history for the human race doesn't bode well on the factor that humans generally want power, domination and subjugation of individuals. Not sure what an alien race's primary factor would be. I think the main primary factor would be to study an alien race and try and learn more about them and their ambitions.

Reminds me of all the settings for WW II actually. Course far be it from me to say any green alien dudes are going to be Hitler. But not knowing the intentions of what an enemy is going to do. I seriously doubt a bunch of aliens are going to stop with just one country. Course we are applying human attributes to a group that isn't human. Are they out for world domination after conquering one country? It's really hard to say. A human foe. Well history for the human race doesn't bode well on the factor that humans generally want power, domination and subjugation of individuals. Not sure what an alien race's primary factor would be. I think the main primary factor would be to study an alien race and try and learn more about them and their ambitions.

The problem is that you do know one thing, that they have no intention to obtain their mean in peace. The rest of the countries will have little choice but to form an alliance "just in case". Now I do not know the tendencies of aliens, since they are fictional in this case they can be anything. What I do know are human tendencies toward differences. The uncertainty of aliens will inevitably lead to panic, fear, hatred, and suspicion all around the world. It is like the cold war between US and the Soviet. Now assuming the alien problem doesn't go away on it's own like the Soviet, a heated war seem to be nearly inevitable.

Me and my brother against my cousin.
Me and my cousin against my neighbor.
me and my neighbor against the world.
me and the world against everyone else.

Give them France as a peace offering instead.

Hypothetical scenario:

Aliens attack Earth. Their weapons are far in advance of ours (though not so advanced that victory is inevitable on their part).

But it soon becomes apparent that their intentions are not to conquer the Earth - merely one part of it. Specifically, they seek to conquer one specific country, one that is not yours, or even an ally of yours (Iran, for example).

What should the world do? Should we risk destruction at the hands of the invaders, or abandon one country to their onslaught?

To paraphrase Peter Griffin

First, we must befriend the aliens, then breed with their women. In time, our differences will be settled.

That's silly. Iran is a desert; you can't have a beach in a desert because there is no water!

The mapmakers would disagree with you

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rls=GZEZ,GZEZ:2008-31,GZEZ:en-GB&q=Iran&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl

Let them have Iran. The aliens and the Iranians will kill each other off, and we'll have solved two problems for the price of one.

Well if they did that it would prove once and for all that GW Bush is actually an alien.

The mapmakers would disagree with you

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rls=GZEZ,GZEZ:2008-31,GZEZ:en-GB&q=Iran&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl
Maps are just porn for the overly ambitious.

What should the world do? Should we risk destruction at the hands of the invaders, or abandon one country to their onslaught?
Completely annihilate them as soon as it is possible. You do not fuck with the human race.

None of the options. The Iranians can defend themselves. The just need to wet the aliens with water.

We should help defend our Islamic brother for the glory of Allah!

Oh, wait. I don't think I read this thread right. :p

How do we know they won't eventually expand further? In any case, they're arrival in Iran, and the introduction of new technology, could easily throw the global order into complete chaos.

However, we wouldn't be likely to have the means to oppose them very effectively, so a negotiated settlement and pact of non-aggression in exchange for letting them have Iran for the time being would likely be a smart approach. Hell, we could benefit from it depending on circumstances like the specific policies/culture of the invaders. We might be able to trade control of Iran without a fight for, say, Photon Drives, and then sit back and let the aliens finish the job of dealing with the inevitable waves of Jihadists.

Everyone wins, except the theocrats in charge their now.:)

So I picked option 3, the only one which even begins to take into account the various complexities such a situation might have. Their is no such thing as a "one size fits all" approach for dealing with current global politics and war, never mind once you throw an almost complete unknown like a First Contact situation into the mix.

If that ever seriously happens, and any alien species enters our atmosphere and makes an aggressive attack on any nation of the world, then I think it would be stupid not to unite as a race (human race mind you) against them and make our interglactic signpost so to speak "Don't fuck with us... this is Earth! GTFO!" Then peel into all that technology and sure, reap what we can get and hopefully get a better society out of it, big bonus would be a better world relations with all out of it, but at the very least - I think it would be enough of a uniting event to make everyone stop and think - and that's a start.

aliens are an alliey of mine. most of them.

this is a probability very near zero scenario for a number of very real reasons.

yes there are funny looking people out there in the rest of the universe, but ANY country on THIS planet having anything they'd want, let alone be willing to pay the bad kharma of taking by force, awe come on, i mean really ...

If that ever seriously happens, and any alien species enters our atmosphere and makes an aggressive attack on any nation of the world, then I think it would be stupid not to unite as a race (human race mind you) against them and make our interglactic signpost so to speak "Don't fuck with us... this is Earth! GTFO!" Then peel into all that technology and sure, reap what we can get and hopefully get a better society out of it, big bonus would be a better world relations with all out of it, but at the very least - I think it would be enough of a uniting event to make everyone stop and think - and that's a start.

Why should we treat an act of war against an Earth nation by an alien power any differently than a war between Earth powers? We're all intelligent life forms. I see no reason to automatically drop our conflicts and unite against an alien incursion clearly directed at just one country other than pathetic xenophobia.

Of course, you can argue that uniting the world would be worth it, but I don't want global unite if its done Hitler's way, by ralying the masses against an "outside threat". The ends do not justify the means.

How do we know they won't eventually expand further? In any case, they're arrival in Iran, and the introduction of new technology, could easily throw the global order into complete chaos.

However, we wouldn't be likely to have the means to oppose them very effectively, so a negotiated settlement and pact of non-aggression in exchange for letting them have Iran for the time being would likely be a smart approach. Hell, we could benefit from it depending on circumstances like the specific policies/culture of the invaders. We might be able to trade control of Iran without a fight for, say, Photon Drives, and then sit back and let the aliens finish the job of dealing with the inevitable waves of Jihadists.

Everyone wins, except the theocrats in charge their now.:)

So I picked option 3, the only one which even begins to take into account the various complexities such a situation might have. Their is no such thing as a "one size fits all" approach for dealing with current global politics and war, never mind once you throw an almost complete unknown like a First Contact situation into the mix.

There's a bit of a problem. Current nuclear weapons stockpiles have the ability to more or less reduce humanity to tribal existence. The aliens have much more advanced technology, and even if they don't have weapons of mass destruction, they have a means of inter-system travel at the very least. That means, at the very least, they can stick a drive system on a nice 50km diameter rock in the asteroid belt, point it at Earth and go "Give us what we want, or we smack you with this rock and end all life on Earth."

Anytime you have a starfaring race meeting up to one who can barely scrape the edges of their solar system with deep space probes, the starfarers are going to have a huge advantage if they want to play nasty.

Yep. They could have one small, unarmed probe ship, and they could hold the entire world hostage with the threat of a doomsday asteroid. Better to let them land, then wage gurilla warfair if we have to when indiscriminant bombardment will mean killing their own as well.

Allowing any kind of beachhead seems a bit foolish.

Indeed...

...defending them against a threat that we didn't have to fight? Sounds like a good way to make a friend out of an enemy.

Yep. They could have one small, unarmed probe ship, and they could hold the entire world hostage with the threat of a doomsday asteroid. Better to let them land, then wage gurilla warfair if we have to when indiscriminant bombardment will mean killing their own as well.

Doesn't work. They can always pull out and drop the rocks shortly after. Pull that trick once or twice, and nobody in their right minds will do anything to resist.

In fact, they could do it as a demonstration of their power if they so wished before even landing so much as a single scout. Make your demands from space, drop a few gigatons worth of kinetic energy in the form of a nickel ferrous rock on the noisiest, most powerful country, and watch everyone else whimper at the thought of being next on the list.

Doesn't work. They can always pull out and drop the rocks shortly after. Pull that trick once or twice, and nobody in their right minds will do anything to resist.

In fact, they could do it as a demonstration of their power if they so wished before even landing so much as a single scout. Make your demands from space, drop a few gigatons worth of kinetic energy in the form of a nickel ferrous rock on the noisiest, most powerful country, and watch everyone else whimper at the thought of being next on the list.

Though that depends on how ruthless they're willing to be. Why should aliens be so homogenous that they need not worry about political dissent? And if they've survived as a high tech civilization, they probably aren't the most trigger happy sorts.

We could have settled Iraq years ago with a nuclear barrage, but that's politically not an option. Why should we assume any differently here?

My point is, we just don't know. Which is a good reason to play the diplomatic game until we know more. Lack of intel is one of the defining characteristics of a First Contact situation.

Of course, you can argue that uniting the world would be worth it, but I don't want global unite if its done Hitler's way, by ralying the masses against an "outside threat". The ends do not justify the means.

I mean this in the most sincere way... what in the hell does that mean? How in the world would uniting against an outside threat, equal doing something Hitler's way? I don't see preventing the deaths of millions of people in common interest the same as gasing miillions of Jews?

I'm sure that's not at all what you meant, just making the point I have no idea what you possibly meant by that comparison... lol

I understand you are stating that Hitler tried to tell his countrymen that the rest of the world was an outside threat, and therefore came the rest of history as we know it, however I fail to see the correlation if there was an actual aggressive attack from an alien species against a nation on this planet.

I would find it highly suspect and probable that it wouldn't be their only target yes?

Though that depends on how ruthless they're willing to be. Why should aliens be so homogenous that they need not worry about political dissent? And if they've survived as a high tech civilization, they probably aren't the most trigger happy sorts.


According to the OP, the first contact involved an invasion, which by the common terms, means landing assault forces, striking military targets and securing strategic ones. They may not be the most trigger happy of sorts, but they've already declared war, and are letting us know that it's just begun.

At this point, diplomacy is pointless until a stalemate can be brought about since there would be no reason to go to the table otherwise.

And if resistance becomes too great to handle, simply pull back and perform less powerful but more accurate orbital strikes on enemy formations as they move forward to take your previously held positions.

When one side has space superiority, that's it for the opposing side. Few ground based weapons will reach space, and can either be shot down or destroyed at the source, while the other side can strike with near impunity at any target they wish from orbit.


We could have settled Iraq years ago with a nuclear barrage, but that's politically not an option. Why should we assume any differently here?

My point is, we just don't know. Which is a good reason to play the diplomatic game until we know more. Lack of intel is one of the defining characteristics of a First Contact situation.

Presumably because Iraq had resources people wanted, resources that would have been destroyed in a nuclear strike. Here, we are not sure what the intentions of the aliens are beyond immediate, though not necessarily permanent, territory seizure.

Whatever the case, the fact that they are starfarers means that they de facto have the ability to hold the entire planet ransom and devastate what portions they so wish, with nothing that current humanity can do to stop it.

I mean this in the most sincere way... what in the hell does that mean? How in the world would uniting against an outside threat, equal doing something Hitler's way? I don't see preventing the deaths of millions of people in common interest the same as gasing miillions of Jews?

My point being that Hitler (to use just the most infamous and extream example) united the population against outsiders and foreigners. Which is what you seem to be suggesting we should do in the event of an alien attack on one of our world's nations.

I will also point out that when you disagree with comparring the two, you make the assumptions that the aliens will kill millions of people, and that the aliens are a threat to the rest of the world. Despite the OP giving no indication that that is the case.

If we ever meet an alien civilization, don't assume it will be like Independence Day, with uniformly evil aliens bent on destroying all of humanity. I don't know how to explain the stupidity and the racism of assuming that aliens attacking Iran are going to go on to the rest of the world, or kill millions. Most likely they will have objectives, ethical or at least practical codes of conduct, and will be influenced by desires other than to kill or conqure us all. Or at least you must admit that possibility.

I understand you are stating that Hitler tried to tell his countrymen that the rest of the world was an outside threat, and therefore came the rest of history as we know it, however I fail to see the correlation if there was an actual aggressive attack from an alien species against a nation on this planet.

You're assuming that an alien attack against one nation translates into an attack on all of Earth, or at least arguing that it should be responded to as such. You need therefor to show why we should believe this to be the case, aside from racism.

I would find it highly suspect and probable that it wouldn't be their only target yes?

Should we start a war against an unknown adversary without even attempting to analyse motives beyond "they're aliens so they must nessissarily be the enemies of all humans?"

Good luck with that. When you and your stick will be deleted from the timeline thanks to the multidimensional weaponry wielded by our extraterrestial adversary, we won't even remember your nullified existence!

So where's the problem.
Also, you can always say: you want Iran? Well, we'll never let you have it, even if WE have to destroy Iran completely. We can and we shall, if we'll seriously risk losing it to you. So you'll achieve nothing anyway.
Who can destroy something, has control over it. (Dune, more or less).

Should we start a war against an unknown adversary without even attempting to analyse motives beyond "they're aliens so they must nessissarily be the enemies of all humans?"

An unmarked van drives up to your neighbors house. Heavily armed and armored people, who are clearly not the police, break down the door and charge into said house. There's screams and gunfire. You're watching from the window. What do you do?

Hypothetical scenario:

Aliens attack Earth. Their weapons are far in advance of ours (though not so advanced that victory is inevitable on their part).

But it soon becomes apparent that their intentions are not to conquer the Earth - merely one part of it. Specifically, they seek to conquer one specific country, one that is not yours, or even an ally of yours (Iran, for example).

What should the world do? Should we risk destruction at the hands of the invaders, or abandon one country to their onslaught?You're suggesting appeasement. Probably not a good idea, seeing as the aliens could hypothetically want more and continue to pursue a divide and conquer strategy.

According to the OP, the first contact involved an invasion, which by the common terms, means landing assault forces, striking military targets and securing strategic ones. They may not be the most trigger happy of sorts, but they've already declared war, and are letting us know that it's just begun.

They've committed an act of war against Iran, not Earth, because Earth is not a political entity. Nor is humanity. Nowhere in the OP is their an indication that they plan to expand their war beyond Iran. Yet you assume that they do. Why, beyond the fact that they're aliens and so, as any good B movie can tell you, they are out to conqure the world (and probably kidnap our human women while they're at it).:rolleyes:

Believing that we should all immediately drop our differences and unite against an alien attack on one Earth nation, apparently for no other reason than our shared humanity and the fact that they are aliens, reeks of racism, and I will treat it with the same contempt that I would treat racism against any ethnic group on Earth.

At this point, diplomacy is pointless until a stalemate can be brought about since there would be no reason to go to the table otherwise.

You are equating an attack on one Earth nation using unspecified tactics for unspecified reasons as a declaration of war against the entire Earth. Moreover, you are dismissing any possibility of a diplomatic resolution. Would you do this if the invader was another Earth nation? If not, then what is your reasoning, beyond xenophobia? I realize this is a hypothetical, but the underlying attitudes seem to me disturbingly similar to Earthly racism.

And if resistance becomes too great to handle, simply pull back and perform less powerful but more accurate orbital strikes on enemy formations as they move forward to take your previously held positions.

I'm thinking of conducting guerilla warfare once they had established basis and/or settlements that couldn't be evacuated overnight. You're also assuming they would be willing to use such weapons.

When one side has space superiority, that's it for the opposing side. Few ground based weapons will reach space, and can either be shot down or destroyed at the source, while the other side can strike with near impunity at any target they wish from orbit.

If the side with space superiority is willing to use the methods of total war, yes.

Presumably because Iraq had resources people wanted, resources that would have been destroyed in a nuclear strike. Here, we are not sure what the intentions of the aliens are beyond immediate, though not necessarily permanent, territory seizure.

Well if the OP implies a conventional invasion, and considering how expensive that would probably be over interstellar distances, then I'd hazard a guess that they have a damn good reason not to break out WMDs at the drop of a hate. Of course, if they are willing to, that just makes trying to fight their initial invasion a stupider move on our part in most conceivable circumstances.

Whatever the case, the fact that they are starfarers means that they de facto have the ability to hold the entire planet ransom and devastate what portions they so wish, with nothing that current humanity can do to stop it.

The OP suggests that a total war approach is not the default strategy here.

An unmarked van drives up to your neighbors house. Heavily armed and armored people, who are clearly not the police, break down the door and charge into said house. There's screams and gunfire. You're watching from the window. What do you do?

1. I sure as hell don't go charging in blind and unarmed.

2. The situations are not analagous. Iran is not the friendly couple down the block, the aliens are not nessissarily slaughtering innocents based on the information we've been given, and for that matter, how would we know these aliens aren't some sort of police? The OP gives squat about their motives. But you propose going to war with a vastly superior and unfamiliar foe based on the assumption that they'll come for the rest of us, or that they plan to slaughter innocent people? Again, why, other than xenophobia?

You're suggesting appeasement. Probably not a good idea, seeing as the aliens could hypothetically want more and continue to pursue a divide and conquer strategy.

Diplomacy is not appeasment. Avoiding shoving your nose into a war that does not concern you is not appeasment. Recognizing the time to strike is not appeasment. Why must every debate over weather or not to go to war, even hypothetical ones, result in dragging up the bloody corpse of 1930's politics?

I predict the following timeline: Aliens land, take Iran.
World is rather worried, but not being fully aware of the Alien's technological and demographic capacities, decides not to rush in, but to observe carefully, try peaceful contacts, gain new technologies, etc. Also, Alien diseases
With the proliferation of more advanced technologies, and Alien diplomacy favouring some nations over others, the usual conflicts among the human populations prevail
Aliens slowly expand their sphere of influence, through either treaties ('Land for Shiny') or intervention when their closely allied human nations end up in trouble
Aliens begin to outnumber humans
Expansion of Alien sphere of influence speeds up dramatically; last remaining human nations begin to cooperate, but are ultimately crushed
Aliens put Humans in human reservations located in assorted dry zones
Humans use their reservations to open Casinos for the Aliens to spend their hard-earned money in

Diplomacy is not appeasment. Avoiding shoving your nose into a war that does not concern you is not appeasment. Recognizing the time to strike is not appeasment. Why must every debate over weather or not to go to war, even hypothetical ones, result in dragging up the bloody corpse of 1930's politics?Giving an aggressor one country so they leave the rest alone is the poster example of appeasement. If ever, this is the perfect time to drag out that phrase, because, unlike in Iraq or a couple other wars, it actually applies.

Giving an aggressor one country so they leave the rest alone is the poster example of appeasement. If ever, this is the perfect time to drag out that phrase, because, unlike in Iraq or a couple other wars, it actually applies.

Depending on the alien's tactics and motives, it might be a good thing to give them Iran. It would save us from having to deal with the place.

Trying to appease someone with clear imperialist ambitions like Hitler's is foolish. You won't satisfy them, and they'll keep coming for more, growing stronger each time. If it was clear that Iran was one of many intended targets, then maybe it would be worth drawing the line there, if their was any way we could fight back.

Of course, their's also such a thing as choosing the battle ground, and not charging into a war before your prepared. We have no intel, and they have the tech and high ground advantages. We could do worse than playing nice and trying for a diplomatic success while simultaneously using the time to prepare (though actually this is one argument in favor of the WW2 apeasment strategy).

Depending on the alien's tactics and motives, it might be a good thing to give them Iran. It would save us from having to deal with the place.You don't know the alien's tactics, though.
Trying to appease someone with clear imperialist ambitions like Hitler's is foolish. You won't satisfy them, and they'll keep coming for more, growing stronger each time. If it was clear that Iran was one of many intended targets, then maybe it would be worth drawing the line there, if their was any way we could fight back.Hitler's motives weren't clear. He was quite specific about not wanting more and then changing his mind. There would, interestingly enough, be no way to verify whether the aliens were going to be satisfied with only Iran or North Korea. The situation would largely be the same as in pre-WWII Europe.
Of course, their's also such a thing as choosing the battle ground, and not charging into a war before your prepared. We have no intel, and they have the tech and high ground advantages. We could do worse than playing nice and trying for a diplomatic success while simultaneously using the time to prepare (though actually this is one argument in favor of the WW2 apeasment strategy).Indeed. However appeasement to buy time to prepare is not the same thing as appeasement to appease the aggressor.

Sounds a lot like perfectly good reasons to take the time to find out what they were planning and try diplomacy (if nothing else to buy time to gather intel), rather than going in guns blazing.

They've committed an act of war against Iran, not Earth, because Earth is not a political entity.

So? The first thing an unknown entity does upon making it's arrival is to commence an invasion of a country, and you're saying that it's not a reason to be at least a little bit worried that you might be next?


Nowhere in the OP is their an indication that they plan to expand their war beyond Iran.

And nowhere in the OP is an indication that they don't plan to either.


Yet you assume that they do.


Poland bought a certain Austrian's promises that there wouldn't be any conflict between them and Nazi Germany. We can see how well that worked out.


Why, beyond the fact that they're aliens and so, as any good B movie can tell you, they are out to conqure the world (and probably kidnap our human women while they're at it).:rolleyes:

If you must prepare for peace, prepare for war. If someone showed up in a crowded place and shot the person next to you, would you believe he had no intention of shooting you next?


Believing that we should all immediately drop our differences and unite against an alien attack on one Earth nation, apparently for no other reason than our shared humanity and the fact that they are aliens, reeks of racism, and I will treat it with the same contempt that I would treat racism against any ethnic group on Earth.

No, it's called uniting simply because this is an unknown threat who's first act is decidedly unfriendly. You may think it's racism, but I'll tell you what. I'll take caution and preparation for survival as opposed to your starry eyed diplomatic approach.

Besides, they're far from likely to speak even a language anyone will understand.


You are equating an attack on one Earth nation using unspecified tactics for unspecified reasons as a declaration of war against the entire Earth.


The OP's specification is the conquest of Iran. That gives a few things to work with. The destruction or capture of military assets, the governmental branch and subjugation or destruction of the people.

Furthermore, the capability they have, as I have mentioned earlier in regards to orbital bombardment, give them a decided advantage in terms of committing global destruction of civilization if they so choose.

Would you bet your entire fate on the hopes that they won't?


Moreover, you are dismissing any possibility of a diplomatic resolution.


Diplomacy is either before, after, or near the end of a war. Again, the shooter scenario. Maybe you would like to talk him out of it?


Would you do this if the invader was another Earth nation? If not, then what is your reasoning, beyond xenophobia?

Pre-existing known quantities of motivation, invested stakes of survival that would be extinguished if conflict is elevated to global levels, ties to global economy.

None of these factors apply to an extraterrestrial invasion force. They could wipe the Earth clean of all life, with no loss of assets on their side. They have, at it's core, nothing to lose. We on the other hand, have everything to lose.


I'm thinking of conducting guerilla warfare once they had established basis and/or settlements that couldn't be evacuated overnight.

Of course, the same "We don't know what tactics they're using" argument could equally apply to systematic eradication of all life in the area.


You're also assuming they would be willing to use such weapons.

Prepare for the worst, and all your surprises will be pleasant. Prepare for the best, and your first surprise will be your last.


If the side with space superiority is willing to use the methods of total war, yes.

Would you bet your survival on the hope that they won't?


Well if the OP implies a conventional invasion, and considering how expensive that would probably be over interstellar distances, then I'd hazard a guess that they have a damn good reason not to break out WMDs at the drop of a hate. Of course, if they are willing to, that just makes trying to fight their initial invasion a stupider move on our part in most conceivable circumstances.

Soooo, just roll over and die?

Diplomacy does not work on an aggressor if the negotiator is from a weak position by the way. Unless you're hoping to make the aggressor laugh derisively so hard he gets a heart attack and keel over.


The OP suggests that a total war approach is not the default strategy here.

And how do you know that? He simply states a full on conquest of Iran, no more, no less.

1. I sure as hell don't go charging in blind and unarmed.

2. The situations are not analagous. Iran is not the friendly couple down the block, the aliens are not nessissarily slaughtering innocents based on the information we've been given, and for that matter, how would we know these aliens aren't some sort of police?

So Iran is the obnoxious couple down the block, same difference. The aliens are waging war, and war means fighting, fighting means killing.

As for knowing if they aren't some sort of police, why, it's very simple. They didn't announce themselves beforehand, have produced no warrant, and above all else, have no jurisdiction. Or are you going to say that aliens have jurisdiction over sovereign countries now?


The OP gives squat about their motives. But you propose going to war with a vastly superior and unfamiliar foe based on the assumption that they'll come for the rest of us, or that they plan to slaughter innocent people? Again, why, other than xenophobia?

Because the invaders have absolutely nothing to lose if they sterilize the planet, being an interstellar race. Humanity on the other hand, has everything to lose. Humanity does not even have a parity of arms to force the aggressor to the negotiating table. The only hope of doing so is to convince the aggressor that they have as much to lose as the defenders if hostilities continue, and that won't happen without at least destroying the invader's ability to sterilize the planet.

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_iraq_ufo_speech.jpg
Do the aliens look like that ???

Iran is not the friendly couple down the block,
Iran at least didn't invade foreign countries in the last 25 years. Which makes it more of a "friendly couple down the block", world-wise, than let's say, USA, Turkey, or Iraq, or Argentina.

the aliens are not nessissarily slaughtering innocents based on the information we've been given, mmh, by the OP looks that they are. I really think that the OP was about a military invasion of Iran by aliens, so it is war and in war innocents die.
Btw, let's say an unarmed robber is attacked by a tiger. Is the fact that he's a criminal enough to justify not helping him if reasonabily possible? I think that him being human is enough of a reason to try and help him.

and for that matter, how would we know these aliens aren't some sort of police? The OP gives squat about their motives.
They aren't police because no alien has legal jurisdiction over parts of planet Earth.

But you propose going to war with a vastly superior and unfamiliar foe based on the assumption that they'll come for the rest of us, or that they plan to slaughter innocent people? Again, why, other than xenophobia? Why let fellow human beings be slaughered by invaders on the grounds that they're "just" Iranians, other than xenophobia towards Iranians?

Remember, it's UNITED Nations after all.

So? The first thing an unknown entity does upon making it's arrival is to commence an invasion of a country, and you're saying that it's not a reason to be at least a little bit worried that you might be next?

Of course not. I'd be worried. Enough to attempt to find out more about the aliens, their abilities, and their motives before I went charging in. And a lot would potentially depend on their reasons for invading Iran, which are not specified in the OP. This seems like perhaps a case of simply having too little information to work with.

And nowhere in the OP is an indication that they don't plan to either

So not knowing one way or the other, we should assume the worst possible intentions on the part of an unknown species and act accordingly? Sounds like xenophobia to me.

Poland bought a certain Austrian's promises that there wouldn't be any conflict between them and Nazi Germany. We can see how well that worked out.

Not the same situation by any stretch of the imagination.

If you must prepare for peace, prepare for war. If someone showed up in a crowded place and shot the person next to you, would you believe he had no intention of shooting you next?

Prepare for war, by all means. But don't go charging in like Bush on steroids.

No, it's called uniting simply because this is an unknown threat who's first act is decidedly unfriendly. You may think it's racism, but I'll tell you what. I'll take caution and preparation for survival as opposed to your starry eyed diplomatic approach.

To those who attach such negative and insulting connotations to diplomacy or idealism, I can only say that I both fear and pity you.

Besides, they're far from likely to speak even a language anyone will understand.

The OP did say that we know they're only attacking Iran, and specifically used the word "intent" (which in this context implies communication to me), but its not explicitely stated that we can communicate, which needless to say would make diplomacy trickier.;)

However, suppose they had bothered to do recon, monitored our transmissions, and decoded them? Hardly implausible to me.

The OP's specification is the conquest of Iran. That gives a few things to work with. The destruction or capture of military assets, the governmental branch and subjugation or destruction of the people.

Invasion implies subjugation more than destruction.

Furthermore, the capability they have, as I have mentioned earlier in regards to orbital bombardment, give them a decided advantage in terms of committing global destruction of civilization if they so choose.

Yet the fact that they are engaging in an apparently conventional invasion despite the immense costs that would likely entail over interstellar space suggests that they are pretty damn reluctant to use WMDs for whatever reason.

Would you bet your entire fate on the hopes that they won't?

Its not a matter of choice. If they do, we can't stop them, and if we fight as you would seem to support, we might make that outcome more likely. You play with the cards your dealt, my friend.

Diplomacy is either before, after, or near the end of a war. Again, the shooter scenario. Maybe you would like to talk him out of it?

Well if your worst case senario were true, it would be more analagous to a hostage situation, where the procedure is to try to talk him out of it (at least until a SWAT team gets their).

Pre-existing known quantities of motivation, invested stakes of survival that would be extinguished if conflict is elevated to global levels, ties to global economy.

None of these factors apply to an extraterrestrial invasion force. They could wipe the Earth clean of all life, with no loss of assets on their side. They have, at it's core, nothing to lose. We on the other hand, have everything to lose.

Yet their tactics imply a refusal to use WMDs or the threat of such weapons, even when it would save them a most likely extreamly costly invasion.

Of course, the same "We don't know what tactics they're using" argument could equally apply to systematic eradication of all life in the area.

More of the same.

Prepare for the worst, and all your surprises will be pleasant. Prepare for the best, and your first surprise will be your last.

Preparation is not the same as running in balls first. Since the OP specifies they are only attacking Iran, why not take the time to find out more about them and build up forces, while attempting diplomacy.


Would you bet your survival on the hope that they won't?

The best way to garuntee that they won't is to simply role over. Funny coming from you...

Soooo, just roll over and die?

No, I'm suggesting a brains over balls policy of combined diplomacy, intelligence gathering, and preparing for war. After all, in your worst case senario, our odds can't get much worse in a fight.

Diplomacy does not work on an aggressor if the negotiator is from a weak position by the way. Unless you're hoping to make the aggressor laugh derisively so hard he gets a heart attack and keel over.

This presumes that the aliens are acting as an aggressor towards anyone but Iran.

And how do you know that? He simply states a full on conquest of Iran, no more, no less.

Well I've answered this a few times by now, so I won't repeat myself.

So Iran is the obnoxious couple down the block, same difference. The aliens are waging war, and war means fighting, fighting means killing.

War against Iran, not war against Earth. You're advocating treating an attack by aliens one nation as a default attack on all humanity. I really don't want to be accusing you of xenophobia, but you're making it hard to resist.

As for knowing if they aren't some sort of police, why, it's very simple. They didn't announce themselves beforehand, have produced no warrant, and above all else, have no jurisdiction. Or are you going to say that aliens have jurisdiction over sovereign countries now?

Do we have jurisdiction over them? What grounds would we have to stop them from intervening in Iran?

Because the invaders have absolutely nothing to lose if they sterilize the planet, being an interstellar race. Humanity on the other hand, has everything to lose. Humanity does not even have a parity of arms to force the aggressor to the negotiating table. The only hope of doing so is to convince the aggressor that they have as much to lose as the defenders if hostilities continue, and that won't happen without at least destroying the invader's ability to sterilize the planet.

Make up your mind: should we fight or not?

By the way, I know not all of my response is of the highest quality. I'm tired, and I apologize for anything false/misleading/poorly worded that I said.

Iran at least didn't invade foreign countries in the last 25 years. Which makes it more of a "friendly couple down the block", world-wise, than let's say, USA, Turkey, or Iraq, or Argentina.

True, they just waged proxy war through Hezbolla and friends.

mmh, by the OP looks that they are. I really think that the OP was about a military invasion of Iran by aliens, so it is war and in war innocents die.
Btw, let's say an unarmed robber is attacked by a tiger. Is the fact that he's a criminal enough to justify not helping him if reasonabily possible? I think that him being human is enough of a reason to try and help him.

Their's no information either way as to weather the aliens are deliberately targeting civilians, however.

And I still feel traces of a really xenophobic sentiment of "us humans vs the foreigners." Maybe you didn't mean it that way though. After all, we should help other humans. But that your analogy equates an obviously intelligent species with a wild animal, and then says how his "being human is enough of a reason to try and help him..." Oh hell, I'm probably reading way to much into it. I don't want to descend into PC-style nitpicking.

For me though, being an intelligent life form would be grounds enough to help someone, human or otherwise. That said, your analogy is questionable here unless you are arguing that we should intervene militarily in every foreign war where someone is getting their ass kicked.

They aren't police because no alien has legal jurisdiction over parts of planet Earth.

Fair enough.

Why let fellow human beings be slaughered by invaders on the grounds that they're "just" Iranians, other than xenophobia towards Iranians?

Nice way to flip the race card back on me, but I have nothing against Iranians. I do have something against theocratic governments, so if I have come off as anti-Iranian, that's probably why. If a democratic alien power wished to come and remove a brutal and corrupt government, and had valid reasons and a sound plan for doing so, I'd be inclined to sit back, give them my best wishes, and maybe help out a bit.

To make my feelings perfectly clear: in such a situation I would support attempts at diplomacy while trying to gather more information on the aliens and their motives, so that we could make an intelligent and informed response. In addition to the practical motives, however, I will point out that I feel no need to suddenly rush to a corrupt government's defense, simply because their latest attackers happen to have different genes. Nor would I feel the need to defend a corrupt government because it was white, male, or what have you. My loyalties are ideological, not genetic.

If the aliens were just as bad or worse, of course, that changes things. I'm simply arguing against the reflexive attitude to take someone's side because they share our genes. Sooner or later, weather through First Contact, AIs, or genetic engineering, humanity will likely face contact with unmistakable intelligence, similar to our own. I believe that we should adopt an approach of judging all intelligent beings alike on their character, beliefs, and actions.

Remember, it's UNITED Nations after all.

The United Nations is not, to my knowledge, required to intervene in every war of its members, at least not beyond diplomacy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but please provide a source.

The United Nations is not, to my knowledge, required to intervene in every war of its members, at least not beyond diplomacy. Please correct me if I am wrong, but please provide a source.

Part of the ideal of the UN is collective security.
If its outer space aliens invading there might not be any objections in the security council.

Part of the ideal of the UN is collective security.
If its outer space aliens invading there might not be any objections in the security council.

Oh I wouldn't be too suprised if the Security Council unanimously voted to launch every nuke we had. Doesn't mean it would be the right choice.;)

More likely though, they would realize that a war under the circumstances described in the OP would probably be a slaughter, and that playing nice while we gather intel/weapons would probably be a sounder policy. At least I hope they would.

Oh I wouldn't be too suprised if the Security Council unanimously voted to launch every nuke we had. Doesn't mean it would be the right choice.;)

More likely though, they would realize that a war under the circumstances described in the OP would probably be a slaughter, and that playing nice while we gather intel/weapons would probably be a sounder policy. At least I hope they would.

that presumes genocide is their goal, slavery is also another possible goal. In Which case a world wide resistance might convince them they wont be able to get enough labor to cover their cost.
And would assume they are the only aliens with knowledge of us. In which case resistance Vs non resistance may spell the difference in outer space politics between the response that Poland got versus the response that Austria got.

Of course not. I'd be worried. Enough to attempt to find out more about the aliens, their abilities, and their motives before I went charging in. And a lot would potentially depend on their reasons for invading Iran, which are not specified in the OP. This seems like perhaps a case of simply having too little information to work with.

It's enough to form an emergency global alliance. The threat represented is global in nature


So not knowing one way or the other, we should assume the worst possible intentions on the part of an unknown species and act accordingly? Sounds like xenophobia to me.

As opposed to assuming the best possible intentions, or benign for the rest of humanity, and dithering your feet before being awarded a species level Darwin Award?

It's not xenophobia when the first damned act is to start by shooting up your place. Would you accuse me of racism if a bunch of African/Italian/etc gangsters started shooting up my neighborhood and I organized an armed neighborhood defense?

Here's some food for thought. You do not make it to the level of a starfaring race without being driven, ambitious, and above all, willing to grind your competition to dust. You might have a veneer of civilization, but all it's done is take those base survival instincts and apply them to a national level.

If they had come in peace, or heck, just to look, I wouldn't be advocating increasing military readiness to maximum levels and preparing for a full scale global war.

You on the other hand, sound like you're saying "Please sir, can you shoot me more?"


Not the same situation by any stretch of the imagination.


It could be. There's precedent after all.


Prepare for war, by all means. But don't go charging in like Bush on steroids.


Bush rushed in half cocked and hoping his enemies would fall over like cardboard targets in the wind.


To those who attach such negative and insulting connotations to diplomacy or idealism, I can only say that I both fear and pity you.

If you shot up my neighborhood first, even if it was someone's house I hated, you'd better damned well be prepared for me to point weapons your way.


The OP did say that we know they're only attacking Iran, and specifically used the word "intent" (which in this context implies communication to me),


If I pick your pocket, my intent is pretty clear even if I didn't say a word. Discerning intent does not ever need communication.


but its not explicitely stated that we can communicate, which needless to say would make diplomacy trickier.;)

So while you're busy trying to talk, they shoot you. Yeah, that's brilliant.


However, suppose they had bothered to do recon, monitored our transmissions, and decoded them? Hardly implausible to me.

This assumes that they would bother to do so. Given their lack of interest in even basic "Hello" before starting the shooting, it is a foolish assumption.


Invasion implies subjugation more than destruction.


Germany invaded Poland. What did that mean for it's Jewish population? In fact, what do you think the German invasion of Russia meant for its slavic populace, which the Germans considered untesmench hmmm? It meant death squads, and entire villages and towns wiped from the face of the earth. British invasion and reprisals against Australian aboriginals wiped out the Tasmanians to the last man, woman and child.

Japan invaded China, and instituted a 3-alls policy later in the war. Steal, Burn and Kill all.

What did the Mongol invasions of cities and nations mean for those that resisted? Death for their entire populations.

History is rife with invasions which only resulted in destruction, not subjugation. Close your eyes to the reality of the situation if you wish. I won't.


Yet the fact that they are engaging in an apparently conventional invasion despite the immense costs that would likely entail over interstellar space suggests that they are pretty damn reluctant to use WMDs for whatever reason.

Or maybe they have perfected interstellar travel to the point where a trans-stellar invasion force is nothing to them, or maybe they prefer to kill you where they can see you rather than as a blip on a tactical display, or maybe they're doing it for the lulz, or maybe they want to keep the land intact but don't mind blasting it to bits if it's too costly to keep fighting a ground war, or maybe they're not even soldiers, but simply the equivalent of colonists, performing local pest control before settling and colonizing the planet.


Its not a matter of choice. If they do, we can't stop them, and if we fight as you would seem to support, we might make that outcome more likely. You play with the cards your dealt, my friend.


And the cards you're playing with aren't complete. Have you thought that maybe they think people will act like you recommend, and by the time they decide to attack, it will be too late to stop them? Or maybe that this is just a beachhead that they're building, and once established, they'll spread out from there, impossible to dislodge?

Furthermore, the OP did specify that they had advanced technology but not so much as to make winning a conflict impossible.

Whatever you choose to do, your opponent won't wait for you, whether you're going for the diplomatic or military resolution and if you misstep, whichever your choice, it'll be too damn late to do anything about it.


Well if your worst case senario were true, it would be more analagous to a hostage situation, where the procedure is to try to talk him out of it (at least until a SWAT team gets their).

It's nowhere near a hostage situation and closer to a gunman in a school who's still halfway through shooting up a class with a dozen more to go.


Yet their tactics imply a refusal to use WMDs or the threat of such weapons, even when it would save them a most likely extreamly costly invasion.


Maybe they'd prefer a world that didn't have it's ecosystem out of whack, but they'd be willing to sterilize it if it meant an end to an annoyance.


Preparation is not the same as running in balls first. Since the OP specifies they are only attacking Iran, why not take the time to find out more about them and build up forces, while attempting diplomacy.


Which is a load of balls since they shot first. Did America attempt diplomacy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Did Russia attempt diplomacy when Germany rolled across Poland into their lands? Once the shooting starts, it is a sign of failure of diplomacy. Further attempts at diplomacy are exercises in futility until the balance of power has changed sufficiently to make the objectives of the aggressor untenable.


The best way to garuntee that they won't is to simply role over. Funny coming from you...

That really worked well for the Jews, Roma gypsies at German hands and Chinese at Japanese hands huh?

Are you simply that ignorant?


No, I'm suggesting a brains over balls policy of combined diplomacy, intelligence gathering, and preparing for war.

Not the way you're talking, what with pretending they have jurisdiction over a sovereign country.


After all, in your worst case senario, our odds can't get much worse in a fight.


A slim hope is better than no hope.


This presumes that the aliens are acting as an aggressor towards anyone but Iran.

So? Diplomacy without teeth is useless to anyone with enough ruthlessness to launch an unprovoked invasion.


Well I've answered this a few times by now, so I won't repeat myself.


You evaded, and made a few assumptions hoping that it would be true in all possible interpretations. They weren't.


War against Iran, not war against Earth. You're advocating treating an attack by aliens one nation as a default attack on all humanity. I really don't want to be accusing you of xenophobia, but you're making it hard to resist.


Yessss, because xenophobia is being worried about that gunman who is shooting up the classroom next to you.

You know what? You're a racist. That's right. A racist and a PETA style anti-human bigot. You're putting aliens ahead of humans because you hate Iranians and would rather they be subjugated or destroyed than lift a finger to help them. See how that argument works?


Do we have jurisdiction over them? What grounds would we have to stop them from intervening in Iran?

Are you fucking serious? What jurisdiction do we have over them? Aliens who show up on somebody else's planet, and start shooting it up?

Next you'll be arguing that you don't have a right to sovereignty or independence because aliens want to take them away.


Make up your mind: should we fight or not?


The war is on your doorstep, whether you want to fight or not. Either you can resist, or you can be swept away.


By the way, I know not all of my response is of the highest quality. I'm tired, and I apologize for anything false/misleading/poorly worded that I said.

We'll see, it's about all I'm willing to say right now.

Given that we would have no history of their military tactics, and lack pretty much anything in the way of intelligence as to their intentions other than they are attacking earth - we have to assume that their hostile intentions will not stop if they take Iran. If they had come in peace why begin with such a hostile act? The only sensible approach, in my opinion, is to unite in the defence of earth and support Iran.

True, they just waged proxy war through Hezbolla and friends.
Exactly. That's a "softer" option than outright invading a country with military forces. I'm not saying that Iran always played fair: I'm saying that some countries played even fouler.


Their's no information either way as to weather the aliens are deliberately targeting civilians, however.

Beware that we're going to start about "collateral" damage.


And I still feel traces of a really xenophobic sentiment of "us humans vs the foreigners." Maybe you didn't mean it that way though. After all, we should help other humans. But that your analogy equates an obviously intelligent species with a wild animal, and then says how his "being human is enough of a reason to try and help him..." Oh hell, I'm probably reading way to much into it. I don't want to descend into PC-style nitpicking.
No prob, you're probabily right in feeling traces of xenophobia. I don't think that xenophobia is inherently wrong - it is a well-rooted instinct of humans (and of most animals living in groups): who isn't "us" is more likely to be a danger on our group. So we have fear (phobia) of the not-us (xenos: the stranger).
On the good side, xenophobia originated things like familiar unity; on the bad side, it can be manipulated, like any fear, to achieve outright racism. Yes, throughout history we see that the latter happened many times and generated some of the worst atrocities of mankind; but this teaches us to trust more our intellect, not to shut off our instincts.

For me though, being an intelligent life form would be grounds enough to help someone, human or otherwise.

That said, your analogy is questionable here unless you are arguing that we should intervene militarily in every foreign war where someone is getting their ass kicked.
Already done. Korea? Yugoslav wars? Georgia vs Abkhazia? Iraq vs Kuwait? UN stopping Israel vs Lebanon? How about the Rwandan genocide?


Nice way to flip the race card back on me, but I have nothing against Iranians. I do have something against theocratic governments, so if I have come off as anti-Iranian, that's probably why.
Not that I like theocracy very much: I live about 500 km away from the Vatican, and I'm atheist...

If a democratic alien power wished to come and remove a brutal and corrupt government, and had valid reasons and a sound plan for doing so, I'd be inclined to sit back, give them my best wishes, and maybe help out a bit.
This is a good point: I woulnd't trust the democracity of an alien power coming down to our planet, guns blazing, and telling us what we must do for our own good, be it with Iran or with whatever other country. We humans didn't call them, nor did we sign any agreement about transplanetary jurisdiction.


To make my feelings perfectly clear: in such a situation I would support attempts at diplomacy while trying to gather more information on the aliens and their motives, so that we could make an intelligent and informed response.

This is the sensible approach, I agree: anyway I would point these efforts into making the aliens go away - as they're invaders and warmongers, I don't want them near me. That I would apply to human powers also.


In addition to the practical motives, however, I will point out that I feel no need to suddenly rush to a corrupt government's defense, simply because their latest attackers happen to have different genes. Nor would I feel the need to defend a corrupt government because it was white, male, or what have you. My loyalties are ideological, not genetic.
My point is, that their invasion would be wrong on the ideological level.

...I believe that we should adopt an approach of judging all intelligent beings alike on their character, beliefs, and actions.
Totally seconded. And I would require the same respect from all intelligent beings, both on the individual and on the collective level: that is, respect our jurisdiction, respect our land, and I'll respect yours.


The United Nations is not, to my knowledge, required to intervene in every war of its members, at least not beyond diplomacy.
It's not required, you're right: anyway the UN stepped in in various conflitcs, for the sake of mankind, human rights, justice, peace (or at least they said so). See Korean war: UN vs North Korea+PRChina.
Also, the idea of United Nations implies some kind of moral obligation to international solidarity, and since Iran is a full-fledged member of the UN...

If a democratic alien power wished to come and remove a brutal and corrupt government, and had valid reasons and a sound plan for doing so, I'd be inclined to sit back, give them my best wishes, and maybe help out a bit.

"Mission Accomplished" anyone?


If the aliens were just as bad or worse, of course, that changes things.

Too late. By the time you found out, they've already shuffled off everyone who could realistically oppose them to extermination camps, and you unwittingly helped them do it too.

"Mission Accomplished" anyone?

Don't try to use guilt by assossiation on me. Especially not in such a clumsy manor. I specifically said if they had valid reasons and a good plan. Which Bush did not.

Too late. By the time you found out, they've already shuffled off everyone who could realistically oppose them to extermination camps, and you unwittingly helped them do it too.

So rather than observe a nation's behavior, we should default to the assumption that if they declare war they intend genocide? After all, we can't take the risk that they might intend it, even if all evidence is to the contrary.:rolleyes:

If we're using Bush analogies, how is that any different from "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" type Bullshit in the run up to Iraq?

I wish this forum had the wank smily. Rolling eyes just doesn't cut it for this.

No prob, you're probabily right in feeling traces of xenophobia. I don't think that xenophobia is inherently wrong - it is a well-rooted instinct of humans (and of most animals living in groups): who isn't "us" is more likely to be a danger on our group. So we have fear (phobia) of the not-us (xenos: the stranger).
On the good side, xenophobia originated things like familiar unity; on the bad side, it can be manipulated, like any fear, to achieve outright racism. Yes, throughout history we see that the latter happened many times and generated some of the worst atrocities of mankind; but this teaches us to trust more our intellect, not to shut off our instincts.

Oh I understand the importance of species survival instincts. That doesn't mean you should advocate picking a side in every conflict based on weather they're "like you" genetically. I don't want humanity to die out. But in a conflict between humans and aliens, if the aliens were in the more just position, I would side with them.

It's not required, you're right: anyway the UN stepped in in various conflitcs, for the sake of mankind, human rights, justice, peace (or at least they said so). See Korean war: UN vs North Korea+PRChina.
Also, the idea of United Nations implies some kind of moral obligation to international solidarity, and since Iran is a full-fledged member of the UN...

Their's a difference between a military intervention and a peacekeeping mission, as I recall. The UN has conducted plenty of peacekeeping opperations. It has only twice engaged in a military intervention (Korea and the Gulf War).

Their's a difference between a military intervention and a peacekeeping mission, as I recall. The UN has conducted plenty of peacekeeping opperations. It has only twice engaged in a military intervention (Korea and the Gulf War).

I wouldn't call the gulf war a UN intervention. They authorized it but there wasn't a UN command like their was and still is in Korea.

I wouldn't call the gulf war a UN intervention. They authorized it but there wasn't a UN command like their was and still is in Korea.

Which only stregnthens my point.;)

Which only stregnthens my point.;)

but the reason for that is the Veto power in the security council. No one is going to Veto attacking invading aliens as that doesn't fall into anyone sphere of influence.

but the reason for that is the Veto power in the security council. No one is going to Veto attacking invading aliens as that doesn't fall into anyone sphere of influence.

Fair point. The veto does a fine job of crippling the UN's miliitary response capabillities, but it probably wouldn't matter here.

Iran at least didn't invade foreign countries in the last 25 years. Which makes it more of a "friendly couple down the block", world-wise, than let's say, USA, Turkey, or Iraq, or Argentina.
I'm wondering why invading one of the oil richest countries wouldn't be considered a threat to earth as a whole...

I'm wondering why invading one of the oil richest countries wouldn't be considered a threat to earth as a whole...Good point.

I'm wondering why invading one of the oil richest countries wouldn't be considered a threat to earth as a whole...

Or an excuse to liberate the oil in the name of Democracy. No wait Humanity.

Or an excuse to liberate the oil in the name of Democracy HumanityYes, please keep rubbing the grain of salt in our eye. The ones who oppose the war in Iraq greatly appreciate it.

We're human first, nationalities and religions second. Go after the aliens. We can deal with our minor differences later.

Iran at least didn't invade foreign countries in the last 25 years. Which makes it more of a "friendly couple down the block", world-wise, than let's say, USA, Turkey, or Iraq, or Argentina.



But they do threaten to nuke Israel on a daily basis.
Wait... could these aliens be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdjEPqWjTeU&feature=related

Clearly aliens are more likely to attack London to prevent Valentin Selezynov revealing how they made the moon

First we need to know the quality of these aliens. Are they sexy humanoid aliens or horrible insectoid creatures. That's very important before we make a decision....

or could they be horrible reptiles disguised as sexy babes?!?!?1 :eek::eek2::eek: :eek2: :eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/VVisitorsEmblem.jpg

First we need to know the quality of these aliens. Are they sexy humanoid aliens or horrible insectoid creatures. That's very important before we make a decision....

or could they be horrible reptiles disguised as sexy babes?!?!?1 :eek::eek2::eek: :eek2: :eek:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/VVisitorsEmblem.jpg

the aliens are only female. Very sexy and the attack is mass blow jobs. Iran is throwing a fit because it violates sharia.

the aliens are only female. Very sexy and the attack is mass blow jobs. Iran is throwing a fit because it violates sharia.

Then I believe we must nuke Iran. I for one would welcome our new alien overlords. :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

Depends I suppose. If they took Saudi Arabia and the only bad thing they did was to kill all the men, I'd see no reason to get involved.

the aliens are only female. Very sexy and the attack is mass blow jobs. Iran is throwing a fit because it violates sharia.

then we should find a way to get them to attack us.

then we should find a way to get them to attack us.

They are just no one else considers it an attack. but Iran is demanding the UN and the US send troops to save them from pleasure.

They are just no one else considers it an attack. but Iran is demanding the UN and the US send troops to save them from pleasure.

Ah, well, in that case, refuse to send troops, because they're all quite busy.

An unmarked van drives up to your neighbors house. Heavily armed and armored people, who are clearly not the police, break down the door and charge into said house. There's screams and gunfire. You're watching from the window. What do you do?My neighbors who have been torturing their children for years?

Don't try to use guilt by assossiation on me. Especially not in such a clumsy manor. I specifically said if they had valid reasons and a good plan. Which Bush did not.

If they had valid reasons and a good plan. The aliens have made no communication attempts, just started shooting. Are you saying that humans are psychics now?


So rather than observe a nation's behavior, we should default to the assumption that if they declare war they intend genocide? After all, we can't take the risk that they might intend it, even if all evidence is to the contrary.:rolleyes:

If the first action of a new nation is to launch an unprovoked invasion of their neighbors, you can damn well assume the worst. They've already started one of the worst things possible.


If we're using Bush analogies, how is that any different from "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" type Bullshit in the run up to Iraq?


Because we knew Iraq didn't have them, and risked extinction if they had and used it. We know the aliens have them and risk nothing of the sort if they use them.


I wish this forum had the wank smily. Rolling eyes just doesn't cut it for this.

Yes, because making positive assumptions and demanding that they be treated as the rule in an open interpretation scenario is not wankery...

All of you should read Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series (started as a trilogy, but he kept coming back to it). The Lizards are a very conservative species (ruled by the same dynasty for 120,000 years) who plan their interstellar conquests slowly and methodically, so they sent a probe to "Tosev 3" about a thousand years ago, observed Crusaders fighting Saracens on horseback with blade weapons, figure that's not much of a problem, and get their colonization expedition together, slowly, carefully.... arriving in early 1942, just after Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor. The Nazis, Commies, Yanks, Brits, Japs all have to put their differences aside to fight the alien invaders. The aliens do conquer most of Africa and Asia, but are forced to recognize the independence of the great powers: except that, by mutual consent of everyone, the aliens administer Poland.

But they do threaten to nuke Israel on a daily basis.
Who was first, the egg or the hen? Israel threatens on a daily basis some country in the area (Lebanon, Syria, Iran), and they even bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor.
Also, I think that most of Ahmadinejad's ramblings are more propaganda than facts. He's a manipulator, not a suicide: and to nuke Israel is suicide.

Btw the link made me LOL insanely!

Oh I understand the importance of species survival instincts. That doesn't mean you should advocate picking a side in every conflict based on weather they're "like you" genetically. I don't want humanity to die out. But in a conflict between humans and aliens, if the aliens were in the more just position, I would side with them.

I agree with the bolded part.
As for "siding with the just position", well, in the OP case I think that the aliens are automatically on the wrong side (they didn't attempt to talk with humanity, they simply came gun blazing and attacking). A good purpose isn't enough of an excuse for wrong means.

Their's a difference between a military intervention and a peacekeeping mission, as I recall. The UN has conducted plenty of peacekeeping opperations. It has only twice engaged in a military intervention (Korea and the Gulf War).
See, there ARE some precedents. For exceptional situations, of course; but how would you call an alien invasion?

... by mutual consent of everyone, the aliens administer Poland.

That is: no matter by whom, Poland always gets screwed.

Who was first, the egg or the hen? Israel threatens on a daily basis some country in the area (Lebanon, Syria, Iran), and they even bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor.
Also, I think that most of Ahmadinejad's ramblings are more propaganda than facts. He's a manipulator, not a suicide: and to nuke Israel is suicide.

Btw the link made me LOL insanely!

i was just setting up for the link.

beat the crud out of them, find out what they wanted in iran, and refuse them a beachhead anywhere.

hell yeah!!!!

Humans uber alles !! :d lol

They are just no one else considers it an attack. but Iran is demanding the UN and the US send troops to save them from pleasure.

I'd volunteer for that deployment.

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords

And I hope they'll remember and reward my loyalty when they get around to appointing a new head of the University of York archaeology department.

I consider that a more realistic reward than being appointed their new regent for Airstrip One.
(not that I'm prone to mixing my SF tropes, or anything)

I'd volunteer for that deployment.

And as our soldiers are so valiant suffering from pleasure in Iran we will demand an increase in Iranian oil sold to the US. least we cant afford to keep our soldiers there.

There already here ... waiting ..

There already here ... waiting ..

..waiting for what? We've screwed our planet already so much that there's no point in waiting.

..waiting for what? We've screwed our planet already so much that there's no point in waiting.

Waiting to take over the candy industry XD

Waiting to take over the candy industry XD

NOOOO!!! My Nestlé shares!!!
...
wait, I don't have any.

That is: no matter by whom, Poland always gets screwed.

Quite the contrary: the Lizard administration is the best government they've had in ages!

*Continues reading WorldWar series by Turtledove*

Great series. I hope he hasn't decided to end it.

BTW: I once took a class that he guest-lectured at. Byzantine history at UCLA. The guy knows his history :hail:

Great series. I hope he hasn't decided to end it.

BTW: I once took a class that he guest-lectured at. Byzantine history at UCLA. The guy knows his history :hail:

"Now as I understand it, Poland is inhabited by people called Poles, which makes sense, but also by another people called Jews, for some eggless reason, and was being attacked by the Deutsche and the Russkies. The Deutsche hate the Jews, the Russkies, and the Poles, roughly in that order. The Russkies hate the Deutsche, the Jews, and the Poles, roughly in that order. The Jews hate the Deutsche more than they hate the Russkies, but the Poles hate the Russkies more than they hate the Deutsche. Is this right?"
"You forgot one thing."
"What's that?"
"The Poles and the Jews hate each other."
"Why am I not surprised?"
"I do not know. Why are you not surprised?"