LibriumArcana.Games

A what if, if the members of the board will indulge me.

Let us say that you the reader are the President of the United States. You learn that there are a number of US citizens being held in a state of illegal slavery and bondage in a allied nation. You also learn that the government of that allied nation has known of this for some time and has done nothing. It is also possible that your precessor has known of this and done... nothing.

What do you do?

What if the allied nation refuses to cooperate in any shape or form?

Is there a lower limit of citizens being held before you will act?

We get our citizens back. Period. Full stop. Allied or not, that is an act of war.

There are two ways we could do this: They could give them back, or we could take them back. The first would be the first offered, and the second would be far less pleasant.

I would immediately raise a stink about it in the international sphere, if possible I would find out if other major nations had slaves for leverage, but regardless I would rail home that this is a travesty of human rights and pressure the fuck out of the offending nation to get off their asses and help us. And I'd damn well start getting plans together for a way to retrieve our citizens by force if diplomacy didn't pan out.

Realistically, there's a chance it would get dragged out, especially if one of these nations is nominally an "ally". However, frankly, this sort of behavior must not be rewarded, and frankly if I were president I'd have started making moves away from "allies for oil" by supporting alternative energy. This could easily turn into a rant of what ELSE I would do were I president, so I'll end it by saying that any President that served with this knowledge is lowered in my eyes if they did nothing about this.

Obviously, *something* has to be done. but first things first, you have to establish weather the slavery is to be considered a act of terrorism. If so then "we do not negotiate with terrorists" comes into play and the President would have to take more drastic measures. Also to be considered is if it is not only a slavery but a hostage situation. In both cases some small task force would probably need to be sent in.

For better or worse, I endorse the British solution Re: Slavery, as shown in Pakistan when a British national is kidnapped by her family to be given to a relative as a wife.

SAS, 2AM local time, assault weapons. Extraction with minimal casualties.

When did that happen, Nitram?

I play nice and give them 48 hours to do something. If they don't I put the issue infront of the UN. If they don't order the nation to return my citizens within a reasonable time, and they actually do it, Special Forces move in and forcibly extract them, no warning of course.

If my 'ally' gets pissed about this I give them one warning to drop it before I unleash the most powerful military in the world.

Stofsk wrote:When did that happen, Nitram?

Last year.

My so-called ally would first be asked very politely that they need to assist our enslaved citizens, or at least allow us to do it. If they do not, I will then inform them as to any treaty obligations they may have regarding the matter. Failing that, I wont bother taking the matter to the UN. They wont do anything. I will forcibly extract my citizens (and anyone else) held in bondage within that country I can find. I would arrest and try the slavers in an appropriate US court.

I will inform the UN after the fact as to my actions, and give them reasons as to why. If they bitch I will take the opportunity to lambast them for being worthless beurocrats that elect the worst human rights violators to the human rights commission.

Somewhere in this the line "If you think that just because I am a fairy that I am going to bend over and take it, you are sorely mistaken" will be uttered. Because somehow, an openly gay man became president and he may as well have fun with it.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Somewhere in this the line "If you think that just because I am a fairy that I am going to bend over and take it, you are sorely mistaken" will be uttered. Because somehow, an openly gay man became president and he may as well have fun with it.

Nice.

As the POTUS I get them back, either by diplomatic means or if that fails then I send in Delta Force or the SEAL's to retrieve them.

To add a Canadian flavour as Prime Minister I try diplomacy first of course and if that fails I send in Joint Task Force 2 (Canada's Special Forces) to get them, they maintain a team for such emergencies. Our citizens can't be abandoned to slavery just because they happen to be held in an allied country.

Well, first I would inform the "allied" government that we know of the situation, and that we know that they've known for some time. We then offer them the chance to cooperate with us, either in the form of them taking action without the need for further involvement on our part, or them giving us permission to go in there and get our people. I make sure to point out that their lack of action could be interpreted as an act of war.

If they refuse to cooperate, I make a public announcement reminding the "ally" of any and all treaty obligations it may have with us, exposing the situation (including my attempt to let them help us and save face) to the public, and calling for the UN to order the nation to cooperate. I would also ask Congress to reconsider our alliance with whichever nation it was.

If the UN refuses to take action, I order military forces to assemble and move on the "ally" and publically condemn both the "ally" and the UN over the whole affair. Special forces teams will attempt to extract our people, while the conventional forces serve as a distraction. If our citizens are extracted without provoking any live hostilities on the part of our "ally," we take them and go home. If fighting does break out involving our conventional forces, war to the knife. (This is assuming we don't have other military commitments like Iraq and Afghanistan. If we do, then that adds a whole other dimension to the issue.)

The offending nation gets 72 hours to release them peacefully. When they don't the slaves/hostages are retrieved by other means (see Nit's solution).

There's a simple, knee-jerk reaction here, and I'm moved the same way. Ultimatum, and if they don't comply, send in the shooters.

That said, the question is more interesting if you twist it a bit. For example, if this was a peacetime situation it's one thing entirely. If, on the other hand, you're part of a coalition engaged in a serious war, what's the answer then? We're talking 'this nation has forces arrayed with ours against a common foe and we need them' time here, to make a very stark example. Furthermore, there's a question as to your erstwhile ally's ability to retaliate. If you're, say, Canada, and this is the US that's doing the slaving, are you going to stick to the whole ultimatum and going in shooting? If you're Lithuania and this is Russia?

There's a lot more to this question than first appears, basically.

Let us say that you the reader are the President of the United States. You learn that there are a number of US citizens being held in a state of illegal slavery and bondage in a allied nation. You also learn that the government of that allied nation has known of this for some time and has done nothing. It is also possible that your precessor has known of this and done... nothing.

While the questions are valid Petro, I'm specially asking in regards to the US government and US citizens at this time.

Okay everyone who is going to answer seems to have answered but no one has answered one very importent part.

What's your lower limit if you have one? I do not doubt y'all would go to war for a 1,000 or even a 100, but what about 50? 10? or 1?

The violence applicable is scalable to the number of people being detained. Special Forces would be deployed for 1-50 or so. After that, logistics would seem to necessitate a larger force. If the nation refuses to work with us at all, then they can go fuck themselves. In fact, I would personally make some sort of arrangement to "deal with" the leaders stonewalling me, indirectly if I had to, of course.

Pretty much what Hotfoot said, it's just a matter of logistics when you start talking scale.

That said, it's somewhat improbable that they'd have literally thousands of Americans held with the knowledge of their government and the ignorance of everyone else. Yeah, I know the sex slavery trade runs very depressing numbers, but we're talking state-sanctioned to the top levels here.

And yes, I knew that you were referring to the US. It's just that taking it from that position makes things quite a bit easier because we have a preponderance of firepower on most nations, the oceans to shield us, and the nuclear deterrent.

To further the scenario along approved lines...

What if this is China we're talking about as the bad guys? Do ya'll change your answers then? Russia?

The problem with China and Russia is that both of them would be extremely foolish to toss US support out the door when presented with this sort of situation. They do have a stake in the international stage as far as image goes, and to willfully harbor slavers would ruin that. They would make the situation much stickier, since the government itself may want to crack down on such things, but corruption in the ranks could impede the process.

In short, I think that they'd be more willing to cooperate diplomatically, but they may achieve less than if we sent in special forces. They would, however, be able to retaliate to special forces insertions and could easily turn this into a massive war if things escalated to such a point, but frankly, I think their leaders have largely learned the lessons of the cold war and don't want to go that route.

The ultimate question remains, though- are you willing to go to war on this matter, with a foe that could actually seriously damage us? It's much easier to contemplate this when you're talking about a third world nation that we have a gross power advantage both tactically and strategically.

Petrosjko wrote:If, on the other hand, you're part of a coalition engaged in a serious war, what's the answer then? We're talking 'this nation has forces arrayed with ours against a common foe and we need them' time here, to make a very stark example.

If we're on the same side in a war, then things are different. For one thing, if we need them, it's a damn good bet they need us just as much. So after telling them we know about it, we can threaten to pull out from a supporting position here, or not deploy one over there. If the numbers of enslaved persons are high enough, we can even threaten to pull out altogether. That said, if there was a problem of them saying "we've got so much going on at the front that we don't have the resources to deal with it," I would be perfectly willing to plan an offensive or diversionary measure to take some of the pressure off them so that they could deal with it.

Petrosjko wrote:If you're, say, Canada, and this is the US that's doing the slaving, are you going to stick to the whole ultimatum and going in shooting?

That's easy. Sabotage maple syrup production facilities in the US, then hold the world's supply of maple syrup hostage. Us fat, sugar-craving Amercians will capitulate in no time.

To answer seriously, I'd have to do a bit more research on the Canadian military.

Petrosjko wrote:If you're Lithuania and this is Russia?

Scream to the UN. Given the disparity in size and power, your only bet is to hope that somebody like the US will take your side.

Petrosjko wrote:What if this is China we're talking about as the bad guys? Do ya'll change your answers then?

If the slaves are being held in China, then to start with I'll go ahead with my original answer: Tell them we know, that we know they know, and that we're giving them a chance to do something about it without bringing the whole thing up on the international stage. Hell, they even get a chance to play good guy: "Look, we have rescued American citizens from the horrible injustice and oppression of illegal slavery." They get some nice propaganda and PR, we get our people. Win-win.

On the other hand, we do let them know that there is a time limit. If they haven't started to take action by the time that limit runs out, I'm going public, just like before. Then, I'd wait for a while so the Pentagon can dust off its contingency plans, etc. Once that's done, if China still hasn't gotten our people back to us, we move, with this very explicit message sent to China (I'd say this in the previous case too, incidentally): "Our quarrel is not with you, but with the slavers who have captured our people. You have failed to liberate our people from them, so now we come to do so ourselves. Again, we have no quarrel with the People's Republic of China, but only with criminal elements operating within it." Then we go in. If the People's Liberation Army (I think that's the name of it) opposes us, well, then we're at war, and that's a whole different ball game.

Petrosjko wrote:Russia?

See answer for China.

Lord Iames Osari wrote:If we're on the same side in a war, then things are different. For one thing, if we need them, it's a damn good bet they need us just as much. So after telling them we know about it, we can threaten to pull out from a supporting position here, or not deploy one over there. If the numbers of enslaved persons are high enough, we can even threaten to pull out altogether. That said, if there was a problem of them saying "we've got so much going on at the front that we don't have the resources to deal with it," I would be perfectly willing to plan an offensive or diversionary measure to take some of the pressure off them so that they could deal with it.

Say this is... Australia in WWII, purely for hypothetical purposes. For the purposes of the hypothetical, it's like situation that sent the SAS to Pakistan that Nitram mentioned. Now obviously Australia needed us against Japan. However, if they stand firm on the issue, where are we left? Do we shoot up their ships in their harbors, where our ships are sitting? Do we compromise our position in the South Pacific? Posit this as around the time of Guadacanal, for example.

Then what?

To answer seriously, I'd have to do a bit more research on the Canadian military.

As it happens, we got this guy here, he's intimately familiar with the Canadian military. He's also a pretty cool dude.

Petrosjko wrote:Say this is... Australia in WWII, purely for hypothetical purposes. For the purposes of the hypothetical, it's like situation that sent the SAS to Pakistan that Nitram mentioned. Now obviously Australia needed us against Japan. However, if they stand firm on the issue, where are we left? Do we shoot up their ships in their harbors, where our ships are sitting? Do we compromise our position in the South Pacific? Posit this as around the time of Guadacanal, for example.

Then what?

I take it you mean this situation?

SirNitram wrote:For better or worse, I endorse the British solution Re: Slavery, as shown in Pakistan when a British national is kidnapped by her family to be given to a relative as a wife.

SAS, 2AM local time, assault weapons. Extraction with minimal casualties.

In that case, shooting up their ships in their harbors would be an excessive response. But I have to point out that the campaign for Guadalcanal went from August of '42 to February of '43. When during that time period are we talking about?

As it happens, we got this guy here, he's intimately familiar with the Canadian military. He's also a pretty cool dude.

I take it that means you?

@V: Ah. I stand corrected.

He's talking about Cpl Kendal, Petro is actually a Texan.

Well how based in reality are we going to be? There's nothing short of terrorism that can be achieved in a Uganda vs. USA matchup, but international pressure would be immense, to say nothing of the internal national pressure once this information was released. Sure, people are just pissed off about keeping prisoners indefinately, but I suspect that if you were to throw out the word Slavery, US citizens would become pretty fucking rabid. Also good luck keeping the African American Caucus quiet about this...I mean seriously.

The only way for this to reasonably work as a moral dilemma is to change the timeframe to a point where slavery was not entirely morally reprehensible to the most powerful nations in the world.

As for the question of how many, I again feel my homeland's government did the right thing. Even a single Briton is worth sending in for rescue.

This isn't war. It might escalate to war, if the nation in question is stupid enough to say 'Hey, you can't do that!' or condone the hostage-taking.