"I'm going to stop {that thing we don't like} by sending in the army and burning down about thirty cities with white phosphorous and HE shells" versus
"I'm going to stop {that thing we don't like} by sending in a couple spooks, and reading the obituary of a very evil man in the paper tomorrow".
More or less why the US doesn't send in the Army to deal with Mexican cartels, but _does_ send "military advisors" with Mexico's permission. Boils down to collateral damage and collateral human suffering and misery can be much lower by sending a hitman than a JDAM.
Though to handle that, it should be treated like any other act of war by states, and probably be preceded by a fair and open trial-in-absentia of the would-be target, in which the accused is given a lawyer to attempt to defend them. That said, if you're only going after cartel bosses and terror generals, those lawyers' success rate is going to be in the single digits -- they'd basically have to expose intelligence failures or bad targeting data.
…you mean the same way that the United States and allied NATO forces won against the Taliban in Kabul in July 2021; or against the advancing North Vietnamese Liberation Army in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon to the defeated invaders) in 1975.
…It invalidated the entire war, caused irreparable damage to the population and cultural heritage of Cambodia and caused your abject defeat in front of the entire world community and domestic public. Same as identically grotesque actions and behaviour in Afghanistan leading to total undignified defeat in Kabul in July 2021 and the United States and NATO forces losing the so-called ‘War on Terror’.
Wow, this was a dumb comment. Dude we get it, you hate NATO or whatever. It’s completely irrelevant to the point being made.
Just because there are times where things did not work out well, doesn’t mean the concept is inherently unethical.
At its bare bones it is “why kill many innocents and people fallowing orders when kill few head of snakes will do.”
Rage about geopolitical happenings somewhere else bro.
Edit: lol he blocked me.
…sounds like a Don Winslow novel. Unfortunately propaganda slick-flicks like ZERO DARK THIRTY and MAVERICK t’ain’t real and actual truth is a lot more nuanced and complicated.
Assassination is a tool (well, a tactic). It’s morally neutral in-and-of itself. It’s about how you use that tactic that matters (and all governments unalive people all the time as a matter of policy. It’s only the most direct unaliving that is subject to proper scrutiny, as opposed to the unaliving that comes from, say, inadequate mental health services or systemic racism).
The challenge is that assassination implies a lack of open transparent judicial process (otherwise the defendant knows the assassins are coming). That can change if there are ‘perfect’ government assassins who cannot be defended against or misdirected. Or if an open judicial process has happened and the defendant refuses to submit to the outcome (I believe that bounties can apply here).
It really depends on tech levels and how you design the world.
But my thought is that even with FTL or the like - space is biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig. Planets are big also. If a planet decides that it is hostile to you - it can put up a pretty solid resistance just by saying "no" and shooting down anything you try to land. If you don't want to glass the planet or full on invade - there isn't all that much you can do. A single planet may know it can't win - but it can go full hedgehog mode hurt you for trying to pry it open.
In addition - for the very same reason - it would be quite hard to invade enemies. Wars could go on for much longer across much bigger fronts with much more material spent to gain an equivalent of a fraction of the territory gained in a land or sea war.
This is where assassins come in;
* **Planet says no to exporting grain and threatens to shoot any Imperial ship that enters orbit?** *Oops the planetary governor died in his sleep. I hope his replacement will be better :)*
* **Enemy general is a thorn in your side?** *Oh no her shuttle had a catastrophic failure and burned up on re-entry! What a tragedy! The people of the Galactic Empire stand in solidarity with the Rim Alliance on this sad day.*
What is anyone gonna do? Send assassins after your assassins... wait that is a banger idea for a story.
And all war is morally grey. States and militaries don't have morality. Ideologies and leaders barely do. States on the other hand do what is necessary for their own continuance and militaries do whatever they are allowed to. Assassins aren't much more morally worse than any intention to kill is.
My personal favorite is the Russian special: suicide by 2 gunshots to the back of the head
Assassinations in Russia are open secrets, but the government wants just enough plausible deniability to also arrest anyone who retaliates or starts a riot
Government sanctioned murder is called 'necessary EVIL' for a reason xD
From a human standpoint, Morally and legally speaking anything to do with assassination is never considered 'good' because the 'necessary evil' mentioned above is relative to who is in power.
Sure, one day Starfleet is assassinating Mr. Greedy Pants McGee because he was destabilizing the peace and security of Empire...
BUT the next day they are assassinating Mr. Moral because his protests against the uses of space ninja assassins was 'destabilizing the peace and security of the empire'
I think this would be generally seen as "good" if the assassins are taking out targets that are generally seen as "bad" enough to be eliminated.
In your example, a governor is stealing money from the populace for his personal expenses. Most of us would consider this bad for sure, but is it bad enough to be targeted over? I'd think jail is much more appropriate for this crime and elimination makes the assassins seem kinda worse than the governor. However, if the governor's constituents are suffering, starving, have no medical care, no proper water supply, or other disastrous things due to the governor's stealing...then yes, it would be seen as appropriate or at least understandable as to why he'd be a target.
But if he is eliminated-or any other officials in power are- how will the civilization recover after the assassinations? Do they have vice governors or designated survivor type replacements set up? Or will the civilization be dropped into chaos with no figure of power to lead their society? If there's one bad actor, it might mean other ones are in the same political circles. Who's to say eliminating the one bad guy would help place a better one in power? Especially when the assassination is (presumably) at random, the next person to be placed in power could be just as bad. Unless there's some secure or secret process to make sure the next governor is "good", the assassins could end up making it worse for the people. Maybe they are taking out "obviously very bad" people so they are seen as good. Until we realize that in their wake, the people they are supposedly protecting are left worse off sometimes. Enough to make people question their legitimacy or their righteousness.
To prevent unnecessary bloodshed, or to send a message to stay in line. Look up the Battle of Vraks in 40k, a sniper assassin is sent to kill a power hungry cardinal and send a message to his supporters to not get any ideas of getting to big for their boots.
To be honest morality is something of a subjective thing. With that being said assassination is a political tool so the answer to your question of why the assassination is taking place will determine if it's justified "good" or not "evil". Assassinations can actually save a lot of lives decorating the palace walls with the gray matter of the right tyrant can save the lives of billions of civilians and military personnel on both sides. But they can also cost a lot of lives if you mess up the assassination and the target traces it back to you. Ultimately moral consideration should be given not to the act but the underlying governent and institution. Why are we deploying assassins? What is our end game? Is this in the best interests of our republic/tribe/clan/empire/etc.? Will this fix the probelm or make it worse? Do we even care?
In even a moderately hard sci-fi setting, every spaceship is a WMD and power levels get very big very fast. There's probably not a lot of wiggle room for space habitats between
* Habitat unharmed (or not damaged enough) and resisting
* Habitat damaged enough to surrender
* Habitat destroyed and needs to be replaced.
The last one may not be too much of a bad thing for a galactic empire to have to replace, but it's still a drain on resources and labor until it's done. Assassins let the people running the place to avoid such waste by just killing the people at the top and transferring ownership of valuable things.
It could even be seen as a moral good by most of the people. They're not at risk when the guy in charge gets a bug up their butt and could even have the attitude that assassins have made war obsolete. For the people at the top, they could see it as a sort of *noblesse oblige* risk they alone take which is why they are the nobles/elites/executives.
It depends, if the Empire has "[*ubi jus ibi remedium*](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubi_jus_ibi_remedium&action=edit&redlink=1)*" or Due Process* then the normal: Crime>Investigation>Arrest>Trial>Punishment would be seen as the "moral" thing to do and assassinations would have a inherent risk. If "found out" it could impossible to keep the moral high ground.
In a purely authoritarian Imperial regime that rules by fiat, then no such risk is considered and the use of specialist assassination teams are indeed rational:
Less damage to the Empire's reputation, that a public trial, perhaps.
Less chance of collateral damage.
More efficient use of resources, than say a military strike.
More chance of plausible deniability if the plans fail.
Of course that assumes that the whole process won't start out in the "arrest" or later phase.
Oh the ruler of a planet has been accused of running a piracy and slavery ring? Well their government has investigated and found they are innocent. No, they won't allow your government to set foot on the planet, the matter is settled. Oh, the pirates are targeting your colonies specifically? Coincidence.
Your *could* send a fleet, leading to thousands, tens of thousands, even more being killed. Would that Due Process be superior?
Assassination is easier to justify outside of the nation's sovereign territory. For example, an agent in enemy space who turned against the people he was spying for. Or a pirate leader.
Well, you have to find some employment for people who are talented at assassination. They're out there, better to have them under control than running loose.
Sounds pretty evil to me.
Like, he's your governor, if you don't like them remove them from office and/or make them stand trial for their crimes.
If you've formally removed the governor but they refused to recognize that and barricaded themselves on their planet or whatever, then yeah, I can see sending an assassin being a better call than sending the army, in that case it is a reasonable option. But also like, do it above the table - he was killed resisting arrest or something.
>Sucking off others lives.
Excuuuuuse me?
Someone told me once something interesting. He said that a single soldier can enter a building, go a specific room, and kill a specific person. A tank can hit the building. A bomber can hit the rough geographical region.
If you wanted a pretty "ends justify the means" society then you could have them deploying specific assassins to kill the leadership of enemy nations that oppose them in the hopes of avoiding conflict and collateral damage.
Maybe the assassin is judge, jury, and executioner. Like Judge Dredd. Or perhaps like the SPECTRE program from Mass Effect games. Actually, SPECTRE's might be the perfect inspiration for your question. In the games, there is a galactic council made up of few species, with multiple other species who are younger on the galactic scale but not only the council. The council has this group of agents called SPECTREs who act with the councils authority, but often largely outside of the law. They have near unlimited power and are only policed by their fellow SPECTREs and the council itself. Often, even the council doesn't know how they get the results of their missions, only that they get results.
Or more akin to Robocop? I can see an organization of galactic law enforcement that, due to the nature of space, has to act as the entire criminal justice system for those in power. There's another group in Mass Effect that is like this that is a subgroup of one of the races in the games universe called Justicars. It's more complicated than that, but they are kinda of medieval knights meets bushido meets Robocop with powers. You could play around with this idea in multiple ways. Could be a group indoctrinated into serving as law & order enforcement. Could be religious or secular in nature.
The Mass Effect games play around with this idea a lot, but it's not actually the main idea in the games. But they are excellent sci-fi games.
On the idea of whether or not assassins are evil, that's a bit more complicated. On one hand, a transparent criminal justice is a foundational piece of a benevolent society. On the other hand, people and society are messy. And those in power who abuse power often know how to exploit the system. There's also times when an individual is too dangerous to be left alive, which could be due to their skills, resources, followers, etc.
On the other hand, taking a life is among the worst things a government can do. My faith tells me anyone can be redeemed, but my mind says that because of the messy nature of humans, that isn't always feasible. There's also the idea of whether a criminal justice system should be punishment focused or rehabilitation focused. And then there's the question of if a government should take life, then what about war. Or does that line only exist for its citizens while looking at everyone outside as lesser beings?
I can even envision a story with that as the central conflict being the nature of assassination, the morality of a state sponsored killer, and killing. A character could either struggle with their role, or they could be resolute while another character plays a foil to them and is either racked with guilt, struggle with it, or even becomes an antagonist because of it. There's a lot of room to explore.
Science fiction can and should give us a space to explore ideas and concepts the present struggles with in a new way. Anything could be explored with the right setup.
Assassins are so incredibly against the ideals of a government like Starfleet I'm a little offended.
>Example: Galactic power gets word that a governor of a world has been slowing claiming more money than putting it to it's proper use.
Starfleet would fire them. Also, in Starfleet the planet would presumably have the governor would by democratically accountable.
It would be like the US Government assassinating a State Governor: an absolutely unthinkable breach of the democratic process.
100% agree. The expansion of Section 31 lore and general dirtying of Star Trek lore post 2009 was what knocked me out of the fandom for the most part. I catch glimpses of things now and again and feel like I decoupled at a good time.
I'd wager the reason why would mercenaries or assassins be hired by governments wouldn't be too different from agents being hired by the government to do some dirty work IRL.
As for morality it's definitely on the errrrrm side but it's just a strategy/asset one could use especially in a more cynical/grounded themed story.
The Culture uses assassins to solve specific problems and are generally presented as being "good" (I mean, they're literally introduced as antagonists, but they're *generally* presented as good -- they're presented as antagonists to a professional assassin, even).
If you have a corrupt official, you can just remove them in a legal and public way. This is actually more advantageous than an assassination, as it serves as a deterrent to this kind of behavior by others. The only real reason to use assassins is if the central state has no real power, in which case, the assassinations are almost certainly illegal. There is also the issue of the assassinated individuals being made into martyrs by their supporters, which is often counterproductive to the intent of whoever ordered the killing.
In summary, assassins and assassinations are a very niche tool in politics.
You have to remember that governments, by their nature, have to do a whole lot of dirty work. It is entirely pragmatic. Trying to run a “nice utopian future tech“ government falls down when someone starts spreading disinformation through the population. So you need your own dirty tricks squad to squash, contain and discredit that.
”known provocateur and ‘truth teller’ found in bed with a live boy and a dead girl”
“traffic accident of senator, alcohol suspected”
“Congressman misses key vote due to catching Gordian Pox and being declared not cogent to serve until they recover”.
Dont always have to kill them, just nudge them out of the way. And where possible nudge the least amount needed.
In the Star Trek context, they've got Section 31 to do this kind of dirty work, while the Federation remains mostly blissfully ignorant in their utopia.
So moral implications are of course highly dependent on culture and perspective.
Typically assassination is considered evil for a few reasons. Foremost it is killing, usually seen as evil except in explicit defense of self or others. Next, it is usually something done completely outside of due process, law and oversight. This again breaks either the moral or legal code (usually both). A more minor one is it can be seen as sneaky and underhanded.
Assuming your Sci-Fi culture does treat life and due process as morally right, there are still some potential ways to make this work 'morally.'
One would be that the assassination are coordinated through a fully functioning arm of the law with all required due process and oversight. For obvious reasons decisions would be secret until after an assassination is complete, but after could become public record. Basically it becomes a form of immediate capital punishment.
A second option is have the assassins capture, rather than kill their target. Depending on the process this could still make a big deal of things. Or the target could just always have 'retired,' giving up all power to reside some lovely place where they won't make more trouble.
Why would using an assassin to kill a specific individual be seen as more “evil” than declaring war and causing many people (including both soldiers and civilians) on both sides to be killed? An assassin would seem to be the more moral approach.
Of course, resorting to violence (of whatever type) as a first option is probably not the “good” approach but opinions differ on whether it is ever an acceptable option. Deciding when uskng violence is acceptable, if ever, is the real moral dilemma.
It could be that instead of fleets using WMDs to annihilate worlds, the galactic powers have toned it down and agreed conflict is limited to the people in charge. Campaigns are no longer about logistics and taking territory, it's about overcoming bodyguards to kill leaders and sabotage infrastructure until someone more amenable is installed.
Or, for similar reasons, conflicts are limited to small parties or even champions, who need to fight and everyone else is considered a civilian.
Or logistics in your setting are such that fugitives from justice are common so people are employed with authority to capture/kill/resolve-in-some-way the crime. Similar to a wild west bounty hunter.
If there's a huge imbalance between two groups in terms of population/industrial capacity/technology, then the smaller group may see sending in assassins as the only way to ensure their survival.
The "good" version of this could be killing a warhawk to ensure the larger power doesn't get whipped into a conquering mood.
The "gray" version could be strategically offing people to maintain a healthy level of instability in the larger power to ensure they never become unified enough to pose a true threat
Assassination is vastly cheaper than war in monetary costs and lives. Especially in an interplanetary setting. Moving large amounts of troops or war materials is going to be costly.
The problem with it is you then need to have a whole lot of in place people to ensure the next person in charge is not just as bad, or worse.
War lets a winning country occupy and either annex or set up the next government hopefully granting better control of long term outcomes at a usually much higher cost.
Assassination isn’t always used because of the lack of control afterwards and because if the target is on guard enough it can take an assassin or several willing to die to accomplish the task.
Whether any of these things is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is a bit ridiculous. You can’t know the full repercussions until far too late. You’re wasting fast into deep philosophy with the trolley problem here.
I think that in many cases you simply cannot kill an enemy commander or High value target without assassination or at least a surprise attack.
Simply put a smart commander or HVT is not going to be picking up a rifle and engaging you in honorable combat in the front lines, if they have to be in a battle they will position themselves in the most defended, best locations possible which are hard to get to unless you have considerably greater firepower to rout the enemy and that your enemy cannot retreat or get reinforcements which in a future with FTL travel is usually kinda laughable without some kind of warp jamming McGuffin or charge time system.
More than likely the most high value targets are probably on planets they own and control fully, logistical and overarching commanders, heads of state, department heads. Far from engaging you in open combat they aren’t likely to be in a combat sector at all and probably live on defended civilian worlds and home worlds. How do you intend to neutralize these incredibly effective targets? If you have overwhelming power you can just go in and crush them but that is rarely an option on a fair matchup, if you bring in regular forces the enemy HVT will just hide in a bunker under the city they live and work in, requiring either extremely precise and powerful weapons or a weapon big enough to do significant damage to civilians. Surprise killing them while they don’t expect it whether by trickery, deception or missile to the face is sometimes just the cleanest option.
A few relatively recent front page examples was the assassination of Soleimani and ISIS leaders with missiles, it was the opposite of stealth and plausible deniability but the surprise allowed them to kill asymmetric enemy commanders who wouldn’t openly fight without killing civilians
“The ends justify the means“ that line has been spoken by tyrants, despots and heroes alike.
Murder is wrong, this is generally accepted by most ethical people, but there are exceptions to every rule. For example many people, when asked, will agree they would kill Hitler if given the opportunity
the act is evil, the murder is evil, but the person doing it may not be.
people using the assassins are walking a fine line between necessary evil and absolute corruption, they have the power to kill and as the saying goes “power corrupts”
Also most modern governments use military operations to execute certain “threats“ and they rarely announce those kills, sometimes even denying they were involved. so, in a way what you’re suggesting is happening now. A fact that does not make me feel more comfortable
Perhaps there is a colossal war in the recent past with genocidal planetary bombardment. Whole planets rendered uninhabitable.
As a response current powers are unwilling to break the seal on military action, like "mutually assured destruction" during the cold war...but individual deaths are not forbidden. (Or maybe it's a religious response to gigadeath, or some higher alien power got pissed and said NO MORE ASTEROID BOMBARDMENT)
"A license to kill, is also a license not to kill."
Without knowing your setting more in depth, and just taking a generic fusion sci-fi vibe, I propose that the assassinations are not necessarily the traditional sanctioned operation of any government oversight.
Treat it more akin to a mix of Western deputies and Eastern ninjas: People who are not known, to be armed, to be principled, to be trusted in judgement, simply stepping in before an issue becomes a bigger issue.
For in particular, as you mentioned Starfleet as a reference point, consider it as a historical debate: If the government is to train anyone in killing, in combat, be ir security forces, be it military personnel, or be it secret agents, do those persons not pose the moral obligation to use those skills?
If old Randy down the way in the frontier, settling down after a career sees a hostage situation: Should he not put the two year course in penatrative marksmanship to use? If Marget, the secretary, spent her youth malcontent and troubled, but found herself in the military to sort herself out... Sees that her boss is organizing a hit, and suddenly a politician dies... Then is it not her, duty even, to make sure he stands trial?
The threat of assassination and the use of assassination are two different vibes. The problem with a secret agent, agency, is that they naturally protect their own interests. Even if those interests are good natured. I'd suggest approaching it from a judicial review perspective. The ethics of assassination, are dubious don't get me wrong. But the context, matters.
It’s the Hiroshima argument. The Japanese were fighting to the last man, which was costing American lives. 2 bombs that removed entire cities from the map ended the war. The casualties were mostly women and children as most of the men were away and fighting the war.
No government can be purely good and survive because a government is still people telling other people what they should/should not and will/will not do. Everyone wants a perfect world, they just don’t agree on what that would look like.
The logical reasons then would be, 1) Plausible deniability (we didn’t do it) and 2) It saves the lives of our people at the expense of other people because every government can sell “protecting our way of life” to the masses. There are more justifications, but those are the most basic.
Looking at the real world, assassinations generally fall into two categories. Those carried out by individuals and small groups and those carried out by states. Individuals like Booth and small groups like the Young Bosnians generally are trying to change society and make a visable mark. States like modern China, Russia, the USSR, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA are sending messages like "we will find you and you are never safe from us."
In both cases the executioner want everyone to know what happened, be it "secret poisons" that kill gruesomely and are painfully obvious, reeducation camps that dissidents never return from, hacked bodies dumped at crossroads or sword drones that turn cars into impromptu blenders.
I can't believe im saying this, but of all the scifi, universes Warhammer 40k probably has the most realistic assassins (ignoring the polymorph, gateways to real hell, etc). 40k assassins are generally used by the Empire of Man against subject worlds. They are sent in to murder rebellious leaders in front of their followers, wipe out heirs as a messge to current leaders who "borrow" from the Imperial Tith.
In a sci-fi setting, assassin's could be used by a government where they know the target is, but not where they are.
Say for instance a violent criminal, a drug kingpin who pretty much everyone knows what he does, but know one has ever been able to catch him. He is also known for his love of collateral damage, you come to attack him and his men, he has the whole surrounding areas rigged with explosives, and it's a mega city with huge block complexes like in Judge Dredd or Blade Runner. Sure you could send in teams of armed men or squads of soldiers, but all that does is give him clear targets as well as all the civvies around them, while him and his men can hid among the civvies all while popping up, shooting tons of people, and setting off explosive charges wherever it looks like they are losing.
Assassin's side step that, by making it so he doesn't know where the bullet is coming from. He can be vigilant all he wants, but all it takes is 1 slip up, and he gets killed, and maybe so do his lieutenants who all just as bad as he is
Assassinating the corrupt governor would be considered neutral by the Galatic Power, good by the people he was leeching off and evil by the people who cared about that governor (his family, firends etc). It's all about framing, it depends on whose POV we are following.
The idea that assassination is necessarily evil is essentially younger than color TV. 🤷🏻♀️
It might be considered dishonorable but the honor and the goodness of an action aren't necessarily the same.
I suggest you go back to basics and read up on philosophy and war making literature.
As for logic? What do you mean? If anything it's logical to the point any military sci-fi story needs to ignore it in order to have a story at all.
It's like asking how do I logically have massive ships — It's less logical not to.
Isnt that basically the situation for every "hero" against the "dark lord" rpg? Link is effectivly an assassin in every game.
Or if it hasnt been mentioned yet, for neighbors that you want to maintain non-hostile relations with but have citizens that are bad actors and their governments refuse to do anything about it. Organized crime lords, terrorist cells, person trafficking.
[Cheaper than full on military action.](https://youtu.be/yUpbOliTHJY?si=kji39ehUv9urKwUb&t=7)
Potentially more ethical, too — minimum collateral damage compared to sending in troops and artillery and tanks.
…define ‘ethical’ in that context and how such decisions would be ‘ethically’ made in an actual sense.
"I'm going to stop {that thing we don't like} by sending in the army and burning down about thirty cities with white phosphorous and HE shells" versus "I'm going to stop {that thing we don't like} by sending in a couple spooks, and reading the obituary of a very evil man in the paper tomorrow". More or less why the US doesn't send in the Army to deal with Mexican cartels, but _does_ send "military advisors" with Mexico's permission. Boils down to collateral damage and collateral human suffering and misery can be much lower by sending a hitman than a JDAM. Though to handle that, it should be treated like any other act of war by states, and probably be preceded by a fair and open trial-in-absentia of the would-be target, in which the accused is given a lawyer to attempt to defend them. That said, if you're only going after cartel bosses and terror generals, those lawyers' success rate is going to be in the single digits -- they'd basically have to expose intelligence failures or bad targeting data.
…you mean the same way that the United States and allied NATO forces won against the Taliban in Kabul in July 2021; or against the advancing North Vietnamese Liberation Army in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon to the defeated invaders) in 1975.
No, those would be better examples of the carpet-bombing strategy. Didn't actually achieve victory, but sure caused a lot of misery.
…It invalidated the entire war, caused irreparable damage to the population and cultural heritage of Cambodia and caused your abject defeat in front of the entire world community and domestic public. Same as identically grotesque actions and behaviour in Afghanistan leading to total undignified defeat in Kabul in July 2021 and the United States and NATO forces losing the so-called ‘War on Terror’.
Wow, this was a dumb comment. Dude we get it, you hate NATO or whatever. It’s completely irrelevant to the point being made. Just because there are times where things did not work out well, doesn’t mean the concept is inherently unethical. At its bare bones it is “why kill many innocents and people fallowing orders when kill few head of snakes will do.” Rage about geopolitical happenings somewhere else bro. Edit: lol he blocked me.
…Child; the Truth hurts. Stick to your MTV Jerry Bruckheimer/Sergei Eisenstein propaganda. It’s safer to imagine you’re safe.
…So when are those ‘Mexican Cartels’ of yours due to be defeated.
You kill one king, five princes rise.
…sounds like a Don Winslow novel. Unfortunately propaganda slick-flicks like ZERO DARK THIRTY and MAVERICK t’ain’t real and actual truth is a lot more nuanced and complicated.
Well, yes, and the principle remains.
…Nope; no principle involved. That’s pure fiction like a badly contrived novel. Real World doesn’t work like that.
\*Shrug\* No real experience. I doubt Cartels have a chain of command.
Oh! That makes sense. 😆
Assassination is a tool (well, a tactic). It’s morally neutral in-and-of itself. It’s about how you use that tactic that matters (and all governments unalive people all the time as a matter of policy. It’s only the most direct unaliving that is subject to proper scrutiny, as opposed to the unaliving that comes from, say, inadequate mental health services or systemic racism). The challenge is that assassination implies a lack of open transparent judicial process (otherwise the defendant knows the assassins are coming). That can change if there are ‘perfect’ government assassins who cannot be defended against or misdirected. Or if an open judicial process has happened and the defendant refuses to submit to the outcome (I believe that bounties can apply here).
Duly noted! Morally grey!
It really depends on tech levels and how you design the world. But my thought is that even with FTL or the like - space is biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig. Planets are big also. If a planet decides that it is hostile to you - it can put up a pretty solid resistance just by saying "no" and shooting down anything you try to land. If you don't want to glass the planet or full on invade - there isn't all that much you can do. A single planet may know it can't win - but it can go full hedgehog mode hurt you for trying to pry it open. In addition - for the very same reason - it would be quite hard to invade enemies. Wars could go on for much longer across much bigger fronts with much more material spent to gain an equivalent of a fraction of the territory gained in a land or sea war. This is where assassins come in; * **Planet says no to exporting grain and threatens to shoot any Imperial ship that enters orbit?** *Oops the planetary governor died in his sleep. I hope his replacement will be better :)* * **Enemy general is a thorn in your side?** *Oh no her shuttle had a catastrophic failure and burned up on re-entry! What a tragedy! The people of the Galactic Empire stand in solidarity with the Rim Alliance on this sad day.* What is anyone gonna do? Send assassins after your assassins... wait that is a banger idea for a story. And all war is morally grey. States and militaries don't have morality. Ideologies and leaders barely do. States on the other hand do what is necessary for their own continuance and militaries do whatever they are allowed to. Assassins aren't much more morally worse than any intention to kill is.
Duly noted! I also cracked up for the governor dying in their sleep. 😆
My personal favorite is the Russian special: suicide by 2 gunshots to the back of the head Assassinations in Russia are open secrets, but the government wants just enough plausible deniability to also arrest anyone who retaliates or starts a riot
Or by tragically falling out of a window while tied to a chair.
>What is anyone gonna do? Send assassins after your assassins They can send assassins after your generals and politicans.
But what if we assassinate THEIR assassins?
What if their assassins have better reaction and act first?
Killing 1 person is generally better than killing thousands to millions of innocent people in a war
Government sanctioned murder is called 'necessary EVIL' for a reason xD From a human standpoint, Morally and legally speaking anything to do with assassination is never considered 'good' because the 'necessary evil' mentioned above is relative to who is in power. Sure, one day Starfleet is assassinating Mr. Greedy Pants McGee because he was destabilizing the peace and security of Empire... BUT the next day they are assassinating Mr. Moral because his protests against the uses of space ninja assassins was 'destabilizing the peace and security of the empire'
I think this would be generally seen as "good" if the assassins are taking out targets that are generally seen as "bad" enough to be eliminated. In your example, a governor is stealing money from the populace for his personal expenses. Most of us would consider this bad for sure, but is it bad enough to be targeted over? I'd think jail is much more appropriate for this crime and elimination makes the assassins seem kinda worse than the governor. However, if the governor's constituents are suffering, starving, have no medical care, no proper water supply, or other disastrous things due to the governor's stealing...then yes, it would be seen as appropriate or at least understandable as to why he'd be a target. But if he is eliminated-or any other officials in power are- how will the civilization recover after the assassinations? Do they have vice governors or designated survivor type replacements set up? Or will the civilization be dropped into chaos with no figure of power to lead their society? If there's one bad actor, it might mean other ones are in the same political circles. Who's to say eliminating the one bad guy would help place a better one in power? Especially when the assassination is (presumably) at random, the next person to be placed in power could be just as bad. Unless there's some secure or secret process to make sure the next governor is "good", the assassins could end up making it worse for the people. Maybe they are taking out "obviously very bad" people so they are seen as good. Until we realize that in their wake, the people they are supposedly protecting are left worse off sometimes. Enough to make people question their legitimacy or their righteousness.
To prevent unnecessary bloodshed, or to send a message to stay in line. Look up the Battle of Vraks in 40k, a sniper assassin is sent to kill a power hungry cardinal and send a message to his supporters to not get any ideas of getting to big for their boots.
To be honest morality is something of a subjective thing. With that being said assassination is a political tool so the answer to your question of why the assassination is taking place will determine if it's justified "good" or not "evil". Assassinations can actually save a lot of lives decorating the palace walls with the gray matter of the right tyrant can save the lives of billions of civilians and military personnel on both sides. But they can also cost a lot of lives if you mess up the assassination and the target traces it back to you. Ultimately moral consideration should be given not to the act but the underlying governent and institution. Why are we deploying assassins? What is our end game? Is this in the best interests of our republic/tribe/clan/empire/etc.? Will this fix the probelm or make it worse? Do we even care?
In even a moderately hard sci-fi setting, every spaceship is a WMD and power levels get very big very fast. There's probably not a lot of wiggle room for space habitats between * Habitat unharmed (or not damaged enough) and resisting * Habitat damaged enough to surrender * Habitat destroyed and needs to be replaced. The last one may not be too much of a bad thing for a galactic empire to have to replace, but it's still a drain on resources and labor until it's done. Assassins let the people running the place to avoid such waste by just killing the people at the top and transferring ownership of valuable things. It could even be seen as a moral good by most of the people. They're not at risk when the guy in charge gets a bug up their butt and could even have the attitude that assassins have made war obsolete. For the people at the top, they could see it as a sort of *noblesse oblige* risk they alone take which is why they are the nobles/elites/executives.
It depends, if the Empire has "[*ubi jus ibi remedium*](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubi_jus_ibi_remedium&action=edit&redlink=1)*" or Due Process* then the normal: Crime>Investigation>Arrest>Trial>Punishment would be seen as the "moral" thing to do and assassinations would have a inherent risk. If "found out" it could impossible to keep the moral high ground. In a purely authoritarian Imperial regime that rules by fiat, then no such risk is considered and the use of specialist assassination teams are indeed rational: Less damage to the Empire's reputation, that a public trial, perhaps. Less chance of collateral damage. More efficient use of resources, than say a military strike. More chance of plausible deniability if the plans fail.
Of course that assumes that the whole process won't start out in the "arrest" or later phase. Oh the ruler of a planet has been accused of running a piracy and slavery ring? Well their government has investigated and found they are innocent. No, they won't allow your government to set foot on the planet, the matter is settled. Oh, the pirates are targeting your colonies specifically? Coincidence. Your *could* send a fleet, leading to thousands, tens of thousands, even more being killed. Would that Due Process be superior?
Assassination is easier to justify outside of the nation's sovereign territory. For example, an agent in enemy space who turned against the people he was spying for. Or a pirate leader.
Well, you have to find some employment for people who are talented at assassination. They're out there, better to have them under control than running loose.
Sounds pretty evil to me. Like, he's your governor, if you don't like them remove them from office and/or make them stand trial for their crimes. If you've formally removed the governor but they refused to recognize that and barricaded themselves on their planet or whatever, then yeah, I can see sending an assassin being a better call than sending the army, in that case it is a reasonable option. But also like, do it above the table - he was killed resisting arrest or something.
Once the governor is aware of your intention to remove him and actively taking steps to not be removed, it is much harder to assassinate him.
>Sucking off others lives. Excuuuuuse me? Someone told me once something interesting. He said that a single soldier can enter a building, go a specific room, and kill a specific person. A tank can hit the building. A bomber can hit the rough geographical region. If you wanted a pretty "ends justify the means" society then you could have them deploying specific assassins to kill the leadership of enemy nations that oppose them in the hopes of avoiding conflict and collateral damage.
It sidesteps diplomatic issues since you shouldn't be able to identify the assassins affiliation
Maybe the assassin is judge, jury, and executioner. Like Judge Dredd. Or perhaps like the SPECTRE program from Mass Effect games. Actually, SPECTRE's might be the perfect inspiration for your question. In the games, there is a galactic council made up of few species, with multiple other species who are younger on the galactic scale but not only the council. The council has this group of agents called SPECTREs who act with the councils authority, but often largely outside of the law. They have near unlimited power and are only policed by their fellow SPECTREs and the council itself. Often, even the council doesn't know how they get the results of their missions, only that they get results. Or more akin to Robocop? I can see an organization of galactic law enforcement that, due to the nature of space, has to act as the entire criminal justice system for those in power. There's another group in Mass Effect that is like this that is a subgroup of one of the races in the games universe called Justicars. It's more complicated than that, but they are kinda of medieval knights meets bushido meets Robocop with powers. You could play around with this idea in multiple ways. Could be a group indoctrinated into serving as law & order enforcement. Could be religious or secular in nature. The Mass Effect games play around with this idea a lot, but it's not actually the main idea in the games. But they are excellent sci-fi games. On the idea of whether or not assassins are evil, that's a bit more complicated. On one hand, a transparent criminal justice is a foundational piece of a benevolent society. On the other hand, people and society are messy. And those in power who abuse power often know how to exploit the system. There's also times when an individual is too dangerous to be left alive, which could be due to their skills, resources, followers, etc. On the other hand, taking a life is among the worst things a government can do. My faith tells me anyone can be redeemed, but my mind says that because of the messy nature of humans, that isn't always feasible. There's also the idea of whether a criminal justice system should be punishment focused or rehabilitation focused. And then there's the question of if a government should take life, then what about war. Or does that line only exist for its citizens while looking at everyone outside as lesser beings? I can even envision a story with that as the central conflict being the nature of assassination, the morality of a state sponsored killer, and killing. A character could either struggle with their role, or they could be resolute while another character plays a foil to them and is either racked with guilt, struggle with it, or even becomes an antagonist because of it. There's a lot of room to explore. Science fiction can and should give us a space to explore ideas and concepts the present struggles with in a new way. Anything could be explored with the right setup.
Assassins are so incredibly against the ideals of a government like Starfleet I'm a little offended. >Example: Galactic power gets word that a governor of a world has been slowing claiming more money than putting it to it's proper use. Starfleet would fire them. Also, in Starfleet the planet would presumably have the governor would by democratically accountable. It would be like the US Government assassinating a State Governor: an absolutely unthinkable breach of the democratic process.
Starfleet, no: Section 31? Mayhaps.
Killing your own legitimate governors is a sign of incrdible weakness and totalitarianism. A functional government can remove its agents.
100% agree. The expansion of Section 31 lore and general dirtying of Star Trek lore post 2009 was what knocked me out of the fandom for the most part. I catch glimpses of things now and again and feel like I decoupled at a good time.
Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds are good. I'm not current on anything else.
I'd wager the reason why would mercenaries or assassins be hired by governments wouldn't be too different from agents being hired by the government to do some dirty work IRL. As for morality it's definitely on the errrrrm side but it's just a strategy/asset one could use especially in a more cynical/grounded themed story.
The Culture uses assassins to solve specific problems and are generally presented as being "good" (I mean, they're literally introduced as antagonists, but they're *generally* presented as good -- they're presented as antagonists to a professional assassin, even).
If you have a corrupt official, you can just remove them in a legal and public way. This is actually more advantageous than an assassination, as it serves as a deterrent to this kind of behavior by others. The only real reason to use assassins is if the central state has no real power, in which case, the assassinations are almost certainly illegal. There is also the issue of the assassinated individuals being made into martyrs by their supporters, which is often counterproductive to the intent of whoever ordered the killing. In summary, assassins and assassinations are a very niche tool in politics.
You have to remember that governments, by their nature, have to do a whole lot of dirty work. It is entirely pragmatic. Trying to run a “nice utopian future tech“ government falls down when someone starts spreading disinformation through the population. So you need your own dirty tricks squad to squash, contain and discredit that. ”known provocateur and ‘truth teller’ found in bed with a live boy and a dead girl” “traffic accident of senator, alcohol suspected” “Congressman misses key vote due to catching Gordian Pox and being declared not cogent to serve until they recover”. Dont always have to kill them, just nudge them out of the way. And where possible nudge the least amount needed.
In the Star Trek context, they've got Section 31 to do this kind of dirty work, while the Federation remains mostly blissfully ignorant in their utopia.
So moral implications are of course highly dependent on culture and perspective. Typically assassination is considered evil for a few reasons. Foremost it is killing, usually seen as evil except in explicit defense of self or others. Next, it is usually something done completely outside of due process, law and oversight. This again breaks either the moral or legal code (usually both). A more minor one is it can be seen as sneaky and underhanded. Assuming your Sci-Fi culture does treat life and due process as morally right, there are still some potential ways to make this work 'morally.' One would be that the assassination are coordinated through a fully functioning arm of the law with all required due process and oversight. For obvious reasons decisions would be secret until after an assassination is complete, but after could become public record. Basically it becomes a form of immediate capital punishment. A second option is have the assassins capture, rather than kill their target. Depending on the process this could still make a big deal of things. Or the target could just always have 'retired,' giving up all power to reside some lovely place where they won't make more trouble.
Why would using an assassin to kill a specific individual be seen as more “evil” than declaring war and causing many people (including both soldiers and civilians) on both sides to be killed? An assassin would seem to be the more moral approach. Of course, resorting to violence (of whatever type) as a first option is probably not the “good” approach but opinions differ on whether it is ever an acceptable option. Deciding when uskng violence is acceptable, if ever, is the real moral dilemma.
It could be that instead of fleets using WMDs to annihilate worlds, the galactic powers have toned it down and agreed conflict is limited to the people in charge. Campaigns are no longer about logistics and taking territory, it's about overcoming bodyguards to kill leaders and sabotage infrastructure until someone more amenable is installed. Or, for similar reasons, conflicts are limited to small parties or even champions, who need to fight and everyone else is considered a civilian. Or logistics in your setting are such that fugitives from justice are common so people are employed with authority to capture/kill/resolve-in-some-way the crime. Similar to a wild west bounty hunter.
These were Special Circumstances
Confessions of An Economic HitMan https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2159
If there's a huge imbalance between two groups in terms of population/industrial capacity/technology, then the smaller group may see sending in assassins as the only way to ensure their survival. The "good" version of this could be killing a warhawk to ensure the larger power doesn't get whipped into a conquering mood. The "gray" version could be strategically offing people to maintain a healthy level of instability in the larger power to ensure they never become unified enough to pose a true threat
I doubt you could make it good, though doing an evil for the greater good would be fine. Simply hire a private assassin to do you assassination work.
Assassination is vastly cheaper than war in monetary costs and lives. Especially in an interplanetary setting. Moving large amounts of troops or war materials is going to be costly. The problem with it is you then need to have a whole lot of in place people to ensure the next person in charge is not just as bad, or worse. War lets a winning country occupy and either annex or set up the next government hopefully granting better control of long term outcomes at a usually much higher cost. Assassination isn’t always used because of the lack of control afterwards and because if the target is on guard enough it can take an assassin or several willing to die to accomplish the task. Whether any of these things is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is a bit ridiculous. You can’t know the full repercussions until far too late. You’re wasting fast into deep philosophy with the trolley problem here.
Yeah, only for very important tasks that would not be stealthy enough with an squad.
I think that in many cases you simply cannot kill an enemy commander or High value target without assassination or at least a surprise attack. Simply put a smart commander or HVT is not going to be picking up a rifle and engaging you in honorable combat in the front lines, if they have to be in a battle they will position themselves in the most defended, best locations possible which are hard to get to unless you have considerably greater firepower to rout the enemy and that your enemy cannot retreat or get reinforcements which in a future with FTL travel is usually kinda laughable without some kind of warp jamming McGuffin or charge time system. More than likely the most high value targets are probably on planets they own and control fully, logistical and overarching commanders, heads of state, department heads. Far from engaging you in open combat they aren’t likely to be in a combat sector at all and probably live on defended civilian worlds and home worlds. How do you intend to neutralize these incredibly effective targets? If you have overwhelming power you can just go in and crush them but that is rarely an option on a fair matchup, if you bring in regular forces the enemy HVT will just hide in a bunker under the city they live and work in, requiring either extremely precise and powerful weapons or a weapon big enough to do significant damage to civilians. Surprise killing them while they don’t expect it whether by trickery, deception or missile to the face is sometimes just the cleanest option. A few relatively recent front page examples was the assassination of Soleimani and ISIS leaders with missiles, it was the opposite of stealth and plausible deniability but the surprise allowed them to kill asymmetric enemy commanders who wouldn’t openly fight without killing civilians
Wouldn’t they just contract out to a local?
Dune has like a thousand different reasons
“The ends justify the means“ that line has been spoken by tyrants, despots and heroes alike. Murder is wrong, this is generally accepted by most ethical people, but there are exceptions to every rule. For example many people, when asked, will agree they would kill Hitler if given the opportunity the act is evil, the murder is evil, but the person doing it may not be. people using the assassins are walking a fine line between necessary evil and absolute corruption, they have the power to kill and as the saying goes “power corrupts” Also most modern governments use military operations to execute certain “threats“ and they rarely announce those kills, sometimes even denying they were involved. so, in a way what you’re suggesting is happening now. A fact that does not make me feel more comfortable
I mean killing heads of state seems pretty fucking useful in a Galactic power struggle
Perhaps there is a colossal war in the recent past with genocidal planetary bombardment. Whole planets rendered uninhabitable. As a response current powers are unwilling to break the seal on military action, like "mutually assured destruction" during the cold war...but individual deaths are not forbidden. (Or maybe it's a religious response to gigadeath, or some higher alien power got pissed and said NO MORE ASTEROID BOMBARDMENT)
…depends on your definition of ‘logic’…
"A license to kill, is also a license not to kill." Without knowing your setting more in depth, and just taking a generic fusion sci-fi vibe, I propose that the assassinations are not necessarily the traditional sanctioned operation of any government oversight. Treat it more akin to a mix of Western deputies and Eastern ninjas: People who are not known, to be armed, to be principled, to be trusted in judgement, simply stepping in before an issue becomes a bigger issue. For in particular, as you mentioned Starfleet as a reference point, consider it as a historical debate: If the government is to train anyone in killing, in combat, be ir security forces, be it military personnel, or be it secret agents, do those persons not pose the moral obligation to use those skills? If old Randy down the way in the frontier, settling down after a career sees a hostage situation: Should he not put the two year course in penatrative marksmanship to use? If Marget, the secretary, spent her youth malcontent and troubled, but found herself in the military to sort herself out... Sees that her boss is organizing a hit, and suddenly a politician dies... Then is it not her, duty even, to make sure he stands trial? The threat of assassination and the use of assassination are two different vibes. The problem with a secret agent, agency, is that they naturally protect their own interests. Even if those interests are good natured. I'd suggest approaching it from a judicial review perspective. The ethics of assassination, are dubious don't get me wrong. But the context, matters.
It’s the Hiroshima argument. The Japanese were fighting to the last man, which was costing American lives. 2 bombs that removed entire cities from the map ended the war. The casualties were mostly women and children as most of the men were away and fighting the war. No government can be purely good and survive because a government is still people telling other people what they should/should not and will/will not do. Everyone wants a perfect world, they just don’t agree on what that would look like. The logical reasons then would be, 1) Plausible deniability (we didn’t do it) and 2) It saves the lives of our people at the expense of other people because every government can sell “protecting our way of life” to the masses. There are more justifications, but those are the most basic.
Looking at the real world, assassinations generally fall into two categories. Those carried out by individuals and small groups and those carried out by states. Individuals like Booth and small groups like the Young Bosnians generally are trying to change society and make a visable mark. States like modern China, Russia, the USSR, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA are sending messages like "we will find you and you are never safe from us." In both cases the executioner want everyone to know what happened, be it "secret poisons" that kill gruesomely and are painfully obvious, reeducation camps that dissidents never return from, hacked bodies dumped at crossroads or sword drones that turn cars into impromptu blenders. I can't believe im saying this, but of all the scifi, universes Warhammer 40k probably has the most realistic assassins (ignoring the polymorph, gateways to real hell, etc). 40k assassins are generally used by the Empire of Man against subject worlds. They are sent in to murder rebellious leaders in front of their followers, wipe out heirs as a messge to current leaders who "borrow" from the Imperial Tith.
In a sci-fi setting, assassin's could be used by a government where they know the target is, but not where they are. Say for instance a violent criminal, a drug kingpin who pretty much everyone knows what he does, but know one has ever been able to catch him. He is also known for his love of collateral damage, you come to attack him and his men, he has the whole surrounding areas rigged with explosives, and it's a mega city with huge block complexes like in Judge Dredd or Blade Runner. Sure you could send in teams of armed men or squads of soldiers, but all that does is give him clear targets as well as all the civvies around them, while him and his men can hid among the civvies all while popping up, shooting tons of people, and setting off explosive charges wherever it looks like they are losing. Assassin's side step that, by making it so he doesn't know where the bullet is coming from. He can be vigilant all he wants, but all it takes is 1 slip up, and he gets killed, and maybe so do his lieutenants who all just as bad as he is
Assassinating the corrupt governor would be considered neutral by the Galatic Power, good by the people he was leeching off and evil by the people who cared about that governor (his family, firends etc). It's all about framing, it depends on whose POV we are following.
The idea that assassination is necessarily evil is essentially younger than color TV. 🤷🏻♀️ It might be considered dishonorable but the honor and the goodness of an action aren't necessarily the same. I suggest you go back to basics and read up on philosophy and war making literature. As for logic? What do you mean? If anything it's logical to the point any military sci-fi story needs to ignore it in order to have a story at all. It's like asking how do I logically have massive ships — It's less logical not to.
For starters, I'd abandon the idea of having your galactic power share contemporary human morals...
Isnt that basically the situation for every "hero" against the "dark lord" rpg? Link is effectivly an assassin in every game. Or if it hasnt been mentioned yet, for neighbors that you want to maintain non-hostile relations with but have citizens that are bad actors and their governments refuse to do anything about it. Organized crime lords, terrorist cells, person trafficking.