| Admiral_Hines | Date: Wednesday, 11 Jan 2012, 10:42 PM | Message # 1 |
 Lieutenant
Group: Users
Messages: 59
Status: Offline
| To: Sate Pestage, the Grand Vizier
Subject: Assessment of the Expeditionary Battle Planetoid Project
Encryption: Highly Classified
Your Excellency,
With the encouragement of some of my colleagues and with your permission, Sir, I have prepared an assessment of the Expeditionary Battle Planetoid project containing some thoughts and perspectives (entirely my own) that I'm not sure Admiral Tarkin has presented to you or the rest of the Ruling Council, but, in my opinion, are as worthy of consideration as the Admiral's opinions of the project (which, as you'll see, differ from my own). However, to be clear, Command supports the decision of the Emperor and his Ruling Council, as do I, and will continue to do so. I simply feel that the project would benefit from a diversity of opinion.
You will find my assessment enclosed. But in summary, I have concerns about the 1.) the cost and feasibility of the project, and 2.) its potential to displace the Imperial starfleet as we know it. On the first point, Admiral Tarkin's "doctrine of fear" is now well-known to us all and has its supporters. To be sure, there is utility in this (to a point); a firm hand is indeed necessary for would-be rebels, Separatists, Jedi, or those who would support them. There must not be a return to the Clone Wars and the Empire is the surest remedy to the conditions that caused the war in the first place--too much bureaucracy, inconsistent enforcement of the law, too much power to alien enterprises, banks, etc. But I question whether the Expeditionary Battle Planetoid (or "Death Star," as it has become known) is not an excessive symbol of this "doctrine of fear."
Consider that bureaucracy has been reduced, laws are now enforced with preference to none, aliens have been (by-and-large) removed from the realm of interstellar finance, the Separatist cause has been discredited and most of the Jedi eliminated, etc. Yes, there have been occasional "brush fires" of rebellion as at Carratos, Naboo, and so on. But these rebellions have been subdued with the firm hand of the Imperial starfleet and its Stormtrooper Corps., in accordance with the "doctine of fear," and for the most part the Empire has succeeded in discouraging, by example, these rebellious antics. The utility of this "Death Star," however, is solely its ability to destroy a planet (the Imperial starfleet is adequate for the station's other functions, such as projection of power, etc.).
The ability to destroy a planet implies a willingness to do so, and as far as I'm aware, despite the Empire's commitment to the "Death Star" project there's been no discussion of the destruction of planets as Imperial policy or the feasibility or wisdom of this. My fear is not of the "Death Star" itself but of the possibility, if not the probability, of a backlash to it once it has become public knowledge; that is, it could be counter-productive as a means to its intended ends and result in more rebellious sentiment, not less. Considering that the destruction of a planet can be accomplished by the Imperial starfleet in a matter of hours, as opposed to a matter of seconds, there is further reason to doubt the necessity of this "Death Star," in my opinion; it's simply not cost-effective as a theatrical gesture.
With regard to the second point, the Empire has invested a considerable amount of funds into developing the next generation of warships for the Imperial starfleet, and the fleet has been expanded to project the might of the Empire to all of its sectors. This is a worthy endeavor that has built upon hundreds of years of proud naval tradition, and it has succeeded in keeping the Empire safe and secure and deterring or destroying those who would oppose it. I am concerned, as are some of my colleagues, that this "Death Star" is intended not to complement the starfleet but to replace it and, indeed, to render it obsolete.
This would be a mistake, in my view; the Empire cannot depend on symbolism alone to keep the peace. A strong starfleet is needed, but is, I fear, compromised by the increasing percentage of the military budget that has been devoted to the development and construction of this "Death Star." I would appreciate an assurance from Admiral Tarkin that this is not the intent of his project, and that some cost-controlling measures can be put in place so that the development of the fleet's Executor-class dreadnaught is not deferred in favor of his project.
You will find more detail on all of these points in the full assessment, Your Excellency. I hope this will be of help to you and the Ruling Council in coming to the most judicious decision about this project. As I said, I will of course support the decision that is made.
Respectfully,
Fleet Admiral Gregor Hines
Star Destroyer Salient, Amaranth Expeditionary Force, et. al.
Permanent Attaché to High Command
|
| |
| |
