Suppose a tiny kingdom being invaded by a massive empire where to use a powerful magic spell, a super-weapon...

>>the killing of a significant portion of an ethical or political group
>>a billion people
Basically what would happen if we went to war with China

Dunno, half of the nations of the Atlantic federation are named after minor Dutch cities and small shitholes

If you can target weapons only, why not just do that? What are they going to do, Zerg Rush you?

It depends on the intention of the spell. It might be considered a war-crime today, what with all the non-combatants in the textile and manufacturing industries killed, along the lines of the use of nuclear weapons.

Depending on what is defiened as a "military based industry" it might be considered genocide, as it could kill the farmers, miners, factory workers of all types, everyone working in the war departments of the government, delivery people, and more.

It's Valkyria Chronicles, which is basically a Japanese interpretation of the European theater of World War 2.

>interpretation
You fucking idiot. It's just althist that is just fantastical enough for there to be explosive lances and magical fuel.

No it's not genocide, it's just killing military personnel, with that said, that kind of magic is so convenient that it's offputting to read about, I hope you didn't actually do that in a game.

It's difficult to imagine how that could even be possible, or why the big empire would prosecute the war if they were suffering casualties that immense.

>genocide doesn't count if there's a breeding pair left over

The Paraguyans weren't genocided. Edgy is a worthless buzzword and you should be ashamed of using it.

>Would this be considered Genocide?
By virtue of only targeting combatants: no.

You've basically exterminated the entire majority-age male population and destroyed its industry.

This kills the country.

That being said, if they're invading then they clearly don't care about the survival of your country either so go right ahead.

No it wouldn't. Genocide is defined properly as the deliberate killing of people of a particular ethnic group with the intention of destroying it.

Killing enemy combattants in self defense is not genocide.

No.
Because
1) It's only targeting combatants and equipment.
2) The country with mages is acting in self defense.
However killing an entire military would still be a war crime, because you're killing POWs by not giving them the chance to surrender.
The word genocide has become overused today and is used for every war crime under the sun, it degrades the severity and seriousness of the term.

>you're killing POWs by not giving them the chance to surrender.

If they're POWs they've presumably already surrendered.

Even killing POWs is not necessarily genocide. It's a heinous act and a war crime but not genocide.

Did the yanks commit genocide when they bombed Hiroshima and Nagasake?

Killing POWs is a war crime, but it's not genocide, as i've said right after.
I'm saying wiping out all combatants without giving them the chance to surrender is pretty shady.

No, this isnt technically a genocide. A genocide is marked as having the explicit intent of eliminating a ethnic or cultural group due to their ethnicity or culture.

For me the more interesting question is if this is an act of Just warfare. The closest thing we have to this kind of mass strike is Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and those were justified because it was thought they would ultimately save Japanese and American lives.

The spell doesn't seem to cause undue harm or suffering, but besides targeting Military personnel and infrastructure It seems to be incredibly indiscriminate.

Ultimately I think deploying this weapon would be unwise in the long run. The loss of so many lives might turn the world against them. THe wholesale eradication of a country's military and military industry would cause massive economic issues leading to untold civil unrest.

It would be more humane if they deploy it in a region around their country as a deterrent and then use that fear to keep the enemy at bay. That would be much better for world stability.

>because you're killing POWs by not giving them the chance to surrender.

Ok, this is an interesting point, your not right, but, you raise a really interesting point. In alot of ways this is analogous to assasination. If you assassinate someone, lets say a general, and you dont give him a chance to surrender, is that a war crime? The way i'm seeing it, this is assasination, just on a mass scale.

I don't know about being a genocide, but I certainly would say it is not moral and possibly even illegal. What you need to consider is that billion soldiers represents a massive demographic of that nation, we're talking about almost every single young healthy male in that nation. That's going to completely decimate the population and economy of that nation for decades to come.

In any case, something that needs to be considered when carrying out a war is the need to be proportionality. I don't think that the complete destruction of a state's military apparatus and as a result the killing of a billion young men (representing the future generation(s) of that nation) is not proportional is what is entirely a defensive war.

I know i'm not right, but it's pretty shady.

Genocide? Yes.

Self defense? Only if its forces inside their territory, else the big kingdom was right.

No matter how you look at it, you're indirectly killing more than just the several million or one billion soldiers.

Also, how are you defining military infrastructure? What about the roads, airports, ports, and rail lines that are being used to transport military material? What about the factories that produce boots and uniforms for the soldiers? What about the converted automotive factories that now produce military trucks and armoured vehicles?

Well what would be an acceptation proportion to defend your nation?

What if with only 10% of all military personnel they could still invade your country and win?

With 1%?

Is this a case of arithmetic then?

None of the Japanese soldiers were inside American territory. And only a couple of Nazi spies were inside America as well.

Presumably all turned to dust, but for the sake of it lets say the civilian laborers were spared.

>However killing an entire military would still be a war crime, because you're killing POWs by not giving them the chance to surrender.
Most people who are bombed to death by aerial attacks aren't aware of it or given the chance to surrender. That sort of thing tends to surprise you.

I say tune it to kill 10% and if they still feel like invading, fuck 'em.

>What you need to consider is that billion soldiers represents a massive demographic of that nation, we're talking about almost every single young healthy male in that nation
>That's going to completely decimate the population and economy of that nation for decades to come.
Well, that is also what the big empire is planning on doing to the smaller one.

Consider that the big Empire is also most likely going to wipe out the majority of the tiny nations own generation of youth and able bodied men as well as decimate their economy and population for years to come, plus the added burden of occupation.

>that is also what the big empire is planning on doing to the smaller one.
>Consider that the big Empire is also most likely going to wipe out the majority of the tiny nations own generation of youth
Is that so?
Aren't you just coming up with new arguments why the empire is evil and must be destroyed?
Are you making your PR campaign here?

>billions of soldiers
>billions
How big is this world, OP?

The world currently has 7.4 billion people in it. That'd be possibly over 1:7 people on earth dying. And if this is medieval fantasy or something then that ration is a lot higher. Frankly, I'd said Magicmurderistan did the world a favor reducing the population by that much. Of course, now there's going to be fields full of rotting corpses polluting the landscape. The hit to the world economy will be devastating. Maybe not so much of a favor after all.

>Is that so?
Considering that:
a. a nations military, be they gigantic or the smallest of regions, are primarily composed of military aged men
b. the losing side of any war tends to lose these men in great numbers, especially if such a nation were to prefer to fight to end rather than be subjugated
Then yes

>Aren't you just coming up with new arguments why the empire is evil and must be destroyed?
Is that also not what is being done in favor of not using the weapon? Arguments that it would devastate that empires economy, obliterate a portion of able bodied men, and potentially lead to mass collateral damage, are also being discussed in their favor.

But failing to recognize that the very same would likely happen to the small nation without it. Airplane bombs and artillery shells can't really discriminate between a gun factory and a gumball factory either.

The Empire did nothing wrong

Whatever edgemaster. Go blog about it.

No, clearly not. Winning a defensive war by being better at the war than your opponents isn't genocide, nor is even wrong. It's certainly horrific, but so's war and occupation, and as a victim of aggression you've got the moral high ground.

Honestly, if you manage to somehow only kill the people making tanks and guns, it's not even bad to kill the people working in factories. If you reach silly levels like "by paying tax they were funding the war" then it gets iffier.

I'm still waiting on an answer to this. Seriously, if you can differentiate between military and non using magic, you should damn well be able to differentiate between man and material.
There really can't be that many barehanded fighters in the Empire.

>not getting invaded by an army of level 20 monks

Honestly, while it'd certainly be incredibly merciful to simply disarm the nation, it's really on imperialist empires to not invade people if they're not okay with the possibility the other guys might win.

Tell me, when Nazi Germany invaded Belgium did they wipe the entire generation of male youth in the country? The answer is that they did not.

>Arguments that it would devastate that empires economy, obliterate a portion of able bodied men, and potentially lead to mass collateral damage, are also being discussed in their favor.
Sure, let's just destroy the global military hegemony and leave a massive power vacuum that we cannot even fill ourselves. What could possible go wrong?

This. Also prepare yourself for being hated by fucking everyone for pretty much ever. Sometimes you can lose by winning.

If you can annihilate everyone's militaries instantly you have the mother of all deterrents.

This. You've defacto become the new military hegemony, and anyone who doesn't like it can be the next on the list of targets for the Sword of Creation, or Orbital Ion Cannon Network, or the Great Annhilator, or whatever you end up calling the spell.

>Also prepare yourself for being hated by fucking everyone for pretty much ever.
It seems more likely that all the other little nations and rival powers would be quite pleased that the world conquering hegemony has been stopped dead in their tracks.
though yes, they would be shitting their pants and probably try to steal such a weapon, but I doubt they would hate you more than they fear you.

if a single Gaulian tribe where to demolish Rome in a day, do you think the other Gaulians would hate them or praise them?

Belgium preferred to surrender rather than fight to the last for their independence.

Considering Rome brought trade and all the benefits of their advanced civilization to them?
There is a reason why for centuries after its fall people still cried about the loss of Rome.

No id say its more of a slaughter.

>The Paraguyans weren't genocided
The Brazilians sure tried.

So killing US soldiers is fine? I like you.