Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Understood properly, the Death Star is not worth it.’
Wonkblog ^ | Gregory Koger

Posted on 05/11/2012 10:16:54 AM PDT by SLB

I wish to address the most important policy question of the millennium: Should we build a Death Star? This debate picked up this year after some Lehigh University students estimated that just the steel for a Death Star would cost $852 quadrillion, or 13,000 times the current GDP of the Earth.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: death; star; wars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 05/11/2012 10:17:00 AM PDT by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


The rest of the blog.

Kevin Drum suggests that this cost estimate is too low but, in the context of a galactic economy, a Death Star is perfectly affordable and “totally worth it.” Seth Masket and Jamelle Bouie highlight the military downside of the Death Star, suggesting that more people might rebel against the wholesale genocide of the Empire, and that the Death Star would be the prime target of any rebellion.

I have two thoughts to add. First, the Death Star is a bit misunderstood. It is primarily a tool of domestic politics rather than warfare, and should be compared to alternative means of suppressing the population of a galaxy. Second, as a weapon of war, it should be compared to alternative uses of scarce defense resources. Understood properly, the Death Star is not worth it.

The Death Star and the Dictator’s Dilemma

The classic problem of representative democracy is that citizens must delegate power to leaders, and then ensure that leaders do not use that power to serve their own interests. As James Madison states, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Dictators suffer a similar problem of delegation, but in reverse. Dictators must delegate the tasks of subduing and taxing the population to internal security forces, and of maintaining external security to subordinate governors and generals. Any delegated power, however, could be used to displace the dictator. Internal security forces can assassinate the dictator or join in palace coups. Military leaders can use their forces to rebel against the dictator or secede from the dictator’s realm with a slice of territory. So the dictator must carefully design her security apparatus to maintain control of the population without empowering potential rivals. This challenge grows acute the more dispersed the dictator’s realm and the greater the number of external threats. (For more on the strategy of dictatorship, see here. Political scientists, feel free to add citations in the comments section).

I see the Death Star (DS) as the Emperor’s solution to the dictator’s dilemma. First, note that its construction precedes the Rebel Alliance; the plans are first developed by the Separatists in Episode 2 and, by the time it is completed, the Rebel Alliance has just won its “first victory.” While it may have some use as a deterrent against possible invaders, the DS is primarily a tool of domestic politics. Prior to its completion, the Emperor is compelled to keep the Imperial Senate around, presumably to maintain the semblance of popular consent. But the Senate imposes some inefficiency — meddling in military strategy, perhaps, or directing spending to some favored planets. Once the DS is operational, the Emperor can disband the Senate and, instead, empower Imperial governors to suppress the local population and extract revenue.
But how can the Emperor guard against rebellion by one of these governors? Or revolt by a local planet’s population? The answer is simple: He can zip around in the baddest weapon in the galaxy, destroying his foes with the push of a button. No foe could fight back, and the DS is mobile enough to respond to multiple threats in short order.

Note that this scheme provides an easy answer to the question, “how can we afford a Death Star?” If the scheme works, the Death Star will pay for itself dozens of times in the additional tax revenue from fearful planets, and by the money not spent by the military putting down revolts with conventional weapons.

But will it work? Only if it induces cooperation through fear. Every planet blown up represents a tremendous loss of potential future revenue, so like nuclear weapons today, the actual use of the DS is a calamity. Moreover, like nuclear weapons, they only work as a deterrent if they are used judiciously. Citizens throughout the galaxy must believe that failure to pay their taxes and comply with their Imperial masters will lead to detonation, but also that compliance will save them. The fact that the DS was used against Alderaan, however, would likely have had the opposite effect. Alderaan is “peaceful” and “has no weapons.” It was detonated because its teenage senator was secretly aiding the Rebel Alliance and waited too long to give up Dantoonie. To me, that’s a little too Caligula to induce rational compliance. One imagines the conversations on other planets:

Peasant 1: Did you hear the Empire blew up Alderaan? What kind of government blows up one of the richest planets in the galaxy because of one smack-talking teenager? It could be any of us next.

Peasant Windu: Enough is enough! I have had it with these [redacted] emperors on their [redacted] Death Star!

If the net effect of the DS is to make every person in the galaxy think their planet could be the next one arbitrarily destroyed, it actually mobilizes them to join the rebellion.

If the DS is an uncertain solution to the problem of internal security, what are the alternatives?

1) Democracy? Unacceptable to the seeker of unlimited power. Your faith in your friends is your weakness.

2) A Sith Academy? During the Old Republic, the Jedi did a good job of providing internal security at a very low price. Why not repeal the limitation on Siths and create a small, powerful and cheap guard of Sith lords?

This is also unacceptable. An army of Siths, however small, would be a large pool of potential rivals and assassins, all angling to seize the throne. In the end, just having one other Sith around was the Emperor’s undoing; dozens of Siths would lead to anarchy.

For this reason, dictators have favored delegation to minions who are ineligible to replace them, such as eunuchs, lower-class citizens, foreign bodyguards or captives from an underprivileged social group. This leads me to:

3) Upgrading the internal security apparatus.

A) Clones. The Emperor already has a military force of clones. Why not a bureaucracy of clones? They could be designed to be smart, honest and unambitious, and they would be relatively cheap. This would help with the knotty problems of tax collection and law enforcement.

B) Domination of planetary elites. There are tried-and-true methods for gaining compliance without having to pay for massive armies or float around the galaxy in a planet-killing machine. The emperor could compel the political and economic elites of each planet to send their children (as hostages) to Imperial schools, where they will learn about all the great things the Empire is doing. Second, the Emperor could assign Imperial bodyguards to the elite of every planet to protect those who are loyal, report on those who are not and eliminate the worst. If the Emperor followed this approach, the Organa family would be sleeping with the fishes and Alderaan would still be paying taxes.

C) Imperial takeover of rebellious planets. Again, destroying a planet is a tremendous loss for the Imperial treasury. It would be far more profitable for the Emperor to seize rebellious planets (once subdued by his new and improved army – see below), imprison the rebels and bring in settlers and Imperial workers to keep the planet’s economy humming.

Upgrading the internal security apparatus is a far more cost-effective option than a DS for the next Sith dictator.

The Death Star as Super-Weapon?

When I watch Star Wars films now, I often find the battles simplistic because there is little tactical thinking. How would people actually use and respond to these futuristic weapons? The best exception to this pattern is the Rebels’ attack on the Death Star in Episode IV. Instead of attempting a large-scale frontal assault with their strongest ships (the anticipated response) they sent small ships armed with an asymmetric advantage: blueprints of the DS revealing a womp rat-sized weakness.

That is what the Rebels should have done. When I was a congressional staffer working on defense policy in the 1990s, one of the most insightful essays I read was Richard K. Betts’s “The Downside of the Cutting Edge” (National Interest, 1996), which makes this point: Once one has a force that can beat anyone in a fair fight, no one will want to fight fair. Even if the Empire eventually built a DS without a design flaw, its enemies would find some way to fight it indirectly. For example, when its not destroying planets, the DS also likes to grab passing ships in its tractor beam, drag them inside, and then scan them for bad guys. It would be simple to rig a decoy ship as a massive bomb, piloted by a robot with orders to detonate the ship once it’s inside the DS.

The Emperor should not expect, therefore, that a single super-weapon will vanquish all foes. As Seth Masket notes, the same money could be used to make some much-needed, lower-risk investments in the Imperial military. Some examples:

1) Information Security. Wouldn’t it be nice if some too-dumb-to-talk 30-year-old bucket of bolts couldn’t hack into the DS’s computer system in a few seconds? I would think so.

2) Troop Transportation. How does the U.S. military get around in the desert? Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles. How do elite scouts of the future get around? On overgrown lizards. It’s just embarrassing.

3) More robots, please. I get it: The “Clone Wars” featured Republic clones vs. the robot armies of the separatists, and the clones won. Still, though, some of those robots would be really useful in tactical situations, perhaps guided by clones on the ground.

4) More probe droids, please. After the Yavin debacle, the Empire sent out probe droids to scan remote systems. Why not keep a few loitering on every planet on a permanent basis? Then it would be lot harder for any rebellion to hide.

5) Practice, Practice, Practice. An entire legion of the Emperor’s best troops was defeated by a village of teddy bears fighting with sticks and stones. It’s just embarrassing. Clearly they needed better training in tactics, marksmanship and hand-to-paw combat.

Again, it is my belief that a rational dictator could make better use of the resources that would be used to build Death Stars.

So, in conclusion: The Death Star is bad for internal security and a misallocation of military resources. No thank you!

2 posted on 05/11/2012 10:19:27 AM PDT by SLB (23rd Artillery Group, Republic of South Vietnam, Aug 1970 - Aug 1971.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stonewall Jackson


3 posted on 05/11/2012 10:21:55 AM PDT by SLB (23rd Artillery Group, Republic of South Vietnam, Aug 1970 - Aug 1971.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

When I watch Star Wars films now, I often find the battles simplistic because there is little tactical thinking.

My thoughts exactly. How can one now watch Return of the Jedi and take it seriously when supposedly the best Imperial troops get defeated by the Ewoks armed with bows and arrows? I know the AT&Ts are cool but no way a military machine would depend on four woobly legs like that.

4 posted on 05/11/2012 10:27:17 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Obviously a death star would have to be built in space and if you’re technically capable of that, you’re going to be plenty capable of mining the needed materials in space.

Asteroid/protoplanet Vesta is believed to have a nearly pure core of iron more than 130 miles in diameter. Ceres is even larger and likely has similar metal content.

Of course once you get to this point you begin to realize that a death star in the star wars sense isn’t necessary anyway. Its better to choose an asteroid to burrow in and build outward from to create your mega station.

5 posted on 05/11/2012 10:28:02 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


I did not read the whole thing, but ht ecost assumption on the iron is wrong. Using asteroidal nickel-iron will be much cheaper than any planet-bound iron source.

6 posted on 05/11/2012 10:28:15 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Did they mention anything in all that about covering up the hole that you can shoot into and make the whole thing blow up?

7 posted on 05/11/2012 10:29:41 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Not to mention that space mined metals don’t have to be lifted out of earth’s gravity well.

8 posted on 05/11/2012 10:32:37 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


some people just seem to have way too much time on their hands...

9 posted on 05/11/2012 10:33:53 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Did they mention anything in all that about covering up the hole that you can shoot into and make the whole thing blow up?

If its smaller than a whomp rat it should be OK.
10 posted on 05/11/2012 10:36:53 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

"The savings due to Obamacare will pay for it!"
11 posted on 05/11/2012 10:39:42 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


The Death Star was always a bad design. You have to wonder how many of Palpatine’s cronies were in on it for the graft (and if any of them survived...).

The Death Star required massive resources to construct, yet it can only be at one place at a time. A large fleet would be a better investment since, when necessary, can be massed to produce near equal result (rendering a planet uninhabitable by massed bombardment) or to gain space superiority over an enemy fleet, then dispersed again to cover many, many potential trouble points with squadrons of Star Destroyers.

12 posted on 05/11/2012 10:44:22 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I’m surprised it took 11 posts to get that one out! LOL!

13 posted on 05/11/2012 10:49:07 AM PDT by carriage_hill (((.)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Sort of like Hitler blowing precious resources on his V weapons and Saddam on his super-gun the Israelis could of taken out with a few guided weapons.

14 posted on 05/11/2012 10:50:02 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek


15 posted on 05/11/2012 10:51:59 AM PDT by AAABEST (Et lux in tenebris lucet: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; AnotherUnixGeek

Thought we needed some light reading on a Friday afternoon. Glad a few agree.

16 posted on 05/11/2012 10:57:01 AM PDT by SLB (23rd Artillery Group, Republic of South Vietnam, Aug 1970 - Aug 1971.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


I’m sure Jerry Brown is considering it.

17 posted on 05/11/2012 10:58:18 AM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll eventually get what you deserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

gosh that’s scary.

18 posted on 05/11/2012 11:03:05 AM PDT by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Some interesting discussion of the challenges facing governments.

There are only two ways a government can rule, by force or by legitimacy, which means the people submit to its rule voluntarily because they believe it has the right to rule. If a government does not have or cannot acquire legitimacy, it must default back to force.

As the blog points out, using force effectively to rule is not nearly as simple as it sounds. The Roman and Byzantine empires, for two, never solved this problem. Every Emperor was assumed to have the legitimate right to rule (at least until overthrown) but the succession was never really worked out.

So every emperor (or sometime his father or grandpa) came to power by revolting against and overthrowing the ruling emperor. Not being idiots, they were always aware the same could happen to them. So they always had to worry about effective generals who could build the support needed to revolt. Such a general could (and often did) literally rise from the ranks of the peasantry, meaning becoming emperor was not out of reach for any man.

The response was generally to kill the successful generals before they revolted, giving generals a strong incentive either to revolt before they could be killed, or to avoid being overly successful. Which is obviously not a good strategy for the empire militarily.

With all its flaws, the primogeniture of western Europe for most of the Middle Ages and early modern times was an improvement. It drastically cut down on the number of potential contenders for absolute power, allowing those outside this charmed circle to do their job without overmuch fear of getting the chop for being too good at it.

19 posted on 05/11/2012 11:04:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Or wasted resources on Concentration Camps and Death Camps.
Or building the over-complicated Panther and Tiger instead of just a Germanic copy of the T-34.
Or failing to keep U-Boat production up and failing develop the Type XXI boat in time.

Of course, in the end, the Germans faced not one but THREE nations with greater industrial capacities and population resources. The amazing part is that they did so well for so long!

20 posted on 05/11/2012 11:04:57 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson