Is the UNSC morally evil? (HALO)

[Free-Stater 101]

This is going to be a hotly debated topic in some areas I can already tell! Chances are if you have played HALO at some point, you have been in the shoes of someone in employ of the UNSC which is the military colonial arm of the UEG and anybody who knows any of the details about this organization knows that it has been up to some seriously shady or even downright insidious acts over the years in pursuit of its goals in keeping humanity 'united'.

But that begs the question a though.

"In spite of all the good they have alleged repeatedly to have prevented does that truly forgive all that they have done?"

It's easy to say your better than the worst of the worst groups of insurrectionists or have the convenient excuse of genocidal zealot aliens to point at and pronounce yourself as a 'moral good' or the 'best alternative for humanity' but when there is no alternative for most other than die that doesn't seem to say much.

What do you all think?

 

[Captain X]

Yeah, the whole kidnapping children and replacing them with sickly clones so their parents won't know what really happened to them is pretty evil, as is the experimentation to turn them into super-soldiers. The fact they did it because apparently Earth can't stand the idea of the colonies breaking off and becoming self-governing just makes it that much worse.

If I'd been in charge of the lore, I would not have made the "Spartan" name so literal. Instead I would have done something along the lines of what IIRC was called the Spartan III program, which is to say turning people who are already adults, already in the military, and who went into it knowing full well what they were in for, and they would have come out as awesome as the game needed them to be. And as for why there's even a UNSC to begin with, I would not have had Earth be united, and I would not have all the human colonies being friendly with each other, as in, already their own nations-states. Like say China and a bunch of other commies feeling like Earth is a lot cause and fucking off to their own planet or getting exiled to one and actually managing to make something out of another planet, but needing to expand for more resources or whatever. "United Nations" need not translate to "United Earth," and frankly the idea is a bit overdone in sci-fi, so there was no reason they had to go the way that they did for their backstory, and frankly what they ended up going with was stupid.

 

[ATP]

This is going to be a hotly debated topic in some areas I can already tell! Chances are if you have played HALO at some point, you have been in the shoes of someone in employ of the UNSC which is the military colonial arm of the UEG and anybody who knows any of the details about this organization knows that it has been up to some seriously shady or even downright insidious acts over the years in pursuit of its goals in keeping humanity 'united'.

But that begs the question a though.

"In spite of all the good they have alleged repeatedly to have prevented does that truly forgive all that they have done?"

It's easy to say your better than the worst of the worst groups of insurrectionists or have the convenient excuse of genocidal zealot aliens to point at and pronounce yourself as a 'moral good' or the 'best alternative for humanity' but when there is no alternative for most other than die that doesn't seem to say much.

What do you all think?

Yes,they are bad.But - still better then IoM from WH40,or Biden USA.Not mention China or kgbstan.

 

[King Arts]

Yeah, the whole kidnapping children and replacing them with sickly clones so their parents won't know what really happened to them is pretty evil, as is the experimentation to turn them into super-soldiers. The fact they did it because apparently Earth can't stand the idea of the colonies breaking off and becoming self-governing just makes it that much worse.

If I'd been in charge of the lore, I would not have made the "Spartan" name so literal. Instead I would have done something along the lines of what IIRC was called the Spartan III program, which is to say turning people who are already adults, already in the military, and who went into it knowing full well what they were in for, and they would have come out as awesome as the game needed them to be. And as for why there's even a UNSC to begin with, I would not have had Earth be united, and I would not have all the human colonies being friendly with each other, as in, already their own nations-states. Like say China and a bunch of other commies feeling like Earth is a lot cause and fucking off to their own planet or getting exiled to one and actually managing to make something out of another planet, but needing to expand for more resources or whatever. "United Nations" need not translate to "United Earth," and frankly the idea is a bit overdone in sci-fi, so there was no reason they had to go the way that they did for their backstory, and frankly what they ended up going with was stupid.

They aren’t saints. But real life nations have done similar. So no the UNSC is no more evil than America.
Though you are wrong spartan 3s were children specifically war orphans whose homes were destroyed by covenant, then given the option to get revenge. They were used as shock troops who took suicide missions. They were not on the level of spartan 2s for two reasons first they weren’t given as good gear since they were more expendable, though they were better armed than regular marines or ODST they had power armor after all. The second reason is they did not get as much training they were recruited during the human covenant war after all. They got basic training, but the 2s had years to master war. Surviving 3s however would learn from experience and be a match for 2s. It was the 4s that were made from adults. And they aren’t as good as previous generations Halsley doesn’t even see them as real Spartans.

 

[Battlegrinder]

They're not evil, and they're not good, it's not that simple. "Is it good to do a bad thing to stop a worse thing from happening, if you know the bad thing is still bad" isn't a question that has a clear yes or no answer. That moral complexity at the heart of the Halo series is one of the reasons fan like it, and react badly to works that try to say "yes the UNSC is bad" or the more rare ones that try to whitewash them.

Though as a side note I would point out asking this about the UNSC is asking the wrong question, because the UNSC didn't create the the Spartans, the Office of Naval Intelligence, a small sub branch of one service arm of the UNSC, did it. The entire US DOD isn't good or bad because the DIA did something dubious, though the higher command structure dies have some knowledge of the program (not sure how high and how much, though).


Also, some corrections:

Yeah, the whole kidnapping children and replacing them with sickly clones so their parents won't know what really happened to them is pretty evil, as is the experimentation to turn them into super-soldiers.

The clones weren't made so parents wouldn't know what happened, they were made so parents would know what happened. Having dozens of families have there kids all vanish without a trace means dozens of families frantically hunting for them trying to fund out what happened. Having dozens of families mourning their dead kid that died of some bizzare disease means they have some closure, and also don't start frantically looking for clues about what happened.

I also wouldn't call what happened "experiments", ONI knew what they were doing when the designed the process.

The fact they did it because apparently Earth can't stand the idea of the colonies breaking off and becoming self-governing just makes it that much worse.

That's not why they did it, they did it because all the data they had said that the fighting over that process would be horrifically destructive.

The pro-independence colonists were only a portion of the colonial population, and the insurrectionists were only a tiny fraction of that number, many colonies had citizens that wanted to remain in the UEG, and that if the outer colonies did break away, it would lead to a massive war between them and the UEG loyalist inner colonies.

Instead I would have done something along the lines of what IIRC was called the Spartan III program, which is to say turning people who are already adults, already in the military, and who went into it knowing full well what they were in for, and they would have come out as awesome as the game needed them to be.

In canon they considered that, the issue was that it wouldn't work without an unacceptable risk of side effects on older subjects (and given how dangerous is was for ideal candidates, that says something about how bad it would have been on adults).

spartan 3s were children specifically war orphans whose homes were destroyed by covenant, then given the option to get revenge.

Children are not mature enough to make that kind of decision, called it an "opition" is perverse. ONI took only kids that "volunteered" because it was easier to get them to cooperate, because unlike the SII's, III didn't undergo the same level of personality and psychological screening.

They were used as shock troops who took suicide missions.

Not exactly. They were used on missions that were to dangerous to risk S2s and too difficult for other special forces to accomplish. This meant that many of their missions did have an extremely high risk of them being killed, but it wasn't certain death, the UNSC took steps to extract them if they succeeded and did everything they could to ensure they would.

The second reason is they did not get as much training they were recruited during the human covenant war after all. They got basic training, but the 2s had years to master war.

That's also off. The SIII went through years of training, not quite as much as the IIs (who were largely distinguished by more experience and equipment, not more training), but the IIIs were in training for years, and were far better trained and equipped then anyone else bar the 2s.

 

[Captain X]

The clones weren't made so parents wouldn't know what happened, they were made so parents would know what happened. Having dozens of families have there kids all vanish without a trace means dozens of families frantically hunting for them trying to fund out what happened. Having dozens of families mourning their dead kid that died of some bizzare disease means they have some closure, and also don't start frantically looking for clues about what happened.

Except, no, they don't know what happened to their child. Their child was taken from them and they were given sickly clones. Yeah, it was so they wouldn't ask questions, but that's exactly what I'm getting at when I say that their children were taken from them and they'll never know what happened to them because they think them dead. That's a horrible and evil thing.

I also wouldn't call what happened "experiments", ONI knew what they were doing when the designed the process.

Missing the point. Frankly I'd call ONI (since you want to be specific) on the same level as groomers for what they did.

That's not why they did it, they did it because all the data they had said that the fighting over that process would be horrifically destructive.

That makes no sense. "Your civil war is going to be horrifically destructive, so we're going to fight a bloody and destructive war to keep you from doing that."

The pro-independence colonists were only a portion of the colonial population, and the insurrectionists were only a tiny fraction of that number, many colonies had citizens that wanted to remain in the UEG, and that if the outer colonies did break away, it would lead to a massive war between them and the UEG loyalist inner colonies.

What difference does that make? Are the insurrectionists wrong? Is it wrong to have self rule? Is that not ow this country was formed? Were the people who actually wanted self-rule here not said to be a small portion of the population?

In canon they considered that, the issue was that it wouldn't work without an unacceptable risk of side effects on older subjects (and given how dangerous is was for ideal candidates, that says something about how bad it would have been on adults).

And now we're just getting into how the lore they came up with was stupid. There was literally no reason they had to come up with what they came up with, so using what they came up with as an argument for why they came up with it will get nowhere. This is the reason why I said: "If I'd been in charge of the lore..." You can make excuses or list their excuses, it makes no difference for what they ended up coming up with being messed up considering they had many other alternatives to explain why things were the way they were when the first game starts.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Honestly the big problem for the UNSC was basically that by the time of the Spartan II program getting signed off on the insurrectionists had done multiple cases of nuclear terrorism. Should the UNSC have done something else sure. Where they wrong in trying anything they could to prevent millions if not tens or hundreds of millions more dead? No.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Except, no, they don't know what happened to their child. Their child was taken from them and they were given sickly clones. Yeah, it was so they wouldn't ask questions, but that's exactly what I'm getting at when I say that their children were taken from them and they'll never know what happened to them because they think them dead. That's a horrible and evil thing.

It was also so they would have closure over what happened, rather than just so they wouldn't have questions and by happenstance got closure. Abducting thier kids was evil, and I don't deny that, but you're not looking at the whole situation (and yes, I know it's morally dubious to create a clone that's doomed to die just to comfort someone else, that's the whole point behind the moral question Halo asks).

Missing the point.

Ok, so what is the point?

That makes no sense. "Your civil war is going to be horrifically destructive, so we're going to fight a bloody and destructive war to keep you from doing that."

The purpose of the Spartans was to cut short that entire war. They were supposed to be an elite surgical strike unit that could get in, neutralize rebel cells with a minimum of force, and leave. That's why the UNSC opted to use Spartans instead of conventional forces, to avoid a destructive war.

What difference does that make? Are the insurrectionists wrong?

Given thier proclivity for using nuclear weapons in terrorist attacks, yes.

Is it wrong to have self rule? Is that not ow this country was formed? Were the people who actually wanted self-rule here not said to be a small portion of the population?

It's also not wrong for a government to want msin control of its own territory, that it colonized and terraformed at its own expense. Someone can be right without someone else being wrong.

And now we're just getting into how the lore they came up with was stupid. There was literally no reason they had to come up with what they came up with, so using what they came up with as an argument for why they came up with it will get nowhere.

The issue with that is that there isn't a singular "them" coming up with this stuff. Bungie wrote a bunch of the basic settung background and justified it with "because it's cool" if they bothered to do any justification. It then feel to other writers to actually fill in those gaps. If you were in charge of the lore, you don't get to decide who MC is and what the Spartan program was, Bungie already decided he's a cyborg super soldier raised from childhood, because they think that's badass and cool.

 

[Captain X]

It was also so they would have closure over what happened, rather than just so they wouldn't have questions and by happenstance got closure. Abducting thier kids was evil, and I don't deny that, but you're not looking at the whole situation (and yes, I know it's morally dubious to create a clone that's doomed to die just to comfort someone else, that's the whole point behind the moral question Halo asks).

And my answer to that question is that this represents a great evil.

Ok, so what is the point?

You apparently ignored it because I wrote it right after the sentence you quoted. They groomed children into being experimented on for their already evil plan.

The purpose of the Spartans was to cut short that entire war. They were supposed to be an elite surgical strike unit that could get in, neutralize rebel cells with a minimum of force, and leave.

So go in and slaughter people who basically just wanted independence?

That's why the UNSC opted to use Spartans instead of conventional forces, to avoid a destructive war.

Well, destructive for them, anyway. You know what else would have avoided a destructive war? Just letting them have their independence.

Given thier proclivity for using nuclear weapons in terrorist attacks, yes.

Explain.

It's also not wrong for a government to want msin control of its own territory, that it colonized and terraformed at its own expense. Someone can be right without someone else being wrong.

So the United States should have stayed a colony of Great Britain?

The issue with that is that there isn't a singular "them" coming up with this stuff. Bungie wrote a bunch of the basic settung background and justified it with "because it's cool" if they bothered to do any justification. It then feel to other writers to actually fill in those gaps. If you were in charge of the lore, you don't get to decide who MC is and what the Spartan program was, Bungie already decided he's a cyborg super soldier raised from childhood, because they think that's badass and cool.

Which was stupid of them. And still doesn't explain why whoever else decided the insurrectionist lore they ended up coming with is what they ended up coming up with. Or the kidnapping. Hell, if they were just so sold on the whole being raised from childhood thing (which is still stupid), why not have them be literally grown for the purpose via some kind of genetic engineering program? Or anything else that doesn't make your good guys end up looking like bad guys?

 

[Battlegrinder]

You apparently ignored it because I wrote it right after the sentence you quoted. They groomed children into being experimented on for their already evil plan.

Ok, and? The Spartan program was extremely unethical. Duh.

So go in and slaughter people who basically just wanted independence?

No, they were supposed to kill terrorists who were running around bombing civilians as part of a treasonous war against the government.

Well, destructive for them, anyway. You know what else would have avoided a destructive war? Just letting them have their independence.

I don't think that's an option, my understanding of the carver findings (the mathematical models the UNSC used to convinced them war was inevitable) were very clear in that force was the only way to prevent further destabilization and and outright war between the inner colonies and the outer colonies, diplomacy was not viable.

And given that insurrectionists kept fight the UNSC after the Covenant showed up and started killing everyone, and then the surviving insurrectionists kept it up after the war, when they were only alive because the UNSC fought tooth and nail to slow the Covenant advance, it's pretty clear Carver was right.

Explain.

Insurrectionists repeatedly used nuclear weapons against civilian targets, alongside a campaign of conventional bombing. Contact Harvest opens with them building a truck bomb, taking a kid hostage when caught, and has a later mention of them bombing a civilian cruise starship, killing thousands of innocent people.

So the United States should have stayed a colony of Great Britain?

That's not a fair comparison. The American revolution was justified largely by Britian infringing on the rights of the American colonists. There's no evidence that's the case for the insurrection and that the UEG was out of line in it's handling of the colonies.

Hell, if they were just so sold on the whole being raised from childhood thing (which is still stupid), why not have them be literally grown for the purpose via some kind of genetic engineering program? Or anything else that doesn't make your good guys end up looking like bad guys?

So, your argument is:
Kidnapping a child to raise them as a soldier, giving them no say in the matter: Bad, literal grooming.

Cloning a child to raise as a soldier, giving them no say in the matter: Totally fine, not at all morally questionable.


Um......

 

[King Arts]

And my answer to that question is that this represents a great evil.


You apparently ignored it because I wrote it right after the sentence you quoted. They groomed children into being experimented on for their already evil plan.


So go in and slaughter people who basically just wanted independence?


Well, destructive for them, anyway. You know what else would have avoided a destructive war? Just letting them have their independence.


Explain.


So the United States should have stayed a colony of Great Britain?


Which was stupid of them. And still doesn't explain why whoever else decided the insurrectionist lore they ended up coming with is what they ended up coming up with. Or the kidnapping. Hell, if they were just so sold on the whole being raised from childhood thing (which is still stupid), why not have them be literally grown for the purpose via some kind of genetic engineering program? Or anything else that doesn't make your good guys end up looking like bad guys?

So here is a question then if nations should allow their territory to just split off. Was the Confederacy wrong for rebelling against America?

 

[Captain X]

Ok, and? The Spartan program was extremely unethical. Duh.

Okay, and that's the point of this thread.

No, they were supposed to kill terrorists who were running around bombing civilians as part of a treasonous war against the government.

Yeah, the Brits called it treasonous, too.

I don't think that's an option, my understanding of the carver findings (the mathematical models the UNSC used to convinced them war was inevitable) were very clear in that force was the only way to prevent further destabilization and and outright war between the inner colonies and the outer colonies, diplomacy was not viable.

And given that insurrectionists kept fight the UNSC after the Covenant showed up and started killing everyone, and then the surviving insurrectionists kept it up after the war, when they were only alive because the UNSC fought tooth and nail to slow the Covenant advance, it's pretty clear Carver was right.

Insurrectionists repeatedly used nuclear weapons against civilian targets, alongside a campaign of conventional bombing. Contact Harvest opens with them building a truck bomb, taking a kid hostage when caught, and has a later mention of them bombing a civilian cruise starship, killing thousands of innocent people.

This sure is a stupid backstory for the game, then.

That's not a fair comparison. The American revolution was justified largely by Britian infringing on the rights of the American colonists. There's no evidence that's the case for the insurrection and that the UEG was out of line in it's handling of the colonies.

Then why would they want to break off and why would they use such extreme measures to accomplish this goal?

So, your argument is:
Kidnapping a child to raise them as a soldier, giving them no say in the matter: Bad, literal grooming.

Cloning a child to raise as a soldier, giving them no say in the matter: Totally fine, not at all morally questionable.

I never claimed it wasn't morally questionable at all, just that it was less evil than what the lore they ended up coming up with is.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Okay, and that's the point of this thread.

Em, no. The point of the thread is to discuss if the UNSC as a whole is evil, not if the S2 or 3 program were.

Yeah, the Brits called it treasonous, too.

I don't recall the founding fathers ever loading up a cart with a bunch of gunpowder and detonating it in the middle of trafalgar square.

Then why would they want to break off and why would they use such extreme measures to accomplish this goal?

The insurrectionist's motives have not been explored in enough detail for there to be much discussion of that, in part because there is no one movement and instead it's a disparate collection of numerous rebels. One of the few named rebel movements was the People's Occupation, and based on the name I'd guess thier motive is basically "surely this time we can get real communism to work". Beyond that it's anyone's guess.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

I don't recall the founding fathers ever loading up a cart with a bunch of gunpowder and detonating it in the middle of trafalgar square.

To be wholly honest the entire purpose of terror bombings as much as I hate them is to attract attention of goverment to enforce a sort of change and by the point you reach intergalactic goverment's it gets tougher and tougher to attract attention via terror so you have to go bigger by necessity or risk being a statistic

Not that I condone the innies actions but the UNSC/UEG/ONI doing jackshit to fix their issues with the outer colonies and exercising complete command economy style authoritarian control from earth isnt something people will be content with as cited below, the inne movement was bred in the outer colonies for a reason.

The rebels were understandably sick of being told how to run their lives—what jobs to take, how many children to make—by CA bureaucrats; the often heavyhanded proxies of an Earth-based government with an increasingly poor understanding of the colonies' unique challenges.
- Halo : Contact Harvest

 

[Captain X]

It all just strikes me as a certain amount of lacking imagination. So much sci-fi just assumes Earth to be united in the future, and that any and all Earth colonies would all be ruled by that united government, rather than say groups fucking off specifically to self-rule.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Not that I condone the innies actions but the UNSC/UEG/ONI doing jackshit to fix their issues with the outer colonies and exercising complete command economy style authoritarian control from earth isnt something people will be content with as cited below, the inne movement was bred in the outer colonies for a reason.

My understanding is that it was less "authoritarian command economy" and more "I don't care if you want to be a dance instructor with a half dozen kids, this colony was just barely terraformed and it takes 6 months to get a supply shipment if something goes wrong, so shut up and grow those potatoes, and don't add any more mouths to feed until things are stable". Granted, we don't really have a great picture of the civilian side of things for the UEG, given most halo media is laser focused on the military, but I'm pretty sure if that quote from Harvest was representative of the norm it would have come up more often.

After all, Contaxt Harvest also does a bit to establish that even in the outer colonies, the overall standard of living is quite high, like how Jenkins is talking with one of his platoon mates and reminds himself that the guys family is fairly poor, they only have a couple of older model automated robot super harvesters on thier farm.




I would also be a bit careful taking single lines here and there as hard proof. After all, Halo 4 clearly says answers the threads question by saying the UNSC is good, as even the issues with the Spartan program aren't thier fault because Halsey was compelled to do it by forerunner gobbledygook, which is total BS.


Edit:

It all just strikes me as a certain amount of lacking imagination. So much sci-fi just assumes Earth to be united in the future, and that any and all Earth colonies would all be ruled by that united government, rather than say groups fucking off specifically to self-rule.

The problem is that hopping on a ship to a new planet where you can do whatever you want requires that you have a new planet to go to and a ship to take you there, as the government tend to keep a tight lease on its ships, rights to settle on planet's in it's territory, and permissions to run off on your own finding new planets. There's a reason rich dudes in the 15th century didn't just buy a boat and run off to the new world to go found thier own country.

It's certainly possible that it could happen, but it would almost certainly be on a very small scale, small colonies and small groups. Which is a problem if you need a large enough rebel movement to justify a large government military as the backdrop for your military science fiction series.

 

[Syzygy]

It all just strikes me as a certain amount of lacking imagination. So much sci-fi just assumes Earth to be united in the future, and that any and all Earth colonies would all be ruled by that united government, rather than say groups fucking off specifically to self-rule.

That's because when the series started no one was thinking about the interstellar politics, it was just shooting aliens that want everyone dead with no recourse. A unified humanity does make a little more sense in the face of extinction. Ironically, Halo handled the Covenant's politics much better given it was a major focus of the sequel.

 

[Captain X]

The problem is that hopping on a ship to a new planet where you can do whatever you want requires that you have a new planet to go to and a ship to take you there, as the government tend to keep a tight lease on its ships, rights to settle on planet's in it's territory, and permissions to run off on your own finding new planets. There's a reason rich dudes in the 15th century didn't just buy a boat and run off to the new world to go found thier own country.

Which still doesn't require a unified planetary government. Lore-wise there could have been some alternate to the UN or whatever still on Earth with its own ships and everything which wasn't necessarily friendly to the UN. Or, alternatively, this could have taken place some time in the past where this alternate power fucked off to make a new home world of its own with its own colonies what would be who the UNSC was butting heads with often enough for it to have a massive military built up when the Covenant happened along.

A unified humanity does make a little more sense in the face of extinction.

Certainly, once the Covenant had been encountered and started killing all the humans it found, that would have been a great unifying force for humanity. Which doesn't mean that Earth had to be united or that all human colonies had to be under its control.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

I am pretty sure in most other science fiction stories the UNSC would be the baddie or the lesser of two evils. You know since they are oppressing or "oppressing" the outer colonies, as far as I know used nuclear force first against innocent civilians, kidnapped children to use as legbreakers against dissidents...

Yeah, they are kind of acting like a science fiction villain or a morally ambiguous faction like the IoM. And yeah, I think that the colonies had every right to rise up if the UEG wasn't willing to negotiate or meet them half way. Since, you know, all people and persons should have the right to self-determination..."Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" and such. In my opinion if your right to self-determination is not being respected, you have a right to leave and if prevented you then have the occasion to resort to force.

 

[Battlegrinder]

as far as I know used nuclear force first against innocent

That's from Karen Travis's stuff, which means it didn't happen. We also don't know the exact details of what happened there.

Since, you know, all people and persons should have the right to self-determination..."Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" and such. In my opinion if your right to self-determination is not being respected, you have a right to leave and if prevented you then have the occasion to resort to force.

Ok, but what are the limits to that principle? Surely you don't have an unlimited right to do whatever you want regardless of the laws or constraints of any government.