The Morality of Using Dragons

[The Red Hand]

So the argument is "using dragons is immoral because they're OP"? Dragons are weapons, and I don't think the use of a weapon in and of itself is immoral, but how its used. Using a dragon in a fight isn't immoral IMO, but flying into a town and burning everything is.

[Winter's Knight]

True though no-one credits Stannis or Tywin for avoiding casualties with Renly or Robb. It's also up for debate whether four thousand unnecessarily painful deaths are preferable to ten thousand move conventional ones. Is it just down to math in this instance? (Not arguing particularly.)

Fewer dead soldiers means fewer broken families, fewer orphans, fewer widows and thus more men living to return home to plough their fields.

Consider conventional deaths: very few soldiers die quickly-a sizeable number end up wasting away from infected wounds, gangrene or are left behind by their lords.

Dragons also mean fewer battles-witness Torren Stark choosing to surrender rather than risk another field of fire.

[ab aeterno]

Fewer dead soldiers means fewer broken families, fewer orphans, fewer widows and thus more men living to return home to plough their fields.

Consider conventional deaths: very few soldiers die quickly-a sizeable number end up wasting away from infected wounds, gangrene or are left behind by their lords.

Dragons also mean fewer battles-witness Torren Stark choosing to surrender rather than risk another field of fire.

I agree, though as I said, it is still preferable to use the threat of dragons rather than the dragons themselves, as with the field of fire.

[Valyrian Spoon]

I agree, though as I said, it is still preferable to use the threat of dragons rather than the dragons themselves, as with the field of fire.

The problem is you need to use your deterrent once or twice for people to realise that to quote the Borg "resistance is futile". Hence the destruction of Harrenhal and the field of fire.

It's because Aegon had three dragons at his disposal that the conquest seems relatively bloodless, Granted four thousand burned to death on the field of fire is horrific. but wasn't that out of an army of fifty thousand plus? Then as a direct result Torrhen Stark and his host bend the knee.

[Arland]

threat is worthless unless you are ready to act on it. That's why demonstration of Harenhall (compare it to Hyroshima if you want) was necessary and why it lead to surrender of the north.

I think all the talk about imorality of use of Dragons is utterly silly.

If the war is not just in the first place , there is nothing different between using dragons and using large army.

If it is about dragons being so powerfull it is even more silly - whole point of fighting is to use the best weapon and win - war is not a turney which is about who is the best jouster- it is about end result.

If it is about the suffering dragon fire brings, it is not much different from boiling oil, alchemist fire, burning arrows and cet. Fire kills and was used to kill in combat for centuries. Do people think that people don't burn in tanks?

Dragon are not like WMD, despite being called that, because most WMD are uncontrollable - they are indistinctive in nature - you cannot target them specifically at military target without hurting civilians. Dragons can be used distinctively. If you want to compare them to WMD compare them to tactical nuclear weapons, (btw atomic weapons in general are not prohibited as opposed to chemical and biological weapons, since in theory they can be used in targeted fashion - see ICJ advisory opinion on use of nuclear weapons)

[callmedodge]

This is war we're talking about. Morality doesn't really come into it. No matter what way you like at it, it's not moral to kill anyone. But if it's me or them and I can save the lives of my people through the use of dragons, then I'll use dragons.

Of course the "me or them" argument doesn't really come into it when it's an invasion we're talking about but much like when Aegon the Conquerer invaded, most people will probably just yield when they see dragons.

[ab aeterno]

The problem is you need to use your deterrent once or twice for people to realise that to quote the Borg "resistance is futile". Hence the destruction of Harrenhal and the field of fire.

It's because Aegon had three dragons at his disposal that the conquest seems relatively bloodless, Granted four thousand burned to death on the field of fire is horrific. but wasn't that out of an army of fifty thousand plus? Then as a direct result Torrhen Stark and his host bend the knee.

Never said you didn't have to use them, just that it is better to avoid using them if you can.

[King.In.Yellow]

I disagree. I think using any weapon available would have been ok to use against Hitler for example. It was recognized immediately by the vast majority of people that he was evil. In some cases it's up to future generations to decide who was on the moral high ground in a given situation.

Any weapon? As in 'nuke Berlin' any weapon? Why do that? Why incinerate 4 million people to get one guy? Not that that didn't transpire in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden.

You're still burning people alive. Hiroshima and Nagasaki yo.

Most people caught in a nuke explosion will die of the blast and never feel the heat... unless they survive and then not only are they burned (horribly), but also suffer radiation poisoning.

The point I'm trying to make is that war is ugly business. To quote William Tecumseh Sherman, war is hell and you cannot refine it. If you're gonna wage war, wage it properly, with death, fire, explosions, underhand tactics and without honor. As Sandor puts it, chivalry is a mummer's farce and a knight is a sword on a horse. If I were in command of any faction in the Westerosi wars and had dragons, I would have incinerated anyone who dared oppose me.

Don't get me wrong. Wars are bad, but let's face facts here: You can't humanize them. If you gotta wage a war, you gotta wage it, but don't pretend it's not gonna be ugly.

[Valyrian Spoon]

Never said you didn't have to use them, just that it is better to avoid using them if you can.

I realise that dude as a matter of fact I was agreeing with you in a round-about way. Once you use them you will never have the need to use them again.

[Arland]

. To quote William Tecumseh Sherman, war is hell and you cannot refine it. If you're gonna wage war, wage it properly, with death, fire, explosions, underhand tactics and without honor.

That is also an extreme view, just on the opposite side of the spectrum. War can be refined. It is still will be ugly, but less so, as witnessed by hundreds of thousands of POW, who were taken in captivity instead of being shot in the head on the spot. People forget that Geneva Conventions were not written by bleeding hearts pacifists, but by statesmen and generals, who took great care to balance "mercy" with military nessesety.

[Lion of Judah]

A cold hard truth about war is there must be a winner and a loser. If dragons expedite the cruel process then good.

[Barty]

Sorry my post wasn't clearer. I didn't meant to directly compare the morality of owning a slave with the morality of owning a dragon. Rather, what's the fundamental difference between compelling a slave to do what you want (because you own them, and you can harm or even kill them for disobedience) and compelling the people of Westeros to do what you want (because if they don't, your dragon(s) will lay waste to their lands and burn them alive)?

If using "whatever means" in a battle is justified, how does someone like Selmy reconcile being OK with using dragons but not OK with using slaves?

Selmy is against owning slaves. Mainly because slavery is a crime in westeros and he was born and brought up there. He is not against Danny gathering a non slave army and using them to burn and pillage because he knows the realities of war and knows that for Danny to succeed she will need to do all of these things. Selmy is not a non violent type of man - he has been in the killing profession since he was a teenager and sees nothing wrong in killing a person in the field - He is just repulsed by the very idea of slavery. To him Danny killing people by the thousands is not a problem - it's necessary. To him owning slaves is the problem because slavery is dishonorable.

[Black Crow]

The real question to be asked is the old one as to whether the dragons will save Westeros from the Others or whether the Others will save Westeros from the Dragons?

As Mel tells Davos in the cell below Dragonstone this is a war (between Ice and Fire) which has been going on since the beginning of time. Neither can be allowed to win if man is to survive. Master Bernero is preaching that victory by the dragons will lead to an eternal summer, which is going to be just as bad as an eternal winter. Its balance that's required, not victory and using dragons can only harm the balance.

[ab aeterno]

I realise that dude as a matter of fact I was agreeing with you in a round-about way. Once you use them you will never have the need to use them again.

Apologies, I was in a rush and responded without reading carefully enough!

[The Red Hand]

The real question to be asked is the old one as to whether the dragons will save Westeros from the Others or whether the Others will save Westeros from the Dragons?

As Mel tells Davos in the cell below Dragonstone this is a war (between Ice and Fire) which has been going on since the beginning of time. Neither can be allowed to win if man is to survive. Master Bernero is preaching that victory by the dragons will lead to an eternal summer, which is going to be just as bad as an eternal winter. Its balance that's required, not victory and using dragons can only harm the balance.

Is there any proof between the summer/dragon correlation? Dany's dragons were born at the end of summer and even though dragons (if they did exist) were scarce in number it didn't stop the summer in AGOT from being the longest in living memory.

But this topic is about the morality of dragons. Dragons seem like really strong animals, they're like alpha-predators who do what they want but they can be controlled. The Others once tried to destroy the world, use the dead as shock troops, and try to destroy any sign of mankind they see.

[King.In.Yellow]

That is also an extreme view, just on the opposite side of the spectrum. War can be refined. It is still will be ugly, but less so, as witnessed by hundreds of thousands of POW, who were taken in captivity instead of being shot in the head on the spot. People forget that Geneva Conventions were not written by bleeding hearts pacifists, but by statesmen and generals, who took great care to balance "mercy" with military nessesety.

It is an extreme, but a realistic view. The Geneva Conventions are an attempt to 'civilize' war, true. In effect, they are a method of limiting needless slaughter. Military poisons and execution of POWs are things too terrible even for war, the way the conventions put it.

However, war remains ugly. Civilians will get killed, maimed and left homeless. It's the way things are and what bothers me is the hypocrisy of claiming that this method is better than that method. A man is just as dead from a shot through the heart and asphyxiation by mustard gas. A city is just as destroyed by carpet bombing (Dresden) as by a nuke (Hiroshima). Why is this method good and the other bad is beyond me when the result is the same.

Regarding dragons, why would it be morally wrong to use dragons, when they would essentially do the same thing Tyrion did on the Blackwater.

(note: I do realize the advantage of airborne bombardment over ground-based dispersion of wildfire, but the end result was the same).

[Black Crow]

Is there any proof between the summer/dragon correlation? Dany's dragons were born at the end of summer and even though dragons (if they did exist) were scarce in number it didn't stop the summer in AGOT from being the longest in living memory.

But this topic is about the morality of dragons. Dragons seem like really strong animals, they're like alpha-predators who do what they want but they can be controlled. The Others once tried to destroy the world, use the dead as shock troops, and try to destroy any sign of mankind they see.

They hunt them, which isn't quite the same thing. Dragons remember aren't beasts but fire made flesh, ie magical creatures, and yes its the dragons which set Benerro off preaching about summer without end, death bending the knee etc. They are bad news for mankind.

[PatrickStormborn]

Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters used their dragons so that they would not have to keep using them.

From what we've seen of Dany's character, I imagine that she will act in a similar way.

I don't really see why readers treat the dragons so differently from the war generals we see in the series. Tywin Lannister burned the Riverlands, Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon burned the Iron Islands, Jon Snow and the Night's Watch burned the wildlings at Castle Black, Tyrion Lannister burned both Joffrey and Stannis's fleets at the Blackwater, etc.

Evidently the dragons act on a larger scale, but at the same time they're a far more effective deterrent than fire used in other circumstances.

[The Drunkard]

They hunt them, which isn't quite the same thing. Dragons remember aren't beasts but fire made flesh, ie magical creatures, and yes its the dragons which set Benerro off preaching about summer without end, death bending the knee etc. They are bad news for mankind.

I think that's an odd distinction to make. They eat like beasts, hunt like beasts, sleep like beasts, nest like beasts, react like beasts, and so on. They might have magical qualities, but I wouldn't go as far as to buy into the fishwifery of them being made of pure magic.

[The Red Hand]

They hunt them, which isn't quite the same thing. Dragons remember aren't beasts but fire made flesh, ie magical creatures, and yes its the dragons which set Benerro off preaching about summer without end, death bending the knee etc. They are bad news for mankind.

Even if they are magical it doesn't change their nature. And I personally take the word of any religious fanatic preaching on a corner well salted.

Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters used their dragons so that they would not have to keep using them.

They burned Harren the Black and his kids rather than attempt a siege or storm of the castle.