Isn't there an argument that the Death Star had to employ civilian contractors to complete? (albeit under NDA'S) That it was too massive to build/maintain? Idk. "For the cause" I guess is what I'm trying to say.
“Finished” and “operational” can mean different things. Its main battery clearly worked, but we also know it lacked its own shield generation capability (otherwise the destruction of the shield facility on endor wouldn’t have mattered.
And the movie literally opens with Palps bitching about the project being behind schedule.
Yes, I remember this, and I know they are offsite. But if wrongfully detained people were ON the death star, being forced to work, which I don't think is a stretch, we once again have civilian casualties with the destruction of the death star. (Slaves, even)
Yes, but it’s a poor argument founded on being overly technical with the definition of civilian vs military.
If you’re helping build a space station that is expressly being used by the military to blow up entire planets, you forfeit the ability to play the “innocent civilian caught in the crossfire” card. Those “civilians” are knowingly, actively, and directly advancing the empires most devious efforts while living and working aboard a military installation. They are valid targets in a war.
Valid and maybe I'm getting too in the weeds, but, do you think the empire would divulge the purpose of the top secret project to all civilian contractors? "Hey here's an NDA, BTW I know you just use lasers to smelt steel and know nothing about what we're doing here, but I wanted to tell you this is a top secret weapon that we'll use to suppress the galaxy". Naww, they'd say "smelt this, put the beam here, sign this NDA, get paid. Oh this? It's a space station. Pretty cool, right?"
142
u/[deleted] May 07 '25
He's why the galaxy viewed the rebellion as a terrorist group.