Spaceknights and Just Wars

One of my favourite comic book writers is Bill Mantlo. Bill started writing in the late 70s and was prolific: having fantastic runs with The Incredible Hulk, Spectacular Spider-Man, Alpha Flight, The Micronauts and one of my favourites, ROM Spaceknight. And while I’m not going to talk about what happened to Bill right now, I invite you to read his story here and do whatever you can to support him at this time.   

This comic is 30 years old this month. Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #26, January 1982

Recently, I went back to Bill’s enjoyable run on ROM and found myself absorbed in the 30 year old #26 and #27, a story called 'Galactus on Galador'. Like most of Bill’s work, I found this short story both enjoyable and provocative, raising some interesting ethical and legal issues with regard to the conflict the Spaceknights have with Galactus and their old enemies the Dire Wraiths. 

Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

It begins with what one might call a borrowed story from Lee/Kirby's Fantastic Four ‘Galactus Trilogy’, but quickly evolves into something else. When Galactus and his herald arrive on Galador, (home world of the Spaceknight's people), the Spaceknights understand the looming threat and do their best to repulse Terrax. Meanwhile, ROM heads to Galactus’ ship to attempt a negotiation. During that parley a deal is struck: 

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #26, January 1982

Splash from Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

'Give up on this world and we will give you another' is ROM's proposal. Of course, this world is Wraithworld, home of the Dire Wraiths.

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

Which provoked me: is this is a moral or legal bridge too far by the Spaceknights? In both this and earlier ROM comics, we learn of the Galadorians just and long-standing grievance with the Dire Wraiths, and I would say they have an absolute right and duty to defend themselves. This is the whole raison d'être of the Spaceknights to begin with.

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

But by manipulating Galactus into obliterating the Dire Wraith home world, has ROM crossed the line into the illegal or immoral? The Dire Wraiths are unquestionably evil, but do they also not have a right to live? This is what got me thinking about Just Wars and how we humans have come to determine what is legal and illegal in war.
  

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

While the idea of a 'Just War' goes back to Classical times, it was in 1625 that Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius wrote De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) which summed up the evolved Western thinking about just war, itself an idea descended from ancient and medieval thinkers including Cicero and St. Thomas Aquinas. Grotius’ list was fivefold:

1) There must be a just cause

2) There must be a right authority or legitimate sovereign initiating the war.

3) There must be right intention on the part of the parties using force

4) The response must be proportional

5) The force must be last resort

In the conflict between Galactus and the Spaceknights, it seems they are doing what is needed to protect themselves. But once they make an ally of Galactus and decide to use his overwhelming power against their enemy, have they crossed the line? No one would doubt the Dire Wraiths are evil and the cause against them is a just one. Moreover, the Spaceknights derive their authority from a legitimate sovereign and their battle is (mostly) fought with good intentions and is one of last resort. But by enlisting Galactus to annihilate the Dire Wraiths, are they being proportionate as per number four (and possibly number three) of the Grotius criteria? 

To determine this let's look at proportionality, a very important and pervasive concept in almost every legal system in the western world. Just like you might say in criminal law, the punishment should fit the crime, so too in warfare you might say that any just war would not include the absolute destruction of a nation, even if they initiated the conflict.  

But isn't this what ROM knows will happen if Galactus devours Wraithworld: the destruction of that place and the end of the Dire Wraiths? And is this a proportionate or well intentioned response? Personally, I’m not convinced. I know of Marvel villains, the Dire Wraiths are among the worst, but do they also not have a right to live?  

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

In recent human history we need only look at the Nuremberg trials, themselves the precursors of International Criminal Court in The Hague as examples of proportionality in action. When even as great a leader as Churchill wanted swift, bullet-based retribution against the surviving Nazi leadership, President Roosevelt and later President Truman (thanks to persuasive arguments made by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the US and eventual Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson) decided that even these despicable men should have their day in court. This in turn, led to hastened reconciliation with the German people, who would eventually become an important pillar of the world community. Likewise in Japan, the similar Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal eventually let the Japanese move on and become another important contributor to the world community.   

From Marvel's ROM Spaceknight #27, February 1982

Of course, Galactus fails in devouring Wraithworld and I am now going well beyond the scope of a comic blog. (Nor do I think Marvel will ever publish a comic that has the Dire Wraiths putting the Spaceknights on trial.) But I do believe that ROM, by enlisting Galactus to destroy Wraithworld, went too far. Of course, this is just an opinion, but it's also a reason why Bill Mantlo's writing was so good and why I'd like to thank him again for using comic books to provoke thought. Although ROM Spaceknight #26 and #27 are thirty years old this month, they are just as interesting and enjoyable to read today as they would have been then.  

If you are interested in starting an investigation into just wars and the law, I highly recommend The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crimes Trials Changed the Course of History by California Judge Norbert Ehrenfreund. Ehrenfreund was a US Army journalist for The Stars and Stripes during the war and witnessed the main trial first hand. His book is an accessible primer for anyone interested in Nuremberg and its legacy. Further, as a law student, I do not claim to be an expert on these legal issues so if you think I've missed something important or would just like to offer a comment, please feel free to (respectfully) add one.

Arthur C. Clarke's Sands of Mars: 60 Years Later

It was 60 years ago this year that science-fiction grandmaster, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, wrote one of his lesser known books The Sands of Mars. It was never as famous as Childhood's End (1953), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or Rendezvous with Rama (1972), but it was great book none-the-less, and I would like to now share with you some of my thoughts about it, as it nears the end of its sixtieth orbit around our Sun.  

The Hohmann Transfer Orbit, a means for us to leave Earth's orbit and head to Mars.

The story follows writer Martin Gibson as he travels to Mars in an effort to publicise the nascent colony's efforts to grow the Red Planet. The first part of the story recalls his crossing between Earth and Mars on the Ares, a ship that it is hoped will one day be a Cunard-like vehicle for people leaving Earth permanently. As he travels, we watch him adapt to three months in space and befriend and learn from the crew, all the while writing reports to his publishing company back on Earth. 

Upon arrival on Mars, he interacts with and befriends the citizens of this New World, not only growing to admire their early efforts to bring civilization to this distant place, but himself becoming Martian in outlook and in one instance making a discovery that changes humanity forever.

A 2005 NASA impression of an early human settlement on Mars

NASA's 'Spirit Mars Exploration Rover - A', 2004-2010

The book is an enjoyable story and it is hard to believe it is sixty years old. As with most science-fiction, there are some errors, the biggest being the Martian-based biological discriptions that subsequent exploration efforts have proved non-existent. But these errors are completely outweighed by the amazing insight -- both the scientific and psychological -- Clarke brings to the early human effort of travelling to other planets and exploring the stars. For example, in one of my favourite passages, Gibson recalls the momentous occasion of him leaving Earth’s orbit for the first time: 

Down there is all my past life and the lives of all my ancestors back to the first blob of jelly in the first primeval sea. No colonist or explorer setting sail from his native land ever left so much behind as I am leaving now. Down beneath those clouds lays the whole of human history: soon I shall be able to eclipse with my little finger what was, until a lifetime ago, all of Man’s dominion and everything that his art has saved from time. (Page 22) 

As well as capturing the genius, courage and audacity of humanity's first efforts to become a space-faring race, Clarke also notes how, as human beings, we will inevitability take our failings to the stars as well. In one instance while the protagonist is outside the ship exploring space, he encounters some of the rubbish that has been cast from the spaceship pulling him along. Here, Clarke  writes in a way anyone who regularly walks around London, Toronto or New York knows only too well: “We’ve been throwing out waste every day for weeks... and all our junk will soon go shooting out from the solar system.” When traveling around Mars in an aircraft there is a crash, and while I don't want to give too much away, this episode not only has a lasting impact on Gibson and the story, it also gives us an idea of how both terrifying and magnificent it will be when  we finally examine Mars by foot, wing and wheel.

NASA artist impression in the late 1980s

Despite some technological issues, none of which really distract from the story and could easily be updated by word replacement software – 'typewriter' to 'tablet computer', etc., Clarke’s 1951 story of a voyage to and life on Mars remains remarkably visionary and inspiring. We know now that Mars has a barren and lifeless surface, but we also know that one day many years ago, it had liquid water and perhaps even life. We also know that the spaceships in our future will not launch from Earth, but rather a giant orbiting space station just like the ‘Space Station One’ of Gibson’s time. Further, and on a slightly more mundane note, we also know how viral marketing and earned media are often the best way to excite people about something new and fresh. Clarke wasn't writing a marketing manual, but in these aspects of Sands, he was spot on. 

An artist impression of an O'Neill cylinder space station from The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space by American physicist Gerard K. O'Neill 

So if you’re looking for something interesting to read and you are already familiar with Sir Arthur C. Clarke's more famous works, then give Sands of Mars a read. At 60 years, it’s still a fun, inspiring and reasonably accurate book that will satisfy anyone looking for some hard science-fiction to supplement their diet of Silver Surfer or Captain Atomic. 

(The author of this piece read the reprinted Sidgwick and Jackson 1982 edition which was found at Orbital Comics in London, UK)