To say that the Tarkin Doctrine (fear) wouldn't work logically is true. But people aren't logical.

There is a reason why a single gunman can hold off an entire crowd of unarmed people. No one wants to be the next person to get shot.

Now, it's possible for people to band together and overcome the gunman. Logically speaking, a single gunman has no chance against a crowd of unarmed people. He will eventually be overcome. But people aren't logical. People are fearful. That is the point of the Tarkin doctrine, and why it could have been so effective. It's the same principle, just on a galactic scale.

Where there exists hope, people can set aside fear. But had the Death Star annihilated the Rebel Alliance, that "New Hope" would have been dashed, and the dark times would have continued unabated. People would be hedging their bets, turning in anyone suspected of Rebel activity just so that they could keep their own family safe.

The single gun man theory only works as long as people believe the gunman won't kill them.

Once they have no expectation to survive the fear of dying no longer works as a threat and everyone jumps the gunman especially when the gunman is going to not only kill them, but keep on killing after them.

Proof exists in the world.

United Airlines Flight 93 is an excellent example why it fails if people have the reasonable belief that the people holding them hostage are going to kill them no matter what.

Alderaan was a peaceful unarmed planet with no real defenses.

The Empire blew it up.

There is no logical reason to believe the Empire isn't going to go down a list and blow up every planet on it.

There is no logical reason to believe the Empire will accept surrenders.

In short the only option available is to fight or die.

United Airlines Flight 93 is an excellent example why it fails if people have the reasonable belief that the people holding them hostage are going to kill them no matter what.

I'm kind of amazed that you brought that up, given that the other three planes in the exact same circumstances made it to their destinations, despite their passengers being in the exact same situation.

Alderaan was a peaceful unarmed planet with no real defenses.

The Empire blew it up.

There is no logical reason to believe the Empire isn't going to go down a list and blow up every planet on it.

There is no logical reason to believe the Empire will accept surrenders.

In short the only option available is to fight or die.

Alderaan was a planet full of traitors financing the Rebellion and housing one of its main leaders. It wasn't a random act of violence, it was an example that no matter how important you think you are, no matter what defenses you think you have (physical, cultural, or moral), if you betray the Empire you WILL pay the price.

So, that gives every person on every planet an incentive not to become another planet known for rebelliousness. Every riot opposed by a counter riot. Every traitor exposed, sometimes by their own family members. Every act of treason and sedition accompanied by a witch hunt.

Had the Death Star remained in play, the Rebellion as it was seen in the movies would have never been able to exist.

The problem with the above is twofold. First they offered no proof that Alderaan was funding the rebellion. Second they can't use Leia as proof without admitting they were liers because the offical Imperial story was that Leia's ship was lost with all hands in an accident. Not to mention that blowing an entire planet because one person was a rebel is an insane overreaction.

First they offered no proof that Alderaan was funding the rebellion.

We're not talking about proving in a court of law, we're talking about the Empire giving a reason why they blew Alderaan into space dust. "They were funding the rebels, and their biggest supplier of munitions" (check Wookieepedia on that, if you like) is a reason. Alderaan was also known for being a place of huge political dissent against the Empire, regardless of the fact that it's resistance wasn't armed, it WAS in resistance. Finally, one of the main leaders of the Rebellion was Bail Organa, who was a primary leader on Alderaan. You don't need to bring Leia into the picture at all.

What it all adds up to is that the common person who's been paying attention to news in the galaxy KNOWS that Alderaan was a focal point of major resistance against the Empire. They hedged on their reputation as an ancient planet of cultural significance and the fact that their resistance wasn't armed to keep the Empire from enacting an armed response against them. Which is why they were chosen for the Death Star's first target: everyone knew that Alderaan supported the Rebellion, and its destruction sent a clear message that this behavior would not be tolerated for any reason. Not anymore.

To suggest that Alderaan was destroyed because of one person is preposterous. The planet as a whole was never shy about espousing their ideals, they just assumed as long as they left the violence to the people they bought weapons for, they'd be spared from violence in turn. They were wrong.

No the planet was destroyed to show what the Empire could do nothing more, nothing less. What the did at best would be the equivalent of using a nuke against a guerrilla group a level of overkill so absurd no one sane would consider it. Made even worse by the fact that Alderaan was an Imperial world so the Imperial military was supposed to defend it.

From Wookipedia:

Immediately after the formation of the Galactic Empire, Alderaan was wracked by anti-Imperial protests, mainly from alien refugees who were now forced to pay an exorbitant tax to return home. Alderaan eventually became a safe haven for rebellious elements who wished to fight the growing oppression of the Empire, which helped bring on the planet's very downfall.

Don't act like Alderaan was picked out of a hat. Alderaan was made an example, sure, but it was hardly chosen at random.

Guerrilla actions require the support of the populace. By making it clear that they were willing to wipe out any populace that supported widespread Rebel activity, the Empire hoped to quell that sort of behavior. And it would have likely worked had the Death Star not been blown up.

To use an example, imagine that you're in a class, and someone throws something at the teacher while her back is turned. When she demands to know who threw something, you know what she does? She hands out detentions to the whole class until someone breaks and spills who did it. Same principle at work: punish not only the instigators, but the people who are accessories to the instigators.

United Airlines Flight 93 is an excellent example why it fails if people have the reasonable belief that the people holding them hostage are going to kill them no matter what.

I'm kind of amazed that you brought that up, given that the other three planes in the exact same circumstances made it to their destinations, despite their passengers being in the exact same situation.

You missed the point. He argued that the other three planes did nothing because they werent aware it was a suicide mission anyway. That they WOULD die if they can d nothing.

What prevents a group of people from overwhelming a lone armed opponent is the fear of dying. Certainty of death sort of removes that control over the hostages.

Had the other three planes passengers knew they would die, they would most likely also have taken arms.

United Airlines Flight 93 is an excellent example why it fails if people have the reasonable belief that the people holding them hostage are going to kill them no matter what.

I'm kind of amazed that you brought that up, given that the other three planes in the exact same circumstances made it to their destinations, despite their passengers being in the exact same situation.

You missed the point. He argued that the other three planes did nothing because they werent aware it was a suicide mission anyway. That they WOULD die if they can d nothing.

What prevents a group of people from overwhelming a lone armed opponent is the fear of dying. Certainty of death sort of removes that control over the hostages.

Had the other three planes passengers knew they would die, they would most likely also have taken arms.

It's still a bad example. As anyone post Aldeeran will know that they don't have to die so long as they support the Empire. That hostage situation was a Do or Die moment. The same isn't true with the Death Star. People don't have to die, so long as they don't harbor the rebellion. Showing you are loyal can get your world spared.

United Airlines Flight 93 is an excellent example why it fails if people have the reasonable belief that the people holding them hostage are going to kill them no matter what.

I'm kind of amazed that you brought that up, given that the other three planes in the exact same circumstances made it to their destinations, despite their passengers being in the exact same situation.

You missed the point. He argued that the other three planes did nothing because they werent aware it was a suicide mission anyway. That they WOULD die if they can d nothing.

What prevents a group of people from overwhelming a lone armed opponent is the fear of dying. Certainty of death sort of removes that control over the hostages.

Had the other three planes passengers knew they would die, they would most likely also have taken arms.

It's still a bad example. As anyone post Aldeeran will know that they don't have to die so long as they support the Empire. That hostage situation was a Do or Die moment. The same isn't true with the Death Star. People don't have to die, so long as they don't harbor the rebellion. Showing you are loyal can get your world spared.

I kind of get that. But we know next to nothing about Alderaan's activity, and the degree to which it was known across the galaxy's population.

I mean.. Still.just looks like a big **** move on Tarkin's part. Not a.decisive military action. Its like nuking France or Boston because they are diplomatically opposing you. Everyone will be in terror, sure. But they will eventually start to accept that fear as a normal part of life.

If anything, resistance will become more formless. Terrorism will start to increase, since it.offers no clear target.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that the importance of the battle of Yavin wasn't so much the loss of the Death Star as showing people that the Empire could be beaten. That caused a massive rallying to the rebellion wheras in this scenario the rebellion is starting from basically scratch even if the effect of the Death Star is null.

I kind of get that. But we know next to nothing about Alderaan's activity, and the degree to which it was known across the galaxy's population.

Actually Galth has already posted that information. Sure it's Legends now but the topic has been explored and so we know enough to know that it was rebellious and known as much.

I mean.. Still.just looks like a big **** move on Tarkin's part. Not a.decisive military action. Its like nuking France or Boston because they are diplomatically opposing you.

Based on what we know this isn't the case. It would be more accurate to say nuking France or Boston not only because they diplomatically opposed you but also because they aided and facilitated rebellion against you.

Everyone will be in terror, sure. But they will eventually start to accept that fear as a normal part of life.

Even if living in fear is normal you're still living in fear though. Which is kinda the point they were going for.

If anything, resistance will become more formless. Terrorism will start to increase, since it.offers no clear target.

Which then makes recruitment for the Rebellion difficult right? If you start to become actual terrorist then aren't they proving the Empire's harsh tactics correct?

Here is the problems.

1: The Empire didn't demand Alderaan surrender and threaten to destroy them if they refused the Death Star just dropped in and opened fire. Another way that the Destruction of Alderaan was different then the nuking of Japan. Though technically Tarkin did offer terms to Leia to prevent the attack he just launched the attack anyway as soon as he thought she had fulfilled her end of those terms. Which proves that surrender will accomplish nothing because the Empire has proven itself willing to destroy worlds even if it believes the world has done what the Empire wishes. Any government which launches such an attack with no demand to surrender, or which launches the attack when it believes that the terms to prevent the attack being carried out has proven itself insane, especially if they launch it against their own territory.

2: The Empire can't prove that Alderaan was supporting the rebels because any physical proof was destroyed by the Death Star and there is no way to verify any electronic proof with the planet gone. Again they cn't use Leia as proof because that would be admitting that they lied about her being dead, and if they lied about that what is to stop their story about her being a rebel a lie?

1: The Empire didn't demand Alderaan surrender and threaten to destroy them if they refused the Death Star just dropped in and opened fire. Another way that the Destruction of Alderaan was different then the nuking of Japan. Though technically Tarkin did offer terms to Leia to prevent the attack he just launched the attack anyway as soon as he thought she had fulfilled her end of those terms. Which proves that surrender will accomplish nothing because the Empire has proven itself willing to destroy worlds even if it believes the world has done what the Empire wishes. Any government which launches such an attack with no demand to surrender, or which launches the attack when it believes that the terms to prevent the attack being carried out has proven itself insane, especially if they launch it against their own territory.

The only people who know the Empire didn't offer terms of surrender are Tarkin and Vader. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to tell the rest of the galaxy what really happened.

2: The Empire can't prove that Alderaan was supporting the rebels because any physical proof was destroyed by the Death Star and there is no way to verify any electronic proof with the planet gone. Again they cn't use Leia as proof because that would be admitting that they lied about her being dead, and if they lied about that what is to stop their story about her being a rebel a lie?

If other people knew enough to know that they could find assistance from the people of Alderaan, which seems to be the case since Galth was posted info from the Wookiepedia, then it stands to reason that the Empire doesn't have to do all that much work to make their case for why it had to go. People in the galaxy knew that Alderaan was a hot bed of anti Empire resistance. Based on what we know from the Legends material it seems to be the case that the Empire actually doesn't have to do all that much work to show they had justification. Or in the very least all that much work to show that if you harbor anti Empire feelings you may be the next target.

The single gun man theory only works as long as people believe the gunman won't kill them.

Once they have no expectation to survive the fear of dying no longer works as a threat and everyone jumps the gunman especially when the gunman is going to not only kill them, but keep on killing after them.

That's my point, though. The Empire isn't setting out to kill everyone in the galaxy. The message is, "toe the line, or you end up like this."

It's like a lone gunman taking out one person who charges him, just to show he means business and won't hesitate to kill anyone else.

Of course it's not a perfect analogy, as the Death Star is hardly the Empire's only weapon But again, the Tarkin isn't just going on a murder spree, randomly destroying a bunch of planets. He tested the weapon on Alderaan, then set out to destroy the Rebellion. He's not going on a murder-spree, he is trying to instill fear. That was his stated intent way back at the beginning of the film.*

It's one thing to say, "Yeah, we can totally blow up a planet. So you best behave."

It's another thing to do it, and then say, "Yeah, we can blow up a planet. Anyone who wants to be next, please continue to aid the Rebellion."

*I mean, he's probably more than a little deranged, but he's portrayed as shrewd, brutal, and efficient in all canon sources. He's also extremely opinionated and headstrong...and that got him killed.

Every time the Empire blows up a planet, including the first time, it creates a group of people with nothing to lose by dying to harm it. Sure the public might not like them for doing it but will that matter to them if they suicide attack the Imperial palace?

Every time the Empire blows up a planet, including the first time, it creates a group of people with nothing to lose by dying to harm it. Sure the public might not like them for doing it but will that matter to them if they suicide attack the Imperial palace?

So perhaps, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Yes?

Bingo.

Every time the Empire blows up a planet, including the first time, it creates a group of people with nothing to lose by dying to harm it. Sure the public might not like them for doing it but will that matter to them if they suicide attack the Imperial palace?

Yes but can this group of people convince others that it's worth the risk? If no one listens to the Alderaan survivors and are too afraid to act for fear of being the next target then does it really matter if the Empire created a group of people with nothing to lose? If they suicide attack the Imperial palace aren't they just saving the Empire time and resources for hunting them down?

Except for the part where they take Palpatine and who knows how many high ranking Imperials down with them and both Aftermath and Legends make it clear that with Palpatine dead all hell breaks loose in the Empire.

Except for the part where they take Palpatine and who knows how many high ranking Imperials down with them and both Aftermath and Legends make it clear that with Palpatine dead all hell breaks loose in the Empire.

Yeah I don't see that happening. The movies kinda make it clear that Palpatine does just fine on his own. Not destroying the Death Star doesn't suddenly make Palpatine an easier target to kill. It's a huge leap of logic to go from nothing to lose to ...... magically being able to kill Palpatine.

Spacecraft n a suicide run at full speed verus Imperial palace I'm putting my money on the ship winning. And with Palpatine's arrogance post ROTS he'll never see it coming because he believes he is invincible

Spacecraft n a suicide run at full speed verus Imperial palace I'm putting my money on the ship winning. And with Palpatine's arrogance post ROTS he'll never see it coming because he believes he is invincible

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

Spacecraft n a suicide run at full speed verus Imperial palace I'm putting my money on the ship winning. And with Palpatine's arrogance post ROTS he'll never see it coming because he believes he is invincible

You've yet to provide any real logic that makes this believable. If it were really that simple the Emperor wouldn't have survived till RotJ. If such a plan could have worked I'm sure it would have been tried. Having nothing to lose doesn't suddenly make Palpatine easier to kill.

No Palpatine's arrogance makes him easier to kill. Watch the movies it is pretty clear that once the jedi fell he lost all self restraint because he was convinced no one could harm him.

Now then billions died when Alderaan was destroyed. That means even if one percent of the planet's population were off world you have tens of millions of furious people to deal with. If they have hope the Alliance can stop Palpatine or believe Tarkin was a rogue they have reason to show restraint but in the TC's scenario they have no reason to hold back.