Forum:Do you feel the justification for the SPARTAN-II program to be adequate?

Are people aware that the S-IIs were created to put down rebels and not the Covenant? 'Cause to me, the creation of this project alone seems to be reason enough to take up arms against the UNSC or at least ask some questions about the nature of an organization willing to go to these kind of lengths to maintain their own superiority. Regardless of the crimes of the URF, I could not support a government that practices 'forcible induction.' --Dragonc laws (talk ) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, I would normally say that what ONI did in creating the Spartans (I-III) was utterly depicable and inexcusable. However, I must state that, hindsight being 20/20, the Spartan programs payed exceedingly large dividends, and thus, while remaining impermissible, are justified. You're right Dragonclaws,the Spartans were NOT originally made to combat the Covenant, but to quell a rebellion...and that, in my opinion, is utterly disgusting. The Spartan II's are another cas entirely, and I would have to say 1: their creation was at least more justified than the Spartan I's and II's and 2: the way they went about making them (as "disposable") was an inexcusable drain on resources. there you go. Neither justified nor fully wrong LPHdarkhunter 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise a point I have questioned myself. Personally, while I know it is unethical, I feel it was justified. Sure, when you get right down to it, it is to keep the UNSC as top dog, but that is to be expected. Governments, especially militaristic governments will have programs like these that are behind closed doors. They will do things that are unethical, cruel, likely inhumane, but ultimately necessary. Corners have to be cut and rules must be broken in order to achieve peace and safety. While recruiting children is a crime, you have to get your hands dirty to clean up a mess. Why do you think the higher-ups at ONI were annoyed with the reveal of the SPARTAN-II program? An unethical, experimental, and damaging program revealed to the public. It's comparable to Operations Treadstone and Black Briar from the Bourne movies. They were made to take out threats against the U.S., using unethical, experimental, training programs and tactics. The UNSC wanted to avoid a costly war by taking out the source. The SPARTAN-III program is, I feel, far more unethical. Sure, the children were essentially given a choice, but they were signing their death warrants. They were all considered expendable from the beginning. But again, sacrifices for the good. John's mindset answers this best. He never considers what is good for the UNSC, but what is good for saving lives. Military and civilian logic are worlds apart, priorities are different, and the goals are never the same. If you know you can save more lives by breaking ethics and destroying a few lives, would you? The UNSC and ONI had no problem answering that question. XRoadToDawnX 06:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Dragonclaws on this one.

After the Rainforrest Wars, the UNSC was left the dominant super-power, despite the lack of any persisting requirement for a large military. For centuries, they suppressed peaceful attempts to disband them in favor of a more partisan government, and they held almost dictatorial rule of the outer colonies through the Colonial Administration Authority. Predictably, when non-violent attempts at reform were met with failure, the colonial denizens resorted to open rebellion. When the secessionists at Fair Isle won their hard-earned independence and were rewarded with a spiteful nuking by the UNSC navy from high orbit, the rest of the insurrectionists realized that winning in a fair fight against the UNSC was impossible, and resorted to "dirty" tactics. At this, they lost the moral high-ground, but, given the circumstances, they really can't be blamed. The UNSC, however, can, having instigated the rebellion in the first place, and having forced this escalation to begin with.

The Spartan-II program was blatantly unethical, and ONI and the UNSC really had no real excuse, having brought the rebellion around them on their own heads. Had they never come to being, they would have made little impact on the Reclaimer War (their value was really more for propaganda, really--a team of ODSTs was cheaper to equip and generally more combat effective, all things considered). John himself only really saved the universe because he was in the right place at the wrong time, not necessarily because he was a Spartan--his intrinsic characteristic of luck likely would have dictated his being humanity's savior even if he was just an average marine. Hell, in a lot of ways, the UNSC is the real villain of Halo; even the Covenant as a whole had the excuse of being lied to, the Prophets trying to avert pandemonium, and the flood simply doing what nature intended for them to do. The UNSC acted solely to preserve itself. Chew on that for awhile, [Captain "Nice" Hardrive] 10:40, 5 November 2008
 * It acted to preserve the peace. they went a little over the top but the rewords were more than worth it.Maiar 07:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Chew on THAT. Gunnery-seargent Maiar 07:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SPARTAN-I: Not enough known for proper judgement
 * SPARTAN-II: Conscripted/Kidnapped children most of whom died. but anyone in the period who complained would have to be an unapreciative shitmunch as it was SPARTAN-II who basicly one the war single-handed.
 * SPARTAN-III: Volenetary participation by people who had nothing to live for but revenge (young orphans) and the revenge was gotten in spades. the "expendibility" was a bit unethical but under the curcumstances...they probobly would have died anyway, this was a chance to take a few more with them.


 * "unapreciative shitmunch"? WTH? Civil rights being violated is a serious subject. What happened was dehumanizing, reducing unwilling people to the level of tools. To ignore this because of the military success strikes me as bizarrely apathetic. It is a very reasonable thing to be concerned about. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)