TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Should Superheroes Intervene in Real-world Conflicts?

Go To

comicwriter Since: Sep, 2011
#26: Jun 28th 2013 at 12:43:46 PM

You know I'm reminded of the Ultramarines Grant Morrison created. They had a thoroughly diverse and international membership with people from the U.K., Japan, South Africa, France, and a bunch of other places and lived in a floating city that was technically neutral territory.

DC never did anything with them, but part of their whole theme was that they were heroes who would attack and depose anyone who was unjustly abusing their authority or committing war crimes. It'd be interesting if anyone ever brushed them off and played with that concept.

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#27: Jun 28th 2013 at 12:51:22 PM

I kind of think it stretches suspension of disbelief that superheoes haven't resulted in an alternate history. Though it's been demonstrated that this isn't always a good thing. In Watchmen Nixon uses superheroes to win the Vietnam War... so he can become popular enough to declare himself President for Life. In Justice League the world agrees to let Superman disarm all nuclear weapons... because the guy in charge of the disarmament program is actually The Dragon for an invading fleet of aliens.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#28: Jun 28th 2013 at 12:56:57 PM

[up][up][up]That kind of defeats the argument of superhero universe, though.

The entire reason superheroes exist is because they have a moral code which is, by-and-large, superior to ours (aside from the occasional failing here and there). That's the entire reason they exist. If you stop believing in that part of the mythos, they stop being essentially superheroes.

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#29: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:12:21 PM

I'm not sure how. Even superheroes have to deal with unintended consequences. Having some form of oversight just ensures that the consequences fall on the right people. For example, if the League attempts to aid freedom fighters in deposing a corrupt government, that government is going to send troops after the League and their base, not, say, Metropolis or New York.

If a superhero enlists in the army, they are given some form of oversight (no matter how loose that oversight may be — Spider-Man is probably much more useful as an independant agent than basic infantry for instance) that assures that attacks against that superhero are more likely to be directed towards the armed forces, not civilian centers, because they're acting as members of the armed forces.

edited 28th Jun '13 1:13:47 PM by CorrTerek

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#30: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:20:16 PM

No, it won't work that way, especially not in the current generation of warfare.

Having oversight or fancy government clearance isn't going to stop opposing governments from attacking civilians. The point of attacking civilians is to instill disillusionment, cripple their economy, and hurt those in charge the best way they know how.

Feudal governments tried to create a system where lords and knights would be attacked instead of peasantry, but they still had to protect them from bandits and barbaric tribes. That's even harder to do now with society so dependent upon industry. Under your scenario, if Tyrantistan has a problem with the US, and Superdude works for the US, there is no reason at all they should not attack civilian population centers, even if it's just For the Evulz.

Oversight wouldn't change that one bit.

edited 28th Jun '13 1:20:33 PM by KingZeal

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#31: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:27:31 PM

I'm not really following your argument. You're saying that if two countries went to war, and one of them had a person of mass destruction out on the front lines, the opposing side would attack...elsewhere?

And wouldn't the superheroes that didn't enlist be there to stop attacks on civilian centers? That's kind of their thing, isn't it?

edited 28th Jun '13 1:29:06 PM by CorrTerek

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#32: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:33:16 PM

I'm not really following your argument. You're saying that if two countries went to war, and one of them had a person of mass destruction out on the front lines, the opposing side would attack...elsewhere?

Yes. That's the entire point of nonconventional warfare (aka guerilla warfare). A perfect example would be the Iraq War, where Saddam's regime toppled fairly quickly, but the bulk of the fighting was done by insurgents who had no chain of command, no capitol, and no clear "win condition" for defeating.

And wouldn't the superheroes that didn't enlist be there to stop attacks on civilian centers? That's kind of their thing, isn't it?

But they couldn't be everywhere. At least, not under the current status quo within most superhero comics. It's one of the reasons I say Reed Richards Is Useless is the single-most destructive trope in the genre.

It would be different if Superman had, say, a kryptonian device that teleported all humans in a populated area into the Phantom Zone until danger had passed.

edited 28th Jun '13 1:41:08 PM by KingZeal

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#33: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:40:22 PM

But that still makes no sense. If artillery is bombing your position you don't attack the reserves forty-five miles away. And a guy who can read minds or use x-ray vision is going to be cramping your style a lot more than an artillery strike. You can't even guarantee he'll leave to protect the population centers, because he's got his own chain of command due to, y'know, being in the military.

And why not just assume that measures are in place to protect civilians? It doesn't matter how useless Reed Richards is normally because this is obviously not a normal situation. It's not comic book status quo. This is Alternate Universe Reed Richards Is Awesome.

edited 28th Jun '13 1:40:34 PM by CorrTerek

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#34: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:47:55 PM

I'm not sure what your argument is, then. You stated that oversight would help consequences fall upon "the right people" (I suppose you mean superheroes, or at least military officials) rather than civilians. But if the civilians aren't in danger in the first place, what's the point?

However, assuming the civilians ARE in danger, my point is that oversight would not change that. Belligerents attack the most vulnerable part of a nation, and when you have a superpowerful nation like the US, the most vulnerable part is always going to be our population.

Your original statement was making the supposition that this foreign nation had the ability to attack civilian populations and pose a real threat. If that's the case, superheroes being card-carrying members of a military or peace-keeping force isn't going to make civilians less of a target.

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#35: Jun 28th 2013 at 1:55:11 PM

As I said, I may not be explaining myself correctly.

One of the problems with superheroes simply going out and deposing dictators is the risk of causing international incidents. I suggested that the problem be solved by A) making the superheroes a political entity unto themselves, or B) folding those superheroes into the military of the country they live in.

Ideally, a neutral League's actions would not cause Country B to declare war on Country A, since the League is an independent entity. Country B would declare war on the League instead. If Switzerland attacks Poland, Poland does not declare war on Brazil.

By the same token, if the superheros are part of a military action deployed by Country A into Country B, one would assume international incidents have already taken place and, if they were initiated by superheroes, were initiated with the full support and backing of Country A's government.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#36: Jun 28th 2013 at 2:03:57 PM

Actually, that isn't all that unheard of at all. The first two World Wars are full of examples of countries sucker-punching other countries that were officially uninvolved, but whose interests were unquestionably sympathetic with their allies. Why in hell would a military attack Superland when they don't even have the military might to protect their own country from them?

If nothing else, attacking population centers would let them ultimatum that country to "persuade" the superheroes to back off. Like I said, what have they got to lose?

edited 28th Jun '13 2:05:43 PM by KingZeal

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#37: Jun 28th 2013 at 2:13:52 PM

Another problem with an entirely neutral League of superheroes is that it's a lot easier to work out on paper than in practice. True Neutrality is nigh-impossible to achieve. Everybody comes from somewhere. How can you be sure that the people in the League will have absolutely no national loyalties and will not play favorites with anyone? Who decides who gets to join this neutral League? A neutral League consisting of twenty super-powered Americans and one Brit is pretty far from being legitimately neutral.

Who do they answer to? Which government oversees the League and ensures that they remain neutral? One government having that oversight defeats neutrality by definition, and trying to put all of them in charge simultaneously will weigh down their neutrality with so much bureaucracy that the League won't actually be able to do anything. There's a reason the United Nations doesn't actually have a standing military, and is only somewhat successful at preventing conflicts between its participating nations.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#38: Jun 28th 2013 at 2:38:04 PM

[up][up]Yeah, I'm aware of how the first two world wars worked out. I was assuming two unrelated countries in my example.

As far as what they have to lose? Well, let's see, how did repeated puppy-kicking work out for Germany? Or Japan?

And in the case of a League, whose population centers does Country B attack? Sure, the League might have American superheroes, so they attack the US. Except oops, the League also has British and Ukrainian and Brazilian superheroes, and by attacking the US Country B has told those governments that they'll be coming after them, too.

[up]Well, that's the problem. You can't have superheroes intervene in real-world conflicts without opening up a huge can of worms, and any attempt to make that work opens up yet another can of worms. I'm just tossing out hypothetical ideas that I'm not really invested in figuring out.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#39: Jun 28th 2013 at 2:44:35 PM

[up] You can if you just accept the fact that superheroes are going to be biased. American supers are more likely to defend America than to defend Syria or Thailand. This is easily rectified by putting supers on both sides of the conflict. Just because Superman wants to fight in, I don't know, let's say some big Russian/Chinese War that happens in twenty years, doesn't mean his involvement in the conflict has to be, "And then Superman singlehandedly defeated the entire Chinese Army and decapitated their leader. All in a day's work for Superman!"

It's okay to have loyalties. That doesn't make them bad heroes. If Superman stopped for a moment to rape some Chinese girls, that would make him a bad hero. If Superman looked the other way and let his allies rape Chinese girls, that would make him a bad hero. But having an opinion and taking the side he thinks is right does not, in and of itself, make him a bad hero.

edited 28th Jun '13 2:45:33 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#40: Jun 28th 2013 at 2:46:08 PM

Isn't that kind of what we already have, though? I thought the thread was more about a concerted effort to change things.

But yeah, I was assuming that any armed conflict would have superpowered individuals on both sides. I wouldn't think they'd always come into direct contact with each other, though.

And no, I don't think taking sides makes a hero a bad hero. Just that it makes the situation incredibly more complicated for all involved, and comics generally don't want to touch that.

edited 28th Jun '13 2:47:11 PM by CorrTerek

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#41: Jun 28th 2013 at 2:56:49 PM

On my phone so unable to make long replies, but:

As far as what they have to lose? Well, let's see, how did repeated puppy- kicking work out for Germany? Or Japan

But to quote Old Snake, "War...has changed."

To start with, though, that very argument seems to defeat itself. If said country would lose big by kicking puppies, why would it matter how much oversight superheroes have? In that case, it wouldn't matter if Superman busted up the country for kicking puppies because of his own morality or because the govt told him to.

But that aside, as I mentioned before, that's not how wars are fought anymore precisely due to direct open conflict being problematic, so Germany and Japan don't apply here. As I said, insurgency is the flavor of the generation.

CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#42: Jun 28th 2013 at 3:24:24 PM

To start with, though, that very argument seems to defeat itself. If said country would lose big by kicking puppies, why would it matter how much oversight superheroes have? In that case, it wouldn't matter if Superman busted up the country for kicking puppies because of his own morality or because the govt told him to.

Of course it does. The "good guys" have authorized airstrikes and other attacks on civilian areas because the enemy has stationed military assets there in the past — factories and such. If your enemy has a major asset that makes his home in a civilian center, you can theoretically attack that center and still justify it to the world at large.

You can't, however, attempt to slaughter entire cities with no military targets just to blackmail a given hero into staying out of the fight. That's probably very difficult to justify.

Also, out of curiosity, are you saying that if France and Italy went to war today there would be no conventional troop movement? That it would take place entirely through guerilla tactics and/or insurgency?

edited 28th Jun '13 3:25:03 PM by CorrTerek

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#43: Jun 28th 2013 at 3:36:41 PM

I have no idea how a full scale war between two major powers would go in this era. But we'd all be shittjng ourselves over whether or not it would go nuclear. Which ties into what I'm about to say next.

When it's being argued whether or not super beings should interfere with war, it is almost always assumed that only one side has the super, that one side has a clearly superior one, or that in the event of a super battle, one neutralizes the other. Otherwise, there's no point. We'd be in the same situation we are now except il with persons of mass destruction instead of bombs. No one would want to have two Superman-class beings duke it out for the exact reason that it happened in Man of Steel.

So if one side has no superhuman, or one defeats the other, you're left with a situation where having a single Capitol and command center is suicide. Thus, your only option is insurgency

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#44: Jun 28th 2013 at 3:38:36 PM

Superheroes unilaterally getting involved would generally be a bad idea. These are complex and sensitive issues. Let's say a superhero goes into a country, deposes the dictator, and lets the rebels take over with the promise they'll institute democratic reforms. Those rebels are likely to renege on that promise. They may end up becoming worse than the dictator. So the superhero goes back and does it again. And again. And again, in a never-ending cycle of revolutions.

To use an excellent example, from John Byrne's run on Fantastic Four: A while earlier, the FF had helped Latveria's Crown Prince in overthrowing Doom. Freedom! Democracy! Hurrah! So then Byrne takes over. And he has Doom capture the FF, and take them to Latveria with a demand that they help him retake the country. And we see Latveria is a mess. The economy's in the shitter. The streets are in terrible condition. Martial law has been implemented. The Latverian people, when they see Doom, outright beg him to take back over. Latveria was demonstrably worse off after the uprising than under Doom. Latveria would've been better off if the FF had never gotten involved with the revolution in the first place.

Further, that superhero almost certainly comes from somewhere. His involvement will be seen, whether rightly or wrongly, as representing the country he comes from. If he's from the US, then it will be seen as the US getting unilaterally involved. This is going to cause the US some problems on the international stage.

The only viable solution is for the UN to put together its own team of superheroes to get involved in conflicts the UN Security Council decides involvement is needed in. And we've seen how often the UN intervenes in conflicts.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
CorrTerek The Permanently Confused from The Bland Line Since: Jul, 2009
The Permanently Confused
#45: Jun 28th 2013 at 3:44:35 PM

[up][up]Yeah. And even if one side did have the better supers, it would kickstart a new type of arms race.

edited 28th Jun '13 3:44:47 PM by CorrTerek

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#46: Jun 28th 2013 at 4:02:04 PM

Or they could just take over the country and make it a protectorate, similar to what the uS did to Japan. There ARE ways of improving a formerly-oppressive nation.

[up]. That would happen regardless.

edited 28th Jun '13 4:05:08 PM by KingZeal

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#47: Jun 28th 2013 at 4:27:41 PM

[up][up][up] I haven't read it, but honestly that just sounds like Doom morality-wank to me, especially since it wasn't the same writer.

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#48: Jun 28th 2013 at 5:19:03 PM

[up][up] What, the superhero's going to turn it into a protectorate? How are they going to do that?

[up] I think it was Byrne's way of saying that geopolitics is more complicated than comics had a tendency to show. In comics, there's good countries and bad countries. There's perfect, peaceful, prosperous democracies, and there's dark, violent, oppressive, destitute dictatorships. I think Byrne wanted to turn that on its head, and show that things aren't black and white. That, sometimes, for some people, in some countries, the security of a dictatorship is preferable to the messiness of a badly-run democracy.

The prince who took over as interim leader in advance of free elections had no fucking clue how to run a country. He ran the economy into the ground, which led to civil unrest. He started implementing tyrannical measures in order to keep the peace, and the stresses of it all drove him further and further towards cruelty and oppression. This is not really an unrealistic outcome. We've seen it happen, time and again. Back in the Cold War, that was practically standard operating procedure for countries the US and USSR got involved in.

Byrne's version of events was far, far more realistic than the older story was. The older story suggested that freedom and democracy automatically bestow peace and prosperity, which is an insanely naive view of the world. It's a dangerously stupid philosophy to have. Byrne was showing how stupid and naive a view it was.

He wasn't necessarily saying Doom was a good guy. He was saying Doom was what Latveria needed at that period of time.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#49: Jun 28th 2013 at 7:39:19 PM

It depends on the hero, really. Their abiliilties, their resources, their charisma and alliegiances.

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#50: Jun 28th 2013 at 7:47:04 PM

It's still one guy. Or a small number of people. It is impossible for them to have the resources of a nation, which is what's required in order to raise up another country. It takes huge amounts of money, material and people to do what the US did with Japan. An individual or group of individuals, no matter how powerful and well-intentioned, cannot accomplish that.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.

Total posts: 79
Top