CT What was the Death Star intented to do?

Did the Empire plan to make more Death Stars after the first one was constructed or were they sure they only needed one?

The dialogue speaks of the Death Star being the ultimate weapon and it would terrorise the systems into submission. Now if the Empire ever needed to expand would they actually start using the Death Star or was it only ever used as a symbol of fear. Are we looking at maybe destroying a dozen or so worlds before retiring the station to permanent orbit. The rebels would not stand a chance with a fully operational killing machine. I realise it must have taken enormous energy and time to build it, however considering how big the Galaxy is a successful Death Star could spur the creation of perhaps hundreds of Death Stars to rule the galaxy or am I being too naïve. It is just impractical for the Empire to build more than one Death Star and keep it operational not to mention to prevent the Empire from being too vast that the Moff & Grand Moffs would eventually all get a Death Star and the Empire would disintegrate so any opinions.

 

The idea was that the Death Star would destroy the Rebel base and thus ending their threat. It would then serve as a warning against rebelling against the Empire. The Regional Governors would control all the systems that formally made up the Senate. They would in turn answer to Palpatine. It is possible than another Death Star could be constructed if necessary, but not because of a threat destruction, but rather intimidation.

 

So they had no intention of using it other than once against the Rebels. It was not going to be a permanent feature of the Empires weapons of war.

 

Intimidation and Fear. Basically, “Do as you're told, or we'll sic this planet-destroying behemoth on your miserable little chunk of rock!”

 

I think the Death Star Conference made it abundantly clear: To replace the Imperial Senate and enforce the Emperor's will through the regional governors with the ultimate WMD as a threat to enforce any co-operation and obedience.

I do not concur with darth-sinister. To destroy the hidden Rebel base could have been accomplished with the Imperial Starfleet and a ground assault (think Hoth), I'd guess that the overall cost for such an operation would have been far less than constructing the Death Star.

And to demonstrate (a) the destructive power of the Death Star (it's not just a bluff) and (b) the willingness of the Empire to destroy disloyal planets at least one planet needed to be destroyed. And since Alderaan was suspected to secretly support the Alliance, I'd say it was on top of Tarkin's "list".

To try to coerce Princess Leia to reveal the location of the Rebels' hidden base was just an extra opportunity that came along with these considerations, IMHO.

Had the Rebels not destroyed the Death Star, I'd assume it would have been used as a mobile base for the Imperial Starfleet (enabling further expansion of the Empire) and an orbital weapon that would have constantly been used to also devastate areas on planets showing signs of resistance (without the necessity to destroy an entire planet).

 

The Death Star was meant to be the new seat of Galactic power, from which Emperor Palpatine would rule in a monarchy type structure rather than the puppet Senate he was using previously. Up to the Death Star's completion and the dissolution of the Imperial Senate, the Senate acted as middlemen, enforcing the orders of regional governors, who in turn, reported to Emperor Palpatine directly. Cutting out the middlemen meant more efficiency and less chance of orders being lost in translation. It becomes more of a King/Lordship/Peasant Feudal system. Palpatine is King, the Governors are Lords, and everybody else are peasants. In exchange for their complete obedience, the citizens of the Galaxy needn't fear obliteration from the Empire.

 

It serves the same purpose nuclear weapons do today: the ultimate deterrent... ''Obey or we wipe your city/planet out of existence.'' But unlike nukes, only one power was big enough and rich enough to make themselves a Death Star so it wouldn't have ended up in a Cold War but Imperial victory. I can't remember the exact lines but I seem to remember the Rebel leaders basically acknowledging that if the Death Star was NOT destroyed, they'd lost already. Even if they survived no planet will risk utter obliteration to help them, they'd be reduced to hopping between Hoth-level environments just to live.

 

So know one is of the opinion they were going to create another one.

 

Basically the tenet of The Tarkin Doctrine.

No-one knew how effective it would be, going in; eg. if the argumentative part of the galaxy would fall to its knees as soon as news got out that one world had gone kablooey.

I'm sure no-one in the Empire anticipated the Death Star being successfully taken out, at all, let alone within days of going operational. If the galaxy settled down, the DS might have taken on a more commercial role, clearing asteroid fields, or destroying things to help corporations get at the ore.

 

Bob the X-Winger

On the contrary I'd say there'd be more of them had the first prototype been successful. Ralph McQuarrie even provided a painting with multiple Death Stars over Coruscant ahead of the PT:

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images...00/death_star_concept_by_ralph_mcquarrie1.jpg

My pet theory, then, was that it was an official project to create new homes in outer space, possibly funded by rich investors which looked rather dumbfounded when their investment suddenly vanished into hyperspace...

 

An idea which the EU drew on, in more recent years.

Some concept art is just too cool not to canonise (at least for the Legendsverse)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Worldcraft

 

Wow really cool stuff about the Alliance of Free Planets. I've been looking at purchasing some Star Wars Novels. Novels that are in line with the original trilogy.

 

I'm not sure the Death Star would have worked as Tarkin intended. The Rebellion was, before the destruction of Alderaan, a loose alliance of rebellious groups that was secretly bankrolled by sympathizers spread all around the Galaxy and operated from secret bases in uninhabited moons and planetoids. Star systems may not have dared to openly rebel against the Empire if the Death Star had survived, but the Rebellion would have kept raising funds and doing a guerrilla style war, launching hit-and-run attacks against the Empire.

A big flaw in Tarkin's Doctrine is that it requires you to be the strongest side of the conflict by a wide margin. In short, it requires you to win first in order to be applied, it's purpose is to keep defeated people down, and nothing more. You can't terrorize into submission somebody who is stronger than you, and if you try you are just encouraging your enemy to ruthlessly wipe you out.

If Tarkin had been in charge of the Republican strategy during the Clone Wars, the Separatists would have won. Tarkin would have tried to make examples of any Separatist worlds he got hold of, and in doing that he would have increased the support to Dooku... basically, what happened when the Death Star was blown and Palpatine found that he had pissed everybody but didn't have his galactic stick anymore...

 

I think Palpatine's strength in the dark side was somehow increased by masses of people being murdered at once. When Alderaan was destroyed, Palpatine likely absorbed the life force of all the residents of Alderaan.

 

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

This is the belief of the freedom lovers of the Galaxy, and the working doctrine of the Rebels.

Tarkin's response is pointed, "Not after we demonstrate the capabilities of this station."

Seems to me this means The Death Star was intended to be so scary none would dare to stand in the Empire's way, thus sucking the oxygen out of the resistance movement.

 

I concur with ImpreciseStormtrooper

According to the earlier ANH prologue drafts, the Alliance needed another decisive victory to motivate 1,000 other star systems to join its cause.

Simply put, about 1,000 star systems were uncertain whether to join or not. Instead, the Galactic Empire introduced its new and ultimate WMD that definitely must have discouraged most or all of these candidates to join the Alliance.

Therefore the destruction of the Death Star

• removed the threat for these uncertain candidates
• constituted another major victory of the Alliance

and that was obviously enough for 1,026 star systems to decide they'd join.

IG Lancer

The original premise of ANH made it rather clear, that the military arm of the Alliance had its major base on Yavin IV with General Willard there being the "commander of the Rebel forces".
As such he was apparently among the few that got actually evacuated because we never see him later in the war room or at the medal ceremony.

 

He's never actually called "General" in the movie - always "Commander". Maybe he's only commander of the starfighters? Something like Luke "Commander Skywalker" in TESB?

 

Films are absolute canon which then also applies to the cast credits and ANH lists actor Eddie Byrne as "General Willard": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/fullcredits

Since the ANH screenplay also lists the character as "commander of the Rebel Forces" -

INT. MASSASSI - MAIN HANGAR DECK
The military speeder stops in a huge spaceship hangar, set
up in the interior of the crumbling temple. Willard, the
commander of the Rebel forces, rushes up to the group and
gives Leia a big hug. Every one is pleased to see her.

- it looks like an inevitable conclusion that General Willard then must be the commander-in-chief of the Rebel forces (just as General Taggi is obviously the "commander" of the Imperial Starfleet)

 

Nope.

Tagge is Tagge, not "Taggi".

http://www.starwars.com/databank/general-tagge

Credits don't count.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Cassio_Tagge/Legends

General Tagge was created by George Lucas for the 1977 film Star Wars, in which he was portrayed by Don Henderson. The character is credited erroneously as General Taggi in the film's end credits.




"Absolute canon" is irrelevant to Lucasfilm. "Film-only canon" isn't even something Lucas follows - he includes TCW. Hence the whole "newcanon" system.

 

I'll play along for a few seconds here.

Even if you feel that the cast credits are irrelevant, Willard wears the same rank badge as Dodonna who is known to hold the rank of "general". And the screenplay identifies Willard as "commander of the Rebel forces".

Everythink else claiming otherwise is pure conjecture influenced by West End Games and not compatible with George Lucas Canon methodology standards.

What's really new is that cast credits which are part of the film (absolute canon) supposedly don't count anymore. It's spelled "Taggi" for everyone who has ever seen the film (I'd dare to say the majority of people living on this planet) while "Tagge" only shows up in the screenplay and the novelization, which according to Lucas take a back seat when in contradiction to the film.

Obviously "Taggi" was the last word of George Lucas, if anybody claims he altered that, then let's please see some proof.

P.S. Did the Special Edition cast credits alter Taggi's spelling?

 

It's true that even the canon Wookieepedia page for him calls him a General as well.

Lucas is unimportant. What matters is Lucasfilm Licencing, when it comes to "official".

"George Lucas Canon" is a red herring in the first place.

Heck, even your favourite Curtis Saxton, one of the biggest "Only Lucas counts" advocates, goes with Tagge not "Taggi".

 

I vehemently disagree. George created the characters, places and events in the OT and as the creator he knows best how he wanted names to be spelled, what function certain characters were supposed to have etc. That's the ultimate "official", everything else is dangerously close to "I know it better than the creator" arrogance and hubris (but usually owed to insufficient, lackluster and/or inaccurate research, unfortunately).

While I applaud the methodology of people like Dr. Curtis Saxton or Dr. David West Reynolds (OT Visual Dictionary and Cross-Sections) I don't necessarily agree with all their findings. But I'd say that the two contributed more to Star Wars Universe credibility than many that came before and after them.

Regarding Curtis I don't agree with his Imperial rank badge proposal (I believe costume designer John Mollo had something les convoluted in mind, my corresponding article was not completely reproduced in WEG Imperial Sourcebook) and his theory that Death Star II had several equatorial rings which only looked as one from the distance (which he used to rationalize a much bigger Death Star II).

 

What article was that you wrote?

 

It was a four page and illustrated article for a fanzine, based on my research efforts trying to decipher John Mollo's rank system for ANH (which I eventually forwarded to west End Games). I ended up with a kind of "color wheel" consisting of 24 elements, i.e. 6 blue > 6 orange > 6 red bars. Once you pick segments of the color wheel you arrive at the variations for the Military and Guard Corps, the Engineering Corps and the Administrative Corps (e.g. Tarkin), at least that was my hypothesis, inspired by John Mollo's "Guard Corps" Designation for the ""Naval Fleet Troopers"".

 

The opening crawl of the shooting script says, "The EMPIRE fears that another defeat could bring a thousand more solar systems into the rebellion, and Imperial control over the galaxy would be lost forever."