Why do you love Judge Dredd?

[JamesC]

Wasn't Dredd's nuking of the Sovs the only way to win the war?
They'd tried bolstering their forces with allies, all of whom refused to side with them and after that they were literally hours away from losing everything. Dredd had one chance to launch everything they had at the Sovs, the only way to ensure that some nukes would get through, and therefore East Meg one was destroyed.
Dredd's aim wasn't to destroy East Meg One but to liberate Mega City One. It just so happened that under the circumstances the only way to win was to obliterate the opposition when the chance presented itself. (That's how I remember it anyway - been a while since I read it).

Now of course Mega City One is paying the price.


'A strange game. The only way to win is not to play.'

[SuperSurfer]

Some historians point to the fact Japan was days away from full surrender anyway, and that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made not as a decision to end the war, but one to 'justifiably' test out the lovely new toys the US had, before the war ended.

There is also the theory (which some don't subscribe to) that the US was trying to finish off the war in the Pacific to prevent the Soviets joining in and getting a foothold in that part of the world – and also to impress upon the Soviets the might of the US.

Anyway, regarding Dredd. Though he's a stoney-faced totally straight down the line emotionally challenged (or suppressed) humourless git – he still comes across at times as hilarious with his terse, sarcastic, dry one-liners. A man of not many words, but when he delivers them they are laser sharp. I always wait with baited breath to hear Dredd's last word on matters. Just as with some people in real life I am left wondering – does he mean to be funny?

Not that anyone with much brains would dare to join in on the joke with him.

[pictsy]

It's awesome to see how this thread has taken legs.  There have been some great accounts of peoples appreciation for the strip and the character.  I never really went into depth about my thoughts of Dredd himself in my original post.

I am definitely part of the 'anti-hero' crowd on this one.  Dredd is mean and horrible.  He is uptight, rigidly following the letter of the law.  He is dispassionate for the most part.  He is a force for perceived order.  He is reliable, incorruptible and true to himself.  He has developed and aged.  He has shown depth, willingness to grow and change (to a degree).  I could go on and on, it's sufficed to say it is a multi faceted character.  I certainly would never want to come across the man.  Even if he was trying to help me there is a chance that I'll still wind up in a cube for some minor infringement of the law.  He is, however, interesting and compelling.  He is a character that can play the part of antagonist or protagonist marvellously.  It's never clear cut, black and white, good guys and bad guys with Dredd or the strip.  He makes a very compelling character.

Another thing comes to mind about the strip.  The fact that Dredd ages in real time means that the character is truly mortal.  It's creeping up on him as the years pass by.  There is always a thought in my mind "will Wagner kill off Dredd and if so, what will happen to the strip?"  I don't think John's writing dissuades me from thinking that, either.  That gives the story a slightly undercurrent of tension. 

[JOE SOAP]

Wasn't Dredd's nuking of the Sovs the only way to win the war?

From his stand point it was.

[TordelBack]

Now, you're perfectly entitled to disagree with his descision all the same, or think that he could/should have found another way, but the fact remains Dredd was ending the war, pure and simple.

How many of that 500 million population were combatants?  How much of EM-1 was a military installation?  Dredd took the easy way to end the war, with no thought for the innocent.  In the regular course of the strip, how many times has Dredd cautioned against easy actions that put innocents at risk?  A lot more often than he's said 'I am the Law' - it's practically his main character quirk.  What was actually likely to happen back in MC-1 in the immediate short term: defeat and conquest of the surviving meggers, not extermination:  Kazan could have destroyed the entire city at any time after the West Wall went down, but who needs to rule a graveyard?

There was no true judgement in his actions in the silo.  He mentally dehumanised a civilian population to permit a decisive strike, ignoring the plight of half a billion innocents in favour of the simplest possible military victory.  The Sovs may have been the aggressors, but ultimately Dredd was the monster, and now in facing an enemy with an identical mindset he has paid the price.

[JamesC]

The thing is, Dredd's prime objective is to protect Mega City One and it's citizens - bottom line.
If they're ruled by the Sovs, it stops being Mega City One. The Judges then have no power and are no longer able to protect the civilians in their charge. The simple fact is that from Dredd's mindset, the only way to prevent this situation was to launch the strike on East Meg One. Dredd will do whatever it takes to achieve his prime directive.

[TordelBack]

Dredd will do whatever it takes to achieve his prime directive.

Ergo, he's a monster.

Nuking EM1 showed a man blinded by nationalism to the point that he was unable to make a clear and proportional judgement as a human.  What makes this so much more interesting is that 30 years in Dredd is far more inclusive and nuanced in his judgement, and it's at that very point that his earlier lack of humanity is reflected back on him.  What else is Borisenko saying but '...my city is burnt to ash, and you're asking me for mercy?'. 

[TordelBack]

NM

[Dash Decent]

E

[TordelBack]

F U!

[Richard]

A better option might have been to hold the East Meggers to ransom under the threat of obliteration

How exactly? EM1 would just have blown the silo up before they launched, or activated their other-dimension force field thingy.

a man blinded by nationalism

Nationalism, or just the right not to be conquered by an aggressor?

I don't think you can equate Dredd with Borisenko. 1) The Sovs started it, 2) Dredd was fighting a war that was still being fought, not resurrecting one that ended 30 years ago, 3) Borisenko can't claim he was acting to defend anything.

[JOE SOAP]

1) The Sovs started it

Bob Booth got in there before them.

[Spikes]

My answer to the question posed by this thread is Mick McMahon.

[Richard]

Bob Booth got in there before them.

34 years earlier.

[JamesC]

Dredd will do whatever it takes to achieve his prime directive.

Ergo, he's a monster.

Nuking EM1 showed a man blinded by nationalism to the point that he was unable to make a clear and proportional judgement as a human.  What makes this so much more interesting is that 30 years in Dredd is far more inclusive and nuanced in his judgement, and it's at that very point that his earlier lack of humanity is reflected back on him.  What else is Borisenko saying but '...my city is burnt to ash, and you're asking me for mercy?'.

Yeah he may be a monster but I don't think he's the monster.
Remember, Kazan had already poisoned the population of MC1 with a mind altering toxin, resulting in millions of deaths, before the invasion had even begun!