"Offense" VS "Defense"

[Prodigal Moon]

Here's the scenario:

Alliance A declares war on Alliance B. Everyone is in agreement that Alliance A's war is a matter of offense/aggression.
In accordance with their treaties with Alliance B, Alliance B's MDoAP partners declare war on Alliance A.
Citing its MDoAP with Alliance A, Alliance C declares war on Alliance B's allies who counter-attacked.

***

I'm sure there's been a thread on this at some point, but if so, it's been a while, and people are still arguing about it in multiple DoW's. I want quantified data on the breakdown of public opinion. This is OOC, so I hope we can avoid trying to score political points about actual IC scenarios. It shouldn't matter who is involved, I just want to know how people are understanding this type of scenario. I'll save my take on it for a bit later.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Prodigal Moon

[Opaque]

I view it as defense.

[Viluin]

It has to be like this or no one would be able to gather enough offensive power to fight any war ever.

[Auctor]

I believe the official definition is whichever one makes me feel good about myself and makes it easiest for me to cast aspersions on others for their actions.

[King Xander the Only]

[quote name='Auctor' timestamp='1340753961' post='2997615']
I believe the official definition is whichever one makes me feel good about myself and makes it easiest for me to cast aspersions on others for their actions.
[/quote]
Basically this.

[jerdge]

IMO it's offensive, but of course we're talking from an OOC point of view. IC-ly everyone very rarely admits to being "on the offensive", just like in Real Life.

Now that I think of it, RL is much more hypocritical. I guess that CN is better?

[Ogaden]

You can e-lawyer your way out of virtually any situation using this excuse, but it rarely will convince anybody.

Any alliance with even a shred of honor and/or self respect would consider it defense though.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Ogaden

[Prodigal Moon]

Let me add another, somewhat rhetorical question into the mix: why is this still a point of ambiguity/contention, 6 years after this world formed?

[Derwood1]

It's called fun.

[johnathan buck]

I see it as a defensive.

Alliance A attacks Alliance B = offensive campaign

Alliance B's allies attacking Alliance A = counter attack/Defensive campaign

Alliance C being Alliance A's allie and thus attacking Alliance B's allies = Defensive campaign.

Now in saying that.

Say you have NPO for example since they stand out in my mind, they had allies on both sides of the war this time. In my opinion if I was in the NPO leadership, I would have voted to stay out of it due to conflicts of interest, since you could have possible Blue on Blue (OCC: Friendly fire).

That's probably who this thread was made about though.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1340755625' post='2997652']
Let me add another, somewhat rhetorical question into the mix: why is this still a point of ambiguity/contention, 6 years after this world formed?
[/quote]

You're looking at this the wrong way. You see they change their opinions to match the desired result, so if they don't want to defend alliance A, alliance B will claim alliance A was the aggressor and they are not required to defend them.

[berbers]

[quote name='johnathan buck' timestamp='1340755738' post='2997656']

Say you have NPO for example since they stand out in my mind, they had allies on both sides of the war this time. In my opinion if I was in the NPO leadership, I would have voted to stay out of it due to conflicts of interest, since you could have possible Blue on Blue (OCC: Friendly fire).

[/quote]

Neutrality is never a good idea, their vicious ideology creeps beyond the boundaries of their fenced-in Ghetto's (GPA/WTF). A true neutral victory only occurs when a non-neutral declares neutrality.

One must always be on guard against the neutral menace.

[trimm]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether you enter on an defensive or an offensive clause, since everyone decides to go to war with no concern for chaining, oA, or any other words in a treaty. War is basically totally arbitrary at this point.

[Mogar]

voted, it's irrelevant.

[Banksy]

Please state if A, B or C is my ally so I can decide thank you.

[White Chocolate]

Alliance C = Offense. I'm not placing a value judgment on that statement either.

As far as I see it, defense is the counter attacks the alliance attacked makes and their non-chained in allies who back them up after. That's as far as "defense" goes.

In writing treaties, I try to avoid the question if possible by not using "defense" or "offense" at all and just saying "military assistance." It's easy to do until getting to a MDoA.

[Isaac MatthewII]

By strict definition of treaty clauses, it is an aggressive action to declare war on a nation by extension of someone using a treaty in defense. On planet bob any DoW is an aggressive action.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII

[Iceknave]

It's a matter of from WHICH alliance's perspective are you looking through.

A and C have a treaty
B and D have a treaty
A --> B (A is aggressive, B is defensive)
D --> A
C --> D

D's Attack on A
Perspective A: A is defensive, D is aggressive (D is attacking A)
Perspective B: A is aggressive, D is defensive (treaty activation with D)
Perspective C: D is aggressive, A is defensive (D is attacking A)
Perspective D: A is aggressive, D is defensive (treaty activation with B)

C's Attack on D
Perspective A: C is defensive, D is aggressive (treaty activation with C)
Perspective B: C is aggressive, D is defensive (C is attacking D)
Perspective C: C is defensive, D is aggressive (treaty activation with A)
Perspective D: C is aggressive, D is defensive (C is attacking D)

Now at the OWF level, it depends which side is favored. If the OWF favors say side A, they will view things through A's perspective.

Therefore, option C (Both/neither/it's more nuanced than that (describe in post).) is correct. HOWEVER, option D (this e-lawyering is irrelevant; it's whatever the strongest parties decides it is) is also correct.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Iceknave

[Drai]

Technically I'd say it's defensive but I view it as offensive.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1340755625' post='2997652']Let me add another, somewhat rhetorical question into the mix: why is this still a point of ambiguity/contention, 6 years after this world formed?[/quote]
The ambiguity is just pretension.



[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1340757208' post='2997680']Neutrality is never a good idea, their vicious ideology creeps beyond the boundaries of their fenced-in Ghetto's (GPA/WTF). A true neutral victory only occurs when a non-neutral declares neutrality.

One must always be on guard against the neutral menace.[/quote]




[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340763423' post='2997727']Please state if A, B or C is my ally so I can decide thank you.[/quote]
^^^ Best answer of the thread.

[MrMuz]

None of the above. It's too easily interpreted as either.

If you want to make it clear, write a clause down specifically to address such a situation.

I'd put it as the following...
If it would decrease the chances of Alliance A [b]losing[/b] the war or getting white peace from a guaranteed defeat, it is a defensive move.
If it would increase the chances of Alliance A [b]winning or getting white peace[/b], it is an offensive move.

It's incredibly complicated because wars are always done as a coalition, the treaties are just there for dibs on who's in what coalition.

[Ostrogothi]

[quote]Alliance A declares war on Alliance B. Everyone is in agreement that Alliance A's war is a matter of offense/aggression. [/quote]

If everyone agrees that A's actions are offensive, that includes C too right?

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Viluin' timestamp='1340753789' post='2997605']
It has to be like this or no one would be able to gather enough offensive power to fight any war ever.
[/quote]
Disagree. Most people, when they DoW, they claim it's defense. For example, MK, NoR, LSF, IRON, MK, and CSN probably all claim that they're the defending side.


However, to the OP, any action from an aggressive action ultimately is aggressive, although the farther the chaining from the core war, the less important it is (because at that point, it's likely global and then you're just trying to help all your allies from getting beat down).

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1340809838' post='2998374']
If everyone agrees that A's actions are offensive, that includes C too right?
[/quote]

Everyone agrees that A's actions [b]on B[/b] are offensive. Question is whether B's MDoAP attacks on A put A on the defensive.

[Prodigal Moon]

Interesting to see how evenly split the vote is. Not that surprising considering how much disagreement shows up on boards.

I voted for both/neither/more nuanced. Because of the way most treaties are worded (poorly), it seems inevitable that Alliance A being counter-attacked would trigger the defensive clause of an MDoAP. If it says "an attack on one is an attack on both," I just don't see any way getting around that. However, it is also obvious that the treaty is being implemented - some might say manipulated - in order to support an aggressive campaign, and so while it may be a defensive clause, it is being used to serve aggression. So to call it defensive and stop there is shortsighted.

My advice that no one wants? Start writing treaties to reflect the actual context in which they are intended to be used. In any given war, there's usually only going to be one alliance that get directly attacked outside the context of treaty chaining - the original target. Most of what follows from there is the result of these "defensive" clauses that are written from the perspective of either partner being that original target. I'd encourage people to start spelling out supremacy clauses, which blocs they will or won't chain in to help, specifically how they'll handle treaty conflicts, and whether they can attack each other's allies. Better yet: drop all external ties outside your bloc, and form bloc-level treaties based on specific goals or circumstance (i.e., Bloc A and Bloc B agree to defend each other from Bloc C, but no one else).