"Offense" VS "Defense"

[Max Power]

I took the irrelevant option specifically because I don't see defence as being any more legitimate than offence. In almost every war, both sides wanted each other, it's just an issue of who got to blitz first. What's important is taking your side in the conflict and sticking to it. If you want to be technical about it, Alliance C is supporting Alliance A's offensive action through a defensive action of its own, thereby oddly hybridizing a defensive DoW with an offensive DoS of sorts, but that's needlessly complicated. Alliance C is defending Alliance A in its offensive interests. They're on the same side.

Also, needing a treaty to help someone is ridiculous.

[Mompson]

If C declared on B directly it'd be offensively.
If C declared on B's allies that had already attacked A, it'd be defensively.

[Zarfef]

It depends upon their objective.

In order to be implementing an MDP, Alliance C's objective must be the protection of alliance A and not the original objective of Alliance A (which is an objective of aggression) or any of their own aggressive objectives. In fact, that Alliance A is activating it's MDP (as Alliance-C activating the retaliation would actually be an act of aggression upon their own part), it's obligated under the nature of an MDP to change it's own objective in war from an offensive stance to that of a defensive stance - that is, they feel they are being attacked without motivating those attacks by their own actions and seek the aid of an ally for [i]defensive purposes[/i].

In other words, in order for an MDP to be properly activated, it must be activated by a party whose solitary objective is to bring about a conclusion to the war - white peace. To defend them from an agressor. Anything beyond this, transforms the nature of the war on potentially both sides to that of an aggressive conflict. You can, after all, have two aggressors in a conflict - both parties can be in part, responsible (at which point, MDPs shouldn't be activated no matter how much the alliances like each other). However, you can never have two defenders - that would simply be a state of peace. In accordance with the objectives then, the actual military attacks of Alliance C should be restricted to nations directly attacking alliance A, or supporting in the destruction of alliance A and only if all conditions of a just defensive conflict are properly met. If on the other hand, Alliance C-A's MDP is activated for reasons outside of purely defensive objectives, it is no longer a defense issue and independent of the words they use, they are ultimately engaging in an offensive conflict.

To put it simply. An alliance is in the right for claiming their MDP was activated if they would grant immediate white peace as soon as white peace was granted to the defending parties by the MDP. An alliance, likewise, should only activate their MDP if their current military objective is white peace and an end to hostilities. Anything outside of this, is an act of aggression, not defense and hence outside the scope of the MDP.

[iamthey]

Its offensive- to me any definition of aggressor and defender must trace through the war consistently to the root and should allow any one alliance to only occupy one status or the other not both simultaneously (as upon attacking for defensive purposes the alliance considers itself defensive while the attacked alliance's allies will consider the war aggressive). Any other definition renders the two distinctions irrelevant and meaningless. That being said, in character the two terms (offense/defense) are in fact meaningless, and whether one methodology or the other is used is ultimately a matter of PR and politics rather than true description.

[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]

People can oA into whatever war they want, and indeed they often do. The fact of the matter is Alliances and players tribally support their side. The distinctions of Aggressor/Defender and even the CB itself are mere inherited anachronisms which have no meaning or purpose in today's world.

Edited July 4, 2012 by iamthey

[Starfox101]

If you defend an alliance that started an aggressive war, then you are also on the offensive.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1341640794' post='3005660']
If you defend an alliance that started an aggressive war, then you are also on the offensive.
[/quote]
Pretty much this. Although while some treaties give the option to not defend an alliance from counters if they are aggressors, others do not. So some treaties if they aren't worded carefully might require you take part in an aggressive war even if they are worded like a MDoAP.

[Pingu]

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1340850899' post='2998943']
Because of the way most treaties are worded (poorly)
[/quote]

There are, indeed, many poorly-worded treaties on Bob. But I think an airtight treaty that leaves no flexibility in the parties' interpretation is more a liability than an asset (insert loloptional fnar fnar joke here). The reality of the tangled treaty web demands that alliances be able to make rational choices about their commitments, and to accept the consequences of those choices, including reputational consequences. Treaties should be viewed as a tool of politics, not the structure of politics. How an alliance exercises the choices open to it as a result of its treaty ties is one of the most important ways we judge one another, probably as important as fighting prowess, economic efficiency etc. So the drive toward hyper-legalistic interpretation of treaties rather than viewing them through the lens of political realism is both not very useful and also almost certainly doomed to failure.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1341640794' post='3005660']
If you defend an alliance that started an aggressive war, then you are also on the offensive.
[/quote]

So, say, a 5M NS alliance hits a 1M NS alliance because they don't like them. 13M NS worth of alliances retaliate on an ODP (or something else that made the 5M alliance not expect it). Would the aggressor here still be able to argue to their MDP allies that they need backup?

What if the retaliating alliance wanted hefty reps to punish the aggressive alliance? (like they always do)

Edited July 7, 2012 by MrMuz

[Starfox101]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341689528' post='3006072']
So, say, a 5M NS alliance hits a 1M NS alliance because they don't like them. 13M NS worth of alliances retaliate on an ODP (or something else that made the 5M alliance not expect it). Would the aggressor here still be able to argue to their MDP allies that they need backup?

What if the retaliating alliance wanted hefty reps to punish the aggressive alliance? (like they always do)
[/quote]
I'm sure that before they began their aggressive campaign, they knew who would retaliate, and probably prepared their allies to counter them. Hence, that would make their counter a part of the initial plan of aggression. There are always variables, but in general, supporting an alliance who has made an aggressive act, means you condone, and support, the aggression.

[Nintenderek]

You know, a lot of it depends on the circumstances of what the war is over. At the end of the day, it seems kinda pointless. Who's on the offense and who's on the defense doesn't really matter, as long as the people fighting are fighting for the right reasons.

[Lurunin]

Imo its both, while it is defending as per your ally being attacked regardless of the reason for the attack, you are essentially helping with the aggression even still.

The only true people who can claim pure defense are those that are attacked out of nowhere/'preempted'

[iamwalrus]

So, let me get this scenerio correct.


[b]Country A[/b] attacks sends in soldiers, tanks, navy and air force to attack [b]Country B[/b]. Shamelessly killing their innocent civilians and even drops an atomic bomb on their cities.

[b]Country B[/b] sends out an urgent cry for help to its friends because [b]Country A[/b] is much larger and (obviously stronger, otherwise they wouldn't have attacked...unless you are [i]The Resistance[/i]. )

[b]Country C[/b] comes to help their friends in [b]Country B[/b] to protect their land and citizens. By doing so, they must send in troops to [b]Country A[/b] and force them to fight two fronts....thus combining their strength to try and fight off [b]Country A[/b] and defend [b]Country B.[/b]

[b]Country A[/b] is pissed that they are no longer able to take the land, technology, money and women of [b]Country B[/b] because [b]Country C[/b] is now helping to defend [b]Country B[/b]. So they ask their friend [b]Country D[/b] to help them by attacking [b]Country C[/b], so they can continue to destroy [b]Country B.
[/b]
I believe it is very obvious that [b]Country A[/b] is the aggressor and [b]Country D[/b] is supporting the aggression. [b]Country B[/b] is the victim and [b]Country C[/b] came to assist the victim, and thus becomes a victim in the violence as well.


In Digiterra, I can see why e-lawyering is done. Very few people want to see themselves as the aggressor (some take great pride in it in this game) and it is sometimes difficult to build a coalition as the aggressor. [i]Talk to Comrade Trotsky about why LSF did not get The Internationals support.[/i] However, it is very clear that Country A and Country D are the aggressors in this war, and the cause of the conflict. As Pingu points out, the aggression may be "just"; depending on the scenerio.

Edited July 8, 2012 by iamwalrus

[Pingu]

The question was not about who is 'at fault', Mr Walrus, but about aggressive and defensive wars. An aggressive war might be fought for very legitimate, even praiseworthy objectives. Doesn't often happen, but it might. Preventive war based upon solid evidence of a looming threat is legitimate. Pre-emptive war based upon solid evidence of an imminent threat is legitimate. Both might be understood as aggressive. Humanitarian intervention, for example to prevent genocide, could be seen as aggressive. So we have to be clear about what is being discussed here.

[Azaghul]

In terms of e-lawyering. Almost all treaties have explicit or applied non-chaining clauses these days. Anything other than the initial "defense" of the initially attacked alliance falls under optional aggression or non-chaining optional defense clauses of MDoAPs. Otherwise all MDoAPs are effectively MADPs. And even "defense" can not apply if the "defending" alliance takes actions that amount to aggression against the "attacking" alliance.

That's only talking about [i]mandatory[/i] defense, which in 98% of war entries doesn't apply. In more practical, less e-lawyering terms, a treaty amounts to an inexplicit agreement to work with each other and support each other militarily regardless of whether it's technically "mandatory" or not. That inexplicit agreement is more important. A MDoAP vs. a ODP is more important as a statement of your level of commitment and friendship to an alliance than important in a practical sense. Treaties are statements of who your friends are. And in most cases people join coalitions based on who their friends are, and how treaties are chained and used to enter is just window dressing.

It's also worth saying that you can "defend" someone in the non e-lawyering sense even if you're supporting an "aggressive" war in e-lawyering terms. Just because someone talks about defending allies doesn't mean they are talking about mandatory defense clauses in treaties.

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1341726287' post='3006508']
The question was not about who is 'at fault', Mr Walrus, but about aggressive and defensive wars. An aggressive war might be fought for very legitimate, even praiseworthy objectives. Doesn't often happen, but it might. Preventive war based upon solid evidence of a looming threat is legitimate. Pre-emptive war based upon solid evidence of an imminent threat is legitimate. Both might be understood as aggressive. Humanitarian intervention, for example to prevent genocide, could be seen as aggressive. So we have to be clear about what is being discussed here.
[/quote]


You bring up a fair point that sometimes war can arguably be used as a means to bring about Justice; however, that does not change the scenario that I presented. The fact is, Country A and Country D are still aggressors and still caused the large scale war through their initial actions of aggression. So, once we recognize that Country A and D are the aggressors, we can then move beyond that point of discussion and begin to evaluate whether the aggressive action was "just" in proportion to the damage caused by escalating the violence. I have changed the wording from "fault" to cause, in recognition of the negative connotation which detracts from the example.

Edited July 8, 2012 by iamwalrus

[Steve Buscemi]

Where's the option to run and hide in peace mode while 20% of your alliance (the less active ones) gets absolutely pounded, all the while claiming you are "defending" your allies?

Edited July 8, 2012 by Steve Buscemi

[Adrian LaCroix]

I consider it offensive, but it's all irrelevant anyway in this day and age of pre-emption and lolcoalitionwarfare.

[kriekfreak]

It's defensive while Alliance C has no obligation to defend Alliance A.