Full Circle: The Death of Idealism and the Return of Power
Entry posted by Vladimir
278 views
With the NpO's latest switch of sides, SuperGrievances have finally been able to open up their exit strategy to public view. With this opening we can first recognise SG's view that we have officially exited the bipolar world, which forces alliances to fight for the moral high ground (whether they are being genuine or realpolitik) and into a unipolar world, where they can take actions without great concern for damaging political repercussions -- for who is left to stand against them?
Naturally the first stages of this transformation are of great interest for everyone, as they demonstrate the world that we will be moving into. Below I present just two statements from dozens that capture the essence of present:
"And why should we let an alliance that aggressively and pre-emptively attacked us with no CB at all off the hook just like that?
If you want surrender terms I don't think we'd be happy with any term that leaves TOP/IRON sitting with a nation above 1k tech just yet." -- Seerow [1]
"They attacked me. They brought war to my alliance, and I have no reason to doubt they will do it again. Clearly lack of a just cause, or any cause at all, is not something to stand in their way.
Much as I am not enthusiastic, I must take steps to defend my alliance and my allies before I can advocate peace." -- Archon [2]
So what does this tell us? First, the obvious: terms are back. Of course, the word "back" implies that they ever went anywhere, when in reality this is the first war after the Karma War (which itself imposed the harshest terms ever seen). There was no idealistic break, just the continuity one would expect from power politics. Indeed, Seerow's assertion that they will push for all of TOP's nations to be below 1k technology is astonishingly harsh by any historical standard.
But perhaps more interesting is the reasoning behind this, implied in Seerow's post and made explicit in Archon's: the removal of a challenger. This is the natural reaction to a war. Whether it is offensive or defensive is irrelevant, since either way the war was brought into being by a conflict of interests that each alliance desires to resolve. The intuitive way to resolve this from the victor's perspective is to physically destroy the defeated alliance's capacity to wage war, by removing technology and preventing growth for as long as possible. In this there is no change of direction from the past, which used precisely this logic.
There is no consideration of 'past crimes' or any of the other justifications that were put forth in the last great war. There will be no allowing alliances to rebuild after a war on the basis that 'competition is fun' as was proposed. Rather, security will be put first and competitors cut down to remove the threat the pose.
Recognising this logic and its implications, and the complete removal of Karma's normative logic from SG discourse, we can extrapolate future actions quite well, for we have seen precisely where it leads.
We, the loyal readers of La Vanguardia Pacifica, on the other hand, are left still waiting for our Jam Tomorrow.
2 Comments
Recommended Comments