Jump to content
  • entries
    36
  • comments
    511
  • views
    2,262

A month and a half: How long is 'aggressive defence' justified?


Bob Janova

376 views

As we stand here today, the TOP/IRON-C&G front of the Bi-Polar War has been raging for a month and a half (the entirety of February, 12 days of March and 3 of January), and for almost all of that time has been a one sided destruction of the pre-emptive attackers. Peace negotiations are taking place, but so far the only terms offered by the winners are quite outrageous, and the rhetoric from C&G is not conciliatory – for example they have called the TOP/IRON counter-offer 'insulting' and suggested that they did not highball the original offer.

The question begins to arise, how long can a war (and a defensive front of a war) be permitted to go on before it becomes oppression, extended war and all those other things used to describe Hegemonic wars? How long should C&G be able to claim the moral high ground associated with 'defence' (even though they could have avoided the front, as explained elsewhere, should they have not wished for the war) before bringing serious offers to the peace table?

On this particular issue we are short of precedents. In Karma, the NPO was kept down for just on three months – but the NPO was paying for the sins of the entire Hegemony, and a large part of that time was a waiting game attempting to goad the larger nations out of peace mode. IRON received peace after one month, Echelon a month and a half, and as part of the 'Coalition of Cowards', their entry was considered aggressive by Karma. (The rest of the CoC received peace earlier and with lighter terms.)

During the BLEU war and noCB, hostilities lasted one month in total (excluding OcUK). This conflict has also been used as precedent for peace terms, with then-record reparations being demanded, and the beginning of the end for 'draconian terms' like wonder decom and forced government changes, but today we are looking at the duration of war. Unlike in this war, the pre-empters won, but the arguments around the timing and terms of the peace were similar to today; Polaris was attacked for being a threat and peace was only offered when that was deemed to be no longer the case. This war – and the peace after – has long been used as an example of injustice, starting with the Vox Populi movement in the immediate aftermath of that war.

Previous major wars also lasted one month or less. The time for the first 'extended war' in modern history – VietFAN (part 1), described as an 'occupation-like conflict' in its official history – was three months.

FAN attacked the protectorate of a bloc member out of the blue, a significantly worse crime of aggression than a pre-emptive attack during an existing war. The CoC during Karma attacked already militarily engaged alliances during an existing war, a lesser crime of aggression. That would put the answer to the question at somewhere between one month and three for the intermediate crime of TOP/IRON. The only directly comparable precedent is that of Legion during GW3, though that war is not modern enough to be a direct guide – but Legion received a broadly comparable peace to the other League alliances, after three weeks. If directly applied now, that would mean a white peace or 1 billion reps applied several weeks ago!

In conclusion, it appears that by the only direct precedent of the treatment of pre-emptive attacks during war, C&G would already have overstepped the mark for what is reasonable (in fact kept TOP/IRON down for twice as long as Legion were). On more recent precedents, of related but not identical situations, that time is round about now. People may point to the NPO in Karma, but most alliances in Karma received peace in less time than TOP/IRON have been kept at war, and the extended duration of the NPO front was down to waiting for 'peace mode warriors' (and perhaps nascent hegemonic thoughts from Athens, who have been at the forefront of neo-hegemonist actions since C&G became strong enough to do them).

C&G should be coming to the table with the intention of actually negotiating a fair and reasonable peace settlement, not continuing with an extended, unbalanced war of occupation under the fig leaf of 'defence'.

60 Comments


Recommended Comments



As long as the defenders please. They would be entirely justified in starting another VietFAN if they wished. It wouldn't be very classy, but if you are attacked, and you get the upper hand, it is up to you to choose how justice is dispensed.

It's no different from creating overly harsh terms. Frowned upon, but entirely acceptable (specifically for defenders).

Link to comment

wait, aren't you on the other side the treaty web? How dare you question CnG :D

I applaud your candor Janova.

BTW, I think the difference here is not the CB but ability to fight. From what I hear TOP could still do tons of damage for another month. I looked at the sides of the war in the sanctions race a few days ago, and on that day TIFDIT did more damage then it took on that day.

Link to comment

Peace will be reached when TOP, IRON and co agree to actually pay for their crime, and it won't be with reps that are like offering to pay $5 after totaling your car.

Link to comment

Peace will be reached when TOP, IRON and co agree to actually pay for their crime, and it won't be with reps that are like offering to pay $5 after totaling your car.

lol crime.

Link to comment

Again an expected piece from mr janova that has large measures of truth splashed with personal bias. Its a great post and one really all those intrested in the conflict should read. However the key concept here is not

the question begins to arise, how long can a war (and a defensive front of a war) be permitted to go on before it becomes oppression, extended war and all those other things used to describe Hegemonic wars?

But who, in the authors mind gets to "permit" anything? This war could have ended weeks ago, TOP and Iron could have accepted terms. They chose not to, should those who "permit" this to continue factor that choice in? Will they have to factor in what is reasonable terms and what is not? Or will there be another set of individuals who issue a "permit" as to what is reasonable?

TOP should not be put to the sword IMHO and the terms offerred that I saw were in fact ridiculous in my opinion. However I am not in the business of telling blocs like CnG to determine what is or is not ridiculous. If one thing is evidenced by Bobs posts on this war and is his willingness to dip into historical reference. This war will pass and it will be apart of the construct of future terms and conditions.

The answer is pretty simple, at this point no matter what terms are offered and accepted they will be a catalyst for future actions. Our planet is cicular in nature and not defined by the moment, or a moralists collective liscense or permit.

Link to comment

There is no chance of anyone opposing C&G/SF in the near future. As long as they dont turn on each other they will continue to dominate Bob for a long time. There is no movement or any chance of a movement forming as a result of this hammering and whatever reparations will be handed down. With this in mind they are in no rush to let TOP/IRON & Co off without a severe beating followed by draconian reparations. They are in control and will do as they please, even if it goes against everything they spent a year preaching about before their ascent.

C'est la vie

Link to comment
The question begins to arise, how long can a war....be permitted to go on before it becomes oppression

I dunno, Bob. Why not look in your own past for the answer?

If you want a real example of a war that continued much longer than it needed to, look no further than the Continuum-NoV War, which lasted just over three months and was a lopsided bloodbath from Day One. The Continuum side -- oh hey, Bob, that was your side -- refused to even talk peace for most of that time, and when they did the first word out of their -- sorry, your -- collective mouths was "disband."

Oppressive enough for you?

About the current mess, it will end when TOP & Co. surrender. It's that simple. Whether or not the terms are 'outrageous' is subjective and, ultimately, irrelevant.

Link to comment

the one thing i have realized is that so long as CnG/SF continue to only do things that are not as bad as what former Hegemony did, then they will continue to act as if they are not the least bit oppressive at all. thus, we get Heg-Lite instead of full Heg.

Link to comment

These thugs in the TOP/IRON coalition are the only ones that can be described as hegemonic in this context.

I'm not sure I should even start quoting dictionaries here, but I will because it is apparent that most of the "hegemony" accusations against us fail to recognize what a hegemony is.

1.

leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.

2.

leadership; predominance.

3.

(esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

First definition might apply to any alliance, but isn't really relevant in this context.

Second definition holds the word "predominant"; having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others. In this sense we might be hegemonic, but if you ask TOP/IRON I am sure they will vehemently disagree so I think it's safe to disregard this as well. Especially coupled with the mention of leadership, consider that our terms take away surprisingly little of their sovereignty.

The third definition seems to me to fit the TOP/IRON coalition perfectly, even if you were to believe their later excuses for starting this war. They clearly showed aggression to achieve world domination, they admit to this themselves.

After it became apparent that they lost, their stated goal changed to attacking us fast and hard to get us to submit to their power so that they could win a greater world war.

That sounds a lot like "aggression by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination."

So I believe you are basing your argument on false axioms of who exactly are the hegemons here. I also believe you are smart enough to know exactly what words you choose and why. So I have to wonder why you want to smear us with this propaganda?

Link to comment

You've got to be kidding me Dochartaigh. We're not the Hegemony, we never will be the Hegemony. All you do is spew the same tired crap all over the forums. If you were talking like that during the time of the old Hegemony, you would probably find yourself on some sort of list to be hit. CnG is just as tired of this war as everyone else--it's a little thing called negotiation that takes time. We're not doing this on purpose. We're actually talking to TOP instead of keeping them in permanent war just for the hell of it. I expected better of you Bob Janova, but apparently your loyalties and need to make someone out to CNs devil is clouding your logic center.

Just because we're apparently "on top" at the moment doesn't mean we're trying to be any sort of Hegemony. Being at the top of the game doesn't make us the bad guys. It's just the way the cards fall.

Link to comment

That has to be the longest version of "no u" I have ever seen.

Yes certainly my post lacked so much substance it is practically synonymous with "no u". Well played, sir.

Link to comment
and it won't be with reps that are like offering to pay $5 after totaling your car.

You are currently asking for $2m to replace a Ford Fiesta.

who, in the authors mind gets to "permit" anything?

It's that old chestnut, the 'court of public opinion'. C&G's actions now will influence how people see it now and in the future, its connections to other parts of the web, who is willing to ally to it and eventually, if it's bad enough, it will be on the end of its own 'Karma' moment.

I'm not sure I should even start quoting dictionaries here

You shouldn't. Like most terms applied to the political sphere, a dictionary definition [OOC: not knowing about CN] doesn't really do it justice. 'Hegemony' in the context of CN refers to an overarching structure in the MDP web which uses that dominance of the web to impose self-interested solutions on the rest of the world, often in an oppressive or unjust manner. Supercomplaints is this structure, now that Citadel and Frostbite are destroyed, and some aspects of its behaviour indicate that it wishes to use that dominance in such self-interested ways (for example Athens-Ni, the TPF war, and the terms here).

Continuum-NoV War

If you're going to try to use that as a point against me, of all people, you just blew any remaining credibility you may have had.

Link to comment

You've got to be kidding me Dochartaigh. We're not the Hegemony, we never will be the Hegemony. All you do is spew the same tired crap all over the forums. If you were talking like that during the time of the old Hegemony, you would probably find yourself on some sort of list to be hit. CnG is just as tired of this war as everyone else--it's a little thing called negotiation that takes time. We're not doing this on purpose. We're actually talking to TOP instead of keeping them in permanent war just for the hell of it. I expected better of you Bob Janova, but apparently your loyalties and need to make someone out to CNs devil is clouding your logic center.

Just because we're apparently "on top" at the moment doesn't mean we're trying to be any sort of Hegemony. Being at the top of the game doesn't make us the bad guys. It's just the way the cards fall.

Its pretty much common knowledge that when an alliance wants to keep someone at war they hand down reps they know will be rejected. This has been said numerous times over the last 2 years by many alliances including your own. The terms offered were so high they were guaranteed to be rejected. We are approaching the third month of this crushing beatdown now and while you probably wont keep them in a "permanent war just for the hell of it" you have made sure this crushing beatdown will continue for the foreseeable future. This idea you arent as bad as the last lot because you stop just before you reach their record level is a pathetic attempt to defend your actions, actions you would have been ashamed of before you achieved absolute power.

Link to comment

You shouldn't. Like most terms applied to the political sphere, a dictionary definition [OOC: not knowing about CN] doesn't really do it justice. 'Hegemony' in the context of CN refers to an overarching structure in the MDP web which uses that dominance of the web to impose self-interested solutions on the rest of the world, often in an oppressive or unjust manner. Supercomplaints is this structure, now that Citadel and Frostbite are destroyed, and some aspects of its behaviour indicate that it wishes to use that dominance in such self-interested ways (for example Athens-Ni, the TPF war, and the terms here).

By your definition that a hegemony is any alliance(s) that can exercise it's own self-interest we are a hegemony.

And I feel sorry for any alliance that is not.

Edit:

I also see a marked lack of conciliatory rhetoric from TOP/IRON. In fact I see a lot of them shouting they will never surrender, they never did anything wrong and they would rather spend the rest of their tech bringing us harm than reconcile and pay reparations.

You and some others NOT in TOP or IRON seem to be the only ones convinced that we are conducting oppressive war on them.

You speak a lot of the length of wars, but have any of these wars you mention had a hegemonic alliance with over a million tech? That they were willing to use to depletion to harm their target? There is NO precedent as far as I know here.

What is REASONABLE is to keep defending ourselves until TOP/IRON admits defeat and agrees to pay for the damage their unwarranted hegemonic war on us have caused.

Link to comment

One alliance is an 'overarching structure in the MDP web' now? Wow, AB, you're really not trying any more.

I am willing to extend my conclusion to an 'overarching structure in the MDP web'. If all it takes to be a hegemony is for CnG and supercomplaints to look out for their self-interest then I am sure we will gladly accept the moniker. Though I think this definition strays far from both the real definition of the word and what most people perceive it to be.

This means that by defending ourselves successfully, we are a hegemony.

Link to comment

Very good, you managed to read the first clause of that sentence. Now let's try the others ... "which uses that dominance of the web to impose self-interested solutions on the rest of the world, often in an oppressive or unjust manner". The 'real definition' of the word, as you already pasted in here, is about having pre-eminence and dominance over power; the way it's used in CN carries notes of being an aggressive hegemony.

I'm certainly using it in a more honest way than you, with calling TOP 'hegemonic' – something which has not been close to accurate since they left Continuum. Citadel did not have a predominance of influence before this war.

I also see a marked lack of conciliatory rhetoric from TOP/IRON.

This type of rhetoric is common in the losing side throughout history. Go back and read your own side's posts during noCB, for example. The onus is always on the winning side to come up with a reasonable end to the war. And no, paying for all of your damage is not 'reasonable', it has not been reasonable since at least the Unjust War and it never will be.

Link to comment
This type of rhetoric is common in the losing side throughout history. Go back and read your own side's posts during noCB, for example. The onus is always on the winning side to come up with a reasonable end to the war. And no, paying for all of your damage is not 'reasonable', it has not been reasonable since at least the Unjust War and it never will be.

I'm sorry..but did you just state that they were validated in attacking Hyperion for absolutely no reason? Rhetoric? No. That's just an established fact that they just wanted to kill Hyperion and took advantage of the situation. There is NO comparison here, unless you are stating that TOP is GGA/Valhalla, who won that war despite having started it for little reason.

If you are referring to Polaris, then your point is irrelevant. As has been stated by many who fought against Polaris, Hyperion was completely unrelated and a decisions by GGA/Valhalla etc, not to get at Polaris. MK fought on the same side as Polaris, but not for Polaris. His "side" produced no rhetoric. Just facts :v

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...