Jump to content
  • entries
    23
  • comments
    420
  • views
    24,445

My analasys of the war


HeroofTime55

298 views

 Share

Someone asked if they could subscribe to my newsletter. Well, now you can!

So, we have a war on our hands, and now, as usual, those who declared are trying to validate their cause while those who are defending will try to show that the cause is weak. Standard politics. But something is going on, and it can be analyzed.

So, how did this war start? From what I can gather, some guy made threats to an alliance, that alliance was spied on by an unknown agent, the alliance spied on the guy making threats, the guy making threats attacked the alliance. Boring. Unimportant, but boring.

Then it kicks up. NSO have admitted this nation, per their longstanding policy of accepting nations at war. This guy apparently is less than honest with the Sith about the status of the war, and then suddenly, SURPRISE, RoK has attacked the nation with no indication to NSO that this would occur. Because of the lack of explanation from RoK at the time, this is interpreted as an act of war against the NSO.

Enter Heft. Hoo threatens Heft that he will consider the aiding of the nation an act of war, but fails to provide adequate reasoning beyond a "my word is law" mentality. Ironically, in an attempt to avert war, he aids the nation in response to RoK's attacks, which he considered an act of war by RoK - Mind you, his reasoning has nothing to do with the ongoing TENE wars. This is a mistake by Heft, because the TENE wars had not achieved peace, and it violated the Sith policy of not aiding nations before their wars were resolved. It was in response to RoK attacks on the nation. A fatal oversight by Heft, no doubt, however, that the TENE wars were not left to resolve. In the end, the numbers are $6 million in aid to a 4k NS nation.

The rest of the story comprises NSO officials attempting to correct Heft's error, and being ignored by RoK. These attempts at negotiation began almost instantly with Rebel Virginia and lasted until RoK would hastily declare war less than 24 hours later. No contact or negotiation was ever achieved in that period.

The above are, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate representation of the facts.

Now, let us analyze these facts to see the big picture.

The first thing to make a note on is Hoo's threat: Just because Hoo says something is an act of war does not necessarily make it an act of war; the facts surrounding why the aid was given are what determine that. Therefore, we disregard Hoo's threat, and analyze the circumstances.

RoK attacked a NSO member without NSO giving the OK, or even attempting to explain why. It cannot be expected that NSO see things from RoK's angle; They did not know the history and RoK failed to make available that history. All they saw was an attack by RoK nations on one of their own. It is therefore not unreasonable, and disregarding the active TENE wars, a very moderate response, to send aid, when an attack on the offending RoK nations could have been in order. This is why Heft viewed it as a 'compromise.'

We move on and examine the act of giving the aid: Was this legitimate? I will argue that it was not, because the TENE wars had not achieved peace. Heft failed to see this bigger picture when he authorized the aid. The aid given was thus in violation of the Sith policy of not aiding new members until they have resolved their conflicts. This is only compounded by the fact that Sedrick, the recipient of the aid and the nation central to this debacle, directly lied to NSO command, telling them that the wars were resolved. In the end, NSO should have waited for verification of this claim by seeing peace achieved in those conflicts. The policy on not providing aid is in place precisely to prevent a conflict like this from occurring.

Can Heft's actions be considered the official acts of the NSO? I will argue that they cannot be; First, Heft lacked the authority to order the aid, due to the standing Sith policy against doing so. Right off the bat, this presents problems for RoK's case, and Heft can arguably be considered a rogue member of the government. But the main thing that makes this event not the responsibility of NSO is that, almost immediately after Heft made his error, Rebel Virginia, a member with equal raking as Heft, moved to correct the mistake, by offering negotiations with RoK.

RoK did not even entertain the offer of diplomatic negotiations. The government of the Sith would continue until the instigation of war to attempt negotiations to come to a diplomatic resolution. These were ignored, and RoK government had a notably reduced availability over this time frame.

The above analysis of the facts, I hold to be true to the best of my knowledge.

As we can see, mistakes were made by both sides, and the big thing left is to apply opinion to the facts: Was RoK justified to take military action, or was it an aggressive and unjustifiable move?

To answer this, we have to answer whether or not the act of providing $6 million in aid to a ~4000 NS nation is an act which is beyond even entertaining the notion of diplomatic negotiation.

There are some people with the opinion that any amount of aid, no matter how small, is an equal act of war with direct attacks on an alliance, and is beyond diplomatic negotiation, demanding immediate military response.

I believe that the magnitude of an act is something that cannot be ignored, and I believe that the magnitude of this act was trivial.

Why do people go to war? War is a diplomatic tool. It's primary function is to force compliance out of non-compliant parties. I therefore am of the opinion that diplomacy must always be a precursor to war, if only to make an assessment as to whether or not the other party is willing to be compliant with your demands.

Because RoK entirely skipped over diplomacy after the offense had occurred, it is clear that they had no desire to determine whether or not NSO was willing to be compliant with any sort of demands they may have had to repair the situation. The only other possible motivation was that they simply wanted war for war's sake, and thus were content to not possibly lose their 'justification' for war in the course of diplomacy.

Thus, I hold that RoK is in the wrong, and that RoK are the aggressors of this war. I hold that RoK simply desired to start a war with a weaker target.

 Share

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

I have a hunch that if RoK simply desired to start a war, it would be because of NSO's polarizing nature, not just because they're weaker. I don't know whether I believe RoK/Hoo wanted war or whether Hoo was genuinely that offended by NSO's actions, but there are better targets to attack if you simply want some war practice.

Link to comment

So basically you're saying that Rok had no right to defend their protectorate against a rogue. Got it.

This is not even close to what I'm saying.

RoK had several days to attack, but instead they attacked a few hours after he was accepted into the NSO, without giving NSO an adequate explanation for their attack, let alone waiting for NSO to release the guy for attack.

If it was so important, why didn't RoK attack him days earlier, before he was an NSO member? And people talk about spitting in Hoo's face? Please.

Link to comment

It's pretty obvious RoK was just looking for a war, but this wasn't a made up CB. NSO walked straight into this one and with a good bit of hubris. Even though most people are disagreeing with RoK refusing to negotiate this is the most solid CB or possible CB in the recent era. It's way better than "they say mean stuff about us" or "They called me mean names on their irc" and it's a whole lot better than "He said LOL when someone made a joke about my mom"

Link to comment

You are insinuating diplomacy is required in any instance. It is not.

I hate RoK AND NSO, yet am still obliged to side with RoK in this dispute because the evidence is so clear that they were in the right. Had MHA accepted Sedrik and aided him 6 mil when he applied I would expect to be at war with RoK.

Link to comment

I am not insinuating that it is required, I have, in fact, proven why it is required, at least if you want your casus belli to be valid. You can rush in without diplomacy, but that means you just want war for war's sake.

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...