Jump to content
  • entries
    44
  • comments
    622
  • views
    23,319

A small proposal

Sign in to follow this  
Haflinger

729 views

For the Love of God, Think of the Casualties! Convention

Preamble.

The undersigned alliances, wishing to prevent the de-escalation of conflicts into peace mode, and the horrifying devastation it brings to casualty counts, proudly commit to the For The Love of God, Think of the Casualties! Convention.

Article I.

Each signatory joins this Convention individually, as a unilateral solemn commitment to its principles and intentions. This document does not constitute an alliance or pact between the signatories. All alliances are encouraged to add their support to this document, irrespectively of the status of their diplomatic relations with other signatories.

Article II.

The signatory alliances pledge never to enter peace mode against any enemy, unless said enemy enters peace mode against them.

Article III.

A. Any use of peace mode against a member of a signatory alliance is regarded as peace mode against the whole alliance. If demanded by a mutual defense treaty, said attacks may be considered as peace mode against other signatory alliances as well.

B. If the peace moder is a member of an alliance, and said alliance does not promptly expel said member from their ranks, the whole alliance shall be considered the peace moder.

Article IV.

Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as limiting the scale or form of rightful peace mode retaliation, from the moment the enemy launches the first peaced nation until the formal cessation of hostilities.

Article V.

Should a signatory alliance violate Article II, their membership of this Convention is automatically revoked. Other signatories are encouraged to abandon diplomatic ties with the aggressor.

Sign in to follow this  


14 Comments


Recommended Comments

That would be proposition btw. And no. lol.

For those who appear to be unaware, this is satire. I kinda borrowed most of the wording from a rather more famous old convention.

Peace mode, like nuclear weapons, like cruise missiles, like spies, like navies, is a tool of war. Trying to outlaw it by war is going to work just as well as fighting wars to stop people from firing nukes.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Isn't war avoidance itself a war tactic?

Yes, but many other factors play into if it is a good one. I (personally) would view EPM as the death of my nation. Any entering of peace mode must have a plan for coming out of it and "I hope they get tired of whooping us." or "Let's see how long we can deny the facts of the outcome." is not a plan, it's a hope at best.

Eternal peace mode is just peace time "nothing going on" with collection penalties. Now I know I'm a little war hungry by nature but I would rather lose a war (I've done it before) then stay in peace mode with no hope of exiting.

If you can change the outcome, strategically, by going into peace mode than it's a war tactic. If you are just denying reality then its avoidance.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's only a tool of war if it's used tactically and not for war avoidance.

Avoiding war is a tactic.

You've just said "It's only a tool of war if it's used tactically but not if it's used tactically."

Share this comment


Link to comment

If you can change the outcome, strategically, by going into peace mode than it's a war tactic. If you are just denying reality then its avoidance.

I'm sure I saw this argument used against FAN during their guerilla war, and it didn't work on them then, why should it work against the NPO now? You can argue that the situations are completely different, etc., but at the end of the day it is up to the alliances using the tactic to decide if it is worth using or not. Obviously they don't think their alternatives are better options at this point. :rolleyes:

Share this comment


Link to comment

I'm sure I saw this argument used against FAN during their guerilla war, and it didn't work on them then, why should it work against the NPO now? You can argue that the situations are completely different, etc., but at the end of the day it is up to the alliances using the tactic to decide if it is worth using or not.

So true Mirreille, it's NPO's call what tactic they want to use, just as it is Doomhouse's call what terms to lay to end the war and we saw the 200+ page abomination that came from that.

Obviously they don't think their alternatives are better options at this point. :rolleyes:

Again I agree, but for there current path to be successful they would need to turn the worlds opinion to there side. Now this may have been easy in the good old days of NPO, "Do what we say or we will roll you." but nowadays the jackboot has lost it's power. This will then require NPO to *gasp* address people (on both sides) as people and not pawns, lose it's "we are better" attitude, and improve it's public perception.

I don't see that happening, but if it did wouldn't that be the end of the "Evil NPO" as we know it.

So even in (hypothetically) victory, NPO would never be the same. Doomhouse wins.

And that is the plan NPO has decided to take?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×