Jump to content
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    89
  • views
    16,715

Whither jus post bellum


Juana La Loca

623 views

So much for a reasonable, rational, and just conclusion to this latest conflict. :facepalm:

Way to win the war but completely lose the peace.

Enough harping goes on in OWF about alliances who choose to maintain their sovereign neutrality, but really? Are these latest published "terms" any way to convince them to engage on one or another side of the treaty web, such as it is?

Punishing an alliance for employing a wholly legitimate wartime engagement and asset conservation strategy? Are all rules of what is considered fair and unfair strategy situationally defined by the victors?

I can only foresee the rise of a New Isolationism - born of massive mistrust arising from this latest set of railcar terms.

13 Comments


Recommended Comments

Party A: If you want to stop fighting, we want you to do Term X.

Party B: We want to stop fighting, so we will do Term X.

Parties C-Z: THIS IS A TRAVESTY.

Link to comment

Party A: If you want to stop fighting, we want you to do Term X.

Party B: We want to stop fighting, so we will do Term X.

Parties C-Z: THIS IS A TRAVESTY.

And what do you expect?

I hardly think the terms were demanded in order to not invite comment, censure, or drama.

Unless the framers are completely untutored in post bellum politics.

Link to comment

I was more commenting on the nature of how terms work, and how it's silly to construe them as punishment in most cases.

No alliance is being "punished" in the terms for using Peace Mode. The extent to which Peace Mode was used had influence on the terms, yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it punishment.

Link to comment

Party A: If you want to stop fighting, we want you to do Term X.Party B: We want to stop fighting, so we will do Term X.Parties C-Z: THIS IS A TRAVESTY.

You seem to have forgotten that Party B had to pick a lesser evil, an eternal war or unjust terms.

I was more commenting on the nature of how terms work, and how it's silly to construe them as punishment in most cases.No alliance is being "punished" in the terms for using Peace Mode. The extent to which Peace Mode was used had influence on the terms, yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it punishment.

Did the peace terms not require NPO's 1.8 million NS worth of fighters to step out into the meatgrinder where they would be triple-teamed for three weeks straight?

Link to comment

I was more commenting on the nature of how terms work, and how it's silly to construe them as punishment in most cases.

No alliance is being "punished" in the terms for using Peace Mode. The extent to which Peace Mode was used had influence on the terms, yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it punishment.

I am well aware how terms work. I am also aware of how "terms" can manifest their true consequences in post bellum zeitgeist.

Not punishment? An alliance pursued wise fiscal strategy by preserving assets for present stability and post war reconstruction ~ and that is as much a morale as it is a material strategy. What then is the rational rationale for terms demanding a certain percentage of reserve assets be engaged and diminished, if not punishment for their exercise of their sovereign right to engage defensive war as they saw fit?

Link to comment

You seem to have forgotten that Party B had to pick a lesser evil, an eternal war or unjust terms.

Define "just".

Did the peace terms not require NPO's 1.8 million NS worth of fighters to step out into the meatgrinder where they would be triple-teamed for three weeks straight?

In slightly different words, yes. So?

Not punishment? An alliance pursued wise fiscal strategy by preserving assets for present stability and post war reconstruction ~ and that is as much a morale as it is a material strategy. What then is the rational rationale for terms demanding a certain percentage of reserve assets be engaged and diminished, if not punishment for their exercise of their sovereign right to engage defensive war as they saw fit?

Punishment implies a negative judgement towards the action being acted upon. I don't think that any of Doom House fails to recognize how placing your nations into peace mode is a valid tactic for preserving your nations' resources. But that's not what it's about. It's about wanting a satisfactory war and stating in plain terms how said satisfaction will be achieved.

Link to comment

Party A: If you want to stop fighting, we want you to do Term X.Party B: We want to stop fighting, so we will do Term X.Parties C-Z: THIS IS A TRAVESTY.

This logic is dumb.

Link to comment

Punishment implies a negative judgement towards the action being acted upon. I don't think that any of Doom House fails to recognize how placing your nations into peace mode is a valid tactic for preserving your nations' resources. But that's not what it's about. It's about wanting a satisfactory war and stating in plain terms how said satisfaction will be achieved.

How then would you characterize the OWF commentary corpus on use of this tactic?

Define your parameters of satisfaction. Is it short-term or long-term? Is it material or ideological?

Given the timelines and lessons of history,do you consider these Virtual Rambouillet Accords an instrument to bring about long-term satisfaction?

Link to comment

I am also aware of how "terms" can manifest their true consequences in post bellum zeitgeist. Not punishment? An alliance pursued wise fiscal strategy by preserving assets for present stability and post war reconstruction ~ and that is as much a morale as it is a material strategy. What then is the rational rationale for terms demanding a certain percentage of reserve assets be engaged and diminished, if not punishment for their exercise of their sovereign right to engage defensive war as they saw fit?

Your logic falls apart at a very basic level, and I'm surprised that you did not detect it, and I'm surprised that I'm the first one to point it out.

A "wise ... strategy" is one that has ultimately positive results. If a strategy does not result in victory AND it antagonizes your enemy, then perhaps it is not as wise as you're suggesting.

If the strategy of one side was to preserve its assets, then it is the strategy of the other side to force those same assets to be expended. It seems obvious to the point that I'm embarrassed for you that I need to point it out. It's not a punishment, it's about achieving tactical victory.

-Craig

Link to comment

Your logic falls apart at a very basic level, and I'm surprised that you did not detect it, and I'm surprised that I'm the first one to point it out.

A "wise ... strategy" is one that has ultimately positive results. If a strategy does not result in victory AND it antagonizes your enemy, then perhaps it is not as wise as you're suggesting.

If the strategy of one side was to preserve its assets, then it is the strategy of the other side to force those same assets to be expended. It seems obvious to the point that I'm embarrassed for you that I need to point it out. It's not a punishment, it's about achieving tactical victory.

-Craig

So rather than post substantive answer to questions posed, now comes the inane "logic" diversionary post.

csavshenzhen02.jpg

Have a ship of state - with extreme stack collapse

Link to comment

Logic is a diversion?

Your entire premise is that someone engaged in a valid tactic and is being punished for it. My premise is that the validity of a tactic is not solely determined by your arbitrary moral view of it, but instead by its results.

Your argument is incomprehensible -- somehow the "victors" are only victorious because they have cheated the losers out of their "wholly legitimate" strategy. To state your argument another way: the losers would have won if only their losing strategy had been allowed to succeed by the nefarious victors.

-Craig

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...