Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    43
  • views
    4,380

In Regards to attacking a nation aiding a nation a war

LOLman789789

738 views

  

34 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

I believe there should be restraint in attacking a nation just because it sent non-military foreign aid to a country. I also believe it should be considered unkind to attack a nation participating in a Tech Deal with another nation at war.

In real life, such an act would be considered illegal. Just because Sweden traded with both the Allies and the Axis doesn't mean it should have been attacked by either side.



8 Comments


Recommended Comments

Your questions are slightly skewed, and unanswerable, for the most part.

First question, I would love for people to actually use sanctions again, and have sanctions apart of the war. Not everyone has a huge warchest, and it will hurt a lot of people. Especially if they need uranium to get nukes. I don't know too many people who trade with people who are not their allies, but I digress, if you happen to be trading with someone who is in an alliance war, don't be surprised if they get sanctioned. Should they be attacked? No. Strongly encouraged to not trade with said partner anymore? Sure.

Second question... if you don't understand someone sending tech to another nation, which helps them do damage to a nation they are fighting, is considered to be helping someone's enemy, then I can't really answer you here. If I was sending tech to a nation in a war, I'd be helping them against the nations/AA they were fighting. So technically I am actively involved in helping someone to defeat another person. Thus I am automatically hostile to the other nations/AA.

Third question. Again... if you don't understand. There is no non-military aid in a war.

All these questions are acts of war, sans the first one. Though it could be target in sanctions.

This isn't real life, don't compare the two.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Your questions are slightly skewed, and unanswerable, for the most part.

First question, I would love for people to actually use sanctions again, and have sanctions apart of the war. Not everyone has a huge warchest, and it will hurt a lot of people. Especially if they need uranium to get nukes. I don't know too many people who trade with people who are not their allies, but I digress, if you happen to be trading with someone who is in an alliance war, don't be surprised if they get sanctioned. Should they be attacked? No. Strongly encouraged to not trade with said partner anymore? Sure.

Second question... if you don't understand someone sending tech to another nation, which helps them do damage to a nation they are fighting, is considered to be helping someone's enemy, then I can't really answer you here. If I was sending tech to a nation in a war, I'd be helping them against the nations/AA they were fighting. So technically I am actively involved in helping someone to defeat another person. Thus I am automatically hostile to the other nations/AA.

Third question. Again... if you don't understand. There is no non-military aid in a war.

All these questions are acts of war, sans the first one. Though it could be target in sanctions.

This isn't real life, don't compare the two.

Have to ask BMTH, regarding the second question, what if it was reverse? If the nation selling the tech was at war?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Trading has always been OK, except when nuclear rogues usually get sanctioned. But no one goes after their trade partners, anyway.

It should remain like that, IMHO, as having to set new trades is unfairly annoying for the uninvolved people, considering that forcing the nation at war to find new trades (even on Grey) isn't that much significant in comparison. Asking to everyone to constantly monitor what their trade partners are doing would be equally crazy.

The other two are clear problems, but then I don't understand why your questions are about direct attack on the nation sending the aid. Diplomacy should be used and military action should be the last resort: in 99% of the cases the aid is just part of a tech deal and the aiding nation deserves a chance to explain/remedy before they are attacked.

Share this comment


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...