T.L.O.L.M.S.

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.

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?

Then the big nation is aiding a nation at war by giving them money

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.

Rey hit it on the head, Loki. The small nation is getting money to fight longer, and or do more damage.

Oh ok, because I did tech deals while I was at war one time with neutral alliances. None of those alliances got attacked.

This is too biased

There is no aid that is not military aid.