At the end of GWIII when the BTA were pummeled out of existence by the late, great CIS (that's the Confederacy of Independent States, mind you), the newly formed TAB was forced to sign a pact of non-aggression with them. This basically guaranteed non-interference in governmental affairs and of course, the prohibition of any aggressive military actions against either side. The only obligation, as it were, was to keep one's missiles aimed away from the nations of the signatories.

With so much emphasis on Mutual Defence Blocs, we are now scrambling around in the dark waiting for someone to attack someone else in the hope we find out who our targets are for this upcoming war. (I'm not confessing any insider information here, it seems pretty obvious that it will occur.) We know that there's SF, tC and countless other MDP blocs, many of which overlap. I hope for many of our sakes once this war concludes, the currency of friendship is given a re-valuation; that the humble NAP or ToA becomes a new way for alliances to show their "love" without obligating themselves to messy defence pacts that may otherwise go awry. The promise not to attack may seem obvious to some, but the promise to defend one of your allies when an ally of yours attacks them? Try getting out of that jam.

It just seems unteneble to me that an alliance with 20 MDPs that cross the treaty web 10 or so times will be able to defend each one of their signatories. Alliances cannot be friends with everyone, although we can resolve to be cordial, responsible and respectful in the community. You do not require an MDP for that. If Alliance 1 from Bloc A that is currently in opposition with Bloc B yet wishes to be friends with Alliance 2 in the B Bloc, both would be deluding themselves if they thought to show their close friendship with an MDP. An NAP or ToA that restricts aggression would make more sense when war comes and it still bears a relationship codified on paper. In my opinion, in a nation simulation game that lets you launch missiles at people, war is more or less inevitable; friends may not always "have your back" but they should always refrain from "having a go." Sure, NAPs are more succeptible to cancelation. But if one were to cancel on you just prior to a war, one must ask how good of friends were they in the first place?