Cortath

Indeed.

You show me yours I'll show you mine? I showed my numbers. Why don't you show us how all 200-odd NPO nations in PM have billion dollar warchests.

1. Yes. I have no reason to believe, given Karma's intransigent attitude over negotiations that we will one penny less than what those terms say. 2. My damage estimates are reasonable. In fact, they aren't max damage, but damage done by a 3K+WRC/6K attacker. 3. The "warchest" argument neglects that the overwhelming majority of our PM nations have been in nuclear war for some number of weeks. It neglects that WCs are depleted by months of peace mode. 4. I don't do business on the "off chance" that I'll be successful. A gambler doesn't bet his pot on the "off chance" they might win. See #1. Post your spy figures. I've been hearing about them for months.

While it's easy to throw pot shots from the sideline, it doesn't really solve the problem. Presuming that both sides sincerely want peace (which I doubt for many of our opposites), they need to come together to recognize each other's mutual concerns. Furthermore, the FAN issue was quite different. FAN's terms were possible. These terms are impossible.

I'm glad we can agree on that. As I posted here (link), I think that such common truths are unfortunately the casualty of war. Because opponents disagree on some points does not mean they disagree on all points. [edit to fix tag]

As my analysis indicates, nearly all nations be at ZI. It will take considerably more than 100M to bring them back to a level where they could pump out 18M per cycle. No, there aren't. I can see every single war every single NPO nation has fought. Since we're using quotes to indicate sarcasm, there is not a "large amount" that have not had those numbers of wars. Uh yeah, we do take issue with it, because under your estimates, we fail to meet the monthly quotas. And what happens then? Does Karma not intend to enforce the monthly quotas? Or do they re-declare war on us? Perhaps you understand our concerns in such a matter? We are required to pay 1/12 of the terms every month. Your estimates only take tech into account, and fail to meet the tech quota at that. Your scenario has us violating the terms and us having war declared on us once again. And you haven't even begun to account for the 7B. That's not correct. Assuming my damage estimates due to tech, fewer than 60 nations who are presently above 1K tech will have more than 0 tech. That's not the "vast majority" of 147 or 181 by any stretch of the word "majority." So yes, your conclusion is wrong, because tech will be relevant to growth, because that tech will have to be purchased. You are incorrect. It was stipulated that the money will have to be paid off in tandem with tech. We will not accept terms that we cannot pay. Your own analysis here would doom us to being re-declared after we violate the terms. I am glad you are coming around to our side. Your rebuilding does not take into the account the restriction on internal to external aid slots. Our internal slot usage must equal our external slot usage. Furthermore, as your analysis does not have us meeting the quota, this part of your analysis is flawed. The difference is is that Karma gets to choose from a bountiful supply of nations its fighters. You have more fighters than we have nations you would attack. Karma can approach a higher efficiency because their supply outweighs the demand. When they do a roll-call, or whatever they do, 100% of the people who answer it are active. 100% of them can be assigned. Sure, I bet there will be some inefficiencies, but they will be tiny. The inefficiencies the NPO has to deal with, however, are of a different nature. 100% slot alignment is impossible on this scale. 100% participation by *all* nations in the alliance, which is what many Karma analyses assume, is obviously ridiculous. 100% participation by those who answer a roll-call in a military endeavor which doesn't have the problem of "slot inefficiencies," and also doesn't have to worry about staggering due to the nature of these terms, is a very different kind efficiency scenario.

You're telling me that 18 alliances, having months to plan to this operation, choose their crack, elite troops, and select targets, aren't going to have their best fighters, with WRCs and lots of tech, target these nations? I did not create my analysis assuming incompetence from the other side.

That's fine. You're at war for us attacking OV. I get that. You guys can use that argument, because none of you are attacking OV. Response to side note: if the past is relevant for judging our actions, then it's relevant for judging our opponents, and I cry hypocrisy to those alliances who gladly picked up a sword, fought on our side and reaped the benefits of our victories, and now leave our blocs days before the conflict in a sudden "change of heart," and plunge the very sword they carried underneath our banner into our people. [edit spelling]

How is it flawed? The numerical analysis of war damage is based on exactly 14 days of warfare. I fail to see how your predictions are remotely accurate. You're telling me Karma isn't going to nuke these nations? They're just going to do spy ops on them? Why didn't someone tell me this?! I would have told the Emperor to accept it: "Don't worry, Moo, they're just going to do so spy ops on our nations, not nukes, air attacks, ground attacks and cruise missiles." I don't think you understand how devastating months of nuclear war and/or peace mode. Most of the nations in peace mode have had dozens of war during this conflict. One round of nuclear war with three nations can easily cost more than 100M. Less than 25% of them have been in PM the whole war. Those nations, of course, have lost significant income due to the length of peace mode. It's not "in the slighest" that matters, but enough to meet the monthly quotas that are specified in the terms. Again, your estimates are simply ridiculous. Firstly, there are now 147 nations with more than 1K. At your stated number of 30%, it would take about 8 months. However, you estimate does not properly take into account the fact that we have to pay both the tech reps and the monetary reps simultaneously. Many of those same nations who have to pay tech, will also have to pay money. Moreover, your efficiency rate encompasses multiple variables: participation and slot efficiency, which you haven't counted for. That does not even begin to take into the account the necessity that much of our aid will have to be directed internally for a long time, in order to ameliorate the bill-locked state of many of our nations. In order to make these kinds of estimates you have to examine the totality of our alliance's economic situation. You can't just look at one part of the terms, but all of them. You can't just consider external aid, you have to consider internal aid too. This is what your present analysis lacks. NpO's war was quite different circumstances. It lasted only a month. Ours is fast approaching its third month, with no end in sight. While I admire Polaris's rebuilding efforts, I also recognize that their realities are not our realities.

You state that my calculations are "made up." I invite you to read my posts and point out which calculations are made up. To help you, I shall copy and paste my posts into this post: See. This is what I like. Honesty. I don't believe that these reparation amounts were in any way based off of calculations on how much we could pay. I think Karma came up with a number that sounded good to them, and gave it to us. When we responded that we felt it was not payable and provided a lot of economic analysis to back it up, they were forced to try to come with unrealistic economic models to prove that we can. But when it comes down to it, steodonn, I think your opinion reflects that of Karma best than many other posts I've seen in the past few days. These terms weren't made to be payable. Many alliances in Karma, against us, wants eternal war with us. They know that PR-wise, that's going to be hard to get. So they sit around and think, "What terms would be impossible to pay, just like eternal war, which is what we want? That way, we get the benefits of eternal war, without the negative PR" This is the result. I think that Karma's attempts are pretty transparent, made more so by the rejection of the counter-offer and their stated unwillingness to drop the peace mode clause, and tech coming from 1K+ nation clauses, no matter what was given by NPO in exchange.

See, this is an argument Karma should not be making. You can't be making an argument that we were bad in the past. The problem with that argument, is that for nearly every "evil" act we may have done, there's an alliance on your side of the aisle who proudly did it with us. This is going to cause you problem down the road. If you're punishing us, for, say, NV, then you have to punish FOK too, because they were with us. See how that's problematic for you? Moreover, the problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually examine the actual terms that we've been given. You can compare these terms to past terms until the cows come home (pun intended), but it doesn't speak to the fact that these terms are not doable. On more than one occasion, people have linked you to the economic analysis in my signature, always with the response that "these have been discredited." I am eager to see a Karma analysis of how these are discredited. If simply respond with "It's been done," and not link me to them, or not make one on your own, I will simply assume it does not exist. No one in the New Pacific Order is demanding special treatment. We're not "demanding" anything. During negotiations, we simply wanted terms that are doable. Terms that would not result in a re-declaration of war. Terms without large loopholes. And moreover, terms that by a facial reading of them, we felt we could accomplish. We were not given such terms. This leads me to doubt the sincerity of some of the alliances who gave us such terms, since I neither think them stupid nor we particularly smart. I think many of those alliances can and indeed did, come to the same conclusions that we did regarding the terms, but they found the terms acceptable for the very same reasons that we did not -- they were impossible.

I don't think you left at the first sign of trouble, LoD. You've been with us a long time. I think it's very regrettable that you chose, however, to leave during war. There are many though, who lurk on our forums, do nothing, do not fight, and leave during war. They are fools if we think we have forgotten them.

I can agree with much of what you say, except you left out a part. Yes, it's a decision that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But it's a decision to forsake an agreement made between two parties. What I object to is not the leaving itself, but the unilateral leaving. If you want to leave an alliance, and have a good reason, a mutually agreeable resolution can probably be reached. If you do not bother to even talk to the partner of your oath, you have nothing but my contempt for your decision. I object to fair-weather patriots who join during peace and leave during war. I defy you to find someone who agrees with such a position. Perhaps if my alliance were some beacon of neutrality, or never, ever went to war or honored treaties, I could see it as reasonable for members to leave during war; they never expected war when they signed. But you're a fool to join an alliance like mine, or like yours, and not expect war to come some day. And if you run at the first sign of trouble, you should not have joined in the first place, and you won't have my blessing when you leave your shield on the battlefield.

No, I'm asking you a question: do you think it's alright for people to abandon an alliance they made a pledge to during war time? Moreover, without informing anyone? And to answer your question and the speculation, no, we're not targeting deserters.

You think it's alright for people to abandon an alliance they made a pledge to, during war time?

Though this might surprise you, the New Pacific Order is not the same as it was yesterday, nor even the day before. Nay, dare I say, it was different last year, and the year before that. Were I the gambling type, I might lay a wager that it will be different tomorrow, and even the day next. I treat these posts with frivolity because that's precisely what they deserve. No alliance plans its internal reforms on these forums, and no alliance accepts outside discussion from non-allies on internal matters. If you want to have a say in how the New Pacific Order governs itself, guess what, you have to be in the New Pacific Order. But I understand that it is much easier taking pot shots from the outside than persuading those within. You'll also pardon my evil nature if I doubt the sincerity of those who so kindly make suggestions as to our internal matters. While a less suspecting man might invite Kingzog to be Viceroy of the NPO and implement his glorious Great Reform of the New Pacific Order, I am not that man. John Michaels, similarly, was last in the New Pacific Order in late 2007. While you're welcome to accept whatever he thinks about our alliance as true and golden, if you choose to accept the wild premise that we're a bit different than we were yesterday, I bet you could take the leap that we're more different from late 2007 than we are from yesterday. You similarly, were in our alliance for about 8 months, and haven't been around for about half a year. While you might be capable of offering a decent perspective of a an on-the-ground member for the time you were around, HeinousOne, alliances do change, and that you base your perceptions of the present NPO off of an older NPO speaks more to you, I think, than it does to us. Similarly, if you took the time to speak to LoD, as I did, I think you would find that he did not leave the New Pacific Order because of some stifling of free spech/thought/non-baby-eating or whatever it is you think we do that is so evil. You ask us to change, but you are unwilling to change your view of us.

I tried to follow your advice, but we don't have hydrants in the United Socialist States of Cortath. Fires are put out with baby blood, sacrificed from our hapless member who are brain-washed as to follow us. Some people disagree, because once the blood from the babies is gone, the flavor of the baby loses a certain j'na se quois. One of our members suggested to me once that I use a different liquid, but after such an impudent suggestion from an underling, I sent him to the slave mines to mine more gold to complete the project of gilding the 500 foot spittoon that the leader of Cortath traditionally spits in to once a year, such that its beleaguered people might have the privilege of tasting our leader's saliva.

I don't think you want the Order to burn to the ground. I also think you've made some great contribution to the Order in your day, which is why your present actions puzzle me so much. I don't know why you've left the Order in a time of war though. Did you ask the Emperor for a dispensation? These have been granted before to people who wanted to leave during war and had a compelling reason. The beauty of democratic autocracy is that it is flexible to change according to the material realities that confront us.

It's as if you read the very drafts of my speeches!

Of course they do. There is no post we could make that would make those who oppose us happy. No words we could say, no actions we could do, other than "die," to appease many of our opponents. I know that there are some good people among our opponents, those who might wish to give us doable terms, but those people are held back by those who wish eternal war, be it in the form of actual war, or terns that would not possibly take because they are not possible.

You make me blush.

No one from Karma has provided an analysis of the totality of reparations in the context of our economic reality. I have. I invite them to critique it, or offer an independent analysis. I directed the good man to my signature because he said he was too lazy to find the links. I provided them, because I am nothing if not a gentleman.

The New Pacific Order will not disband.

Here you go. Read my sigs. Come back and have a nice day.

If only we had the disbandment nukes now, eh Vol Navy?