MCRABT

Like they totally skipped out Umbrella in the last war right?

Before I actually examine this hollow shell of a response lets examine your initial statement: Actually IRON won every war it entered during my tenure as President. That's a bold claim, IRON has been involved in 11 major wars, you have managed to scurry together evidence based on one break up, the break up of what was the oldest MD level treaty in the game. Even if the claims in your response were accurate this would not support your claim, in other words your simply making it up as you go along in the hope that no one calls you on it. Everyone knows you shout and scream for age upon page so rather than make the effort to contest terrible sales pitch they simply let it slide. Unfortunately for you I have the day off. On to your response: I've never separated the reasons for the TOP cancellation in terms of importance, I may have numbered them in order to present them in a list but nowhere have I suggested that one was more important than the other. On to the claim itself: actually my major problem as posted on your forums was: But hey! I understand it's easier to take one sentence from a statement, rip it from the context and then portray it as the entire thing. Go back to the car lot Rush, I think you are lost.

Do you care to give specific examples? Of course you don't because you specialise in making ridiculous generalisation grounded in fiction. For all the fluster and rage you spout out all over the OWF you say literally nothing of worth and for that reason you are considered in many corners of bob as nothing more that a mildly entertaining circus act. You remind me of a second hand car sales man pitching bollocks in the hope that you can fool some chump into believing your bullshit. Look beyond the surface and your piece of junk argument falls to pieces. If the logs bare it out my dear Rush then lets see them. Success is subjective but at least I'm not spending my retirement roaming around the OWF like an escaped dementia patient.

I know you try to play the elder-statesman, but your demented inconsistent rants just make you look silly. Congratulations IRON and VE :)

What is your definition of Perma ZI?

Have things around here grown so stale that we are now debating whether or not treaties should be announced on the OWF? :unsure: I'm sure the wiki will be edited accordingly in line with this announcement, the reason people announce treaties here is so that there existence is known to as many people as possible. This makes sense since this arena has a much larger audience than the OWF.

Yikes clutching at straws much? Comprehend better and the contradiction you're trying to infer will disappear. Since I know you often struggle in this regard: If I'd said NG will be good allies because they are fine friends then you may have had a point. Please feel free to try again though :)

Looking forward to getting to know you all better MI6.

That was poorer than usual. Mindless hail and such, NG are fine friends and I'm glad to be allied to them again.

Obviously this meets with my approval :)

Obviously your love for me is substantial so you can't hate everyone :ehm: To add to myth's response which I agree with entirely. A semi-neutral block is the most useless construct one could ever put together, in may look good on paper but it political realities a block without a common objective and a drive direction is nothing more than a redundant group of alliances floating around waiting to be attacked by other alliances. Stripping it back to basics by taking this approach you are failing to act rationally to defend your self interests. If this truly is how SF/XX intend to operate moving forward then they should be rolled until they disband for the good of their members and the greater community. As for it not giving anyone the edge, it doesn't matter, as I've highlighted friendship influences decision making at the pinnacle of the status-quo also, if you are disliked by powerful actors and easy to attack, then those with the ability to do so will exploit this in order that they don't have to pick been conflicting friends. I've already demonstrated those who could help you won't, I've demonstrated why they shouldn't help you and I've demonstrated how you can help yourselves. As for rolling XX/SF to become the dominant force, those who really want you dead are already the dominant force. Allowing yourself to get herded together by a scary foe is a sheepish response. If XX/SF is happy to allow their enemies to shepherd them, then quite honestly you deserve everything that comes your way. I may even nuke you myself.

I chose XX/SF because they are at the bottom of the pile, it is unrealistic to expect rational actors to freely give up their own power and by implication their security in order to better the situation of rival entities. XX/SF on the other hand presently have no political power to lose and thus they best exemplify the redundancy model I demonstrated in the OP. In the past other have occupied the position of XX/SF, in the aftermath of the bi-polar war for example it became clear that the ex-hegemony group was unsustainable. Under my recommendation IRON reviewed a number of treaties with ex-heg alliances, thereafter DR split away from association with the ex-heg alliances and formed it's own political niche.

The transfer of sovereignty (even temporary) from an individual to an alliance level is justified by the premise that security can be better achieved as a collective than as an individual. If to use your term the "marriage" of your alliance to another jeopardises rather than enhances the security of the collective then an alliance has failed to maintain its most fundamental objective. Moreover alliances are legitimised by Kantian theories of social contract, as such a strong argument could be put forward that by settling for relationships that are to the detriment of the security of the collective, that the representatives responsible for their upkeep have breached their own charter and should be removed from government. I'm not suggesting this is a serious possibility just alluding to the potential theoretical implications of maintaining a treaty that breaches the principles upon which alliances are built. Inertia wins out because it is easier, nothing worth having comes easy. I'm not suggesting that breaking the nostalgia of historic treaties is easy, merely that is what is best for alliances in the situations I've identified and for politics on bob as a whole. I take your points about elites, I'm sure that does put a lot of people off, nevertheless it's not difficult, especially in this day in age where talented leaders are few and far between, to break into government of an alliance so long as you have enough time to manage the responsibilities of taking on such a role. Mediocre alliances are in their position because of poor policy decisions, of course it is not easy to work your way back up from the bottom to the top (I know I've done it), but you cannot very well sit and do absolutely nothing and simply expect those in power to hand it over to you. At the end of the day securing a degree of power for your alliance ensures you have an element of security so if your not looking for to empower your alliance what the hell are you doing in government position in the first place?

I don't agree that it does make them less safe, in fact when you are a politically isolated with a multitude of enemies then grouping yourself together with other isolated alliances means hitting you is like shopping on a buy one get one free basis. I think history shows that alliances are far more likely to end up at war through treaty chains than they are from direct attack. It is actually very difficult to rally support to hit a singular alliance because grievances with a single alliance are likely to be isolated, if you group 5 alliances together however you could probably find twice as many with grievances never-mind reasons for wanting to take them on as a group. As such I reject the premise that two alliances should maintain a treaty on the basis that it makes them a "good ally". If a treaty makes you a liability to one another then maintaining it does not make you a good ally it makes you both idiots. The tragedy in this situation is that the current formula produces the same outputs over and over again but the same group of alliances continue to take the same medicine and label blame on others when it produces the same results. As for what alliances in this situation should do, maintain the friendships, break up the treaties, explore other political options, the worst thing that can happen is you get rolled, that's going to happen anyway. Changing the status-quo provides you with longer term opportunities that would otherwise be absent in the mean time at least you have some trying something new. We occupy this realm for pleasure after all.

Yeah, your probably right at least in the short-term if people are to stupid to realise they are doing it wrong then I guess they deserve the consequences. I know you don't mean that Auctor :blush: . To illuminate something that may not be as clear as it maybe should have been: ending a treaty is not akin to ending a friendship, this common misconception is a part of the problem. My argument is that even the closest of friends should not obligate themselves to defend each other unless it makes political sense to do so. Friendship is of course a pre-requisite to a treaty but if mutual obligation does not strengthen the political position of the respective treaty partners then expressing your friendship in terms of defence obligations does not make sense, in many cases it is actually detrimental and thus self-defeating for the agreed parties.

Since Karma, political leaders and players alike have complained about the stagnation of politics on bob, in this brief discussion I hope to create a community awareness of the causes of this stagnation and shed light on a number of possible solutions. It is first necessary to examine the dynamics of international politics post Equilibrium, while I believe it to be self-evident that politics have stagnated, any good philosopher would challenge this assertion, thus it is necessary to establish a reasoned foundation for my argument. Post-EQ the major power blocs remain relatively intact as a result tensions between the power groups will continue to exert themselves as they did pre- EQ. CnG/NG will continue to hate SF/XX and vice versa. SF/XX will continue to hate CnG/DH/NG. A desire to keep the power of the other in check will continue to produce tensions between DH and DR. DR and SF/XX will continue to avoid fighting one another because of their common enemy but will be prevented from creating deeper ties due to political practicalities and historical mistrust. While the EQ war failed to change to composition of the major power groups it did have fairly transparent benefactors. With EQ proving unsustainable due to the unwillingness of many participants to fight for the greater good rather than more narrow self-interested objectives it seems unlikely that the group will ever be re-assembled. The implication of this is SF/XX and DR/NPO are unlikely to be partners in arms in the near future. This leaves SF/XX in a very precarious position so long as NG/CNG- DR/NPO relations remain friendly. At the same time CnG/NG are effectively a buffer between DH and DR any decision on their part to side with DR/NPO or DH would surely seal the others fate. This in itself is reason enough for DR to avoid as being seen to support XX/SF. It seems apparent to me that the current state of affairs can result in but one outcome: XX/SF getting rolled again after which we will have a cold war between DR/NPO and DH. For those who will argue that DR-NPO/DH doesn't seem that keen for going after one another, I would follow the work of esteemed academic John Herz and suggest that it does not matter. The presence of a security dilemma has produced self-fulfilling outcomes in this realm many times before and thus I have little doubt that it will do so again. So we have reached an impasse, it seems obvious to me that we are about to repeat the past year of history on bob. So I refer back to my early assertion: politics on bob are stagnant. Traditionally leaders and observers on bob have taken to blaming those at the top of the political status-quo for the stagnation of politics on bob. My argument is that stagnation occurs because alliances on bob make decisions motivated by the wrong reasons. An alliance is our equivalent of the nation-state, its fundamental duty is the protection of its members, yet alliances on bob are willing to neglect their primary duty in favour of friendships, as result alliances often make extremely poor strategic decisions that ironically benefit neither their members nor their friends. In the context provided, what immediately crops to mind when you say "poor strategic decisions" to the detriment of ones own members is honouring a treaty in a loosing war, I feel it is necessary to stress this is not what I'm referring to, honouring a treaty can be justified in terms of Realpolitik when assessing the long term situation. By no means then do I suggest that honouring a treaty is a poor strategic decision. What I would say is that maintaining a treaty that is of no practical political value for reasons of friendship is an extremely poor decision. As an alliance leader in such a situation, not only are your neglecting your primary responsibility to your members, you are also increasing your allies exposure to your enemies. This manifests itself most evidently at block level where a political group simply becomes a target to shoot it. Applied to our reality it is evident to me that SF and XX fall firmly into this category, they are politically bankrupt but maintain political ties for reasons of friendship when they could achieve better political ends, individually and collectively by breaking up. The fact that the two separate political entities are now largely lumped together as one only exemplifies how this grouping slots into the target hypothesis most perfectly. While I do agree that friendship validates a treaty, of itself it is not sufficient reason to maintain a treaty in light of the hazards identified. Maintaining treaties on feelings of nostalgia is in my view the primary cause of stagnation on bob. At the the other end of political spectrum friendship stagnates politics in that even the most powerful alliances have a tendency to shy away from their political objectives in order to placate their friends. Examples of this include aspirations to go after politically isolated groups in order to avoid conflicting treaties and while I will refrain from naming specific examples because it is information obtained in opsec situations, I assure you this is more widespread than you would realise. In essence this is yet another example of alliances putting the political interests of their allies above their own. I do not contest that compromise is a part of any relationship but I do object to the premise that one should placate their interests in favour of their allies in order to be a "good ally". Relegating your interests to placate an ally is but another example of alliances failing in their primary responsibilities for reasons of friendship. I contest that in order to produce a more fluid and interesting political environment the community as a whole must recognise that friendship and politics are not one in the same. Friendship contributes to narrow decision making at the pinnacle of the status-quo and inhibits political progression at the lowest level. In the interest of entertainment, it is high time that alliances prioritised their primary responsibilities. Thoughts? Retorts?

Congrats guys :)

Congratulations to my old friends in AZTEC, GLoF in particular in who you could find no finer ally.

But MHA proved how ferocious they were in the last war. IRON how could you :psyduck:

Classy way to do things TOP, sad to see OG on the blink, good luck on whatever you guys choose to do OG.

I know you guys have been working on this relationship for some time, congratulations guys its good to see two old enemies moving to create a new chapter together.

Mia, we have been friends for a long time in this realm, your council and friendship over the years has been greatly appreciated and I am sure you will do a fine job as IRON's VIII President. I was unaware that I you held me in such low regard Rush, our interactions have always been pleasant enough in my experience, the last time you commented on my leadership here you stated that I was normally a very good leader or something to that effect and while we disagreed about how BFF handled the NEW situation, I have to say that I am surprised by the implication that your loss of respect is somehow related to me. I guess haters gona hate. Sounds good to me.

We were planning a war with DH, just like you guys were planning a war with us, that doesn't mean either side was necessarily planning to attack the other, given the long term tensions between alliances within our respective spheres it would be irresponsible for parties on either side of the fence not to have been preparing for this conflict. It was widely recognised on all sides of the fence that the power dynamics pitted DR/NPO and DH as the primary competitors for power, as DH was the only threat to our security and we were the only threat to yours it is only natural that both sides would prepare to face off with one another. Unfortunately (or not depending on how bored you are) in CN this security dilemma is often self-fulfilling and thus we find ourselves in at war. It is not that we dislike Umbrella perse it is the nature of the game, we could all strive to change the dynamics that influence the international system but this would result in bob being even more dull that it is at present. tl;dr Don't hate the player hate the game.

Actually large nations roaming around in the 20k NS range is not a problem at all for a multitude of reasons. First off damage at this range is superficial it can be replaced entirely within 20 days at an expense of around $30 million, factor in the HUGE numerical advantage the EQ side has in that range, nations can be cycled in and out at will. Nations below 50k NS are never going to have free range to move around as these please, if you think otherwise cast your eyes over to VE and Deinos. Secondly as has been eluded to above 150k NS DH seems to have the edge, thus there will likely come a point where those above 150k NS become redundant in this war (this will not be before a good number of them have been dragged down), as a consequence of this probability ,the likelyhood is that a good number of our top tier (IRON's) will be out of range of those 150k NS nations leaving them free to pump anyone slogging it out in the lower ranges with cash, due to the dysfunctional aid system in CN they can literally spend it as they go, having a large warchest in this range thus becomes irrelevant, DH nations will thus have to buy out of that range or be continually grinded causing little to long term damage, low range nukes will still eat into Umbrellas tech.

This was a good analysis, well done. I wouldn't simply presume however that DH nations are the only folks with solid warchests, especially in the upper tier.