How unified are the four blocs?

[Sardonic]

[quote name='ty345' timestamp='1307800694' post='2729165']
Next major global war almost inevitably with current political standings: SF and XX vs PB/DH and maybe CnG
[/quote]
This is not what my analysis has yielded, not is it terribly desirable.

As to the question in the OP: It entirely depends on the CB, who is acting on the CB, what peripheral allies are involved, etc. At present time I see only one potential "clean" war with all fighting on the same side.

[IYIyTh]

Oh no, a multi-polar world, what everyone wanted!

Quick, destroy it!

[MutedFaith]

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1307787968' post='2729122']
INT has MDoAP's with RIA and R&R, not nothing and an ODP as you indicate. Unless something changed in the week I've been gone. And I'd be very sad if it did, because I love those two.
[/quote]


Correct. INT does have an MDoAP with both R&R and RIA.

[flak attack]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1307775285' post='2729085']
Thats kind of a different situation, because the majority of One Vision was Q members (NPO, IRON, and later MCXA) with a few people real close (GGA, NpO, and later Echelon). We don't have anything quite like that, it'd be more like comparing Pandora's Box and Doom House then it would be to compare any of the four blocs in the opening post image.
[/quote]
Ignoring that DH isn't a bloc, you're correct.

[quote name='Krausberg' timestamp='1307782774' post='2729109']
I thought MK would've been put up there. Even though they aren't in the blocs their MDoAP'd to 3 CnG alliances and 3 PB alliances. Just Sayin...

P.S-If I'm wrong blame the wiki
[/quote]
You're right.

[Guffey]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1307805349' post='2729202']
This is not what my analysis has yielded, not is it terribly desirable.

As to the question in the OP: It entirely depends on the CB, who is acting on the CB, what peripheral allies are involved, etc. At present time I see only one potential "clean" war with all fighting on the same side.
[/quote]


is that the same one we just had, but again?

[New Frontier]

Newsflash: Everyone is treatied to everyone.

More at eleven.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1307770863' post='2729046']
Not at all.
[/quote]

This

I also voted around 60-70% on your question. Something will happen that will break them apart. Each of the blocs listed all have their own goals and if sticking with the current power structure gets that done then so be it.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1307815517' post='2729301']
Ignoring that DH isn't a bloc, you're correct.
[/quote]
Also, MK isn't an alliance. It is an organization of nations that cooperate for mutual defense and economic benefit under the leadership of a governing body.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Delta1212

[Banksy]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307805411' post='2729203']
Oh no, a multi-polar world, what everyone wanted!

Quick, destroy it!
[/quote]
It is only 'multi-polar' when there isn't a looming war. The planet is always bipolar when there is a major threat.

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1307830891' post='2729418']
Also, MK isn't an alliance. It is an organization of nations that cooperate for mutual defense and economic benefit under the leadership of a governing body.
[/quote]
If SF has no legal bloc structure, offsite forums or internal leadership then I have to feel sorry for you. DH is just a three way treaty we made based on a video (OOC: SA forum joke) we all knew. If we'd known how stupid everyone was going to be about it i'm sure we would have just signed separate treaties.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1307821936' post='2729359']
is that the same one we just had, but again?
[/quote]
No.

I don't really want to attack NPO again, too much paperwork.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307837541' post='2729461']
It is only 'multi-polar' when there isn't a looming war. The planet is always bipolar when there is a major threat.

[/quote]

Eh, a multi-polar world is still a multi-polar world even in the unlikely event each pole decides to stack against each other on two sides in what is perceived to be a bi-polar contest.

They take these positions according to each pole's interest, and is thus still multi-polar.

The "Large," wars are far and few between, the "even," one's even moreso.

Edited June 12, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Banksy]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1307838667' post='2729469']
Eh, a multi-polar world is still a multi-polar world even in the unlikely event each pole decides to stack against each other on two sides in what is perceived to be a bi-polar contest.

They take these positions according to each pole's interest, and is thus still multi-polar.

The "Large," wars are far and few between, the "even," one's even moreso.
[/quote]
No, because XX isn't a pole (it doesn't do anything). Neither is C&G, SF or Pandora's box. When they actually start to do !@#$, two sides will form.

Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere.

[New Frontier]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307837541' post='2729461']
If SF has no legal bloc structure, offsite forums or internal leadership then I have to feel sorry for you. DH is just a three way treaty we made based on a video (OOC: SA forum joke) we all knew. If we'd known how stupid everyone was going to be about it i'm sure we would have just signed separate treaties.
[/quote]
I don't know if calling a three-way treaty a bloc really qualifies as "being stupid".

[flak attack]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1307843338' post='2729501']
I don't know if calling a three-way treaty a bloc really qualifies as "being stupid".
[/quote]
Considering that beyond the number of signatories, DH shares no characteristics with traditional bloc treaties, it really is.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307842996' post='2729496']
No, because XX isn't a pole (it doesn't do anything). Neither is C&G, SF or Pandora's box. When they actually start to do !@#$, two sides will form.

Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere.
[/quote]

I'll assume that you mention XX because of my AA.

Necessitating whether doing something makes something a political entity is a fallacy.

There is positive power and negative power. The ability to get someone to do something they normally wouldn't and the ability to prevent someone from doing something they might do otherwise.

You reference compellance, or positive power to be the only quality an entity must have in order to be considered a pole.

Detterrance, or the ability to stop someone from doing what they would normally do is also a quality of a pole (and inconsequentially, the reason most oft associated with forming one. In CN usually in the form of long-term ramifications coupled with an alliances treaties, indirect and direct, and most importantly strength.)

Each bloc and individual alliance has a certain amount of compellance and deterrant power, with varying degrees of such.

If each alliance/bloc decides that it is not in its best interest "to do something," because of another bloc/alliance's detterrance, it does not make them any less of an alliance or bloc.

You reference sides as if there's always two. There are about as many individual sides to every large conflict as there are alliances.
The norm is that alliances co-operate only in their self-interest and it is often in one's self-interest to avoid war due to the long-term ramifications and cost versus the satisfaction that victory would provide at a given time.

Otherwise we'd just all be at war with eachother all of the time.

Edited June 12, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Azaghul]

Voted no and 0-10, simply because I doubt that any war that didn't break them up somehow could really be classified as a "major" war, since there aren't enough outside elements to effectively form another side to a major war, a mid-sized war maybe.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307837541' post='2729461']
If SF has no legal bloc structure, offsite forums or internal leadership then I have to feel sorry for you. DH is just a three way treaty we made based on a video (OOC: SA forum joke) we all knew. If we'd known how stupid everyone was going to be about it i'm sure we would have just signed separate treaties.
[/quote]
This.

[eyriq]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307842996' post='2729496']
No, because XX isn't a pole (it doesn't do anything). Neither is C&G, SF or Pandora's box. When they actually start to do !@#$, two sides will form.

Just because a bloc exists doesn't make it a power sphere.
[/quote]

You seem to be misrepresenting the idea of a bloc. It is a collectivization of interests. When you collective interests multilaterally at the alliance level, it is similar to what occurs at the nation level; you arrive at a powerful actor. The more collectivized NS there is the more power there is. I've seen you comment on politics before and I doubt you are unaware of something that basic, so I can only assume you have some sort of grudge against the current power dynamics, for whatever reason. Or you are aware of the state of current bloc cohesion and you know that several of the bloc no longer function, but I doubt that would apply to XX since they are so new.

[AnCapistan]

Yes they can (be viewed as one unit), anyone who tells you differently is either naive, stupid, or lying.

The last aggressive war they all started pretty much proves this.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Mr Damsky

[Sarmatian Empire]

This is irrelevant, the next war won't be taking place for another...what 7-10 months? (according to recent history anyway) A lot can and will change between now and then. One of these blocs might not even be around.

[Baltus]

You may defend your friends. You may defend your bloc mates, but that does not mean that you'll go fighting for your bloc mate's friend's friend's friend's optional friend. Of course there will be some overall cooperation, but that does not specifically mean that they will always cooperate. The nature of the treaty web demands that they be closely aligned, but there can be some dissent, otherwise there would be WUT like bloc here somewhere.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Baltus' timestamp='1307845649' post='2729535']
You may defend your friends. You may defend your bloc mates, but that does not mean that you'll go fighting for your bloc mate's friend's friend's friend's optional friend. Of course there will be some overall cooperation, but that does not specifically mean that they will always cooperate. The nature of the treaty web demands that they be closely aligned, but there can be some dissent, otherwise there would be WUT like bloc here somewhere.
[/quote]

There's always going to be dissent. There was dissent within Q, which culminated in three alliances leaving the bloc days before the war started. Does this mean that we could never view Q as one entity?

Now granted, Q was one bloc and these are four so I can see why people would say differently, however, the four are so intermingled and their core interests (or at least their core fears) are all the same and that leads to some pretty strong bonds.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1307845341' post='2729528']
You seem to be misrepresenting the idea of a bloc. It is a collectivization of interests. When you collective interests multilaterally at the alliance level, it is similar to what occurs at the nation level; you arrive at a powerful actor. The more collectivized NS there is the more power there is. I've seen you comment on politics before and I doubt you are unaware of something that basic, so I can only assume you have some sort of grudge against the current power dynamics, for whatever reason. Or you are aware of the state of current bloc cohesion and you know that several of the bloc no longer function, but I doubt that would apply to XX since they are so new.
[/quote]
By that standards those with many individual treaties that link themselves together form a block. By that standard we are in a block with both PB and C&G, since we are allied to 3/6 in PB and 3/5 in C&G, and Doomhouse includes FOK. That's an informal definition.

So yes, you could say that informally, DH is a block, and that there are many other informal blocks based on many mutual individual treaties. That doesn't mean that we are formally one though. We don't think of it as one, there's no language that says that it is a block, and there's no admission or expulsion procedure to add new alliances, only the traditional cancellation clause to a normal treaty.

MK isn't too keen on blocks, they are too constricting.

[Kalasin]

Honestly, who gives a !@#$ about whether DH is a bloc or not? Both a bloc and a ~three-way treaty~ have the same implications for wars and the world stage. I personally couldn't care less whether it has a forum or leadership structure or whatever the hell blocs are supposed to have. If DH don't want to call it a bloc, let them. It makes no difference.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1307837541' post='2729461']
It is only 'multi-polar' when there isn't a looming war. The planet is always bipolar when there is a major threat.


If SF has no legal bloc structure, offsite forums or internal leadership then I have to feel sorry for you. DH is just a three way treaty we made based on a video (OOC: SA forum joke) we all knew. If we'd known how stupid everyone was going to be about it i'm sure we would have just signed separate treaties.
[/quote]
There are well organized alliances and poorly organized alliances. They're both still alliances. So it goes with blocs. You may have formed it as a joke, but you still formed it. Unless the treaty you signed is actually a joke and none of you consider it binding, you're part of a bloc whether it's a serious effort in coordination or just a legal artifact on paper.

I'm mystified as to why you have such a problem with this. It's like Ram and his unconditional surrender all over again.

[Hydro]

I'm surprised you didn't include NPO dead center in the middle of the web with bold font. Props on that.