Political Realism and the current war

[Aeros]

For a student of International Relations, the community we have created here on Bob is a fascinating and ongoing case study that more than other online game I have seen, simulates the true complexity of the International System. With that in mind, I have decided to apply the third level of analysis to try and understand how the war came about, and more importantly where we all may go from here. For the layman, the levels of analysis are the State as a unitary actor (Third), The bureaucratic processes within the State (Second), and finally the individual people inside the State(First). Sadly I am not privy to all the dealings going on behind closed doors, so my knowledge on latter two will be somewhat lacking, though I can grasp in general what is going on. The third level however is patently obvious to all, and is the one you notice every time a nuke goes off in your borders.

To first understand what is going on, we must first understand the nature of the system we find ourselves in. Who are the actors? How do these actors relate too each other? In the real world, the fundamental actor in global politics is the “Territorial State”. The Territorial State is defined by John Herz as “independent, sovereign states, who forever threatened by stronger power, survived precariously through the balance of power system”. The Territorial State is to be contrasted to a medieval state where the considerations of survival and rule of law were much more limited. A Feudal State maximized its security through the Lord, his Castle and a few men at arms. A regional affair, this was more than efficient in providing for security within and without. In general, the Territorial State (our modern view of it) existed only after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 following the advent of Gunpowder (that destroyed the Lords Castle) and the protestant reformation (that removed his divine right). These social and military revolutions required the Feudal Lords to combine into much larger dominions in order to provide for their own safety. I would argue that the Alliances in Cybernations function precisely like Territorial States in that they control their own internal affairs, they cannot be ordered by outside powers to change those affairs, and they seek to survive by forming partnerships with other actors in the system. In essence, our Alliances are independent, sovereign, and balance power in the international system, all the attributes of a State. More interestingly, the Alliances of Cybernations sprang up natively (independent of the game rules) for the same reasons that the Territorial State emerged in Europe in the 17th century. States emerged in order to provide security for their citizens, security that was lacking under the Feudal System now that Cannons were able to destroy the castle of the Feudal Lord. In order to protect from external enemies and internal strife, Europe would restructure itself into much larger dominions making up the old Feudal fiefs. In Cybernations, the individual player is an example of a feudal lord who commands his fief, yet very few of us could have the characteristics of a sovereign state; independence, sovereignty, and treaties with outside powers. Like the Feudal lords in real life, we realized that alone and outside the dominion of a greater power we had no security and would subsequently be destroyed. Thus, we established a new system, the Alliance, and gave it the power to rule over our fiefs. And just like the real world territorial states, Alliances have only one overarching concern. To survive.

Since we have established the similarities between Cybernations and the real world international system, we must now determine the nature of the system itself we are a part of. In general there are three types of ways in which territorial states will organize themselves; Unipolar, Bipolar and Multipolar. These methods of organization are directly related to the number of Great Powers in the system. A system with 1 Great Power is Unipolar, a system with 2 Great Powers is Bipolar, and a system with many great powers in Multipolar. Keeping in mind that the goal of a State is to survive, international theorists conclude that the most stable system is the Bipolar, as the two Great Powers knowing that they alone hold the power of destruction over their enemy, are more comfortable with their position. A Unipolar system by comparison exists in a vacuum and is open to abuse by the lone great power and bandwagoning on the part of secondary powers who seek to benefit from the great power. Which pales in comparison to the instability inherent to the Multipolar system. When there is a large collection of Great Powers, the risk of hegemonic war (war between great powers) is much more severe, as no one great power can be entirely certain of their position and must seek to balance its security externally through alliances with other great powers. The nature of any system is to achieve the stability of Bipolarity, as this is the most likely to prevent the destruction of the state. In a Multipolar system, this is expressed through Blocs. Real life examples being The Axis and Allies blocs in WWW2, or here on Bob, XX, SF, MJ, C&G, and so on. Unfortunately, alliances between great powers offer no guarantees and may in fact make war far more likely as an alliance between great powers will alarm rival great powers who may seek to attack rather than risk their situation become untenable. Robert Jervis summed this up nicely when he stated that “The lack of an international sovereign not only permits wars to occur, but also makes it difficult for states that are satisfied with the status quo to arrive at goals they recognize as being in their common interest”. Cooperation is ideal, but not everyone has the same idea of what can maximize the survival of their state. This leads to a certain level of mistrust, even amongst states that are officially allied.

Based on everything I have seen, Cybernations is an example of a multipolar system, where the Great Powers are represented by the largest alliances. Mainly, those alliances in the top 15 or 20 of the rankings (Give or take, feel free to troll). It is clear that the situation we are involved with is a Hegemonic War that sprang up due to a major shift in the Great Power stability. Mainly, the XX bloc. Prior to XX, the Sanctioned Alliances tended to be more or less at odds with each other in their own spheres of the treaty web, cultivating their own ties with Secondary Powers and an occasional Great Power alliance. XX is much different, being a military bloc made up exclusively of sanctioned alliances (The greatest of powers, some would say). To existing power structures, this is nothing short of alarming due in large part to a major difference between Cybernations and real life; military technology. In real life, there is always a consideration between the benefits of defense or offense as to which holds the greatest advantages. In the Feudal Era, Defense reigned supreme, but gunpowder changed that subsequently gave offense the advantage until the machine gun came around and the subsequent slaughter of World War 1. In Cybernations, there are no major technological differentiation between the State actors, and as consequence I would argue that all things being equal, the alliance that strikes first holds the greatest odds of winning. In game terminology, the phrase is “rolling”, and there is a powerful argument to be made for it. Barring external intervention, an alliance that is hit with a surprise invasion at update will be at a severe disadvantage. To the Great Powers outside of XX, the thought of the bloc launching an offensive against them was terrifying to contemplate, and a major threat to their primary goal of survival.

The only conclusion I can therefore reach is that rather than maximizing their security, the union of some of the most powerful alliances on Bob into the XX bloc greatly minimized their security by destabilizing the Great Power balancing. Alliances that were not allied with each other immediately began reaching out to other Great and Secondary powers in order to externally balance against XX. Thus you see this bizarre confluence of purpose between Mjolnir, Complaints and Grievances and to a lesser extent Doomhouse (Easily the most Bizarre party in this fight). Its clear that nobody is surprised by the Mjolnir-SF war, yet I would posit this part of the war is only possible due to the overriding conflict between C&G and XX. In a system by themselves, SF and MJ are more or less evenly matched in a Bipolar struggle whose outcome would have been far more uncertain, and immensely destructive to both. While some would argue that States in the real world seek peace and Alliances in Bob seek war (unless they are a lame neutral) I would point out again that more then war, Alliances on Bob want to survive and will do everything in their power to avoid war if the war threatens them with total destruction. It is for this reason the current war was so long in escalating. XX and SF could see the writing on the wall due to the huge force that had been arrayed against them. However, they could not escape the conflict as all the parties viewed the others as existential threats that had to be dealt with.

ref
1. John Herz, Rise and Demise of the Territorial State.
2. Robert Jervis, Cooperation under the Security Dilemma

Edited December 15, 2011 by Aeros

[Micheal Malone]

Was a good read, sadly lacking in NG and PB though...

[IYIyTh]

I don't know what the first half of your point really has to do with the game, but I'll take that as feeling that you need to cite sources to establish credibility because you recently entered college or some other institution.
However, you're comparing real-life examples to a fictional fairy-tale land where a nation receives nukes constantly during war-time and casualties are often sought after rather than dismissed by a good deal of active players.

Cybernation's has shifted between different types of systems multiple times. Unitary, Bi-polar, Multipolar et al. To gain a better grasp of what you perceive to be happening you need to know the motivation for each bloc involved, and once you do that none of the actions in this current war are really surprising at all. I think your analysis here assumes Mjolinor was formed before XX, which it wasn't.

The fact of the matter is that there were multiple reasons that a war against SF and XX was sought after, Fark's upper tier worried quite a few and many didn't want for a few large masses to swing against them in a war, (Like it or not, Half of CnG and Secondary allies are at war with MHA and its secondary allies, an alliance many claim to be a non-factor and bloated but in reality has taken quite a bit of concentration of force from a given front.) Couple that with old grudges and the fact that a few parties were so dense as to take the brunt of the damage for those whom would benefit most from said destruction, it was a win-win for all involved.

Your analysis also omits outliers such as VE, FOK, as well as tension between two bloc's (assuming one does not dissolve or lose one-or-two members due to its dysfunctionality,) which will be a fun focus for the future.

It is also incomplete as it does not detail pre-existing conditions or underlying reasons for XX's creation, or the pretty blatant provocations on the Polar-sphere in the leadup to this war.
In the history of wars, while it certainly is nowhere near a balanced fight, it is nonetheless not anywhere near the odds faced by IRON or TOP in the TOP-CnG war.

[Doitzel]

You give this community too much credit.

[Ogaden]

You were doing well until you got to the end and blamed XX for destabilizing the political situation.

This world ceased to be truly multipolar as soon as Pandora's Box was founded. The Multipolar world existed from the end of Karma, through the SuperGrievances era until it died in the BiPolar war.

The pretense of multi-polarity limped along without any legs until Pandora's Box was founded, establishing a hegemonic dominion that has lasted to this day, though who knows what will happen when this war ends, as cracks have certainly emerged in this modern-day WUT.

Yes, there are blocs, but not all blocs are truly independent. Those who are are currently being destroyed by those who aren't.

Edited December 15, 2011 by James Dahl

[Max Power]

Not reading that until you divide your paragraphs better, but realism definitely seems like the dominant theory in CN. It makes sense, too, when you consider all the "every alliance is the same!" posts compared to the black box theory. That and everything we blow up here is fictional, so maximizing state power and security is even more at the forefront.

[Aeros]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1323992405' post='2879221']
You were doing well until you got to the end and blamed XX for destabilizing the political situation.

This world ceased to be truly multipolar as soon as Pandora's Box was founded. The Multipolar world existed from the end of Karma, through the SuperGrievances era until it died in the BiPolar war.

The pretense of multi-polarity limped along without any legs until Pandora's Box was founded, establishing a hegemonic dominion that has lasted to this day, though who knows what will happen when this war ends, as cracks have certainly emerged in this modern-day WUT.

Yes, there are blocs, but not all blocs are truly independent. Those who are are currently being destroyed by those who aren't.
[/quote]

I will admit my ability to understand the situation is limited to the fact that I have only be observing the goings on for the last year. PB is one of the more confusing aspects of the system, I will give you that.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1323995002' post='2879282']
I will admit my ability to understand the situation is limited to the fact that I have only be observing the goings on for the last year. PB is one of the more confusing aspects of the system, I will give you that.
[/quote]

Your bloc is currently being used by the very powers who will destroy you guys once you are no longer useful, and you are no longer useful as soon as this war is over.
Now THAT is political realism.

Edited December 16, 2011 by James Dahl

[Aeros]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1323995260' post='2879285']
Your bloc is currently being used by the very powers who will destroy you guys once you are no longer useful, and you are no longer useful as soon as this war is over.
Now THAT is political realism.
[/quote]

You know, you keep bringing this up. Why don't you bring up all that talk Xiphosis made about us too? If you are looking for someone to blame, then blame the big mouth that stated unequivocally the position that your bloc was our enemy. Also do keep in mind that you guys declared war on us.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Aeros

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1323992405' post='2879221']
You were doing well until you got to the end and blamed XX for destabilizing the political situation.

This world ceased to be truly multipolar as soon as Pandora's Box was founded.
[/quote]

What this guy said. I really enjoyed the read though.

It's very hard to look at our world through a realist view. I can't remember the word (maybe you can help me out), but it's the view that people aren't completely rational actors, that emotion plays a role too. Here on Planet Bob, it's very easy to see. The causes of war are less about trying to increase your power, and more about "he said something mean to me".

Edited December 17, 2011 by Omniscient1

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324090138' post='2880236']
What this guy said. I really enjoyed the read though.

It's very hard to look at our world through a realist view. I can't remember the word (maybe you can help me out), but it's the view that people aren't completely rational actors, that emotion plays a role too. Here on Planet Bob, it's very easy to see. The causes of war are less about trying to increase your power, and more about "he said something mean to me".
[/quote]

Actually, there is some very evident fear about "What he might do to me in the future," too.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324090138' post='2880236']
What this guy said. I really enjoyed the read though.

It's very hard to look at our world through a realist view. I can't remember the word (maybe you can help me out), but it's the view that people aren't completely rational actors, that emotion plays a role too. Here on Planet Bob, it's very easy to see. [b]The causes of war are less about trying to increase your power, and more about "he said something mean to me".[/b]
[/quote]

Almost.

The causes of war are about someone somewhere wanting to increase their power and hiding it behind the veil of "he said something mean to me" or both reasons, but any war on a large scale has power at its core somewhere.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

As another student of International Relations, I am quite pleased by your post. However, I feel you have been unnecessarily wordy, especially with the introduction. To condense your major points (I will for now withhold the drier academic parallels to the real world):

1) The alliance is the equivalent of the modern state (I hesitate to use the word nation, given its connotations), and is the overwhelmingly primary, though not sole, actor in the international CN system.
2) Cybernations, at present (certainly not the past: CN has experienced both unipolar and bipolar states), is in a multipolar state, where several more or less clearly defined and independent blocs of power have significant leverage over the international system.
3) The creation of XX was an example of the security dilemma. That is, by banding together to increase their own security, they consequently threatened the security of other blocs and created a political alignment of nations against it.

I would say the use of Herz and Jervis is somewhat misplaced here, given I don't see the security dilemma as being the best method of analysis in this case. Instead, the more traditional theories of Morganthau or Kissinger, regarding balance of power politics and equilibrium, seem to be more relevant to your conclusions. Certainly, the creation of a powerful bloc can be provocative given the security implications it poses for alternative blocs, but the alignment of blocs and alliances against a perceived, existential threat is more consistent with states seeking equilibrium in traditional balance of power politics.

I also disagree with your assertion that uni-polarity is necessarily less stable. Modern constructivist/neoliberal/neorealist thought is quite open to the hegemonic stability theory. The predominant source of war in a hegemonic system is when hegemons decline in power relative to a rising state, i.e. power transition theory. The period in which the hegemon dominates, however, is predominantly stable.

I'm technically suppose to be working on my last few finals, but were I to put together an analysis of my own, I'd personally make more of a structural realist or neoliberal argument for CN along the lines of Waltz (for the former) and Keohane (for the latter). While political realism is a great starting point for an analysis, it is a terrible place to conclude on. While yes, states strive for security (if we're sticking with defensive realism) or for power in general/hegemony (offensive realism), it is absolutely vital for an alliance or state to consider the structure of the international system, and how it changes over time. Changes in international norms and practice need to be kept in mind, and moreover the importance of achieving cooperation out of conflicting interests. I'd also definitely delve into social constructivism: how different alliances are set up, and the historical background which influence the decisions of different alliances. After all while the system of international politics often appears chaotic and an absolute cluster$%&@ at times, "anarchy is what states [in this case, alliances] make of it"[url="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2706858"][1][/url]. I'd also cite Nye and the merits of soft power in CN, given the relative diffusion of power between many alliances and the overwhelming importance of treaties and inter-alliance alliances/blocs.

But then again, I'm just back after...is it two years now?, of retirement. So everything I know about CN may be woefully out of date.

EDIT:
[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1323991471' post='2879198']
*snip*
[/quote]
Well, that actually sums up a number of my feelings as well. Political realism [i]never[/i] provides a complete picture of the world. Especially for a game like Cyber Nations, where security is not automatically the #1 priority of every alliance, and where there is really nothing at stake beyond pixels. For a more complete analysis, you have to delve into the motivations of each alliance, their histories and past interactions, and the personalities leading each alliance. Political realism assumes alliances are rational, unitary actors when, in fact, they are not. It's a game. Leaders can make decisions "for the lulz" or be led by their biases and emotions more than simply rational action. Moreover, very few alliances have a single personality running the entire thing. Alliances consist of multitudes of players, all of whom have different opinions and experiences on how an alliance should move forward. And of course, each alliance has differing goals and interests, be it simply sticking by friends or expanding their influence diplomatically or attempting to dominate the system.

And (I feel like I'm abusing the word) moreover, there are international norms and practices, invisible as they may be. Be it the ancient and long abandoned no-nukes limitation on warfare, or changing feelings about ZI'ing entire alliances permanently (may still be acceptable: I've fallen out of touch in the almost two years of retirement I've been through), or even the acceptability of certain casus belli's. Hell, I seem to gather that financial assistance to alliances in wars by non-combatants is catching on (at least from what I've seen on the Wiki). Alliances and blocs conduct politics in what may appear to be anarchy: however, clear norms and regimes are in place, even if we take them for granted.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Inquisitor Tolkien

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1324092477' post='2880250']
Almost.

The causes of war are about someone somewhere wanting to increase their power and hiding it behind the veil of "he said something mean to me" or both reasons, but any war on a large scale has power at its core somewhere.
[/quote]

I'd have to disagree. Take for instance MK hitting Pacifica. They really had nothing to gain by doing it(actually had much more to lose), but they wanted to fulfill a grudge. In CN, people will gladly destroy those they don't like, even if that means they end up screwing themselves over. I like the way Schatt explains it. As lunchroom politics.

There are so many alliances out there that think absolutely nothing of power. All they want is to be friends with their allies. A side effect of the friends > infra mentality, maybe? I'm not really sure.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324094342' post='2880269']
I'd have to disagree. Take for instance MK hitting Pacifica. They really had nothing to gain by doing it(actually had much more to lose), but they wanted to fulfill a grudge. In CN, people will gladly destroy those they don't like, even if that means they end up screwing themselves over. I like the way Schatt explains it. As lunchroom politics.

There are so many alliances out there that think absolutely nothing of power. All they want is to be friends with their allies. A side effect of the friends > infra mentality, maybe? I'm not really sure.
[/quote]

They had a !@#$ ton to gain from it. Instead of a Pacifica who had sat out Bi-Polar gaining more steam, it got cut down again.


I thought that was obvious.

[Fort Pitt]

Probably the only sentence I read in the OP, but I would disagree about people reaching out in order to balance against XX. It doesn't take much to fight a half-ghost bloc...

And to comment on the post above, I don't think NPO will be a powerhouse anytime soon. They will most likely never recover to their fullest potential and those who are allied to them have had a bad habit of being destroyed, whether it was their fault or not, similar to NpO's friends.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Fort Pitt

[Aeros]

[quote name='Inquisitor Tolkien' timestamp='1324093162' post='2880257']
snip
[/quote]


I would agree that Realism is never the end all be all. Unfortunately as I stated in the opening I could not apply more Liberal interpretation due to a lack of information. Mainly, what goes on in the private IRC interactions between the leaders of the various Alliances. With respect to Hegemonic stability theory, I disagree with that strongly, mainly due to the fact that people base this theory primarily around the United States. Which in my view is a poor example since the United States is a Liberal Democracy, and by its very nature tends (usually) to avoid war. Canada and Mexico have no fear of invasion for example. However, if we look at more regionally focused examples of Hegemony, like Rome in the Mediterranean as a good example, we see that Unipolarity does not necessarily translate into peace. If we look at the CN case study, the hegemonic period of the New Pacific Order could hardly be qualified as peaceful either. Indeed, their position as the single power lead to many wars and culminated in the hegemonic Karma War that people are still talking about to this day for its severity and game changing levels of conflict.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Aeros

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324094946' post='2880270']
They had a !@#$ ton to gain from it. Instead of a Pacifica who had sat out Bi-Polar gaining more steam, it got cut down again.


I thought that was obvious.
[/quote]

Are you saying that MK was afraid of NPO? That's probably one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324095705' post='2880281']
Are you saying that MK was afraid of NPO? That's probably one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.
[/quote]

I didn't say anything about afraid.

What part of a rising power who had recently been decimated largely because of MK's role in Karma and through fate avoided a costly war in Bi-Polar [s]maybe[/s] becoming a problem for them in the future under Cortath is hard to understand?

If that's one of the dumbest things you've heard in a while, you must not be talking to the right people.

Edited December 17, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Aloop]

[quote name='Inquisitor Tolkien' timestamp='1324093162' post='2880257']
As another student of International Relations, I am quite pleased by your post. However, I feel you have been unnecessarily wordy, especially with the introduction.

Instead, the more traditional theories of Morganthau or Kissinger, regarding balance of power politics and equilibrium, seem to be more relevant to your conclusions.

I also disagree with your assertion that uni-polarity is necessarily less stable.

I'd also cite Nye and the merits of soft power in CN, given the relative diffusion of power between many alliances and the overwhelming importance of treaties and inter-alliance alliances/blocs.

Political realism [i]never[/i] provides a complete picture of the world. Especially for a game like Cyber Nations, where security is not automatically the #1 priority of every alliance, and where there is really nothing at stake beyond pixels.
[/quote]
Without a doubt, best post in the topic yet, and I'd like to add a few thoughts about some of the major points.

- Agreed. Aeros, while your effort in introducing the topic is appreciated, the introduction to an essay should not comprise so much self-reference, even if it is just an opinion piece.
- As someone who studied under a Morgenthau fanantic, I'd certainly agree with Inquisitor T. Since you spent so much time discussing the power balance and effects of the creation of XX, your sources are a bit off-topic.
- In regards to CN, a uni-polar state has seen many different approaches. Contrasting the period of WUT or 1V/Q surpremacy to the period of SuperGrievances dominance, we can see that the stability of a uni-polar system is greatly dependent on the main actors in the power structure.
- Nye's theories on soft power works well for CN, especially when the game devolves into one of the mud-slinging contests that begins a number of months before the large majority of wars. While making alliances is important, goodwill and friendship in non-allied alliances have far-reaching benefits.
- Insofar as Aeros' argument concerning survival, it is rather pointless to debate. Given that eliminating every single component of a state (which would obviously destroy the state in real life) has no effect on the existence of the state, the survival of an alliance is guaranteed so long as Planet Bob exists. Besides, following the Hobbes and Locke theory for the raison d'être of a state (The state exists to protect the property of its citizens), the only alliances in CN that could claim to been successful in their existence as a state would be certain neutral alliances, like TDO, WTF, Gray Council, or the Order of the Black Rose. By avoiding warfare altogether, neutral alliances are doing to best job protecting the property of their citizens.


Aeros: As to your theory about the formation of XX being the cause of the war, I think you're looking a little too deeply for a meaning that isn't there. Given the nature of the treaty web, the XX alliances were merely formalizing an attachment that previously existed through individual treaties. I think you'd find a more interesting set of actions to analyze if you considered the leadership personalities, forcible political isolation, and the historic tendancy to carry grudges for near-eternity.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Aloop

[Silent Spectre]

XX was NOT meant to be a military powerhouse by any means. Think of it like Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Norway made a Bloc. When was the last time they wanted anything but to be left alone.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1324095131' post='2880276']
I would agree that Realism is never the end all be all. Unfortunately as I stated in the opening I could not apply more Liberal interpretation due to a lack of information. Mainly, what goes on the private IRC interactions between the leaders of the various Alliances. With respect to Hegemonic stability theory, I disagree with that strongly, mainly due to the fact that people base this theory primarily around the United States. Which in my view is a poor example since the United States is a Liberal Democracy, and by its very nature tends (usually) to avoid war. Canada and Mexico have no fear of invasion for example. However, if we look at more regionally focused examples of Hegemony, like Rome in the Mediterranean as a good example, we see that Unipolarity does not necessarily translate into peace. If we look at the CN case study, the hegemonic period of the New Pacific Order could hardly be qualified as peaceful either. Indeed, their position as the single power lead to many wars and culminated in the hegemonic Karma War that people are still talking about to this day for its severity and game changing levels of conflict.
[/quote]
First, if you want to know more about the system, join government and work yourself a mid-high level position. It takes time, of course (varying depending on how your alliance is structured), but I will say that it is definitely worthwhile and rewarding (if at times exhausting: coordinating GR's war effort [without an adequate support/command structure] on the fly in the TOP-CnG War was what ultimately led me into retirement).

The Karma war was the inevitable result of hegemonic decline. Since the end of GWIII and the ultimate defeat of the League, the power and unity of NPO's power bloc steadily grew weaker. Schisms with alliances once part of the NPO bloc like FAN or VE were responded to quickly and brutally, as NPO and its bloc zealously attempted to defend their hegemony against potential threats from defeated AEGIS/League members. Their repression of any opposition earned them enemies and lots of bad press, and disagreements over policy eventually lead to the NPO/NpO schism. Negative feelings and reactions to harsh NPO policies ultimately led to the Unjust War, which was probably the start of a coalescing of organized opposition to the NPO/The Continuum system (beyond simply lone blocs and alliances, at most). There were numerous problems with the Continuum's FP over the years, which we now see in hindsight. Especially the NPO's decision to declare war on OV in the manner they did, and with the casus belli they had (in the hostile diplomatic/public opinion environment they were in), but more broadly in their fairly arrogant behavior in their policies. Perceptions of the NPO/The Continuum had grown increasingly hostile during the long period of hegemony, and ultimately exacerbated by decisions such as the Viridicide, and policies such as Vice-royalty imposed upon defeated alliances. The decline of the NPO was in hindsight inevitable, as is the fate of all hegemons (though at the time, it seemed inconceivable).

I never did say hegemony was peace. Only that it was stable. Rome was not stable, certainly. Its internal structures, economic defects, pseudo-autonomous military, and lack of clear political succession ultimately lead to the many civil wars that wracked it (esp. during the third century). Within the Med., however, stability was essentially present. Roman influence within Europe was not truly challenged until after its decline and fall, and Rome itself had equals in the form of the various incarnations of the Persian Empire. My counterpoint would be China and the relative stability of East Asian geopolitics up until really the First Opium War.

[quote name='Aloop' timestamp='1324096509' post='2880288']
- As someone who studied under a Morgenthau fanantic, I'd certainly agree with Inquisitor T. Since you spent so much time discussing the power balance and effects of the creation of XX, your sources are a bit off-topic.
- In regards to CN, a uni-polar state has seen many different approaches. Contrasting the period of WUT or 1V/Q surpremacy to the period of SuperGrievances dominance, we can see that the stability of a uni-polar system is greatly dependent on the main actors in the power structure.
- Nye's theories on soft power works well for CN, especially when the game devolves into one of the mud-slinging contests that begins a number of months before the large majority of wars. While making alliances is important, goodwill and friendship in non-allied alliances have far-reaching benefits.
- Insofar as Aeros' argument concerning survival, it is rather pointless to debate. Given that eliminating every single component of a state (which would obviously destroy the state in real life) has no effect on the existence of the state, the survival of an alliance is guaranteed so long as Planet Bob exists.[/quote]
I'd like to elaborate on your elaborations (this feels so academic).

1) My professors tend to be quite liberal in their outlook. After all, I've listened in on Nye before when he stopped by for a lecture (The Future of Power), and I also have Robert Pastor as a prof. Good times, good times.
2) I didn't want to touch upon this because I've been out of touch in the past two years and thus cannot comment on how politics post TOP-C&G were like, but yes. How a hegemon conducts themselves is an [i]extremely[/i] important part of maintaining hegemony and stability, especially given the importance of soft power in CN diplomacy/politics. Moreover, hegemons have a great deal of leeway in creating international institutions, regimes, and norms (and moreover, once regimes, norms, and institutions are adopted, it becomes much more difficult to break out of them instead of remaining tied to them).
3) Indeed. While political realism emphasizes the importance of hard power, it is especially important to note that no alliance controls an overwhelming preponderance of power in basic power resources (not like the US at the end of WWII, for example). There are no great powers, per se, given the heavy reliance on a wide range of alliances and blocs to fight war.
4) Hmm. I'd definitely agree on this. While in CN you can destroy a state's hard power capabilities (their economy, military, etc.), but the state cannot be forcibly disbanded and conquered. See the incredibly long VietFAN.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Inquisitor Tolkien

[Vasuda]

Oh hey, I didn't know The Scholar had come back to CN.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

[quote name='Vasuda' timestamp='1324101013' post='2880357']
Oh hey, I didn't know The Scholar had come back to CN.
[/quote]
I was not The Scholar in my past life.

Though I'll take it as a complement. I think.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Inquisitor Tolkien

[Schad]

[quote name='Silent Spectre' timestamp='1324096865' post='2880294']
XX was NOT meant to be a military powerhouse by any means. Think of it like Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Norway made a Bloc. When was the last time they wanted anything but to be left alone.
[/quote]

If those states existed in a world where global war was -- relatively -- common, and they comprised somewhere in the range of 15% of the world's total strength, they too would be eyed pretty warily, whether or not they took an aggressive political tack.


In terms of what IR framework can be best applied to CN, while I think that offensive realism is a loathsome, near-suicidal doctrine in reality (well, post-1850 reality, at least), it does pretty much work here. Power maximization and the pursuit of the position of hegemon is the name of the game, cooperation is generally fleeting and the bonds easily broken as political units maneuver each other to best advantage, and it is very much a zero sum game in which the costs of successfully prosecuting a war are typically smaller than the gain in power experienced by the victor.