Defensive Treaties and Time Lapses

[Unknown Smurf]

Hello Bob. 

 

Quick question. How long does an alliance have to act on it's ally being attacked, in your opinion?

 

No treaty I have seen has any stipulation on that, so hypothetically could an alliance declare war on another alliance for declaring war on its ally 6 months later? Or does it have to be during that same global war? What if they declare as soon as the global war ends?

 

For example lets say Coalition A and Coalition B are at war. Members of coalition A declare war on allies of other members of coalition A who may or may not be part of coalition B. Could the allies of the attacked alliance who are in Coalition A declare war on the others in Coalition A after the global war with coalition A&B ends? Does it have to be right after or can they declare after they rebuild a little? 

 

Or if that is too confusing... Do you think alliances in Pacificas or Polars coalition can declare on GOONS for hitting R&R (or VE/TOP for hitting GOD) after the war between NpO/NSO ends? 

[Goldie]

Anyone can declare on anyone for any reason. You just have to be prepared to face the consequences.

[The Zigur]

Totally read the question wrong. Reserving spot for later.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Neo Uruk]

I would rather them do so as soon as they were ready, and stay in until either peace was called for or they were completely depleted.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[YOLO SWAG]

Treaties or any sort of relationship between alliances shouldn't and, I would hope, aren't things that can be dissected and therefore examined in the way you are examining them. But once this is understood, your question can be answered by saying alliances can act immediately or anytime after an offense has been committed. 

[smurthwaite]

I would say an alliance should act as soon as their allies request help.

[Stewie]

TOP & IRON waited 2 years to hit Polar

Edited January 14, 2014 by Stewie

[Auctor]

A bunch of old treaties used to mandate defense within 48 hours, I seem to remember.

[Stewie]

A bunch of old treaties used to mandate defense within 48 hours, I seem to remember.

Yep. That's back when MDoAP were Mandatory defence not mutual defence

[HM Solomon I]

I'd say that implicit in treaties is that the timing is factor of 1) the ability of the alliance doing the defending (i.e., how quickly they are able to mobilize) and 2) the request of the alliance under attack.  If the alliance under attack asks their ally how soon they could be ready for war, and that ally says in two days and so the alliance under attack asks them to come to their defense in two days time, and then that ally comes to their defense in two months time, that would clearly be a violation of the treaty and thus such a war would not be legitimately based upon the treaty.

[jerdge]

If the treaty is defensive you should act when you're effective in defending, otherwise you're not doing it for the treaty.

 

How this applies to past/current/present examples, I don't know. Thank Admin I have no defensive treaties to worry about.

 

 

EDIT: if you sign a "Mutual Revenge Treaty", instead... :P

Edited January 14, 2014 by jerdge

[Rayvon]

A defensive treaty should be enacted when requested. Whether it be the day of, the day after or months later - it's still in the interests of the agreement between the mutually relevant parties. The M stands for Mutual now afterall, not Mandatory like it used to (as Stewie points out).

The big part of these situations is unrelated to the treaty itself, it's how the situation is presented that causes the next set of happenings - and whether your decision is globally/internationally accepted. Granted, for the most part, you shouldn't be concerned of the so-called peanut gallery as long as you're not manufacturing bullshit for your cause.

[jerdge]

Ray, I disagree.

A defensive treaty is defensive because it's about defence. It's not really defensive if the defence it provides isn't effective, i.e. the military action is logically linked with the defensive treaty only if the military action actually helps the ally when they are under attack.

This position isn't to mean that an alliance can't help their ally later on, against the same enemy, be it to exact revenge, to right perceived wrongs or whatever other reason. One party may also very well say that it's for the grudge they have against the enemy, because they had prior attacked their MDP partner.

But it's not about the defensive clauses anymore, unless we are so deep in newlanguage that any term can mean whatever we consider convenient or supportive of our causes.

Of course, for what I really care, anyone can use whatever excuse or reasoning, as long as they're not attacking the GPA.
If they attack us their argument is always invalid, instead. :D

[Rayvon]

A defensive treaty is defensive because it's about defence. It's not really defensive if the defence it provides isn't effective, i.e. the military action is logically linked with the defensive treaty only if the military action actually helps the ally when they are under attack.

"Enacted when requested" I said. This would be within the same war of course. If it's after the war/situation where the alliance needed defensive assistance from their ally then they're enacting an oA to hit that alliance together. That's not defensive.

Basically, any day from Day 1 to Day 99999 of war, the treaty could be enacted. After Day 99999, no.

Grudges and effectiveness are relative.

[jerdge]

Ah ok, it seems I misunderstood you. We actually agree. :)

[Rayvon]

Aye :P

[The Zigur]

The idea that pieces of paper should be blindly obeyed to the letter regardless of reality or projected outcome is highly delusional. In the real world, treaties are designed to provide options, not bind and constrain.

[x Tela x]

The idea that pieces of paper should be blindly obeyed to the letter regardless of reality or projected outcome is highly delusional. In the real world, treaties are designed to provide options, not bind and constrain.

 

If that's how you feel, that's fine. It's why optional clauses exist. Not everyone treats their friends that way, though. I know it's shocking.

[Scorn]

The idea that pieces of paper should be blindly obeyed to the letter regardless of reality or projected outcome is highly delusional. In the real world, treaties are designed to provide options, not bind and constrain.

 

Some of us prefer a few delusions even of the high and mighty variety. Though, I agree that treaties should open up options rather than restrict them.

[Unknown Smurf]

If the treaty is defensive you should act when you're effective in defending, otherwise you're not doing it for the treaty.

 

How this applies to past/current/present examples, I don't know. Thank Admin I have no defensive treaties to worry about.

 

 

EDIT: if you sign a "Mutual Revenge Treaty", instead... :P

 

Most alliances will declare war, when an ally is not declared upon, when they know they have a good chance (if not a garuntee) of winning. Therefore I would argue it is the job of the defenders allies to ensure that the war is so destructive that either they pull a draw or only give up a Pyrrhic victory. In essence defending their allies and themselves from future acts of aggression. 

 

In that sense declaring 6 months down the line from the original declaration would could still be construed as defense as it is defending your allies, and by extension yourself, in the long term.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Unknown Smurf

[Rayvon]

Most alliances will declare war, when an ally is not declared upon, when they know they have a good chance (if not a garuntee) of winning. Therefore I would argue it is the job of the defenders allies to ensure that the war is so destructive that either they pull a draw or only give up a Pyrrhic victory. In essence defending their allies and themselves from future acts of aggression. 
 
In that sense declaring 6 months down the line from the original declaration would could still be construed as defense as it is defending your allies, and by extension yourself, in the long term.

But if there's no existing war, then it's an offensive movement. The first action, whether it's justified by months of harassment or whatever past transgressions, is an aggressive action. It's only defensive when it's countering an aggressive action.

'Future acts of aggression' are just that, 'future'. They haven't happened yet, and possibly may not. By taking that initiative to head them off before they could possibly become true you would be aggressive in action (see Polar declaration on Sith). Edited January 15, 2014 by Rayvon

[Unknown Smurf]

But if there's no existing war, then it's an offensive movement. The first action, whether it's justified by months of harassment or whatever past transgressions, is an aggressive action. It's only defensive when it's countering an aggressive action.

'Future acts of aggression' are just that, 'future'. They haven't happened yet, and possibly may not. By taking that initiative to head them off before they could possibly become true you would be aggressive in action (see Polar declaration on Sith).

 

Ah true, I guess what I defined would be a preemptive war which is, as you said, an offensive move. 

 

At the same time I question the situation where one could use a CB from a defensive war in the past (unfilled treaty obligation) in order to also neutralize a future threat. In that case would you consider that a valid CB? (if they did not state the pre-emptive nature of the war in the DoW, just the unfilled defensive obligation)