Ivan Moldavi Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I don't really follow your reasoning. It's ok to give up some sovereignty and pledge mandatory defense of a close friend and ally, but it's not ok to pledge assistance in taking out an enemy of that ally? It helps if you actually understand the logic behind a mutual defense pact, at least one written in the common verbiage. When an alliance enters into a mutual defense pact they acknowledge another alliances right to pursue their passions in their own fashion and also acknowledge that they believe their passions run parallel to those that they sign with. For example, the Terra Cotta Pact is designed to align the passions of Brown Team alliances towards the goal of color specific protection for nations against unwarranted assault and aggression. Those that sign TCP acknowledge that they wish to see the Brown Team protected, not that they want to see the Brown Team neutered. If a signatory alliance to a mutual defense pact, standard and non-chaining of course, takes provocative action against another alliance then they do so of their own accord, under their own sovereignty. The other signatory parties are not obligated to assist them in the pursuit of that particular passion, thus their sovereignty is not infringed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.