Jump to content

An Proposed Alternative to the New Pacific Order Peace Terms


 Share

Recommended Posts

OOC: If this topic is better placed in "Alliance Politics" please move it there - since this is an essay from one national ruler I felt it should go here but I may be mistaken.

Yes, it's another one of those topics. No, I'm not going to pass judgment calls. Anyone who is seeking a debate on the evils of the New Pacific Order, the evils of the Karma Coalition and anything even resembling those topics, do kindly find another place. For clarity, the topic of discussion is what I'm about to say below. Apologies in advance for making some assumptions about the motivations of those involved in this conflict. Also, when responding, please take the time to read what has been said rather than fire from the hip. The aim is for an informed discussion.

I was going to write a long and laborious preface but, instead, I'll get right to it.

1. The New Pacific Order immediately cease any and all offensive military operations against the forces of the Karma Coalition.

2. The Karma Coalition immediately cease any and all offensive military operations against the New Pacific Order and issue offers of peace.

3. Within seven (7) days of the signing of peace terms the nations and ruling body of the New Pacific Order shall comply with the following specifications:

1. Decommission soldiers to 30% or less of the working citizenry

2. Decommission all tanks

3. Decommission all but two (2) cruise missiles

-or-

1. Withdraw / eject non-compliant nations from the alliance

4. Within seven (7) days the Karma Coalition shall establish an oversight body to monitor the flow of foreign aid to the nations of the New Pacific Order. This oversight body shall be drawn from multiple alliances and shall be encouraged, though not mandated, to include members from alliances uninvolved in the Karma War at any time. The size, organization and administration of the oversight committee shall be left to the discretion of the Karma Coalition.

5. Beginning seven (7) days after the signing of peace terms the New Pacific Order shall be placed under the following surcharges for aid received by their nations:

1. For every $1.00 in aid received by a nation of the New Pacific Order, the New Pacific Order shall pay $2.00 to nations selected by the oversight committee in blocks of $3,000,000 to be due at seven (7) day intervals beginning fourteen (14) days after the signing of peace terms. Amounts equaling less than $3,000,000 (a remainder) shall be deferred to the next payment period.

2. For every one (1) level of technology in aid received by a nation of the New Pacific Order, the New Pacific Order shall pay two (2) levels of technology to nations selected by the oversight committee in blocks of 50 technology to be due at seven (7) day intervals beginning fourteen (14) days after the signing of peace terms. Amounts equaling less than 50 technology (a remainder) shall be deferred to the next payment period.

6. Failure on the part of the New Pacific Order to honor aid surcharges promptly and consistently or, alternately, to declare the ejection of nations identified as not being citizens of the New Pacific Order shall be construed as a violation of both the text and the spirit of this document and shall be considered an act of war.

7. These terms shall remain in place for ten (10) months to cease on the anniversary of the signing of peace terms.

At first glance these terms don't seem harsh at all - you're not looking at forced resignations, forced disbandment, decommissioning of wonders, the stripping of nuclear armaments, the withdrawal from peace mode and all that other jazz. What you are looking at is the slowing of the rebuilding of the alliance. The New Pacific Order's banking system, its strength, being tapped into instead of destroyed for the betterment of the Cyberverse as a whole. What you're also looking at is the New Pacific Order setting their own pace - they have the option to simply not receive aid for nine months, in which case they pay no surcharges but also see their growth cut back severely. Alternately, they can send all the aid they like but have to pay a premium to do so and rebuild those they fought with in the process. The choice is left to them, the ultimate granting and enacting of sovereignty.

Sure, this suggestion doesn't feed the blood lust on either side and it does require that some trust be given by both sides, but maybe, just maybe, this will give the chance for the building of a better future for the Cyberverse and the setting of a new tone. Karma has been earned and has been paid - maybe the time has come for everyone to begin earning some good karma back.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I invite your questions and comments.

Edited by Tokugawa Mitsukuni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like it, though I think 8-9 months would be better.

I originally was going to suggest nine months but, upon speaking with various persons regarding the length of time served by the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization, it seemed like ten months was closer to being reflective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fairly good terms, though I think an apology should be added somewhere in there (just my opinion)

Any mandated apology would be 1) insincere and 2) insult to injury. Both of these are not productive.

Would that aid received include internal aid?

Yes.

Edited by Tokugawa Mitsukuni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I saw you wrote this I was expecting something good, and I was not dissapointed. :awesome:

The main problem I can see with these terms is not in the text of the terms, but that Karma has put its proverbial foot down. They've stated that there will be no further negotiations, the terms are there to accept whenever NPO chooses to. I don't see them backing down. However, these terms still do accomplish the stated goal of Karma, as per Tromp's words, to set NPO back, not to destroy it, so perhaps they just might sympathize with it, just might.

Another term that I'd like to see would be open tech dealing between Karma alliances and NPO, though no inter-alliance tech deals of course. And since the stated goal of Karma is to set NPO back, rather than the standard 3mil/100 tech, it should probably be 3mil/50 tech for buyers and 3 mil/150 tech for sellers, to ensure that Karma gets the better end of the deal, while still allowing NPO to have at least a semblance of growth.

Edited by Locke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do the victors have to make concessions and settle for a compromise?
Two reasons:

1. I don't think any sort of "total victory" can be achieved in a meaningful sense.

2. There are no victors in a war without end.

Exactly. Time to interject a little maturity into the situation instead of the "We win, we decide everything" frame of mind. That was the NPO frame of mind and I suppose it will continue on until people actually accept that it is not the best way to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Stop trying to play mediator. NPO can take the terms laid out, or be destroyed.

But we at MK only wish the best for our PIAT partners.

Of course if Karma allows it, MK will be helping pay the reps as per the AID section of that treaty, right? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. There are no victors in a war without end.

NPO already acknowledged its defeat. The concept behind your terms is interesting and I can't really say if they're harsher or not (mainly because it depends on how much money/tech NPO can/decides to move.), but as I said, I see no reason for Karma to re-negotiate anything.

As for the maturity comment, heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I saw you wrote this I was expecting something good, and I was not dissapointed. :awesome:

Thank you.

The main problem I can see with these terms is not in the text of the terms, but that Karma has put its proverbial foot down. They've state that there will be no further negotiations, the terms are there to accept whenever NPO chooses to. I don't see them backing down. However, these terms still do accomplish the stated goal of Karma, as per Tromp, to set NPO back, not to destroy it, so perhaps they just might sympathize with it, just might.

Feet put down can be picked back up. Also, acting responsibly and taking a revolutionary step would not be a sign of weakness or "backing down" - I think the collection respect for the forces of the Karma Coalition would skyrocket with a move like this. It takes courage to show mercy to those who did not show it to you.

Another term that I'd like to see would be open tech dealing between Karma alliances and NPO, though no inter-alliance tech deals of course. And since the state goal of Karma is to set NPO back, rather than the standard 3mil/100 tech, it should probably be 3mil/50 tech for buyers and 3 mil/150 tech for sellers, to ensure that Karma gets the better end of the deal, while still allowing NPO to have at least a semblance of growth.

Doing so would run counter to the entire idea behind these terms since they would effectively mandate surcharges to be paid and turn the New Pacific Order into a tech farm. Were that done, it would feed the "You're as bad as us" argument which is utterly and completely counterproductive and would simply prolong the war to the point of no end. If the New Pacific Order wants to engage in tech deals they have that option but they would have to pay their surcharges for doing so.

No. Stop trying to play mediator. NPO can take the terms laid out, or be destroyed.

But we at MK only wish the best for our PIAT partners.

This is unproductive to the discussion.

have fun keeping track of that....

It's simply a matter of having the motivation and taking the time to do so. Arguably, it's no more complicated than tracking a massive amount of reparations payments.

NPO already acknowledged its defeat. The concept behind your terms is interesting and I can't really say if they're harsher or not (mainly because it depends on how much money/tech NPO can/decides to move.), but as I said, I see no reason for Karma to re-negotiate anything.

I'd argue there is political capital to be gained here as well as the setting of a new precedent - a move toward change, as it were.

Edited by Tokugawa Mitsukuni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course if Karma allows it, MK will be helping pay the reps as per the AID section of that treaty, right? ;)

Sir, I refer you to the quote in my signature..

Just to be clear, is GGA the alliance currently being accused of hegemony, or is it Pacifica, the alliance that can move billions of cash on a whim.

Again, simple concepts.

As you can see, BILLIONS of cash on a whim, BILLIONS, so I'm sure they don't need our help paying these moderate reps, right? smug.gif

Edited by o ya baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd argue there is political capital to be gained here as well as the setting of a new precedent - a move toward change, as it were.

I'd say that giving white peace/extremely lenient terms to periphery alliances (and even to some of the main pillars of the old hegemony) and punishing an aggressor is setting a pretty good precedent, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simply a matter of having the motivation and taking the time to do so. Arguably, it's no more complicated than tracking a massive amount of reparations payments.

I think one could argue that is in fact much more difficult, due to the fact that it involves the same process as tracking reps in addition to tracking no-rep monetary movement and then adding all of that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Time to interject a little maturity into the situation instead of the "We win, we decide everything" frame of mind. That was the NPO frame of mind and I suppose it will continue on until people actually accept that it is not the best way to do things.

We've already conceded, a lot. We conceded a full round of war, which would have had them collect in nuke anarchy, down to two cycles. We also lowered the min per month reps payment. We've done plenty of conceding, and our current offer is as low as we're willing to go.

Edit: Also, this proposal has a longer proposed lifespan than our terms should take.

Edited by Rafael Nadal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how these terms will sufficiently cripple the New Pacific Order.

The numbers involved with the surcharges could certainly be played with - it's the concept rather than the specifics that is the root of the discussion here.

I think one could argue that is in fact much more difficult, due to the fact that it involves the same process as tracking reps in addition to tracking no-rep monetary movement and then adding all of that up.

I would happily donate some of my time to such an effort, were it to come to pass. As for the process, it stems from the same source as reparations tracking - you just need to add in additional figures.

Edited by Tokugawa Mitsukuni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO has proven themselves to be too dangerous and aggressive to use as a test case for starting some new era of idealism - any alliance not wishing for NPO to take revenge on them any time soon has a duty to its members to cripple it for a long time to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...