Casus Belli

[White Chocolate]

A Discussion On Casus Belli

Because I'm bored of the current drama.

Thus, I wish to hear what you believe the purpose of a CB is, what it should entail, and if it must be socially acceptable. When posting please be analytical and objective, lest you be torn apart by other intellectuals.

A casus belli is literally a "justification for acts of war." That being said, it is very much tied up with what is ethically and/or socially (not always the same in my world view, but perhaps for others) acceptable. War, because it is destructive, (I'm making an in character argument here:not just OOC although it is destructive regardless if you account for the loss of hard earned status/influence due to NS plus some people just like building their nations) requires something worth the destruction. A casus belli is that which a nation/alliance states is the reason behind the loss. What it should entail is also a matter of both individual expectations and what is socially acceptable. The "socially acceptable" part being a matter of how much public ridicule one is willing to take. Personally, I think that war requires a very high standard of proof if one is going to be the aggressor. To put a percentage on it, I would say at LEAST 75% sure that the CB is justified. This includes some investigation into the matter and an attempt to come to a resolution to avoid military conflict.

[hammer]

Related to bad CBs biting you in the $@!, but not explicitly stated yet - a good CB will discourage bandwaggoning in defence of a target, as they will be proved "wrong/in the wrong"

In a balanced situation, you see betters CBs to avoid upsetting the balance against a declaring alliance, in unbalanced ones there is less fear so less need, so poorer CBs.

0.02c

[Owned-You]

Related to bad CBs biting you in the $@!, but not explicitly stated yet - a good CB will discourage bandwaggoning in defence of a target, as they will be proved "wrong/in the wrong"

In a balanced situation, you see betters CBs to avoid upsetting the balance against a declaring alliance, in unbalanced ones there is less fear so less need, so poorer CBs.

0.02c

Often times, a bad CB is sufficient enough to discourage uninvolved parties from entering against them if they've got a sufficient amount of allies waiting. Thus why I say it's imperative that allies support your CB; and why it isn't as important to have a "Good CB" in terms of the peanut gallery approving it. Although, I'll concede all these factors and situations depend on the scenario it's involved in; one can have a favorable outcome with a horrible CB or it could be the opposite. That's were the strategist becomes an invaluable asset for a leader, or better yet if a leader is capable of formulating strategies himself. (Note, I'm not speaking of military strategy)

[Electric Mango]

10 Levels of Infrastructure, 1,881,006 dollars

100 Technology, 3,000,000 dollars

Putting pixels over friends, priceless.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Perhaps you should reread my quote where I said case for war.

You got the word right, but what you proceeded to describe did not match. You described the cause of war, not the case for war.

[Kzoppistan]

Care to elaborate why, as well as how you'd get nukes.

Heh

er, I know somebody. Yeah, that's it.

(they won't let me near the microwave, much less have anything remotely nuclear)

Yeah, um, about that nuking thing... how about you either redact that statement or elaborate upon it.

I don't have to do a damn thing, and in fact I- hold on, some one's at the door.

...

..

.

hi, i am kzoppstni and i redact this statement. also dont ever stop by im going on long long vacation

adiós

Edited December 30, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[zzzptm]

Thanks, Kzoppistan. With the uncertain political climate, I have to keep my sarcasmometer switched off. Zenith are good people and so are you.

[Kzoppistan]

Thanks, Kzoppistan. With the uncertain political climate, I have to keep my sarcasmometer switched off. Zenith are good people and so are you.

Thanks man, you're the best!

Edited December 30, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[zzzptm]

Wow... communication and negotiation prevented a conflict! AND WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO USE PRIVATE CHANNELS!

[Valtamdraugr]

I wish to hear what you believe the purpose of a CB is, what it should entail, and if it must be socially acceptable. When posting please be analytical and objective, lest you be torn apart by other intellectuals.

I'm not sure I can be "analytical and objective" as I am being asked what I "believe". The following is not what I believe a CB should be, but how I see it being used on Bob today.

I believe the CB is used as a propaganda tool to influence your allies to fight on at your side for as long as necessary, and at the same time... to influence your opponent's allies to either opt-out of the conflict (by adherence to specific clauses contained within individual treaties or by "e-lawyering" out of it... which, BTW, I personally find extremely distasteful) or to limit the amount of time they remain engaged.

As for what it should entail?.. As was stated, /any/ reason to go to war can be used as a CB and I will not speak of "validity" as that is always a subjective view.

Whether a CB is socially acceptable, is irrelevant. The trick, or point if you will, to a "good" CB, is to get your allies in for as long as possible, while simultaneously getting your opponents and their allies out.

Of course, on today's Bob, acceptable or not, it's entertainment for all of you in any case.

[SpacingOutMan]

You got the word right, but what you proceeded to describe did not match. You described the cause of war, not the case for war.

The case for war is the backing of what is. It isn't the reason for, but rather based upon the threats or destructive actions partaken by one group on another (i.e one nation spying on another). Its counter-component would be, naturally, the casus foederis, which is the case of the alliance.

A case for war would be that person A spies on person B.

A cause of war would be that person B finds spying to be extremely unethical and feels violated because of this. Therefore they declare war as a means of defending their intellectual property.

Essentially the casus belli is one of several criterion explained in the Jus ad bellum (Just War).

[Lord Razzia]

Let me ask you something, cuz I still have stuff to learn too.

Do you think that there can be a CB that is so bad that it would cause UNALLIGNED and UNINVOLVED alliances to attack those with the CB and be like "no that's bs" ??

Edited December 30, 2009 by Lord Razzia

[Owned-You]

Let me ask you something, cuz I still have stuff to learn too.

Do you think that there can be a CB that is so bad that it would cause UNALLIGNED and UNINVOLVED alliances to attack those with the CB and be like "no that's bs" ??

Yes, but it wouldn't be due to a CB. There are other means to motivating the uninvolved into action, and those means are primarily to make those uninvolved into meatshields. Thus, if any uninvolved did become involved; they are pretty inept to politics.

[Quetz]

Can we use the Two-Cow senario to explain to us newbies..?

[Vilien]

My own view is that a casus belli is an excuse to cover up a more important reason for going to war, though in this case, there doesn't really seem to be an ulterior motive. It's strange really. Such a pointless little conflict.

[KinKiac]

The case for war is the backing of what is. It isn't the reason for, but rather based upon the threats or destructive actions partaken by one group on another (i.e one nation spying on another). Its counter-component would be, naturally, the casus foederis, which is the case of the alliance.

A case for war would be that person A spies on person B.

A cause of war would be that person B finds spying to be extremely unethical and feels violated because of this. Therefore they declare war as a means of defending their intellectual property.

Essentially the casus belli is one of several criterion explained in the Jus ad bellum (Just War).

Are you sure you dont still have it backwards? For example, wouldnt it be more like this:

The "cause" of the war being "person A spies on person B" - This is what actually "caused" person B to want to go to war

Then person B uses "person B finds spying to be extremely unethical and feels violated because of this. Therefore they declare war as a means of defending their intellectual property." as their "case" to go to war - This is what is presented to the masses to plead his "case"

No?

[Tulafaras]

A casus belli is a historical term with a pretty clear definition. The latin root is also rather easy to see, historically the casus belli was not the incident which might have caused the war, but rather a term for the diplomatic proclamation which led to war as a last resort (ultima ratio). Meaning: Nation A insults Nation B in some manner (raids their border, treats diplomats badly, espionage etc.) Then Nation B writes a formal Document where they present their grievances and usually issue some threats/demands with a big "or else we go to war" somewhere in there. That was a classic case for a casus belli. (which explains why it is called a "case for war" instead of a "cause for war" which would have a different latin root).

On Planet Bob on the other hand we usually refer to the CB as the reason for which a war has happened (as indeed also happened in the OOC history. Around the end of the 19th century CB was used as a justification for war instead of the start of a diplomatic process). Basically a CB is something you use to justify why your alliance is attacking someone, since we have left the days of "i don't like you wars" behind us (considering the size of the treaty web, a necessary evolution otherwise we'd probably blow each other to pieces every month). It has no ingame value, but on the "diplomatic front" (meaning the gathering of allies and the prevention of counters) it's impact can be immense (depending on how true your allies are and how steadfast the oppositions allies are).

Regarding how valid they are (or strong if you prefer that word) frankly that is always a highly political question. Almost any evidence in this game is suspect (since everything happens on the internet where everything can be faked), the only clear cut causes would be true ingame action (e.g. nation xy has raided nation yz) everything else is a matter of opinion/trust (i trust XY so i believe his word) and reputation.

As such i'd honestly be happier if we declared war with a bit less drama and a bit more honesty, but since that would probably devolve into a rule of the stronger (aka who is the bigger bully) i guess our current system isn't that bad after all....

[Prime minister Johns]

Personally if I was Athens I would of gone with a CB of "I just don't like you" or something like that. Simple, honest, to the point, and nobody can dispute it.

I do not know why they chose something as easily pulled apart as the CB they chose. It was weak for many many reasons that have been discussed earlier and for the sake of brevity I do not wish to list them all.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Prime minister Johns

[Ellis]

Personally if I was Athens I would of gone with a CB of "I just don't like you" or something like that. Simple, honest, to the point, and nobody can dispute it.

I do not know why they chose something as easily pulled apart as the CB they chose. It was weak for many many reasons that have been discussed earlier and for the sake of brevity I do not wish to list them all.

Maybe so, but that isn't what this is about.

Personally, I think everything i have to say on this topic has already been said, one way or another.

[Sooner]

Well that would be any CB GGA had for the GCW. It was fueled by greed, paranoid, and delusions of grandeur that NPO fueled because they didn't want to lose an ally to stupidity.

[MaGneT]

To me, the most "valid" CB is the most honest one. Thus, if someone attacked me for the reason of "I don't like your tone", I'd say "thanks for being honest", and proceed to fight them with everything I can muster.