Aiding during Wartime

[kulomascovia]

I'm sure most of you have seen the issue of aiding a nation at war arise during this particular war. The arguments presented in other threads and the messages that some alliances have been sending to nations aiding their enemies have incited me to ask this question: if a neutral party enters in a commercial agreement with nations at war without regard to their affiliation, does this constitute an act of war against their opponents? If so, why?

I've had another leader (ooc) a friend (/ooc) ask me why he was requested by a certain alliance (alliance a) to cease his tech deals with members of another alliance (alliance b). Not only was he requested to cease his tech deals, but he was also told that military actions will be taken against his nation should he not comply with the demands of alliance a. The leader had little knowledge of the current conflict and his nation engages in tech deals with anyone. Is it fair to attack neutral parties for their financial dealings? From what I gather, most people here consider this to be justified. I would like to ask why. What buisness do alliances have with a neutral party who is minding its own buisness? One possible argument I've heard is that aiding your enemy would impair your war efforts. Well, so do nukes. The GRL has detrimental effects to the economy. Does this mean a concerned alliance should attack nations that nuke? Should an alliance with low ns nations attack an alliance with high ns due to the fact that the high ns alliance increases the ns required to be above 5% and thus prevents the small ns alliance from getting nukes without getting an MP?

Discuss.

Edited February 17, 2010 by kulomascovia

[kenny]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1266390286' post='2187258']
I'm sure most of you have seen the issue of aiding a nation at war arise during this particular war. The arguments presented in other threads and the messages that some alliances have been sending to nations aiding their enemies have incited me to ask this question: if a neutral party enters in a commercial agreement with nations at war without regard to their affiliation, does this constitute an act of war against their opponents? If so, why?

I've had another leader (ooc) a friend (/ooc) ask me why he was requested by a certain alliance (alliance a) to cease his tech deals with members of another alliance (alliance b). Not only was he requested to cease his tech deals, but he was also told that military actions will be taken against his nation should he not comply with the demands of alliance a. The leader had little knowledge of the current conflict and his nation engages in tech deals with anyone. Is it fair to attack neutral parties for their financial dealings? From what I gather, most people here consider this to be justified. I would like to ask why. What buisness do alliances have with a neutral party who is minding its own buisness? One possible argument I've heard is that aiding your enemy would impair your war efforts. Well, so do nukes. The GRL has detrimental effects to the economy. Does this mean a concerned alliance should attack nations that nuke? Should an alliance with low ns nations attack an alliance with high ns due to the fact that the high ns alliance increases the ns required to be above 5% and thus prevents the small ns alliance from getting nukes without getting an MP?

Discuss.
[/quote]

Of course its an act that should and usually does result in war, any help be it money, tech or troops will aid in your targets defense/aggresion so while it may not be malicious in nature its damaging and thus looked at negativly.

whether a neutral should be attacked or forced to pay reps to the other side is probably not what alot of people would like to see, there aid is an easily traceable and bringing them to punishment can also be quite easy. As for your points about GRL, all i have to say is lol. Goodluck trying to attack everyone firing nukes, while they might be hurting everyone its just a uncontrollable or punishable part of CN that we learnt to live with.

top 5% aye, yes all low nations should endevour to attack everyone stronger then them as alliance rank shouldn't be the only goal a nation has, colour dominance, alliance dominance, nation rank dominance are all fun goals to strive for!

Edited February 17, 2010 by kenny the microwave

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Frankly there *shouldnt* be a problem with this, in theory.

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference.

Trouble is it can sometimes be truly difficult or even impossible to distinguish genuine market action and covert support. Rather than get sucked into an unpleasant and time consuming involvement neutrals here traditionally cease dealing with combatants when wars break out.

[Kowalski]

So this friend of yours is unaligned?

[Poyplemonkeys]

I personally suspend all debts owed to me whilst my nation, or even just my alliance, is at war. It's clear some people see completing these obligations as an act of war, rightly or wrongly, and it's not worth creating hassle for some uninvolved and small nation over 50 tech if you ask me.

[Bob]

I think no one has problems with the completion of tech deals, however the starting of new ones is suspect.

[Bob Janova]

Sending aid to nations at war is assisting them in the war, and it is rightly considered an act of war in itself. In some cases (like completing a tech deal with a large nation where 50 tech makes no difference) you can get exemption from being attacked over it, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

[scutterbug]

TOP dont seem to mind sending aid to people fighting their allies. Follow their shining example by all means!

[wickedj]

[quote name='scutterbug' date='17 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1266443053' post='2188012']
TOP dont seem to mind sending aid to people fighting their allies. Follow their shining example by all means!
[/quote]
to be fair one of them was GGA, GGA couldnt be considered a threat with a billion dollars and more WRCs than Polaris

[Mistress Demona]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266390286' post='2187258']
if a neutral party enters in a commercial agreement with nations at war without regard to their affiliation, does this constitute an act of war against their opponents? If so, why?
[/quote]

It's essentially economic sanctions or "block aid" and if the nation trying to impose it can back up their threats, all's fair...

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266390286' post='2187258']
Well, so do nukes. The GRL has detrimental effects to the economy. Does this mean a concerned alliance should attack nations that nuke? Should an alliance with low ns nations attack an alliance with high ns due to the fact that the high ns alliance increases the ns required to be above 5% and thus prevents the small ns alliance from getting nukes without getting an MP?
[/quote]

Oh, I wish I had the power to effectively stop people from using nukes As far as your other examples, don't give anyone any ideas

[flak attack]

[quote name='scutterbug' date='17 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1266443053' post='2188012']
TOP dont seem to mind sending aid to people fighting their allies. Follow their shining example by all means!
[/quote]
I have no problem with an alliance already involved sending aid, but when uninvolved nations start sending aid, it becomes a problem.

[PhysicsJunky]

Any sort of aid being sent in the direction of somebody at war [b][i]could[/i][/b] be considered an act of war. That's entirely up to the side they're at war with isn't it? Short of some sort of moralist campaign that makes it prohibitive to make such a decision, what constitutes and act of war and what doesn't lies with the aggrieved party.

There is at best a gray area involved with completing contracts, what about donation deals?

Edited February 18, 2010 by PhysicsJunky

[Baldr]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266390286' post='2187258']
The arguments presented in other threads and the messages that some alliances have been sending to nations aiding their enemies have incited me to ask this question: if a neutral party enters in a commercial agreement with nations at war without regard to their affiliation, does this constitute an act of war against their opponents? If so, why? [/quote]

Of course it does. If I'm giving money to your opponent, I'm helping him in his war against you. If I'm giving tech to your opponent, I'm helping him in his war against you.

[quote]Is it fair to attack neutral parties for their financial dealings? [/quote]

Your defining neutral as "not fighting". But when you start giving tech or money or soldiers to people that are fighting, you aren't really neutral - you're aiding one side of the war. If you want to be neutral, you'll either stop dealing tech, or you'll find different buyers who aren't at war.

When FAN was standing up to NPO, they would have had a lot more money to work with if they were allowed to sell tech. That money would have been used to finance their war. Do you really think, if you were the alliance fighting against them, that you would be happy with the people sending them money, knowing that the money they received would be used to fight against you?

[quote name='scutterbug' date='17 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266443053' post='2188012']
TOP dont seem to mind sending aid to people fighting their allies. Follow their shining example by all means!
[/quote]

TOP is at war, and they are aiding their allies. Their allies are using that money to fight war. Is it an act of war? Yes. Are they at war? Yes. You're complaining that alliances who are at war are actually fighting the war. What's going to happen? The people fighting TOP and their allies are going to declare war on TOP and their allies? They are *already at war*.

I agree with Bob Janova that tech deals which were already under way when the war began should be allowed to complete, though they are technically aiding enemies. But if you continue starting new deals, you've chosen to support one side of the war, and you should be aware that their may be repercussions.

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' ]There is at best a gray area involved with completing contracts, what about donation deals?[/quote]

New donation deals are clearly aiding the enemy. Completion, I agree, kind of a gray area. IMO, if it's more than $3M being moved, or more than 100 tech being moved, it should be put on hold.

Personally, if I wanted to remain neutral, I'd put any deals on hold.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Kowalski' date='17 February 2010 - 02:47 AM' timestamp='1266403630' post='2187390']
So this friend of yours is unaligned?
[/quote]

No he is not.



[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1266437669' post='2187866']
Sending aid to nations at war is assisting them in the war, and it is rightly considered an act of war in itself. In some cases (like completing a tech deal with a large nation where 50 tech makes no difference) you can get exemption from being attacked over it, but that should be the exception, not the rule.
[/quote]

What about trading with nations at war? If someone with uranium is trading with your opponent, aren't they aiding your opponent in acquiring nuclear armaments? Should this not be considered an act of war as well, if we define an act of war as assisting your opponents in war?


[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='17 February 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1266456407' post='2188504']
Any sort of aid being sent in the direction of somebody at war [b][i]could[/i][/b] be considered an act of war. That's entirely up to the side they're at war with isn't it? Short of some sort of moralist campaign that makes it prohibitive to make such a decision, what constitutes and act of war and what doesn't lies with the aggrieved party.

There is at best a gray area involved with completing contracts, what about donation deals?
[/quote]

I agree. Personally though, I don't see why a neutral party should be forced to compromise its economic position just to appease some belligerent alliances.


[quote name='Baldr' date='17 February 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1266465762' post='2188786']
Of course it does. If I'm giving money to your opponent, I'm helping him in his war against you. If I'm giving tech to your opponent, I'm helping him in his war against you.

Your defining neutral as "not fighting". But when you start giving tech or money or soldiers to people that are fighting, you aren't really neutral - you're aiding one side of the war. If you want to be neutral, you'll either stop dealing tech, or you'll find different buyers who aren't at war.

When FAN was standing up to NPO, they would have had a lot more money to work with if they were allowed to sell tech. That money would have been used to finance their war. Do you really think, if you were the alliance fighting against them, that you would be happy with the people sending them money, knowing that the money they received would be used to fight against you?
[/quote]

In that case, should nations trading with other nations at war be attacked for aiding the enemy of another alliance? Especially if nukes are involved?

The nation I spoke of in the OP has no idea what is going on. To him, his nation is simply going about its business when all of a sudden, it receives this message. He does not support any sides since he doesn't even know who's at war. Is he not neutral?

[quote]
TOP is at war, and they are aiding their allies. Their allies are using that money to fight war. Is it an act of war? Yes. Are they at war? Yes. You're complaining that alliances who are at war are actually fighting the war. What's going to happen? The people fighting TOP and their allies are going to declare war on TOP and their allies? They are *already at war*.

I agree with Bob Janova that tech deals which were already under way when the war began should be allowed to complete, though they are technically aiding enemies. But if you continue starting new deals, you've chosen to support one side of the war, and you should be aware that their may be repercussions.
[/quote]

I'm concerned that alliances who are at war are interfering with the economic dealings of neutral nations that are not involved in the conflict.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kulomascovia

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Baldr' date='17 February 2010 - 10:02 PM' timestamp='1266465762' post='2188786']
If you want to be neutral, you'll either stop dealing tech, or you'll find different buyers who aren't at war.
[/quote]

Nice advise in theory. However, with the treaty web - when the alliance wars are in full swing, good luck finding buyers who are NOT at war. If Planet Bob could have "little" alliance wars involving two to five alliances and keep it at that, this probably would be a non-issue.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='17 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1266390286' post='2187258']
One possible argument I've heard is that aiding your enemy would impair your war efforts.
[/quote]

Why is it that the "common practice" here has been to threaten people who are financially "aiding" (be it a business transaction OR actual war time financial help) one's enemy and thus potentially bringing them into the war (which I would have thought is something one wants to avoid)? Given that same situation, I'd say "okay, well if alliance B is going to be the "tech farm" of alliance "A", then we will get our own and do the same."

From a pure strategic standpoint, at least assuming a close war as far as numbers and strength goes, wouldn't an opposing side want to avoid possibly having more nations fight militarily on the other side? I mean, suppose alliance "C" tells alliance "A" "stop or else" and alliance A says no?

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='17 February 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1266469741' post='2188923']
Why is it that the "common practice" here has been to threaten people who are financially "aiding" (be it a business transaction OR actual war time financial help) one's enemy and thus potentially bringing them into the war (which I would have thought is something one wants to avoid)? Given that same situation, I'd say "okay, well if alliance B is going to be the "tech farm" of alliance "A", then we will get our own and do the same."

From a pure strategic standpoint, at least assuming a close war as far as numbers and strength goes, wouldn't an opposing side want to avoid possibly having more nations fight militarily on the other side? I mean, suppose alliance "C" tells alliance "A" "stop or else" and alliance A says no?
[/quote]

Indeed, if the war is evenly matched, it is not in the favor of alliance c to potentially make more enemies. In the case that alliance c is clearly winning, then it would be unreasonable to attack other nations over a transaction that will out affect the outcome of the war. If alliance c is clearly losing, then they probably shouldn't make more enemies. In all cases, there is no need to make more enemies or attack neutral parties. Indeed you are correct.

[Comrade Craig]

It is legitimate war tactic to isolate and destroy your target's economy. Period.

-Craig

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' date='17 February 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1266471456' post='2188981']
It is legitimate war tactic to isolate and destroy your target's economy. Period.

-Craig
[/quote]

Is any attempt to isolate and destroy your target's economy legitimate?

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1266471577' post='2188988']
Is any attempt to isolate and destroy your target's economy legitimate?
[/quote]
Depends on the methods used. There are correct ways to go about it, and incorrect.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1266472273' post='2189007']
Depends on the methods used. There are correct ways to go about it, and incorrect.
[/quote]

How do you justify which ways are correct and which ways are incorrect?

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:54 AM' timestamp='1266472488' post='2189011']
How do you justify which ways are correct and which ways are incorrect?
[/quote]
The scope of morality within the Cyberverse.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1266474018' post='2189056']
The scope of morality within the Cyberverse.
[/quote]

Again, why makes that morality correct? If the rest of the cyberverse suddenly thought that EZI was ok, would you be fine with it as well?

[Bob]

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='18 February 2010 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1266474169' post='2189064']
Again, why makes that morality correct? If the rest of the cyberverse suddenly thought that EZI was ok, would you be fine with it as well?
[/quote]
I'd probably be pissy and bawwww but yeah, I'd accept it as the state of the Cyberverse's morality.

I would correct my argument then, having seen the point of what you are driving at and understand it. You define what is acceptable by what you believe in, and what is acceptable for the world is defined by what the world believes in.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='17 February 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1266475443' post='2189110']
I'd probably be pissy and bawwww but yeah, I'd accept it as the state of the Cyberverse's morality.
[/quote]

Why accept it? Why not try to change it?