Defending an ally that doesn't want to be defended

[Delta1212]

I've spoken to allies about things like this in various situations that looked like they might not turn out well depending on how things progress. (Nothing in the last year, but it's come up prior to that). When the conversation starts ending in this direction, I tell them not to bother because I'd come in anyway.

That said, if there was a particular reason, like it helping them get peace faster if more people don't join, I'd consider staying out, I suppose. Either way, I'm probably not going to taunt anyone for honoring a request to stay out regardless of the circumstances.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Delta1212

[savethecheerleader]

No, no, and no. An MDP level treaty should be reserved for alliances whose judgment you trust and respect. The importance of that trust and respect supersedes an contractual obligations in my eyes.

[Earogema]

Yes to all. They get attacked, I defend them. They would need a very good reason to keep me out of the war. I don't mean like "omg yur stats!!!!" I mean something REALLY good.

Course, my allies would probably understand that I love war and that I'd look for any excuse to get in one. I imagine that my allies would be like minded.

[Kalasin]

Defending your allies no matter what is the only honourable decision.

[iamthey]

There are more reasons for an ally to ask another ally to stay out of a war than just 'we don't want you to burn for us'. Being a predictable sap isn't always in your best interest. Escalating a war often lengthens it for all those involved, provides justification for high reps, and limits resources after the war.

The true power nuclear war has is under curb stomp conditions it allows an alliance to deal out at least two times or even three times as much damage as is done to it. The more lopsided the war the more lopsided the damage ratio will be. Letting the roll happen and not providing additional targets for the larger side to spread damage across could in fact result in greater damage for the attackers. Afterward allies could then pump the defender full of aid and negate the effects while the attackers have considerably more to recoup.

In this way guilt, shame, and ignorance are the only weapons that an enemy has to level the playing field and prevent a more rational plan from going forward.

Edited August 9, 2010 by iamthey

[Divi Filius]

Depends on the situation really.

We jumped in for PC in the last \m/ - Polar war because we felt that that was the best way to support them (and because we love them to death ).
There are however situations where the better way to support your ally is to stay out.

[Rextu]

I believe that as allies, one would be itching to go to war whenever they feel they should. However, this may lead to an escalation in the number of alliances involved, leading to a large scale war that erupted out of nothing. This is not an ideal outcome.

A case study to consider is that of the Gopher Roll. Protected by the MCXA, we all wanted to help Gopher. However the offers for help were repeatedly denied, as were offers of aid. Gopherbashi was on a mission to fight for his cause and show the power of his single nation and the MCXA would have dishonoured him greatly if we had stepped in. So in short, I think you should always ask before getting involved with your allies' war.

[memoryproblems]

I'd prefer that an alliance respect the spirit of the treaty rather then just the letter of it.

This isn't an issue of these alliances being cowards, being dishonorable, or not wanting to go to war for their ally. This isn't the coward coalition all over again where alliances actively sought a way out of the situation. From what I've gathered, NSO didn't say "if your not cool coming in this, we understand completely and we support you", instead they insisted that their treaty partners not get involved, there is a real difference here and most people don't seem to understand that. If NSO asked, I'm fully confident that their allies would be there in an instant doing whatever they could to assist them.

Often we get caught up in the legalese of treaties and focus on the letter and nothing else. While treaties are formal agreements, they are much more then that, they represent a relationship between two alliances based on friendship and mutual bonds. If the two options are to oblige your treaty partners wishes and remain uninvolved or to disobey their wishes and follow the treaty to the letter, I would adhere to my treaty partners wishes, regardless of what the rest of the world thought of me, because I'd be doing it for my ally, not doing it for the satisfaction of the rest of the world.

NSO's treaty partners signed an agreement with NSO, not with the rest of the world. If your upset, be upset, call them dishonorable, cowards, whatever you want, it doesn't matter because they are following NSO's wishes, and by that they good allies, and that is what matters. What doesn't matter is the constant bickering from uninvolved parties complaining that the wars not going to escalate in a situation where the attacked party has no interest in that happening.

Edited August 9, 2010 by memoryproblems

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1281327642' post='2406402']
If an ally specifically requests that you not enter a war on their behalf, you shouldn't enter the war. Honoring what your ally wants at the present is far more important than what you wrote down weeks or months (or years) ago.

So for the record, I voted Yes, No, No.
[/quote]

Pretty much this except I "voted" Yes, Yes, No. You do have a treaty obligation to defend your ally and you do have a moral obligation to defend a friend. But, if a friend and ally wishes for me not to be involved then I would respect that request over and above the other obligations. Should they change their mind, we would be there to assist.

[CRexx]

Ii all depends on how you wrote and view the treaty IMHO. Namely do you view defense on an incident per incident basis or as an overall strategic commitment. In many cases, such as 4 vs 1 wars where the leading alliance is also part of a MDAP bloc, coming in to defend militarily will still result in defeat. End of the day you and your ally will be smoking craters, but hey at least you showed solidarity. So you'll have your pride, you'll have honored the treaty in the standard form, but you run the risk of both being combat ineffective coming out of the war. Thus your longterm ability to actually defend your ally and contribute in global wars is reduced because you blew your war chest in a show of solidarity during a curb stop. So when the great war comes around, both you and your ally will be further back in the pack.

Whereas in some cases if the losing party's goal is to get the hell out of the war as quickly as possible, then you best serve them by not jumping in and broadening the conflict through ripples in the treaty web. Instead you can use your diplomatic weight to help them out. Then after the war you can ship over hundreds of million in aid to help your ally rebuild. I'd argue in many cases this is the better path for both alliances. Alliance A spends cycle or two of war turtling and you're there with your fully intact banks to help your ally rebuild to prewar levels. In a month or two it can be like the war never happened. Whereas if you jump in, escalate things and trigger the treaty web and start a great war, in two months you can both still be at war, still paying off reps, etc.

So basically this is a long winded way of saying I view a defensive commitment as a commitment to strategic vision. So sometimes you need to avoid dying for nothing in a no win fight. After sitting on your hands though, you damn well better use your economic muscle to help out post war.

Edited August 9, 2010 by CRex of Gulo Gulo

[Schad]

Depends. If it seems like peace might be in the offing after a relatively short war, and your ally wants you to stay out in the hopes that the conflict can be localized and drawn down, you aren't doing them any favours by jumping in and escalating it such that you're essentially assuring that they'll get annihilated; best to remain on the sidelines, work to try to end the war, and rebuild them when it ends.

If they're instead making noble and silly statements about it being their last stand and wanting to spare their allies the same fate, and it looks like their opponents are willing to oblige in that regard, yeah...probably time to get in there.

[Dochartaigh]

what i find funny is all those people who state yes to all and state that a treaty obligation is everything, yet when alliances on their side ignore a treaty obligation to the other side (RnR/IRON anyone) they say it is the only decision that could have been made. either a treaty should always be defended or it can be waived by either signatory. there is no "all NSO allies are dishonorable for not upholding their treaties" after the last war saw those on SG's side not defending TOP/co's side despite having treaties.

[deathman1212]

I would defend my allies. But if they specifically ask for me to not intervene then I will not because I respect their decision and know that there is logical thinking behind it. If your allies say no, you have to trust them that they are doing the right thing, and in the current situation on bob, I think the right thing is being done.

Edited August 9, 2010 by deathman1212

[GearHead]

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1281353668' post='2407310']
I'd prefer that an alliance respect the spirit of the treaty rather then just the letter of it.

This isn't an issue of these alliances being cowards, being dishonorable, or not wanting to go to war for their ally. This isn't the coward coalition all over again where alliances actively sought a way out of the situation. From what I've gathered, NSO didn't say "if your not cool coming in this, we understand completely and we support you", instead they insisted that their treaty partners not get involved, there is a real difference here and most people don't seem to understand that. If NSO asked, I'm fully confident that their allies would be there in an instant doing whatever they could to assist them.

Often we get caught up in the legalese of treaties and focus on the letter and nothing else. While treaties are formal agreements, they are much more then that, they represent a relationship between two alliances based on friendship and mutual bonds. If the two options are to oblige your treaty partners wishes and remain uninvolved or to disobey their wishes and follow the treaty to the letter, I would adhere to my treaty partners wishes, regardless of what the rest of the world thought of me, because I'd be doing it for my ally, not doing it for the satisfaction of the rest of the world.

NSO's treaty partners signed an agreement with NSO, not with the rest of the world. If your upset, be upset, call them dishonorable, cowards, whatever you want, it doesn't matter because they are following NSO's wishes, and by that they good allies, and that is what matters. What doesn't matter is the constant bickering from uninvolved parties complaining that the wars not going to escalate in a situation where the attacked party has no interest in that happening.
[/quote]


Well said. I agree completely.

[bigwoody]

If I am on the giving side of a curbstomp and desperately want more slots, then yes to all.

In reality, if your ally is honestly requesting you stay out, he probably has good reason.

[R3nowned]

1. Other - Depends on the treaty. Some have clauses about respect and such, and respecting wishes would fall under that category.
2. No - See above. Respect plays a large part in the relationship between two alliances. Respecting your ally's wishes is important.
3. Other - Depends on the situation. The current one with NSO, I wouldn't, simply cause it's an invitation to have a repetition of the previous two wars, only with an extremely obvious outcome that even a newcomer can see.

[NotYou]

In the situation described in the OP, yes to 1st question, no to the 2nd.
No to the 3rd question, doing what your allies want is more important than doing what a piece of paper tells you to do.

Edited August 9, 2010 by NotYou

[Olaf Styke]

It's a little more complicated than you've made it out to be. Depending on how your treaties are written, you are REQUIRED to come to their defense (i.e. "an attack on A is an attack on B" type clauses). If your treaty is something along the lines of "If A is subject to aggressive attack by a foreign power, than B cannot refuse them if A requests their intervention.", then obviously it's at the whim of the defender weather an ally has to defend.

In moral terms, I think you are obligated to defend your allies if it's necessary. Loyalty is worth more than a few points of infrastructure.

In your alternate scenario, I would find a way to defend alliance B that was acceptable to them, or I would CANCEL the treaty that mandated my intervention so that it isn't an issue.

[ChairmanHal]

[i]Three questions:

1) Do you have a treaty obligation to defend Alliance B?
2) Do you have a moral obligation to defend Alliance B?
3) Would you defend Alliance B?[/i]

1) Yes, but it's up to the alliance you have the treaty with to coordinate with you on targets and such. If they do not wish to allow targets for you to hit because they do not wish to call upon your forces to fight, you are on standby until such time that situation changes.

2) Yes, short of them doing something monumentally stupid that would void the treaty. Even then, you have an obligation to talk about the matter behind closed doors thoroughly to see if relations can be repaired before taking further action.

3) I would provide verbal and written support through all communications channels available. I would also be there when the war is over to help with reparations, aid to repair damages, making my tech sellers available to their nations at favorable rates, and such. If they won't let me help with arms, I can at least help with everything else.

[Tautology]

Being that the only thing worse than your alliance staying out of a war it could/should be fighting in is being in peace mode while the rest of your alliance is fighting, I'd beg my treaty allies to ask/allow my alliance to enter the war. However, if they still said "no", I'd respect their decision.

[Felix von Agnu]

1) Do you have a treaty obligation to defend Alliance B?
No. If one party waives the obligation, there is none.

2) Do you have a moral obligation to defend Alliance B?
I would say I do, but it would be out of friendship more than morals.

3) Would you defend Alliance B?
No. If they don't want to drag in allies to die at the chopping bloc with them, that is their call. I wouldn't leave them hanging though. As soon as my alliance was able I'd send out as much aid as I could to the other alliance to help them rebuild.

[zzzptm]

[quote]If I'm trying to bait another alliance into going to war, then yes yes and yes for that alliance. If my own treaty partner realizes he's just a pawn in the grand scheme of things and that now is not the right time for war and makes a heartfelt plea for us to await a better time to exact our revenge, then no no and no. If my treaty partner attacks another one of my treaty partners in part of a wider war, then we change our alliance relationship status to "It's Complicated."[/quote]

That's how a lot of people think it should be. The same kinds of people that equate peace mode with cowardice are the ones that will employ the situational ethics above.

NV has it easy. Whenever some faction is trying to wipe out one of our allies, they'll attack us without a CB.

Which reminds me... I still would like Ragnarok to pay for my dear mother's china cabinet and garden shed that their bombs damaged in the NoCB War.

[Gobb]

[quote name='Iosif' timestamp='1281337716' post='2407009']
Usually I'd [i]love[/i] to enter the festival especially if it meant total wreckage of my nation, but I think disrespecting your allies' wishes in an attempt to make a stand for them is foolish and I personally wouldn't really like to have allies who are more eager to jump to the warmobile than actually listen what we've got to say.

So yeah, no, no no. If my allies go all [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-frogout.gif[/img] on me, the only moral and treaty obligation I have is not to declare war. Even though it means I miss all the fun and my alliance will probably end up ridiculed by the peanut gallery.

edit: the typoman strikes again
[/quote]
Wow exactly what I was gonna say
[img]http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/ec1788569a.gif[/img]
o iosif

[Joseph Black]

1) Yes, but not necessarily with military action. Being a strong supporter in threads, using any diplomatic influence you might have to end the war early, and then helping them rebuild from the war at the end.

2) Maybe, this would all depend on what kind of war they are in. If it were that their attackers were looking to eliminate them, than yes. If it was a simple war with a plausible end, than no.

3)No

[Schattenmann]

No, Yes, No.

Look, I know all you drooling warlawds think honor=fight so you gear up for war at the drop of a hat, but newsflash: Honor is a lie.

Victory is achieved through strategy, and attacking to satisfy some masturbatory need to declare war due to a treaty but without regard to its specifics or to the evolving relationship between the signatories and events involves zero strategy. And that's really all it is, masturbation. If your ally which you supposedly respect so much that you will do the exact opposite of what they want you to do ( ) tells you to sit the hell down, then [u]sit down[/u], [i]stupid.[/i]