Oh, hey, NOW we're going to war!

[Augustus Autumn]

Or not.

Fellow national rulers,

One topic which seems to be coming up repetatively to the point of outdoing reruns of the fine Zoican telvision series MASH (Monstrous Androids Stalking Humans, on channel 92 if you're interested) is the cassus belli, also known as the CB or justification to go to war. Endless run-arounds have been had about when it's ok to go to war, when it isn't, what gives foundation to a conflict and all that jazz. Now, I'm going to take a real leap here and say something which has occured to no one* before now.

[i]Once the war has started the cause doesn't matter anymore![/i]

Simply put, when the enemy has tanks rolling down your streets and their soldiers are in the homes of your citizenry looting and pillaging at will, the reason that they have arrived does not matter one bit anymore. Attempting to wave around the unjust cause of the other party as some sort of defense is akin to standing in front of an advancing armored formation with your hand raised in an effort to stop them. And no, harsh language is not armor-piercing. For all the boasting, crying, screaming and yelling that goes on, once the war has started posturing does not matter one bit. If it did, the Gramlins would have had their war with IRON and DAWN wrapped up in about thirty seconds.

Thus, I fail to understand why all the arguing exists. So what if people have been talking nonsense about you / your alliance / your bloc? If you think you have cause to nail them to the wall with nuclear force, do it. If you don't or you simply don't care, then leave it alone. On the other side, if someone has attacked you they probably have a reason for having made the declaration otherwise they would not have done it, even if it is something so simple as "I don't like you" (as a side note, nobody declares war on someone because they like them, unless it's some sort of jousting match). Thus, stop complaining and just fight the war or don't. Recent events have established that most alliances are going to attempt to pursue a total war policy including the use of nuclear weapons and sanctions, so fancy language doesn't really serve a purpose besides keeping things light and fun. The propaganda is cool, the verbal sparring can be a lot of fun (assuming people are speaking intelligently) and the diplomacy adds real depth to any conflict. But the pointless end-run back-and-forth about why someone is wrong for having attacked / been attacked / defended / whatever doesn't mean a damn thing at the end of the day.

My parting thought? Stop wasting your time, my time and everyone else's time and switch onto something more productive if possible.** Or, if you want to hem and haw, at least take it somewhere else other than the main discussion line and leave it for those who have a vested interest in intelligent verbal intercourse. Sniping and making crafty and/or witty little remarks that contribute absolutely nothing is awesome, but also helps create an absolutely vacuum of substance.

As always, [i]intelligent[/i] and [i]substantive[/i] commentary is welcome, though I'm sure someone will disappoint me.



* Everyone
** Unlike what I'm doing here, which is probably a total waste of everyone's time anyway.

[Megamickel]

So, basically, less talk, more fight.
I like the sound of that.
But if we declared war on you right now, would you be so quick to say "the CB doesn't matter", even if our only reason was "your alliance name is distasteful to our tongues"?

[Il Impero Romano]

I've put forth the same point in regards to waiting for standing before making a complaint on multiple occasions, however it never seems to make any difference. Well said, though.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Megamickel' timestamp='1287037271' post='2484300']
But if we declared war on you right now, would you be so quick to say "the CB doesn't matter", even if our only reason was "your alliance name is distasteful to our tongues"?
[/quote]

I might not like it, but that wouldn't affect the outcome. My time would be better spent fighting the war and attempting a diplomatic solution and yelling and screaming "You can't declare on me, you don't have a valid reason!"

[MrMuz]

A good CB pulls the fence sitters in this war or the next. It depends on how eager the fence sitters are on the war. A good CB actually keeps a war going long after it should. If the CB is simply "defending an ally", you can expect the war to be kept as short as possible. If it is on something else, like spies or unwanted aggression, it could end up bloodier than most.

But from what I've seen, it normally doesn't matter. Most "fence sitters" eager to jump on one side or another are usually small, maneuverable alliances, similar to the ones fighting GOONS in the current "Roguefest". If you have a particularly bad CB, you might get unlucky and have someone like NpO turn on you, but even then, those people will take the risk of having bad CBs of their own.

It's not something to be neglected, but you're right, too much effort is spent on it. But hey, that's what politicians do

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1287038316' post='2484317']
I might not like it, but that wouldn't affect the outcome. My time would be better spent fighting the war and attempting a diplomatic solution and yelling and screaming "You can't declare on me, you don't have a valid reason!"
[/quote]

I think you are mistaken, the PR war is almost as important as the actual war. It allows you to sway undecided's and independents to your side. Almost 400 million NS fought in Karma, less than half of that (for each side) was formalized into things like blocs.

While its true that a PR victory cannot turn a curb stomp into a fair fight, it could be the difference between victory and defeat in a close fight. If someone sitting on the fence is faced with a choice of sides, they will usually go with the one they think to be in the right. Securing that support can be essential.

[Karolina]

War can easily be swung in favour of one side, over another, because of the depth, or validity of a CB, because of neutrals. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to, at the very least, ensure those neutral do not join in the war against you, and at the most, have them helping you out.

[R3nowned]

The propaganda during a war is a battle in itself. A good CB is a must in the current Bobian political climate. Without a good CB, you'll eventually garner enough hate to bring yourself down. See the fate of Pacifica last year. So much hate was directed at them from around the treaty web on all sides, that when time came, even their closest treaty partners dropped them (coalition of cowards was their given name). The reasons for the cancellation was a direct protest of the CB used, from what I remember.

tl;dr have a good cb or you'll only screw yourself

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1287038306' post='2484315']
I've put forth the same point in regards to waiting for standing before making a complaint on multiple occasions, however it never seems to make any difference. Well said, though.
[/quote]

Thank you.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1287039497' post='2484325']
A good CB pulls the fence sitters in this war or the next. It depends on how eager the fence sitters are on the war. A good CB actually keeps a war going long after it should. If the CB is simply "defending an ally", you can expect the war to be kept as short as possible. If it is on something else, like spies or unwanted aggression, it could end up bloodier than most.

But from what I've seen, it normally doesn't matter. Most "fence sitters" eager to jump on one side or another are usually small, maneuverable alliances, similar to the ones fighting GOONS in the current "Roguefest". If you have a particularly bad CB, you might get unlucky and have someone like NpO turn on you, but even then, those people will take the risk of having bad CBs of their own.

It's not something to be neglected, but you're right, too much effort is spent on it. But hey, that's what politicians do
[/quote]

Certainly, there's something to be said about having a [i]popular[/i] reason for going to war with another nation / alliance / bloc. However, fundamentally, whatever the reason may be doesn't change the fact that ruler can (and do) declare war on each other and, after this is done, both sides start screaming bloody murder about whether or not the other side was correct to do so in the first place.

Let's get something on the table here - I personally view the phrase "valid CB" as being as ridiculous as the "morality" garbage that goes on around these forums. Being right and being wrong is entirely a matter of perspective and has absolutely zero basis in fact - it is the height of relativity. Once not so long ago the Viridians were the crusading heros of the 'verse, out to rid us of terrible evil Pacifica who, in turn, had once been out to rid us all of the terrible Polaris, etc. Again, right and wrong does not matter one bit when the enemy is on the doorstep lobbing grenades through your windows. I'm suggesting doing the better thing - get your guns, hide your kids, start blasting the loudest patriotic music you can find and make the enemy pay for every single inch. If you make a good stand and show everyone else you have guts, you're probably going to make more friends than if you cry and whine about how valid it is for another ruler to send his troops to raid your technology development centers and steal your crops.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1287039708' post='2484326']
I think you are mistaken, the PR war is almost as important as the actual war. It allows you to sway undecided's and independents to your side. Almost 400 million NS fought in Karma, less than half of that (for each side) was formalized into things like blocs.

While its true that a PR victory cannot turn a curb stomp into a fair fight, it could be the difference between victory and defeat in a close fight. If someone sitting on the fence is faced with a choice of sides, they will usually go with the one they think to be in the right. Securing that support can be essential.
[/quote]

The public relations conflict tends to turn into a long-term game, one which extends well past the end of the war and usually only produces fruits after the shooting has stopped. If you're looking for a good example, I'd suggest the FAN-WUT War (or, as the partisan term goes, VietFAN). Yes, it's always good to get a good diplomatic effort going, especially if you have well-spoken persons and excellent artists on your side. I actually advocate as much. What I don't advocate is the mindless, senseless back-and-forth with one side saying "We're right!" and the other side saying "No, you're not!" with absolutely nothing else to contribute aside from nasty little shots taken at people's egos. Unless you're willing to wade through page after page after page of sniping you're not going to be paying attention to that garbage anyway, so it's all wasted time.

[quote name='Karolina' timestamp='1287039779' post='2484328']
War can easily be swung in favour of one side, over another, because of the depth, or validity of a CB, because of neutrals. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to, at the very least, ensure those neutral do not join in the war against you, and at the most, have them helping you out.
[/quote]

Considering most wars have been curbstomps from the get-go, I don't agree with this position. Also, please see above for my opinion on words like "validity".

[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1287048268' post='2484363']
The propaganda during a war is a battle in itself. A good CB is a must in the current Bobian political climate. Without a good CB, you'll eventually garner enough hate to bring yourself down. See the fate of Pacifica last year. So much hate was directed at them from around the treaty web on all sides, that when time came, even their closest treaty partners dropped them (coalition of cowards was their given name). The reasons for the cancellation was a direct protest of the CB used, from what I remember.

tl;dr have a good cb or you'll only screw yourself
[/quote]

Using Pacifica as an example of what happens when you have a "bad" CB (see above for my opinion on relative adjectives) is a messy affair, as the Karma War and the reasons for it were as varied as the alliances who took part. Many of the wars that have taken place have begun more over objections to the aims and/or policies of the targets as well as their historical records (I cite the Continuum-NoV War, Coalition War and Karma War as ones from my personal experience) than over "your previous CB sucked so I'm attacking you". If that were the case, the GOONS would be a smoking hole in the ground right now from the look of people's opinions on their raiding policies. Wars start because one side senses opportunity to advance, has the firepower to give it a decent shot and the fortitude to see it through to the end. Wars end because both sides agree that the cost to continue is unacceptable to one or both sides. Additions of things like admission-of-guilt clauses is a nice little stab, but doesn't really have a damned bit of impact on the rest of the affair.

And no, if your reason for war isn't popularly viewed, you're not "screwing yourself". So what if you lose a war? Last I checked, Pacifica was the big loser of the Karma War and currently sits pretty in the number-two slot. Polaris got beaten and isn't too shabby an enterprise. Athens took a beating before and came out shiny. The Kingdom got its castles back. If you think the war is warranted, then you're going to declare it and pursue it. If it's being declared on you, you best fight back and behave while doing so because you have the chance of impressing your peers with your poise and determination. My verbal offensive is against the person(s) who like to yell and whine about why they're getting attacked like a bunch of pants-wetting toddlers than actually toughen up, get some grit and fight their damned wars like the rulers they want so badly to be.

[Stilcho]

From my reading of the forums, it seems that the most of the arguing over CB or "playing fair" is done by people who are not involved in the conflict. They can't be swayed or reasoned with because they don't HAVE to be reasonable. They are not the ones actually at war.

[caligula]

I think you're advocating for a removal of politics from the game.
The way IRON (I won't refer to DAWN, because they had no affect on the entire war whatsoever,) maneuvered was in such a way that they could make the aggressor's look foolish. They had already been decimated, and your analogy is off a tad. In this example IRON's actions resemble resistance movement. Force, while a component (sabotage,) of resistance, is predicated on winning the hearts and minds. FARK would have disbanded during the Holy Farkistan War if it had not persisted, and waited on time to turn against the holy insurrection.

Thus I think your assertion that an alliance should roll over and just take it is wrong in that if there are other options available it would be a crime to not pursue them.

Edited October 14, 2010 by caligula

[Earogema]

The war of words is simply another aspect of the war.

Fight in mind and in body.

EDIT: Or rather, with mind and body.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Earogema

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1287064912' post='2484427']
Let's get something on the table here - I personally view the phrase "valid CB" as being as ridiculous as the "morality" garbage that goes on around these forums. Being right and being wrong is entirely a matter of perspective and has absolutely zero basis in fact - it is the height of relativity.
[/quote]

An opinion (i.e. not a fact) that not everyone else holds. I can see why you hold the position that you do based on your view - it makes since coming from the position that "morality" is "ridiculous." However not everyone leads their nation with the same philosophy. While I agree that arguments about a CB, when they get to the point of arguing "you" and then "no, you" get really old fast, a good CB discussion can be entertaining to at least a good representation of Planet Bob.

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1287064912' post='2484427']
I'm suggesting doing the better thing - get your guns, hide your kids, start blasting the loudest patriotic music you can find and make the enemy pay for every single inch.
[/quote]

I'm assuming that people who post on OWF also fight. It's not an either or thing.

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1287064912' post='2484427']If you make a good stand and show everyone else you have guts, you're probably going to make more friends than if you cry and whine about how valid it is for another ruler to send his troops to raid your technology development centers and steal your crops.
[/quote]

So, is your OP really about wars for technology (i.e. tech raids) because if so, THAT is a discussion I'm actually rather tired of arguing. I am looking at your argument from the perspective of declared alliance wars. If it's about tech only - I'll just and move on.

Edited October 14, 2010 by White Chocolate

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Stilcho' timestamp='1287073430' post='2484489']
From my reading of the forums, it seems that the most of the arguing over CB or "playing fair" is done by people who are not involved in the conflict. They can't be swayed or reasoned with because they don't HAVE to be reasonable. They are not the ones actually at war.
[/quote]

Nope - they are just the ones that could get involved in the way if persuaded to do so. Thus they don't matter at all - right

[Haflinger]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1287039708' post='2484326']
I think you are mistaken, the PR war is almost as important as the actual war. It allows you to sway undecided's and independents to your side. Almost 400 million NS fought in Karma, less than half of that (for each side) was formalized into things like blocs.
[/quote]
There isn't nearly as much NS as that left to fight on Planet Bob now.

Most of the small independents that you're talking about here have packed it in.

[Ogaden]

As soon as a war chains past the aggressor and defender, it ceases to be about anything other than defeating the opposing coalition.

That's just the nature of modern war.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1287089323' post='2484661']
There isn't nearly as much NS as that left to fight on Planet Bob now.

Most of the small independents that you're talking about here have packed it in.
[/quote]

Not only that but the age of the 20,000,000 NS alliance strength of NPO (24), IRON (19), MCXA ([i]17[/i]), etc are over. I'll be extremely surprise if any alliance on BOB ever reaches such strength due to Wars going from basic engagement to full on Nuclear war.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1287039708' post='2484326']
I think you are mistaken, the PR war is almost as important as the actual war. It allows you to sway undecided's and independents to your side. [/quote]
I was going to write a reply, but then I saw this and I feel that my thoughts have been stolen.

[quote]If someone sitting on the fence is faced with a choice of sides, they will usually go with the one they think to be in the right. Securing that support can be essential.
[/quote]
but then I saw this , I feel that our initial thoughts are same, but I must present you with a discourse here.

What you're saying varies from alliance to alliance. Some find it feasible to join a winning war. Tho, its not as simple as that..it is also a matter of perception. Some might think they did the 'right' thing by joining a winning side, while some might argue they are opportunistic infra huggers.

Edited October 15, 2010 by shahenshah

[Michael von Prussia]

See, I disagree. Certainly, the [i]casus belli[/i] has no significance in how the war goes: if you're on the defending side, chances are you're weaker than the offensive side, and are going to be crushed either way. But [i]every[/i] war has two fronts: one is fought with guns on the battlefield, and one is fought with propaganda in the media. And just because you lose a war militarily does not mean you lose it in the minds of those watching.

Mushroom Kingdom proves itself an excellent example of this. Despite militarily losing both Great War IV and the War of the Coalition, it [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/MK#Notes]considers these victories[/url]. Part of this is because, as stated, they managed to survive the wars as an alliance. However, one can look at it another way as well: they were victorious in those wars in terms of the image that those wars helped to paint of their adversaries, which it is by no means a stretch to say culminated in the world turning against the Continuum and One Vision in the Karma War.

So as much as all the arguing over a [i]casus belli[/i] (or lack thereof) may seem like contentless drivel, it serves a purpose: perhaps not militarily, but it can and does influence how the watching world sees the involved parties.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1287110880' post='2484943']
I was going to write a reply, but then I saw this and I feel that my thoughts have been stolen.


but then I saw this , I feel that our initial thoughts are same, but I must present you with a discourse here.

What you're saying varies from alliance to alliance. Some find it feasible to join a winning war. Tho, its not as simple as that..it is also a matter of perception. Some might think they did the 'right' thing by joining a winning side, while some might argue they are opportunistic infra huggers.
[/quote]

Well obviously it will differ from group to group, some will just bandwagon what they think is the winning side no matter what, but these are not the people the PR war is aimed at.

There exists a significant amount of power in CN that is not really on any particular side, these independents who do not strongly identify with any of the major political alignments are those you are trying to sway with a PR campaign.

The treaty web has to break somewhere, influencing where it breaks can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Look at UPN/WCE and their dream of getting C&G on their side by the ODN tie. Even if it was more of a delusion than a dream its a good example of how one or two alliances choosing a different path can swing large amounts of NS around.

There are ties in interesting places all over the web that can serve as a conduit for a radical realignment of power, your own tie to RnR is a great example. If IRON got attacked tomorrow, RnR's decision to back you or not, their opinion of events, rolls around 40 mil NS backup in one go. If they believe you've been wronged, instant firepower, if on the other hand they believe you went out and picked a fight and decide not to back you, instant loss of that same firepower.

MHA in Karma, Polar in BiPolar. Single alliances are capable of redirecting and/or diverting large amounts of power*, and the PR war about who actually is the aggressor is very important, because the web favors the defender. Defensive pacts tend to be mandatory, while aggression clauses tend to be optional. "he started it" may sound like a grade school argument, but from a legal standpoint it has a great effect on how treaties chain.


*Oddly enough, the GGA is probable the biggest example of this ever, at one point being the sole link between the North and South ends of the MDP web, back when those terms actually had meaning. Their choice of direction back then slammed the door on the South end of the web putting a hard limit on treaty chaining, cutting off almost literally half the game in one move. </oldfart>

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Mushroom Kingdom proves itself an excellent example of this. Despite militarily losing both Great War IV and the War of the Coalition, it considers these victories.[/quote]
I think that's just a pop at the way NPO always used to say they didn't lose GW1. Though, if they actually believe it, they have become as delusional as 2008 Vladimir, which would be a shame.

[quote]I personally view the phrase "valid CB" as being as ridiculous as the "morality" garbage that goes on around these forums[/quote]
Well, since morality is not ridiculous, I guess that's why you're coming to the wrong conclusion about CBs as well

The CBs you use to go to war have a significant impact on the war itself (for example if NPO actually [i]did[/i] have evidence of OV spying then they almost certainly wouldn't have pulled the whole world down on them in Karma), and also a very large long term effect on your image. Both the Unjust Path and the Hegemony were defeated at least in part because their image had become so bad that several of their own allies no longer felt them to be good enough friends to stop them from getting rolled.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Ferrozoica Hive' timestamp='1287038316' post='2484317']
I might not like it, but that wouldn't affect the outcome. My time would be better spent fighting the war and attempting a diplomatic solution and yelling and screaming "You can't declare on me, you don't have a valid reason!"
[/quote]

It does effect the outcome. Alliances that aren't involved sometimes become involved, and their actions are based on their perceptions, which in part are built on what they've heard here.

You used the IRON/Gramlins war as an example. I'd like to point out that a lot of people who had been selling tech to Gramlins quit selling them tech. And a few people, including myself, changed AA to help fight. Others sent aid. None of that would have happened if it were not for the posts on the OWF.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1287156053' post='2485268']
I think that's just a pop at the way NPO always used to say they didn't lose GW1.
[/quote]

They still do, you know.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1287111816' post='2484958']
Mushroom Kingdom proves itself an excellent example of this. Despite militarily losing both Great War IV and the War of the Coalition, it [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/MK#Notes]considers these victories[/url]. Part of this is because, as stated, they managed to survive the wars as an alliance. However, one can look at it another way as well: they were victorious in those wars in terms of the image that those wars helped to paint of their adversaries, which it is by no means a stretch to say culminated in the world turning against the Continuum and One Vision in the Karma War.[/quote]
I don't really think you [i]get[/i] MK.

[greenacres]

You could always declare war for fun, or for non-conventional reasons. RIA could declare war against sanity, FAN could declare war against neutrality, NPO could declare war against NATO for being in the atlantic instead of the pacific, etc. etc.

War doesn't have to be because "I don't like how you talked to me in this backroom channel and I think my way of being is inherently better than yours, thus you're evil and I'm righteous so my crusade is justified!" War could simply be for whatever reason you want it to be, in whatever context that you wish to define.