[Discussion] War with the NPO

[Cormac]

I'm curious really -- what do people think a state of war will achieve?

In all likelihood we will be creating a military for a war that never really eventuates. It's a lot of work to do nothing.

We can send a strong message without wasting our time by proscribing the Order.

We need some kind of a military anyway. This has been discussed at length. Regions aren't going to agree to mutual defense treaties with us when those will in reality be one-sided. No one is going to be interested in defending Lazarus when Lazarus can't repay the favor, and isn't interested in doing anything to make sure it can repay the favor. Alliances aren't charity. They're give-and-take. And that doesn't make them a "business transaction" either, as you've implied. It just makes sense that if regions are giving something to an ally, they're wanting something in return. That's what makes it an alliance and a friendship, rather than a parasitic relationship in which Lazarus receives protection and the other region receives nothing in return. We shouldn't be looking for treaties that make Lazarus a protectorate of other regions, both because most regions aren't going to agree to that, and also because how undignified is that for Lazarus? So we need a military either way. It can be a neutral military, heavily restricted in its operations, but we do need one. So "we'll have to build a military" isn't a good argument against war. We're going to need to build one regardless. This idea of a Lazarus that has no military, but does have treaty allies, is ludicrous. We can't have just one or the other. We can either have a military and treaty allies, or no military and no treaty allies. That's reality.

I also want to ask the anti-war folks something here: What do you think the difference is between a proscription and a declaration of war? Do you imagine that the NPO is not going to interpret termination of relations and proscription of the NPO as being just as hostile as a declaration of war? The course of action you're suggesting, proscription with no war, is essentially a suggestion that Lazarus should provoke the NPO to war against us, but should not declare war in return. The NPO is going to treat Lazarus as a hostile region if we proscribe them. They have treated Lazarus as a hostile region for many years now, even during times of peace and ostensible good relations. So there's no question they're going to treat Lazarus as a hostile region if they're proscribed here. The question before this Assembly is whether we are going to passively sit back while the NPO continues its years-long war against Lazarus, or whether we are going to fully recognize that this state of war exists and is going to continue to exist, and make a declaration to that effect. We're not going to be at peace with a proscription. We're just going to be at war without acknowledging it, and without the heightened vigilance that accompanies a state of war. A proscription without a declaration of war is not just every bit as dangerous as a war declaration, it's more dangerous. It invites the NPO's hostility without committing us to a vigilant war effort.