06-12-2020, 01:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2020, 01:21 PM by New Rogernomics.)
Roavin;9806 Wrote:My opinion on the war on NPO is well-documented ("dumb" is the key adjective here), so an Armistice as a starting point sounds good to me in principle, BUT I assume NPO wouldn't even agree to that, precisely because it's so meaningless, and them agreeing to an armistice would be them actually acknowledging any remote threat that just doesn't even exist. So they'll probably counter offer with a NAP as a "take it or leave it" option.[...]I would agree with that. The official position of the NPO is that the declaration of war is a unilateral action of Lazarus that they haven't recognized, and since we haven't attacked them in The Pacific proper, we haven't really done much of anything against them, so an armistice could require them to a recognize a conflict that they have never recognized with a reciprocal war declaration. All the informal conversations with NPO folks I have had over the years lends credibility to the point of view that [the] NPO would be more than willing to quickly resolve the war with a Non-Aggression-Pact and bury the hatchet*. The other official position is that they want nothing to do with Lazarus, militarily or otherwise, and that any possible diplomatic relations with them is optional and down to what we would feel comfortable with.
*And I am pretty sure I'd be able to get a formal diplomatic statement to that effect from the NPO.