Taijitu
Forum Meta => Treaty Conferences/Organisations => Role Play => Archived Role Play Boards => Archive => IPO => Topic started by: Delfos on December 19, 2007, 12:57:46 PM
-
In gathering information to form a list of nations or groups that are dangerous to the world peace we should first discuss what definitions and what values would they represent.
20:Intentional Provoking Genocide
16:Stroke a sovereign nation with a Weapon of Mass Destruction
15:Retaliation against a sovereign nation with a WMD
10:Started a War as Aggressor
6:Started a War as Defender
5:Joined a War
3:Persistently enters in conflict with a sovereign nation or IPO
2:Armed repression against civilians
1:Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups
0:Diplomatic/Economic Support to Nations in conflict
-1:Participated in a diplomatic resolution of a conflict
-2:Hosted a diplomatic resolution of a conflict
-3:Participated in a Peace-Keeping operation without conflict
-5:Ten consecutive years without provoking either Diplomatic or Armed conflict
Do you agree with the list? Do you think there should be another judgment of values? Do you think there should be eliminated or added other judgments?
-
Hm.
5:Joined a War (two times)
2:Armed repression against civilians (currently in Dysanii, not using inhumane restrictions, but keeping peace trough force)
1:Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups
0:Diplomatic/Economic Support to Nations in conflict (two times)
Well, all together, Feniexia would get a "score" of 13. Nice. With the things suggested by me, I'd even have a score of 30.
I'd suggest adding "8: Threatening a foreign nation with the usage of WMDs", "2: Testing nuclear weapons", "5: In possession of multiple WMDs" and "2: Researching WMD technology". Also, I'd like to see the "without conflict" of -3 changed to "without provoking conflict". After all, it wouldn't be the peacekeepers fault if terrorists would strike them because they are "evil non-believers"...
-
I support this idea.
Only thing that makes me wonder is
"6:Started a War as Defender"
Can you "start" a war as a "Defender"?
Would that not make you the aggressor?
I mean any nation could thing up reasons for an "Preemptive attack" claiming self-defense.
And can you gain points more than once. Like "Twenty consecutive years without provoking either Diplomatic or Armed conflict -10" ?
-
it's a one time chart, it doesn't evolve. If you want to make a chart in the future, imagine twenty years for now, and a belligerent 20y before haven't gone on war since and have been supporting peace through the world, then his 'war' points are removed by 'peace' points. Understand? It means you're cleaning your record and promoting world peace.
If you're asking, if he goes to war and then has a 20 peace period, yes you gain both points, as explained above, when you make a charter you have in mind all actions from the nation, since it's birth. Of course, if a nation was very active in wars in the beginning and then settled down and the overall population or politics are peaceful, why can't they loose their dangerous status?
Can you "start" a war as a "Defender"?
Would that not make you the aggressor?
I mean any nation could thing up reasons for an "Preemptive attack" claiming self-defense.
Well...you can but, sure,I get your point, so...do you support it to be removed as a Defender would join a war, and acts like anyone else that enters a war as defending interests?
Well, all together, Feniexia would get a "score" of 13. Nice. With the things suggested by me, I'd even have a score of 30.
This is going to be complemented with a Taijitu world map, with colors and everything, but I can't make it with 50 tons of color. It would be confusing, lets keep it simple, shall we?
"8: Threatening a foreign nation with the usage of WMDs",
Threats are seen as diplomatic conflicts, they are included in:
3:Persistently enters in conflict with a sovereign nation or IPO
Although, I think we should define "Persistently".
"2: Testing nuclear weapons"
Nice one, I would score it as 4, not 2. What do you think?
"5: In possession of multiple WMDs"
"2: Researching WMD technology"
I would call it» 4: Violation of the Non-proliferation of NBC Wp IPO treaty.
Or reformulating» 4: Violation of an IPO treaty. (includes human rights, NBC and whatever else)
Also, I'd like to see the "without conflict" of -3 changed to "without provoking conflict". After all, it wouldn't be the peacekeepers fault if terrorists would strike them because they are "evil non-believers"...
I thought about that already, no I really mean "without (any) conflict". They are responsible to investigate armed or terrorist groups, they have to stop the attacks before they happen, otherwise they aren't peace-keepers. Don't you agree? At least it's what peace soldiers do.
What we can do is to add» -1:Participated in a Peace-Keeping task force.
waddya think?
-
2 or 3: joined a war in defense of a sovereign country.
-1: gave aid (medical/food/supplies) to a nation in need, particularly a post-war nation.
-
2 or 3: joined a war in defense of a sovereign country.
-1: gave aid (medical/food/supplies) to a nation in need, particularly a post-war nation.
the 1st line I generalized as joined a war. Imagine a guy joins a war on the offensive side because the defensive is already invading the old territory and things the guy is pushing too hard, and another guy enters the war in the defensive side to stop it...don't you think offensive or defensive is a little subjective? So i generalize as "5:Joined a War", is had 5 points, half points of starting a war, because they actually create more destruction in the same period of time than without joining, it's still destructive and threatens the world peace, if everyone joins a war in one side or another, then it's prolonged, not shortened. war isn't peace.
2nd sentence is nice, although I would rather say it's -0,5, still I agree with the -1, decimals doesn't count.
Talmann, why don't you join IPO? lol I grant you the Representative status for your diplomat, but I'm looking forward to let you join IPO.
-
I would, but a) I'm not on the map, and b) my pseudo-dictator would recieve upwards of 20. My old stats, I would. But Wilhelm von Schiffmann, he wouldn't.
-
Can you "start" a war as a "Defender"?
Would that not make you the aggressor?
I mean any nation could thing up reasons for an "Preemptive attack" claiming self-defense.
Well...you can but, sure,I get your point, so...do you support it to be removed as a Defender would join a war, and acts like anyone else that enters a war as defending interests?
Well, the defender thing...hm, if a nation would be invading a pacifist country, it probably _would_ defense itself. I don't think being defender in a war promotes your risk. After all, it's just defending. Maybe 5 points, but never more.
This is going to be complemented with a Taijitu world map, with colors and everything, but I can't make it with 50 tons of color. It would be confusing, lets keep it simple, shall we?
Why? It's easy. Just use color ranges. Below 1, Below 5, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and so on.
"8: Threatening a foreign nation with the usage of WMDs",
Threats are seen as diplomatic conflicts, they are included in:
3:Persistently enters in conflict with a sovereign nation or IPO
Although, I think we should define "Persistently".
I don't know, but I think threatening a foreign nation with WMD usage or military attacks are fully different things.
"2: Testing nuclear weapons"
Nice one, I would score it as 4, not 2. What do you think?
Depends on the nation; but 4 also sounds fine to me.
"5: In possession of multiple WMDs"
"2: Researching WMD technology"
I would call it» 4: Violation of the Non-proliferation of NBC Wp IPO treaty.
Or reformulating» 4: Violation of an IPO treaty. (includes human rights, NBC and whatever else)
Well, here's a problem: not all nation signed those treaties. How can a nation violate a treaty they did not sign? Change the "violating of" to "acting against" and it is fine to me.
I thought about that already, no I really mean "without (any) conflict". They are responsible to investigate armed or terrorist groups, they have to stop the attacks before they happen, otherwise they aren't peace-keepers. Don't you agree? At least it's what peace soldiers do.
What we can do is to add» -1:Participated in a Peace-Keeping task force.
Sounds ok.
-
Loyan's score will be 0.
-
Well, the defender thing...hm, if a nation would be invading a pacifist country, it probably _would_ defense itself. I don't think being defender in a war promotes your risk. After all, it's just defending. Maybe 5 points, but never more.
Same points as joining a war? same thing then, if they attack you, you join a war against the attacker, so can any other people do, join a war, even supporting an attacker.
Why? It's easy. Just use color ranges. Below 1, Below 5, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15 and so on.
and a country with small point count would have the same 'dangerous' colors as a nation that gone to war. Naw, small point count is enough.
I don't know, but I think threatening a foreign nation with WMD usage or military attacks are fully different things.
If I threat to punch you, will I do it? No, it's just a diplomatic conflict, Imagine someone that threatens to use WMD to a nation and after all they didn't do anything and actually promoted peace...we can't accuse anyone for what they didn't committed.
Depends on the nation; but 4 also sounds fine to me.
4 it is, modifying the text for WMD, and not just nukes.
Well, here's a problem: not all nation signed those treaties. How can a nation violate a treaty they did not sign? Change the "violating of" to "acting against" and it is fine to me.
Yes, even those who haven't signed. The treaties are passed to promote world peace, if you didn't sign it, it means you don't want world peace already, you're violating an International Agreement to promote world peace. No matter if you sign it or not. If you don't sign because you don't care, then you wouldn't care for this list either...
Sounds ok.
great.
-
10:Started a War as Aggressor
3:Persistently enters in conflict with a sovereign nation or IPO
2:Armed repression against civilians
1:Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups
Well, I expected to get higher than 16, but there's no category that includes inciting and pursuing civil war.
-
Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups
A national armed forces can be consider an armed group ne's pas?
-
Technically, there's no State involved ;)
-
If you mean that everyone that has armed forces does that, that's not the point of that point. Armed groups aren't armed forces of a nation or involved in the military, it's related to terrorist groups and other kinds, like your Legionairs.
-
So won't it be "terrorists" rather than "armed groups". If you look at the meaning of the words, national militaries fit into the categories. Just a suggestion.
-
I don't want to specify terrorist groups, there's more in the world than that. Private armies is another thing against this sentence, if they are assigned to protect a person of a collective of people it's fine, but if they are hired to shoot whoever they see in 'cause' of someone, or if it reaches an absurd high number of effective, it's promoting violence, the carry of arms, and will lead to what Blackwater done in Iraq.
-
??? There's no difference between a private army and a public one. They are both tasked to do the same thing, the use of military force and weapons to accomplish a goal. The same thing Blackwater did, personnel in the US Army did. Both groups are subjected to US laws.
I think a more proper term will be "economic/diplomatic support to armed groups that persist in disrupting peace and violating the safety and sanity of civilians."
-
we can come to that agreement. But let me clarify, a private army isn't property of a sovereign nation, of a sovereign leader, that's the difference.
-
make it "private armed groups"
-
but then terrorists might not be private armed groups.
Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups that are not included in a sovereign nation's military.
-
are police forces armed groups?
-
yes, military isn't the word then,
Diplomatic/Economic Support to Armed Groups that are not included in a sovereign nation's armed forces.