PeaceKeepers: a contradiction? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  PeaceKeepers: a contradiction?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   PeaceKeepers: a contradiction?

Rang posted 11-18-98 08:44 PM ET
Here's a question I have for PK supporters. If you wish to keep peace, will you wage war? If an aggressive enemy (spartans?) attacks you or your neighbors, will you armies march on the path of war? If not, you risk immolation. If you do, you become "warmakers" rather than "peacekeepers."
Will you wage war to keep peace?
Brother Greg posted 11-18-98 08:57 PM ET
Is defending yourself (or your allies) from an agressor being a warmonger?
Brother Greg.
Rang posted 11-18-98 09:02 PM ET
I did not say "warmonger," for that terms has certain negative connotations and usually refers to a party that initiates war. I said warmaker, one who wages war. Not all defense tactics involve war. Faced with a military threat, how would the PK respond? If all else fails, would you wage war when war is the diametric opposite of peace? Or do you suggest that war and peace are not opposites?
Brother Greg posted 11-18-98 09:30 PM ET
Basically, my thoughts would be that if someone attacked me unprovokes, and I were playing the PKs, I'd basically destroy (or force them out of my territory) their attacking forces, then ask them for peace. If they refused, and continued to attack, then I'd "pacify" them, until they did agree to peace. By that I mean use whatever force was necessary.
If they were then amenable, I'd cede them some of their land (cities) back, if not all. Or if this was a repeated transgression, I'd continue to occupy them, as happened with Germany after WWII.
Now, I don't believe that that makes us warmakers, or warmongers (for that matter). Sometimes the best form of defence is offense. Personally, I would see that as a last resort though, after all else had failed.
This is all of course realising that this is a game, and does not of course reflect my ideas on the real world.
And to answer your question: yes, war and peace are opposites. But if left with no other alternative, one must take that path which you least would wish.
And to further answer it, our basic tenant is not necessarily peace. It is the adherance to the UN mission statement (wrong term, but I can't think of it), and the free sharing of all knowledge. Look at the UN today. Sometimes as a last resort, they authorise military strikes...
Brother Greg.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: PeaceKeepers: a contradiction?
Rang	posted 11-18-98 08:44 PM ET Here's a question I have for PK supporters. If you wish to keep peace, will you wage war? If an aggressive enemy (spartans?) attacks you or your neighbors, will you armies march on the path of war? If not, you risk immolation. If you do, you become "warmakers" rather than "peacekeepers." Will you wage war to keep peace?
Brother Greg	posted 11-18-98 08:57 PM ET Is defending yourself (or your allies) from an agressor being a warmonger? Brother Greg.
Rang	posted 11-18-98 09:02 PM ET I did not say "warmonger," for that terms has certain negative connotations and usually refers to a party that initiates war. I said warmaker, one who wages war. Not all defense tactics involve war. Faced with a military threat, how would the PK respond? If all else fails, would you wage war when war is the diametric opposite of peace? Or do you suggest that war and peace are not opposites?
Brother Greg	posted 11-18-98 09:30 PM ET Basically, my thoughts would be that if someone attacked me unprovokes, and I were playing the PKs, I'd basically destroy (or force them out of my territory) their attacking forces, then ask them for peace. If they refused, and continued to attack, then I'd "pacify" them, until they did agree to peace. By that I mean use whatever force was necessary. If they were then amenable, I'd cede them some of their land (cities) back, if not all. Or if this was a repeated transgression, I'd continue to occupy them, as happened with Germany after WWII. Now, I don't believe that that makes us warmakers, or warmongers (for that matter). Sometimes the best form of defence is offense. Personally, I would see that as a last resort though, after all else had failed. This is all of course realising that this is a game, and does not of course reflect my ideas on the real world. And to answer your question: yes, war and peace are opposites. But if left with no other alternative, one must take that path which you least would wish. And to further answer it, our basic tenant is not necessarily peace. It is the adherance to the UN mission statement (wrong term, but I can't think of it), and the free sharing of all knowledge. Look at the UN today. Sometimes as a last resort, they authorise military strikes... Brother Greg.