WesWorld

Quoted

I could say the same about the U.S. Why are they NOT in SEAR?

Same reason why Cananda should NOT be in SAER.
"Western"
...
...
...
Add Italy and you have Spaghetti Western.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Atlantis would certainly review its own arangements with the SAE, NATO, FAR ect as a result of the SEAR treaty and the SAE's bewildering gravitation towards SATSUMA. SAE membership in SATSUMA would almost certainly scuttle the non-agression pact, considering it was a pain to refrain from taking sides in the South American war.

Why? Atlantis is neither touched by SATSUMA nor by SAER as it has no possessions and little important ties to the region.

So if there´s a nation that can shrug about SAER and also what the SAE does regarding that new treaty, then it´s Atlantis......?!

Whatever, your answer probably shouldn´t be posted here....

It even shocks Australia. I knew something was in the wind, that SATSUMA was rattling sabres, and that Hood was planning an agreement, but I certainly was NOT expecting a full blown Treaty aimed specificlly at SATSUMA.

But remember, Sun Tzu said the 1st way to defeat someone is to defeat his alliances. I'm afraid SEAR will have an opposite effect, and increase tensions.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
And why on Earth is Canada with SEAR?!?! Have they gained possession in the region lately? Have I missed something while I moved?

Short version; Commonwealth obligation.
Canada does have a few unwritten escape clauses if needed, however.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I could say the same about the U.S. Why are they NOT in SEAR? Rather moot point anyway as I'm glad they are not, that would DEFINATELY be one sided.

Couple reasons I can think of; The US doesn't have anything past Midway, unlike @. Also, the US is somewhat inactive like Iberia due to Canis' health problems. Also, given America's isolationist bent, it'd be a hard sell on their congress, so why waste the time?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
NATO is in the Atlantic

More like Western Atlantic/Eastern Pacific.

SEAR seems more like a mutual "If SATSUMA swats at us, we clobber back" agreement. NATO and even SATSUMA itself have more meat to them.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
NATO is in the Atlantic

More like Western Atlantic/Eastern Pacific.

SEAR seems more like a mutual "If SATSUMA swats at us, we clobber back" agreement. NATO and even SATSUMA itself have more meat to them.

True but NATO's strong theatre is the Atlantic, with some of the largest navy's in the world. Now with SEAR Iberia will most likely be having jitery fits in the corner, they have to deal with NATO in the Caribbean, SATSUMA in the Pacific and have been left out of an alliance that could have countered the later. At least with the AANM Iberia has something to point at NATO.

Iberia (together with Italy and Denmakr) could always do the sensible thing and negotiate an agreement with SATSUMA (not that Persia has any conflict of interests with these countries)

...and if they opt for the status quo, then what?

They dont negotiate?

Ah yes, the shift in mid-30s politics. How lovely.

Hell, seems like the pre great war politics at this point!

Whoa.

*waves a "Go Team SEAR" sign overhead, but puts it away quickly if any SATSUMA members look his way.*

The SAE is more than welcome to join SEAR. However the main thrust of SEAR is aimed at the empires of the Malayan, Indochinese and Indonesian areas rather than the Indian Ocean.

I think SAE would benefit more from NATO than SEAR myself. And what happened to brotherly love with the Dutch?

Does every nation really have to join a self-defence Treaty? I see nothing wrong in SEAR as an insurance policy. It is not aiming to make geopolitical statements or trying to attack SATSUMA. The SAE and Iberia in anyway are free to see which way the wind blows in any war and side with the biggest winning team in the end.

The Canadians are in it because they are part of the Commonwealth and because they could form useful diversions up north. The USA is not because they have few Far Eastern colonies and because GB wants to be the big boy of this Treaty.

The Suez Canal is much nearer the likely warzone than the Panama and can go round any RSAN blockade. That is another reason why Persia cannot be allowed to go Westward...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The Suez Canal is much nearer the likely warzone than the Panama and can go round any RSAN blockade.

OOC: When I checked a map lately it doesn´t look like it would be too difficult to block Suez should the Indians and South Africans decide to do so. No other alliance as really useful bases and forces around. Only Italy has a chance to keep the Suez open if need be...

SEAR is a Cold War superpower, nothing else.

The difference is that SEAR has not been born of a bloody, and highly destructive 2nd Great War.

SEAR has also not been born of the fear of Nuclear Weapons, where mutual destruction was assured, and the only reason for military alliances was that it was impossible to predict how many of the enemies troops would survive a nuclear blast.

SEAR is not a 1930's alliance, it is from the 50's & 60's and reminds me of the time when Lady Green pointed out to the sim that our politics were from the wrong era.

It is worth adding that no Alliance can manage to win now, the whole nature of our wars make a war on this scale in not tenable/feasible

It is not a Superpower!

It only covers one scenario, a general SATSUMA offensive similar to the Japanese one of 1941 in the real world. It does not interfere with any other Treaty nor does it stop its members from doing whatever they like during the term of the Treaty elsewhere in the world. It is a protective umbrella put inside a safe only to be opened in times of war.

Otherwise the Dutch, British, French and Aussie fleets could be mopped up piecemeal by SATSUMA without SEAR.

At least everybody knows who SEAR is aimed at. NATO is aimed at everybody...

OOC: From my experience a long-drawn war is unplayable via PMs or private boards anyway because of the sheer complexity of everything. Getting six or eight players to script a war they all agree on is very hard.

NATO was aimed at defending its signatories, unfortunately the treaty morphed into something with a little more teeth and different goals when the entire commonwealth entered the treaty.

Unfortunately like each treaty after the next they seem to loose more and more logic as they are created in turn. SEAR seemingly makes NATO, FAR and AANM irrelevant while targeting SATSUMA (which in itself has always been a regional monopoly) and like most new alliances has sparked over reaction, controversy and plotting.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm begining to look at isolationism as a blissful escape from this wesworld version of "Survivor".....

I lost all sense of logic when I tried to figure out who would be on which side in a WW version of WWII. I finally came to the conclusion, that a general WW war would be have around 4-5 sides, with total chaos.

I gotta say, I am a bit uncomfortable with these mega-alliances. And i find a British-French Alliance a bit disturbing. They unbalance WW to much. That and we have a great lack of bad guys. Hitler's dead, Stalin's dead, everyone wants to be the good guys...

Well at least we have SATSUMA and Italy.

Quoted

Well at least we have SATSUMA and Italy.

For all we know, SATSUMA and Italy may be the ones that are the "Good Guys" while the rest are the "Bad Guys".

Everyone thinks they are the goodguys. That title goes to the victors.

Quoted

SEAR is not a 1930's alliance, it is from the 50's & 60's and reminds me of the time when Lady Green pointed out to the sim that our politics were from the wrong era.

From the French perspective, it is a means of managing the transition from a colonial empire to... something else. France's Great War experience, when she was forced to call upon the peoples of her colonies, train them in war, and use them to fight, not their battles, but hers, has convinced successive French governments that the days of the French Empire are numbered. However, France would like the legacy of their Empire to something other than peoples abandoned and subject to the whims of others.

Quoted

That and we have a great lack of bad guys. Hitler's dead, Stalin's dead, everyone wants to be the good guys...

Hitler is indeed dead, but Stalin is still around,and even Lenin is too, leading the Bolshevik faction in the Duma!