WesWorld

This may be a bit inflammatory but its still an interesting question. With all the major powers excluding SAE and Japan beloning to the same alliance bloc and the absolute superiority of this alliance bloc over any potential threat how do you explain the ever expanding fleets (and budgets) to the taxpayers?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
With all the major powers excluding SAE and Japan beloning to the same alliance bloc

I challenge this assumption.

So do I!

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
This may be a bit inflammatory but its still an interesting question. With all the major powers excluding SAE and Japan beloning to the same alliance bloc and the absolute superiority of this alliance bloc over any potential threat how do you explain the ever expanding fleets (and budgets) to the taxpayers?

I will join the chorus... Which powers and which bloc are you talking about?

Really? In what way are NATO,SEAR,FAR and GNUK (not to mention satellite treaties) not part of the same alliance web?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Really? In what way are NATO,SEAR,FAR and GNUK (not to mention satellite treaties) not part of the same alliance web?

Please explain how you see that they are? I do not.

I disagree with that as well.

I agree with Vuk, but the existence of this alliance web does not mean anything. Nation A might be indirectly linked to Nation B through this web, but that does not mean that Nation A and Nation B are buddies.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
I agree with Vuk, but the existence of this alliance web does not mean anything. Nation A might be indirectly linked to Nation B through this web, but that does not mean that Nation A and Nation B are buddies.

That is illogical. You disagreed with Vuk's basic assumptions then say you agree with his results?

As has already been pointed out, you're only allied with folks you have reciprocal signatures with. GNUK, AEGIS, and FAR have little or no bearing on Canada, for example.

Furthermore (and for the umpteenth time), SAER is not an alliance bloc. It is a regional agreement and understanding for those signatories to support each other in the case of oriental perfidy. It has no bearing whatsoever east of the International Dateline or west of the Maldives.

As for the whys and hows, I suspect they are as varied as the natons and players involved. Canada's stance has long been that, while strong allies are nice, the best security option is your own military, rather than relying on a beuracrat in London or Washington for your national defense.

Alliances in OTL and in WW in my view serve primarily the national interest, or in our view the player's interest.

For example, Brazil would jump on board in a conflict between all three ABC powers and the SAE, or if a major power took on the SAE. Brazil might be willing to consider joining in a war against AEGIS, provided they were assured of getting Portugal and the former Portugese colonial possesions returned to their rightful King , and it would of course depend on who wanted to line up against AEGIS.

SAER is to me more of a preventive measure against potential Oriental expansionism, all the European powers seem to wish to prevent that occuring. NATO to my knowledge was formed under a similar set of circumstances, primarily against AEGIS from what I understand. To me, the politicians could tell the taxpayers that their armed forces are their incase the LON, and whatever alliances they are participants in fail.

I thought we've beaten this dead horse before?

For starters, I have to agree with most here. I don't see a "same alliance bloc and the absolute superiority of this alliance bloc". SEAR is an alliance of nations with interests in Asia formed to defend against any agression from SATSUMA. NATO was formed to defend their respective interests, primarily in the Caribbean.

Just because SAER goes to war with SATSUMA, doesn't mean Atlantis has to join in simply because 2 of its FAR alliance allies are at war. Atlantis doesn't have a serious concern about the asian portion of the Pacific and wouldn't blink twice if war broke out between SAER and SATSUMA.

I'm sure the same goes for the GNUK alliance with reguards to germany and Nordmark, I also doubt Denmark would worry too much either. Italy might be spoiling for a war with India and back their AEGIS allie Iberia.

Furthermore, SATSUMA has since fractured making war even less likely. Or does it?.... Canada's antics near Hong Kong saw cold relations between SATSUMA's former members instantly flaw enough for them to go on a chest beating rampage around the worlds oceans, dumping oil, pointing fingers and the like.

So while the various large alliances don't really share much in common, (in fact some could still vary well be at odds) it is ironic that SATSUMA seems to be the only thing they seem to have the same opinion of.

With reguards to Atlantis expanding its fleet, its simple, I'm not really. I'm replacing older ships with newer ones. Only in terms of CV's and BB's is the Atlantean fleet expanding and that's due to the lack of the CT and the view that older battleships are still usefull, a pair of older BB's being equal in force to a newer more powerfull BB.

I think is just Vuck is cofused by the entangle of nations of different alliances together in SEAR. The way I see it the alliances in WW served their purpose but as in real life threats change. IMO SEAR with the fracture of SATSUMA should disappear, being the reason of the allaince, but of course the perceived threats still exists. Perhaps change the name. NATO was formed as a bloc facing the AEGIS group in the Caribbean. But now it seems that NATO have problems between junior and senior partners. Still the threat, while less likely, from troubles with AEGIS exists.

GNUK and FAR are "defensive" alliances so they make sense. Same with the ABC one in South America. Even the Warsaw Pact, IMO aimied at the AEGIS powers, makes sense.

So why built more ships? Because departments need to justify their budgets and what better than the threat of the 'barbaric horde" of Satsuma rolling over the peaceful citizens of the colonies in South East Asia and in the Middle East if they don't get the toys they need to do the job. The ones they have now are old and new shiny ones are better. And there is nothing wrong with that.

ABC in South America is a "defensive" alliance? Against which aggressor?

No, no. ABC is in no way meant to be defensive. It is all about isolating the SAE on that continent and driving its forces, that protect Grand Uruguay, back into the Sea.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
ABC in South America is a "defensive" alliance? Against which aggressor?

No, no. ABC is in no way meant to be defensive. It is all about isolating the SAE on that continent and driving its forces, that protect Grand Uruguay, back into the Sea.

Thereby defending South American land from the evil invaders from across the ocean?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
ABC in South America is a "defensive" alliance? Against which aggressor?

No, no. ABC is in no way meant to be defensive. It is all about isolating the SAE on that continent and driving its forces, that protect Grand Uruguay, back into the Sea.

Notice that defensive is between parenthesis.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
ABC in South America is a "defensive" alliance? Against which aggressor?

No, no. ABC is in no way meant to be defensive. It is all about isolating the SAE on that continent and driving its forces, that protect Grand Uruguay, back into the Sea.

That depends on your point of view. From Chile's point of view, the ABC alliance is intended to prevent the SAE - or any other power - from intervening in South American politics and reducing the participant nations individually. Because the SAE is building up their strength in Gran Uruguay, the ABC powers feel that threat, and have to match.

As I've told Jason before, the fastest way to break apart ABC would be for Gran Uruguay to be given independence: even if they had a defensive treaty with the SAE, that would substantially reduce the "threat" that ABC feels. In an alternate timeline without the South American War, Chile might have stood a bit more distant from ABC and partnered more closely with Gran Uruguay, and possibly added them in a war.

Unfortunately, that scenario is now quite unlikely for at least a generation due to the South American War.

Well, of those ABC powers Brasil clearly is the mad dog while Argentina generally reacts reasonable and difference with the SAE may be smaller than expacted among people. Chile on the other hand seems to be more like a nominal member, opportunistic at times. They seek close relations to the SAE at times, also buying a lot of SAE stuff and then they can be seen sabre rattling again against "foreign intruders".

So to me it sounds like split tounge when Chile says "the ABC alliance is intended to prevent the SAE - or any other power - from intervening in South American politics". And if I were part of ABC, I´d better not bet on the reliability of Chilean support.

"the fastest way to break apart ABC would be for Gran Uruguay to be given independence"

Grand Uruguay is largely independant from South Africa in that it has its own culture, mix of languages and economical background. I do not see what a separation from the rest of the SAE would gain Grand Uruguay apart from becoming a target for megalomania dreams of some South American regime in the neighborhood? The world witnessed what happened to Paraguay.

The fastest way to break apart ABC probably is to wage war against it and conquer most of southern South America - not because the SAE wants to, but because she is forced to as those ABC power deny the Empire its right of existance.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Grand Uruguay is largely independant from South Africa in that it has its own culture, mix of languages and economical background. I do not see what a separation from the rest of the SAE would gain Grand Uruguay apart from becoming a target for megalomania dreams of some South American regime in the neighborhood?

Frankly, I've never seen enough information on either South Africa proper nor Gran Uruguay in particular to be able to agree with that statement. I don't disagree, I just haven't seen evidence to prove it. Aside from the writeup of the South American War, I've yet to see any discussion of the SAE's culture - which, given the nation's large geographic spread and the areas it covers, is likely very diverse. But on the other hand, while we've seen a few "African" names in the writeup of the War or entries for Talons participants, virtually every name of note is Dutch-derived, which leads me to presume that the SAE is pretty much composed of a Boer-led, Sparta-like, white warrior/government caste ruling over the poor benighted black and brown African tribes and South American Indians. Certainly the SAE has to be quite careful about educating the locals - let too many blacks gain political or military authority, and they might endorse some novel cause like nationalism in their home district - which of all the ahistorical Wesworld powers, the SAE is going to be the most vulnerable to. (And here, SATSUMA's quiet detente with the SAE is quite odd, considering their friendliness towards what is probably the Wesworld's largest European colonial experiment.) Now - do I actually think the SAE is a Spartan-like racist empire? NO - but based on the evidence, I sure can't disprove it.

Further, like I said, we're at a point where such a move would be firmly in the realm of Wesworld Alternate History: following the South American War, I agree it makes no sense for Gran Uruguay to seek or be permitted to gain independence.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Well, of those ABC powers Brasil clearly is the mad dog while Argentina generally reacts reasonable and difference with the SAE may be smaller than expacted among people. Chile on the other hand seems to be more like a nominal member, opportunistic at times. They seek close relations to the SAE at times, also buying a lot of SAE stuff and then they can be seen sabre rattling again against "foreign intruders".

First - please note that Chile only rattled that saber during the war years, when tensions were high. Second - please remember that, since ABC formed, two new players have entered ABC (TheCanadian and myself), and we have very definitely different ideas for the ABC Alliance than what the original members probably anticipated. Swampy's handling of Brazil was, in the main, as you describe, "the mad dog"; while Ithekro was quite fond of the "foreign intruders" sabre-rattling. I am not Ithekro, and TheCanadian is not Swamphen.

Chile likes to think of themselves as the voice of moderation in the ranks of ABC - probably opportunistic, yes, but then most nations of the period are. Overall, the South American War played out much like Chile anticipated: a bloody overall stalemate that's poisoned relations in South America.

Sure, Brazil makes noises about a rematch, but they're still licking their wounds five years after the FIRST go-round, and the Argentine and Chilean governments have had a lot of success talking sense into them.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
So to me it sounds like split tounge when Chile says "the ABC alliance is intended to prevent the SAE - or any other power - from intervening in South American politics". And if I were part of ABC, I´d better not bet on the reliability of Chilean support.

Chile proved their reliability to honour their foreign alliances in 1937.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The fastest way to break apart ABC probably is to wage war against it and conquer most of southern South America - not because the SAE wants to, but because she is forced to as those ABC power deny the Empire its right of existance.

Ha, THAT's a joke! Give the ABC Alliance twenty years and there'd still be no chance that, even united, they could destroy the SAE: they'd have to cross an ocean to do it, and develop an economy ten times what they've got now in order to sustain it! Maybe given enough time they could drive the SAE out of Gran Uruguay, but there'd be no way to make that stick if the SAE decided to continue with the war anyway. Claiming that the ABC Alliance threatens the "Empire's right of existence" is a farce - a sign that the South Africans either have an overly-inflated view of ABC's military and economic potential, or have a very pessimistic view of their own nation's abilities to withstand a war against ABC. (Given the zoo of cultures the SAE incorporates, I'd presume the latter a lot sooner than the former.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The fastest way to break apart ABC probably is to wage war against it and conquer most of southern South America - not because the SAE wants to, but because she is forced to as those ABC power deny the Empire its right of existance.

Ha, THAT's a joke! Give the ABC Alliance twenty years and there'd still be no chance that, even united, they could destroy the SAE: they'd have to cross an ocean to do it, and develop an economy ten times what they've got now in order to sustain it! Maybe given enough time they could drive the SAE out of Gran Uruguay, but there'd be no way to make that stick if the SAE decided to continue with the war anyway. Claiming that the ABC Alliance threatens the "Empire's right of existence" is a farce - a sign that the South Africans either have an overly-inflated view of ABC's military and economic potential, or have a very pessimistic view of their own nation's abilities to withstand a war against ABC. (Given the zoo of cultures the SAE incorporates, I'd presume the latter a lot sooner than the former.)

Hoo might be referring to it's existance as the South African Empire; If the SAE is forced to abandon it's South American holdings to the natives, it seems likely that would seriously hamper it's Empire-ness....just as the loss of it's overseas holdings reduced the British Empire to what it is today.