Eridani nato?

just a thought. the solar league is probably far up on the in-universe list of nations likey to violate the edict (even though they made it themselves). While manticore itself is saying their not doing things outside thier borders, won't get involve, etc because they don't want to end up like the solar league. Although i suspect even though they did say that they would enforce the edict. but they might also make other nations nervous because it looks like they might have violate it themself (we know better, but i'm thinking in unviverse).It's hard to prove a negative. for that matter just the number of attempts at violations, in very recent history have to make a lot of star nations nervous. So the idea is someone on some planet with knowledge of history, gets together with some other planets, and says if you throw missle at one of our planets all these other planets would act as if you threw missles at them. the only problem i see with it is, from my understanding most nations don't have large fleets, prehaps a single hyper cable ship at most, if not just lacs. So it won't help against the big boys (unless you could get one of them to join itself). but would it prevent others from getting funny ideas?

I do not think that you need a full NATO treaty to enforce a new prohibition on Eridani Violations, but a treaty just for that specific purpose would suffice. It would have to be between the new Solarian League and the Grand Alliance and any one else that wishes to sign on.

We have heard arguments in the past that no one is big enough to enforce this in the face of the threat of an annihilation strike, but I do not believe that. It would require someone (such as the Malign) whose home planet was unknown. So far the Malign's plans have all involved operating behind the scenes, trying to manipulate without being noticed. Planetary strikes have not been part of their bag of tricks. But we shall see.

tlb wrote:I do not think that you need a full NATO treaty to enforce a new prohibition on Eridani Violations, but a treaty just for that specific purpose would suffice. It would have to be between the new Solarian League and the Grand Alliance and any one else that wishes to sign on.

We have heard arguments in the past that no one is big enough to enforce this in the face of the threat of an annihilation strike, but I do not believe that. It would require someone (such as the Malign) whose home planet was unknown. So far the Malign's plans have all involved operating behind the scenes, trying to manipulate without being noticed. Planetary strikes have not been part of their bag of tricks. But we shall see.

One question I have is who will be the first to sign the agreement? Will the New Solarians or the Grand Alliance have enough trust to sign together, or will they be caught up in a larger strategic game?

tlb wrote:I do not think that you need a full NATO treaty to enforce a new prohibition on Eridani Violations, but a treaty just for that specific purpose would suffice. It would have to be between the new Solarian League and the Grand Alliance and any one else that wishes to sign on.

amosfuegel wrote:One question I have is who will be the first to sign the agreement? Will the New Solarians or the Grand Alliance have enough trust to sign together, or will they be caught up in a larger strategic game?

No matter what ill will there may be generally between the two, it would not surprise me if the two had a joint signing session for this. It ought not to be a area of disagreement nor a pawn in a strategic game, instead both have reasons or incentives for wanting this to be formalized.

I kinda suspect that the best bet for a nation with a modern navy, would be the smallest of the big boys. Grayson. Considering their history i feel they would be extremely sympathetic to a "please don't throw missles at our planets" alliance. i feel like with the possible exception of manticore, who might also by sympathetic thanks to the likes of oyster bay, and defending other planets from thier own strikes, most of the big boys really wouldn't have a reason to join.

Puidwen wrote:I kinda suspect that the best bet for a nation with a modern navy, would be the smallest of the big boys. Grayson. Considering their history i feel they would be extremely sympathetic to a "please don't throw missles at our planets" alliance. i feel like with the possible exception of manticore, who might also by sympathetic thanks to the likes of oyster bay, and defending other planets from thier own strikes, most of the big boys really wouldn't have a reason to join.

Any civilized people should be sympathetic to that cause and therefore should be willing to join even if the planet has no navy. Even the big boys that have a navy should join.

Nobody should risk giving the appearance or impression that they do not support the cause if they do. And planets without navies who join give their unspoken word that their planet will not become a haven for anyone responsible.

The original Eridani Edict wasn't a treaty. Instead

Echoes of Honor wrote:Solarian League, having experienced the bitter horrors of trying to clean up after such an atrocity on one of its member worlds, had not only unilaterally issued the Eridani Edict but incorporated it as Amendment Ninety-Seven of the League Constitution. Seven billion human beings had died in the Epsilon Eridani Massacre. The Solarians had not forgotten them, even today, and no one who was still in shouting distance of sanity wanted to remind them once again and bring the League Navy down on his head by violating the edict.

and

Echoes of Honor wrote:Enforcement of the Eridani Edict had been part of the League's fundamental law for five hundred and three years, and the League Navy's standing orders were clear: any government or star nation or rogue mercenary outfit which indiscriminately bombarded an inhabited planet or directed a bombardment of any sort against a planetary population which had not first been summoned to surrender would be destroyed.

My question is whether or not this amendment (or its equivalent) is still part of the revised League constitution?

Yes, the SLN is too weak (at the moment) to practically enforce this against the top tier militaries. And yes, attempting to enforce it outside of League space would fall afoul of Honor's prohibition of deploying League warships beyond its borders (though for an Edict violation presumably some diplomatic compromise could easily be reached).
But those (presumably temporary) practical issues doesn't mean the drafters of the revised constitution were willing to drop the Edict.

(Though I'm not sure, and I don't know if the drafters would be sure, whether the fact that the SLN just violated it would make the League population more determined that they still be tied to enforcing it, or less)

Jonathan_S wrote:The original Eridani Edict wasn't a treaty. Instead

Echoes of Honor wrote:Solarian League, having experienced the bitter horrors of trying to clean up after such an atrocity on one of its member worlds, had not only unilaterally issued the Eridani Edict but incorporated it as Amendment Ninety-Seven of the League Constitution. Seven billion human beings had died in the Epsilon Eridani Massacre. The Solarians had not forgotten them, even today, and no one who was still in shouting distance of sanity wanted to remind them once again and bring the League Navy down on his head by violating the edict.

and

Echoes of Honor wrote:Enforcement of the Eridani Edict had been part of the League's fundamental law for five hundred and three years, and the League Navy's standing orders were clear: any government or star nation or rogue mercenary outfit which indiscriminately bombarded an inhabited planet or directed a bombardment of any sort against a planetary population which had not first been summoned to surrender would be destroyed.

My question is whether or not this amendment (or its equivalent) is still part of the revised League constitution?

Yes, the SLN is too weak (at the moment) to practically enforce this against the top tier militaries. And yes, attempting to enforce it outside of League space would fall afoul of Honor's prohibition of deploying League warships beyond its borders (though for an Edict violation presumably some diplomatic compromise could easily be reached).
But those (presumably temporary) practical issues doesn't mean the drafters of the revised constitution were willing to drop the Edict.

(Though I'm not sure, and I don't know if the drafters would be sure, whether the fact that the SLN just violated it would make the League population more determined that they still be tied to enforcing it, or less)

I believe that this behavior by the Mandarins and the fact that it is not currently a top tier military are the incentives that the new League has to enter into a treaty (whether or not it stays in the new constitution).

penny wrote:

Puidwen wrote:I kinda suspect that the best bet for a nation with a modern navy, would be the smallest of the big boys. Grayson. Considering their history i feel they would be extremely sympathetic to a "please don't throw missles at our planets" alliance. i feel like with the possible exception of manticore, who might also by sympathetic thanks to the likes of oyster bay, and defending other planets from thier own strikes, most of the big boys really wouldn't have a reason to join.

Any civilized people should be sympathetic to that cause and therefore should be willing to join even if the planet has no navy. Even the big boys that have a navy should join.

Nobody should risk giving the appearance or impression that they do not support the cause if they do. And planets without navies who join give their unspoken word that their planet will not become a haven for anyone responsible.

I agree somewhat. I suspect grayson would join to defend others. but let's face it a lot of nations, not just the Andermani practice pragmatic politics. We don't want to get into another war, we belive we can defend ourselves from a strike. what would we get out of joining this alliance? A moral reason might be encouragement, but it might not be enough on it's own.

penny wrote:

Puidwen wrote:I kinda suspect that the best bet for a nation with a modern navy, would be the smallest of the big boys. Grayson. Considering their history i feel they would be extremely sympathetic to a "please don't throw missles at our planets" alliance. i feel like with the possible exception of manticore, who might also by sympathetic thanks to the likes of oyster bay, and defending other planets from thier own strikes, most of the big boys really wouldn't have a reason to join.

Any civilized people should be sympathetic to that cause and therefore should be willing to join even if the planet has no navy. Even the big boys that have a navy should join.

Nobody should risk giving the appearance or impression that they do not support the cause if they do. And planets without navies who join give their unspoken word that their planet will not become a haven for anyone responsible.

Puidwen wrote:I agree somewhat. I suspect grayson would join to defend others. but let's face it a lot of nations, not just the Andermani practice pragmatic politics. We don't want to get into another war, we belive we can defend ourselves from a strike. what would we get out of joining this alliance? A moral reason might be encouragement, but it might not be enough on it's own.

I do understand the caution. After all, signing such a treaty or joining such an alliance might make you a target. Like what is happening now with the MAN against the galaxy of systems who support the Beowulf Code and detest slavery.

Question. Didn't the Andermani make a stance against slavery and give support for the Beowulf Code?

A moral reason should be enough, if said polity is civilized. And are aware of and remember the horrors that birthed the Eridani Edict in the first place.