Military Neutrality In NationStates

[Demphor]

if you EVER make ANY military actions of any kind, you're not neutral. if your region even has a military, you're not neutral.

It's not really a military either, it's more of civilian volounteers. A militia.

[Ruzan]

if you EVER make ANY military actions of any kind, you're not neutral. if your region even has a military, you're not neutral.

By that definition, "neutral" is extremely boring!

[Common-Sense Politics]

Are we talking about TSP's neutrality or Europeia? We're gradually going off topic from the OP.

TSP's. Blame Cromarty for the threadjack.

[Cerian Quilor]

if you EVER make ANY military actions of any kind, you're not neutral. if your region even has a military, you're not neutral.

By that definition, "neutral" is extremely boring!

Only in terms of the War-side of things.

if you have a military, you don't have to conform to a side/label, but you will get them laid on you by others.

[Swift Sure]

It depends on how you define neutrality. There are NSers who define neutrality as being neither raider nor defender but which still includes military actions. Other people in NS view neutrality as the absence of any military action.

Commonly, many defenders.. particularly in the UDL, use the terms raider and defender to describe actions and associations rather than motivation and analysis. For example, the SPA undertook a mission and members of the UDL immediately questioned if it had gone "raider" and some like Camwood saying it was raider! I really think there is something to be said of intentions, of government and of military.

Great Britain and Ireland had a great claim to being neutral, but had to spend much of it's military time participating in "Warzone Games" rather than actual operations. It would be difficult to claim neutrality/independence with groups like the UDL which see fit to smear regions and degrade the analysis of the game in their goal of isolating regions like Europeia and TNI. Hence, most of the time you'd be doing nothing or going on warzone missions... waiting for the "big" events like the creation of sinkers and coups. However, even then, groups like the UDL define regions by their association rather than their merits.

So really, it depends on perspective and I think that being thought of as neutral by all groups is difficult simply due to that.

[The UK in Exile]

Recent events within the South Pacific Army have led me to wonder how other NSers, especially those in the Raider/Defender communities feel about Neutrality; A military group within NationStates working in aspects of both Raiding and Defending.

Is it possible to remain neutral, or is one always forced into taking a particular stance?

Is neutrality about remaining rigidly neutral on all aspects of military game play, or about attempting to achieve a balance between the two in a more general, broader sense?

Could a Raider organisation and a Defender organisation who directly oppose one another work together to achieve a singular goal?

its about remaining rigidly neutral.

being a raider sometimes and a defender others isn't neurality. its capricious.

neutrality means avoiding becoming party to others disputes.