NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[The Akasha Colony]

If you have been blockaded such as you describe, gathering your allies and fighting is a reasonable solution.

Well see the issue Ardoki faces is a shitty one considering some of his new allies want to join in on the blockade, the majority don't care, and the only one who is really threatening to challenge the blockade is doing so not because he loves Ardoki but rather because Ardoki is a convient pawn at the moment he can use to bring under his influence and lash out at someone he doesn't like.

However, the blockade will most certainly be submarine packs lurking the long distances of trade routes across a large oceanspanse supported by a few carrier groups well off shore, rather than some "circle of ships around your nation" style silliness...

This is incidentally a terrible way to conduct a blockade and a very good way to get any reasonable nation in the international community against you. Notice how a distant submarine blockade of Britain was one of the primary factors in getting the United States involved in WWI. Kennedy didn't blockade the "large oceanspance" of the Atlantic when quarantining Cuba, either. As an uninvolved nation that relies heavily on freedom of the seas, I'd have half a mind to intentionally start freedom of navigation patrols directly through that area specifically because of the blockade.

[Kassaran]

I'd have to agree, even though I'd be unable to actually RP anything given that I leave for BCT in two days (one technically), if I had any trade ties with a nation and another nation tried to instruct me to not, it would immediately violate all charters Kassaran has on free trade. Kassaran itself requires on a large amount of food and iron/stell imports alongside other items vital to maintaining a burgeoning architectural and information technology industry. We don't produce everything locally, but it's because of our extremely relaxed trade policies that we can conduct trade on a vast scale. We allow a large variety of products through our borders which is good for people who trade in narcotics or other forms of merchandise sans slaves. Humans are seen as potential customers, so enslaving them robs them of that right to buy which isn't good if you want money from them.

Anyways, that's besides the point. A blockade of any sort, won't just affect you, but also your trade partners and if you're a large exporter of food products, any blockade will lead to famine and food shortages in your partners and likewise economic collapse in your own trade sphere leading to immediate military reaction. The major issue is that most people never set up trade and economic details in their nations on NS which leads to the unrealistic 'I make everything I need' claim (we've seen this before). To have everything you need be also built in your nation means you would literally run into a hard cap on how powerful you could be. There's a reason why international trade is a thing alongside conquest. If you want power, you eventually need to control more. When we eventually unite as a world (or kill ourselves off in nuclear war), we will need to expand off planet if we want to get any bigger or further along. That is the nature of survival. You need more land always if you want to go anywhere, and you will never not want to go anywhere.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Well see the issue Ardoki faces is a shitty one considering some of his new allies want to join in on the blockade, the majority don't care, and the only one who is really threatening to challenge the blockade is doing so not because he loves Ardoki but rather because Ardoki is a convient pawn at the moment he can use to bring under his influence and lash out at someone he doesn't like.

However, the blockade will most certainly be submarine packs lurking the long distances of trade routes across a large oceanspanse supported by a few carrier groups well off shore, rather than some "circle of ships around your nation" style silliness...

This is incidentally a terrible way to conduct a blockade and a very good way to get any reasonable nation in the international community against you. Notice how a distant submarine blockade of Britain was one of the primary factors in getting the United States involved in WWI. Kennedy didn't blockade the "large oceanspance" of the Atlantic when quarantining Cuba, either. As an uninvolved nation that relies heavily on freedom of the seas, I'd have half a mind to intentionally start freedom of navigation patrols directly through that area specifically because of the blockade.

So how would you recommend blockading a nation roughly the size of Australia with no nation closer than 5000km away and few reliable allies?

[Kassaran]

Umm, you don't? Australia's huge, and unless the coalition you're against is literally lolHueg (yes I spell it that way for reasons), they can't effectively 'quarantine' or blockade you. There will be smugglers and there will be fighting. If you want to do damage to a nation, you run a PR campaign against it and attack it's IT sectors. Trade is so intrinsic nowadays that it will do damage back upon someone or ripple to affect people not meant to be affected. We can't even manage a proper blockade on the Norkies because their government just let's the civvies start dying and then says it's our fault for not paying up 'tribute'. Then when we do eventually send humanitarian aid because we think,' lol, maybe this time', the norkies turn around and go,' look how awesome we are, we can get free stuff from other nations because we're so good!'.

You want to hurt a nation, you either cut them off from the outside world, or you expose them to the outside world. You don't try anything else or you just end up getting a lot of people killed on top of everything else bad.

[The Akasha Colony]

So how would you recommend blockading a nation roughly the size of Australia with no nation closer than 5000km away and few reliable allies?

I would recommend not doing it, for one. But it doesn't seem like that advice would be heeded.

Attempting to blockade that entire expanse is an exercise in sheer futility, even for an NS navy. One of the key points of a blockade is that it must be enforceable to be obeyed. This is why Cuba doesn't just declare a blockade on the United States; no one would take seriously Cuba's claims to be able to prevent access to the US coast, against the might of the US Navy and given the sheer expanse of coastline involved. The sheer amount of sea in this particular case makes a blockade of this entire area simply impracticable. From an international perspective, blockades also must involve minimal disruption to neutral shipping, and blocking off a huge expanse of ocean which many merchant ships may use in transit to other parts of the globe would also be a violation.

Which means that for better or worse, your only real option is a relatively close blockade. Not Civil War-close, with your ships literally at the mouth of his ports and estuaries, but just outside his territorial waters. This vastly decreases the amount of space that must be monitored and removes any obstacles to international shipping. Yes, it requires trying to sustain this blockading force thousands of kilometers from home, but this is just the way things are, and why this blockade is a bad idea in the first place.

[Ardoki]

Umm, you don't? Australia's huge, and unless the coalition you're against is literally lolHueg (yes I spell it that way for reasons), they can't effectively 'quarantine' or blockade you. There will be smugglers and there will be fighting. If you want to do damage to a nation, you run a PR campaign against it and attack it's IT sectors. Trade is so intrinsic nowadays that it will do damage back upon someone or ripple to affect people not meant to be affected. We can't even manage a proper blockade on the Norkies because their government just let's the civvies start dying and then says it's our fault for not paying up 'tribute'. Then when we do eventually send humanitarian aid because we think,' lol, maybe this time', the norkies turn around and go,' look how awesome we are, we can get free stuff from other nations because we're so good!'.

You want to hurt a nation, you either cut them off from the outside world, or you expose them to the outside world. You don't try anything else or you just end up getting a lot of people killed on top of everything else bad.

Ardoki is actually opening up at the moment. We are allowing the International Freedom Coalition to send military forces into our country, investigators to investigate human rights abuses, election observers to monitor new democratic elections, and advisers to help in reforming our government along liberal democratic lines.

Yet some people think blockading us is a good way to get us to open up. I tried telling them it will only push as backwards towards authoritarianism, but they haven't listened.

[Tekeristan]

Well, you're holding the moral high ground from what was read here. Tekeri would very much condemn the blockading force and its efforts.

If all goes bad..
Just fire land based anti-ship missiles from shore, if they're forced to patrol so close to key areas to keep things locked - such should prove deadly. Blockades are an internationally accepted act of war.

[Inyourfaceistan]

So how would you recommend blockading a nation roughly the size of Australia with no nation closer than 5000km away and few reliable allies?

I would recommend not doing it, for one. But it doesn't seem like that advice would be heeded.

Then what would you recommend if said nation is refusing to compromise?

(Sanctions et al have long been used up and miltary force has been utilized before)

Attempting to blockade that entire expanse is an exercise in sheer futility, even for an NS navy.

Even like 4 - 8, maybe even more, nations involved?

Even if it's just more there to disrupt shipping than actually shut it down?

[Ardoki]

I would recommend not doing it, for one. But it doesn't seem like that advice would be heeded.

Then what would you recommend if said nation is refusing to compromise?

(Sanctions et al have long been used up and miltary force has been utilized before)

I have already compromised as far as I can and will go.

I will not hand over war criminals just to your country, when I have already made a commitment to the IFC to hand them over to them. You are being incredibly unreasonable.

[Inyourfaceistan]

-snip-

This is not the place for that.

[Ardoki]

-snip-

This is not the place for that.

You said I was 'refusing to compromise'. When I had compromised, and I made it clear I could not compromise any further (without going against an agreement I made with an alliance)

[Kassaran]

I have already compromised as far as I can and will go.

I will not hand over war criminals just to your country, when I have already made a commitment to the IFC to hand them over to them. You are being incredibly unreasonable.

This is not the place for that.

This is actually the place for that.

That snippet of information alone tells us that nations in this coalition are split in their own regards to how things should be handled.

He has made a commitment to another nation/coalition/international organization to hand over members of his own nation to them. If someone desires custody of said members, they are no longer in his concern, they are the exclusive concern of said nation/coalition/international organization. To obtain access to said persons through Ardoki is a moot point, regardless of what has or will happen because of the political position it would put him in. He can simply say," I've washed my hands of their fates by handing them over to so-and-so."

If you don't personally like that, ICly or not, that's tough love and politics for you. German scientists were in high demand at the closure of WWII, did Germany decide where its scientists go? Hardly, instead nations that managed to secure said personnel did so exclusively and retained the rights with said persons exclusively. Failing to recognize another entity's sovereignty or authority in such a situation by demanding a different outcome only makes you look worse in politics.

[Roski]

What would realistically happen to international affairs if say the United States unilaterally let the Russian Federation into NATO?

[Kassaran]

What would realistically happen to international affairs if say the United States unilaterally let the Russian Federation into NATO?

>builds clubhouse to specifically exclude someone
>let that person into the clubhouse

NATO is built for the purpose of acting against Russian Federation interests abroad AFAIKOAC. If Russia was let into anything resembling NATO, it would be after the US and Russia kiss and make up for seventy years of bad blood and decide to make a united world coalition... ie an actually functioning UN alongside a potent UNSC (Security Council, not Space Command). this would only ever be against Chinese interests if at all and even then I think we're better off kissing and making up with China than Russia.

[Inyourfaceistan]

This is actually the place for that.

That snippet of information alone tells us that nations in this coalition are split in their own regards to how things should be handled.

He has made a commitment to another nation/coalition/international organization to hand over members of his own nation to them. If someone desires custody of said members, they are no longer in his concern, they are the exclusive concern of said nation/coalition/international organization. To obtain access to said persons through Ardoki is a moot point, regardless of what has or will happen because of the political position it would put him in. He can simply say," I've washed my hands of their fates by handing them over to so-and-so."

If you don't personally like that, ICly or not, that's tough love and politics for you. German scientists were in high demand at the closure of WWII, did Germany decide where its scientists go? Hardly, instead nations that managed to secure said personnel did so exclusively and retained the rights with said persons exclusively. Failing to recognize another entity's sovereignty or authority in such a situation by demanding a different outcome only makes you look worse in politics.

But that isn't the entire reason for the blockade though.

Inyursta went to its allies (and by proxy many other nations planning to partake in the blockade) and convinced them to call off a blockade that was already planned for other reasons if and only if Ardoki agreed to a "prisoner swap" of Ardokian PoW's in exchange for Ardokian war criminals.
However, since the compromise has been denied Inyursta cannot justify to its allies why they shouldn't move ahead with their plans.

So yes, the Inyurstan government will look like fools.

[Roski]

What would realistically happen to international affairs if say the United States unilaterally let the Russian Federation into NATO?

>builds clubhouse to specifically exclude someone
>let that person into the clubhouse

NATO is built for the purpose of acting against Russian Federation interests abroad AFAIKOAC. If Russia was let into anything resembling NATO, it would be after the US and Russia kiss and make up for seventy years of bad blood and decide to make a united world coalition... ie an actually functioning UN alongside a potent UNSC (Security Council, not Space Command). this would only ever be against Chinese interests if at all and even then I think we're better off kissing and making up with China than Russia.

Alright, wells it the only analogy i can come up with to what I have.

So if the US were to, tomorrow, unilaterally let Russia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with the current situation, what form of intra-alliance shit storm would happen? And would the international community act?

[The Akasha Colony]

I would recommend not doing it, for one. But it doesn't seem like that advice would be heeded.

Then what would you recommend if said nation is refusing to compromise?

(Sanctions et al have long been used up and miltary force has been utilized before)

Tough shit. Sometimes you don't get your way, that's just how the world works. Just ask the United States how successful it's been in getting North Korea to surrender its nuclear weapons programs. Sometimes SACTO doesn't always get to save the day.

Even like 4 - 8, maybe even more, nations involved?

Even if it's just more there to disrupt shipping than actually shut it down?

You're talking about blockading an area at least as large, and probably much larger than the Atlantic Ocean. With very likely a good amount of merchant traffic passing through it.

In that regard, you have a few options:

You can try to declare the entire thing off limits. Most civilians will obey (they don't want to be sunk) but many will likely complain about the disruption to their home governments, and those governments will not be happy your blockade is having an effect on their merchant shipping and thus their economy. Some will just lodge protests, others who are more proactive might just decide to not recognize the blockade on the grounds it is unreasonable and start sending freedom of navigation patrols through. In which case you either let these patrols through, challenging the legitimacy of the blockade, or try to stop them too. You would need enough ships to cover the entire 30,000+ km of the zone's circumference, maybe more depending on how large an area you designate.

You can try to inspect every single ship that passes through those waters. This is how Kennedy conducted his quarantine, but communist Cuba wasn't exactly a huge trading hub and Kennedy wasn't trying to inspect every ship in the Atlantic. Only the handful that entered the designated quarantine zone. You would need enough ships to cover the edge of the zone, plus enough inspectors on hand to monitor all of the merchant traffic. And merchant crews will probably still complain about the inconvenience to their national governments.

You can leave designated paths through the blockade zone as the Allies did in WWI to allow ships to reach neutral countries in the Mediterranean, but this sort of defeats the point of extending the blockade beyond the designated paths anyway.

So you now see you can either attempt these options over a massive ocean, or over a smaller area.

What would realistically happen to international affairs if say the United States unilaterally let the Russian Federation into NATO?

It's not realistic to begin with because that's not how NATO works, no one can "unilaterally" let anyone else into NATO. Members can only join with the approval of every other member.

[Kassaran]

But that isn't the entire reason for the blockade though.

Inyursta went to its allies (and by proxy many other nations planning to partake in the blockade) and convinced them to call off a blockade that was already planned for other reasons if and only if Ardoki agreed to a "prisoner swap" of Ardokian PoW's in exchange for Ardokian war criminals.
However, since the compromise has been denied Inyursta cannot justify to its allies why they shouldn't move ahead with their plans.

So yes, the Inyurstan government will look like fools.

Your problem was an 'if and only if'. Why would a prisoner swap ever look like a good trade if you've gone as far as to suggest an international trade blockade?

What are the reasons for this blockade?

List those and we can go from there.

[The Akasha Colony]

But that isn't the entire reason for the blockade though.

Inyursta went to its allies (and by proxy many other nations planning to partake in the blockade) and convinced them to call off a blockade that was already planned for other reasons if and only if Ardoki agreed to a "prisoner swap" of Ardokian PoW's in exchange for Ardokian war criminals.
However, since the compromise has been denied Inyursta cannot justify to its allies why they shouldn't move ahead with their plans.

So yes, the Inyurstan government will look like fools.

Your problem was an 'if and only if'. Why would a prisoner swap ever look like a good trade if you've gone as far as to suggest an international trade blockade?

What are the reasons for this blockade?

List those and we can go from there.

TBH now we're getting into RP specifics and that is probably discussed either in a general roleplay discussion thread or in the RP's OOC thread itself.

[Roski]

i don't care about the realism of the unilateral enterance, im more worried about the aftermath of the incident.

I am fully fucking aware of how NATO works.

[North Arkana]

i don't care about the realism of the unilateral enterance, im more worried about the aftermath of the incident.

I am fully fucking aware of how NATO works.

China would shit itself tbh.

[The Akasha Colony]

i don't care about the realism of the unilateral enterance, im more worried about the aftermath of the incident.

I am fully fucking aware of how NATO works.

You are asking for a "realistic" response to an unrealistic action, without providing any information on why it is occurring. The international climate would have to be so different for it to happen that the reaction would be nearly impossible to speculate without any information anyway.

[Ardoki]

i don't care about the realism of the unilateral enterance, im more worried about the aftermath of the incident.

I am fully fucking aware of how NATO works.

You are asking for a "realistic" response to an unrealistic action, without providing any information on why it is occurring. The international climate would have to be so different for it to happen that the reaction would be nearly impossible to speculate without any information anyway.

I think he is referring to the acceptance of Ardoki into the International Freedom Coalition; a lot of other members are upset as well.

[Kassaran]

TBH now we're getting into RP specifics and that is probably discussed either in a general roleplay discussion thread or in the RP's OOC thread itself.

Would not the purposes of this blockade be best determined as realistic by determining them? If need be then Inyursta, send me a link to the blockade's manifesto of purpose and I'll see what relevance a prisoner exchange would have to a blockade you say could be ended by it.

[Roski]

i don't care about the realism of the unilateral enterance, im more worried about the aftermath of the incident.

I am fully fucking aware of how NATO works.

You are asking for a "realistic" response to an unrealistic action, without providing any information on why it is occurring. The international climate would have to be so different for it to happen that the reaction would be nearly impossible to speculate without any information anyway.

Alright, you want specifics.

Ardoki has violated sovereign airspace of memberstates of the international freedom coalition, as well as been hostile, then promises it will be a good nationstate, so the leader of the international freedom coalition, with a significant portion of the alliance in heavy protest towards the continuing existance of the current government of ardoki, unilaterally lets ardoki into the international freedom coalition.

what response would happen if the only reasonable analogy I came up with - the US pretty much ignoring all 27 other memberstates, and allowing the Russian Federation into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.