Cold War RP: Reboot, (OPEN)

[Monsone]

So we have all this arguing about a simple suspicious action in the IC forum?

I would side with Sarderia in this argument, but it should be noted that the only reason this argument happened in the first place was when Sarderia decided to interact with SA right after plans to invade were set in stone. This prompts a reasonable suspicion of metagame (the act of using OOC information or secret IC information to your advantage). It's hard for these two things to occur adjacent to one another and it not be a coincidence, unless there was already RP posts attempting to establish relations. Of course, all suspicion could be removed if Sarderia is able to prove from a realistic standpoint that he found out IC-ly a plot to invade SA. Perhaps a CIA operative could have caught on to Scandinavia planning an invasion. But then again, no one likes it when secret IC information is used against them by another nation without any sort of preparation or process done to get that information. When attempting to portray espionage in an RP, it's best to do it like how Germany did it with Polaria: actually following the footsteps and the process of Germany's agents infiltrating Polaria's government and how it proceeded to get the information Polaria keeps secret.

The meeting regarding the invasion of Saudi Arabia took place in a locked room in the Foreign Ministry in Paris. The only two people in the room where French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, and the Scandinavian diplomat, Lucas Frisk. Unless the USA abducted Frisk as he left (not likely since the rude police officer from the scene is still out there and would have seen it transpire), or has a mole in the Scandinavian and/or French governments, they wouldn't know about the plan at all.

[Monsone]

Yep. They also wanted ro bomb the Suez Canal in the name of Freedom of Navigation. That would f*ck up Freedom of Navigation through the Suez Canal from anywhere between two and five years depending on the damage done (if a ship is sunk in the canal, well, the world is screwed).And then the US threatened to sink French civilian ships. Seems like the US lost it's morality in this RP pretty early on and is quite comfortable committing war crimes.

Need I mention again that America is an empire in this RP?

Even being an empire, by bombing the Suez, they would massively disrupt global shipping and would need to pay for the damage done. And if they sunk a civilian ship, the UN would practically kill the USA.

[Wasi State]

Definitely for energy purposes on South Africa's part, IC wise they just struck a harmonizing deal with their biggest neighboring competitor and will likely be moving to focus on the economy for the foreseeable future. Malan ain't gonna jeopardize a nuclear energy deal if he knows for a fact he can play it cool now given that things have subsided with the DRA.

Hey South Africa, I can sell you a nuclear reactor for $1.5 million, no questions asked. And I don't care what you use it for.

Hmm tough choice, but I'm gunning more those sweet Ameican investments on top of the reactor.

[Draos]

Yep. They also wanted ro bomb the Suez Canal in the name of Freedom of Navigation. That would f*ck up Freedom of Navigation through the Suez Canal from anywhere between two and five years depending on the damage done (if a ship is sunk in the canal, well, the world is screwed).And then the US threatened to sink French civilian ships. Seems like the US lost it's morality in this RP pretty early on and is quite comfortable committing war crimes.

Need I mention again that America is an empire in this RP?

You can be an empire and not be an extreme jerk to people.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

You can be an empire and not be an extreme jerk to people.

That depends on what your version of history is.

[Wasi State]

Ironically who would benefit the most from the Suez being destroyed would be South Africa, as trade going from Europe to Asia would have to transverse the Cape, Marco Polo style. Not saying that it's really good idea though.

[Monsone]

Okay, I need to address this somehow.
1) What you're doing concerns the US because we got the oil shipments from ME, and we have pressing concern about non-NATO interference in ME. Therefore the US immediately put up that declaration - however, that did not apply to Scandinavia only. Other neutral powers, or WP/USSR if they try to subvert the status quo in ME, will be met with US retaliation.

2) I can do whatever I want as long as I feel the US have the need to, and as long as it fits the rule outlined by OP. For example, if Kazakhstan got to war with Uzbekistan, the US could interfere if they want to.

1) The USA hasn't had a strong foreign policy in this RP under the previous player. You cannot just create on and implement it without pushback from the rest of the world who does have a strong foreign policy plan that you're now messing over. Also, you can't really be the Middle East's protector whenwhen you anger your European allies, and especially when all you want to do is take oil because OPEC is being clubbed to death by people who want the Middle East's resources.

2) Yes you can. But your actions have consequences. UN sanctions, embargos, etc. Yes the USA can do whatever it wants to. But there will be repercussions. You may loose allies, the UN might condemn you and even sanction you, and you could even start WW3. Being mindful of the repercussions is a huge part of this RP, yet all you do is bulldoze to an end goal you will neve reach.

[Monsone]

Ironically who would benefit the most from the Suez being destroyed would be South Africa, as trade going from Europe to Asia would have to transverse the Cape, Marco Polo style. Not saying that it's really good idea though.

If anyone destroys the Suez Canal intentionally, they're going to foot the repair bill.

[Wasi State]

Ironically who would benefit the most from the Suez being destroyed would be South Africa, as trade going from Europe to Asia would have to transverse the Cape, Marco Polo style. Not saying that it's really good idea though.

If anyone destroys the Suez Canal intentionally, they're going to foot the repair bill.

Well yeah that'll be insane to just destroy it intentionally, but in the event someone did, at least the Cape would see some benefit as an outcome.

[Slaver Pirates of Vaas]

Okay, I need to address this somehow.
1) What you're doing concerns the US because we got the oil shipments from ME, and we have pressing concern about non-NATO interference in ME. Therefore the US immediately put up that declaration - however, that did not apply to Scandinavia only. Other neutral powers, or WP/USSR if they try to subvert the status quo in ME, will be met with US retaliation.

2) I can do whatever I want as long as I feel the US have the need to, and as long as it fits the rule outlined by OP. For example, if Kazakhstan got to war with Uzbekistan, the US could interfere if they want to.

1) The USA hasn't had a strong foreign policy in this RP under the previous player. You cannot just create on and implement it without pushback from the rest of the world who does have a strong foreign policy plan that you're now messing over. Also, you can't really be the Middle East's protector whenwhen you anger your European allies, and especially when all you want to do is take oil because OPEC is being clubbed to death by people who want the Middle East's resources.

2) Yes you can. But your actions have consequences. UN sanctions, embargos, etc. Yes the USA can do whatever it wants to. But there will be repercussions. You may loose allies, the UN might condemn you and even sanction you, and you could even start WW3. Being mindful of the repercussions is a huge part of this RP, yet all you do is bulldoze to an end goal you will neve reach.

Your first point is another reason the supposed agreement with the Middle East was done via metagame by Sarderia.

[HypErcApitAl]

You can be an empire and not be an extreme jerk to people.

That depends on what your version of history is.

Agreed.

[HypErcApitAl]

Okay, I need to address this somehow.
1) What you're doing concerns the US because we got the oil shipments from ME, and we have pressing concern about non-NATO interference in ME. Therefore the US immediately put up that declaration - however, that did not apply to Scandinavia only. Other neutral powers, or WP/USSR if they try to subvert the status quo in ME, will be met with US retaliation.

2) I can do whatever I want as long as I feel the US have the need to, and as long as it fits the rule outlined by OP. For example, if Kazakhstan got to war with Uzbekistan, the US could interfere if they want to.

1) The USA hasn't had a strong foreign policy in this RP under the previous player. You cannot just create on and implement it without pushback from the rest of the world who does have a strong foreign policy plan that you're now messing over. Also, you can't really be the Middle East's protector whenwhen you anger your European allies, and especially when all you want to do is take oil because OPEC is being clubbed to death by people who want the Middle East's resources.

2) Yes you can. But your actions have consequences. UN sanctions, embargos, etc. Yes the USA can do whatever it wants to. But there will be repercussions. You may loose allies, the UN might condemn you and even sanction you, and you could even start WW3. Being mindful of the repercussions is a huge part of this RP, yet all you do is bulldoze to an end goal you will neve reach.

yup.

[Malay Raya]

I'm really starting to lose interest in this RP when these kind of things continue. At the very least if I do leave i'll leave a mapchart link for anyone who can continue the map edit.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Need I mention again that America is an empire in this RP?

Even being an empire, by bombing the Suez, they would massively disrupt global shipping and would need to pay for the damage done. And if they sunk a civilian ship, the UN would practically kill the USA.

The US is the biggest funder of the UN. If there is no US, then the UN can't do much.

[Monsone]

Even being an empire, by bombing the Suez, they would massively disrupt global shipping and would need to pay for the damage done. And if they sunk a civilian ship, the UN would practically kill the USA.

The US is the biggest funder of the UN. If there is no US, then the UN can't do much.

War crimes are still war crimes. There is no two ways about it.

[Diarcesia]

If it's gonna be the US vs. the world, the US will lose, albeit slowly, once NATO starts losing faith in it. Note that it's the US doing the heavy lifting in NATO because the other countries were damaged by prior wars.

1) The USA hasn't had a strong foreign policy in this RP under the previous player. You cannot just create on and implement it without pushback from the rest of the world who does have a strong foreign policy plan that you're now messing over. Also, you can't really be the Middle East's protector whenwhen you anger your European allies, and especially when all you want to do is take oil because OPEC is being clubbed to death by people who want the Middle East's resources.

2) Yes you can. But your actions have consequences. UN sanctions, embargos, etc. Yes the USA can do whatever it wants to. But there will be repercussions. You may loose allies, the UN might condemn you and even sanction you, and you could even start WW3. Being mindful of the repercussions is a huge part of this RP, yet all you do is bulldoze to an end goal you will neve reach.

Your first point is another reason the supposed agreement with the Middle East was done via metagame by Sarderia.

The only way I can think of the unilateral declaration of partnership working without metagaming is out of an implicit desire to secure oil for the US. They would be otherwise unaware of an invasion from Scandinavia, given that the CIA would have little reason to believe that given their situation. Think of it as one of their blind spots.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

I don't actually see an issue with what Sarderia is currently doing. It is not metagaming, because he can say he is just declaring the protection of Saudi Arabia. It is not godmodding, because he himself is declaring it. If he wants to entangle himself with a war in the middle east, let him. I will say this again, the point of the RP isn't to paint the map a certain color. Sarderia is not doing that, rather is defending his interests, however I cannot say the same for those who are seeking to puppet Saudi Arabia.

Unless there is general agreement or OP action, an NPC can't really make deals with other nations like that. We could find a player to do that, or if Draos really wants Saudi as a puppet, he can invade it.

The US is in a much better position to defend Saudi Arabia however, with their projection capabilities which Draos lacks.

[Diarcesia]

I don't actually see an issue with what Sarderia is currently doing. It is not metagaming, because he can say he is just declaring the protection of Saudi Arabia. It is not godmodding, because he himself is declaring it. If he wants to entangle himself with a war in the middle east, let him. I will say this again, the point of the RP isn't to paint the map a certain color. Sarderia is not doing that, rather is defending his interests, however I cannot say the same for those who are seeking to puppet Saudi Arabia.

Unless there is general agreement or OP action, an NPC can't really make deals with other nations like that. We could find a player to do that, or if Draos really wants Saudi as a puppet, he can invade it.

The US is in a much better position to defend Saudi Arabia however, with their projection capabilities which Draos lacks.

The way I see it, Draos thinks that the US is only doing it because Scandinavia is moving to puppet SA. The US's declaration does seem mighty convenient given the timing, though it can be legitimately explained without factoring in Scandinavia's plans.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

I don't actually see an issue with what Sarderia is currently doing. It is not metagaming, because he can say he is just declaring the protection of Saudi Arabia. It is not godmodding, because he himself is declaring it. If he wants to entangle himself with a war in the middle east, let him. I will say this again, the point of the RP isn't to paint the map a certain color. Sarderia is not doing that, rather is defending his interests, however I cannot say the same for those who are seeking to puppet Saudi Arabia.

Unless there is general agreement or OP action, an NPC can't really make deals with other nations like that. We could find a player to do that, or if Draos really wants Saudi as a puppet, he can invade it.

The US is in a much better position to defend Saudi Arabia however, with their projection capabilities which Draos lacks.

The way I see it, Draos thinks that the US is only doing it because Scandinavia is moving to puppet SA. The US's declaration does seem mighty convenient given the timing, though it can be legitimately explained without factoring in Scandinavia's plans.

I think Draos is under the impression that the US shouldn't intervene as a part of RP rules. That isn't true, and it wouldn't be realistic otherwise. If we had that as a rule, Fiji would be able to puppet the USSR and crazy stuff like that.

[Diarcesia]

The way I see it, Draos thinks that the US is only doing it because Scandinavia is moving to puppet SA. The US's declaration does seem mighty convenient given the timing, though it can be legitimately explained without factoring in Scandinavia's plans.

I think Draos is under the impression that the US shouldn't intervene as a part of RP rules. That isn't true, and it wouldn't be realistic otherwise. If we had that as a rule, Fiji would be able to puppet the USSR and crazy stuff like that.

The fact that Iran is Sarderia's previous nation doesn't help in Draos's eyes, as it is seen as a conflict of interest.

[Monsone]

I don't actually see an issue with what Sarderia is currently doing. It is not metagaming, because he can say he is just declaring the protection of Saudi Arabia. It is not godmodding, because he himself is declaring it. If he wants to entangle himself with a war in the middle east, let him. I will say this again, the point of the RP isn't to paint the map a certain color. Sarderia is not doing that, rather is defending his interests, however I cannot say the same for those who are seeking to puppet Saudi Arabia.

Unless there is general agreement or OP action, an NPC can't really make deals with other nations like that. We could find a player to do that, or if Draos really wants Saudi as a puppet, he can invade it.

The US is in a much better position to defend Saudi Arabia however, with their projection capabilities which Draos lacks.

The way I see it, Draos thinks that the US is only doing it because Scandinavia is moving to puppet SA. The US's declaration does seem mighty convenient given the timing, though it can be legitimately explained without factoring in Scandinavia's plans.

Having seen the whole thing go down in real time, it was metagaming. Right after the meeting between the French Foreign Minister and a Scandinavian diplomat was over, there was Sarderia's IC post about a alliance with Iran. And there was pretty much no way for the USA to know about the deal since it was secret. Sarderia basically used IC information (which the USA shouldn't know about) as well as OOC information to create an alliance with little context save for oil. But the prompt to create such alliance (if you use all the information available in both the IC and OOC) was clearly the secret deal between France and Scandinavia that the US wasn't privy to.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

The way I see it, Draos thinks that the US is only doing it because Scandinavia is moving to puppet SA. The US's declaration does seem mighty convenient given the timing, though it can be legitimately explained without factoring in Scandinavia's plans.

Having seen the whole thing go down in real time, it was metagaming. Right after the meeting between the French Foreign Minister and a Scandinavian diplomat was over, there was Sarderia's IC post about a alliance with Iran. And there was pretty much no way for the USA to know about the deal since it was secret. Sarderia basically used IC information (which the USA shouldn't know about) as well as OOC information to create an alliance with little context save for oil. But the prompt to create such alliance (if you use all the information available in both the IC and OOC) was clearly the secret deal between France and Scandinavia that the US wasn't privy to.

It is in a gray area. It is not saying he is aware of the secret deal, but on the same time is him acting on the deal. But there is justification for him to declare the protection of Saudi Arabia, as it is a major source of US oil during this time IRL.

[Sarderia]

1) The US never bombed Suez Canal or whatever. What I am saying OOCly does not necessarily mean I will do it ICly. However, French authorities blocking US ships to enter the Suez canal is a legitimate pretext for the US to wrestle control of it from France.

2) It would be hard for you to land a huge amount of troops with civillian ships unnoticed. Remember, the US already had warships in Arabia. That kind of invasion force will be noticed and thwarted by the US Navy.

3) To remove "suspicions" of metagaming, I don't plan to do this to Saudi Arabia at first - if you look at my earlier IC posts it clearly says "Iran" and not "Saudi Arabia". My playstyle is different with the previous player. Whereas the previous US player disregard the essence of US as a "superpower" with huge impact on geopolitics, I am more inclined with the US' expansion. That is why I sent a telegram to Vaas asking them to destabilize Mexico, proclaiming an unilateral protection upon the Middle East - however, that could and will be revoked if certain things go against the US interest such as France invading Iraq and Kuwait, which the US cannot really stop as France is a part of NATO.

[Monsone]

1) The US never bombed Suez Canal or whatever. What I am saying OOCly does not necessarily mean I will do it ICly. However, French authorities blocking US ships to enter the Suez canal is a legitimate pretext for the US to wrestle control of it from France.

2) It would be hard for you to land a huge amount of troops with civillian ships unnoticed. Remember, the US already had warships in Arabia. That kind of invasion force will be noticed and thwarted by the US Navy.

3) To remove "suspicions" of metagaming, I don't plan to do this to Saudi Arabia at first - if you look at my earlier IC posts it clearly says "Iran" and not "Saudi Arabia". My playstyle is different with the previous player. Whereas the previous US player disregard the essence of US as a "superpower" with huge impact on geopolitics, I am more inclined with the US' expansion. That is why I sent a telegram to Vaas asking them to destabilize Mexico, proclaiming an unilateral protection upon the Middle East - however, that could and will be revoked if certain things go against the US interest such as France invading Iraq and Kuwait, which the US cannot really stop as France is a part of NATO.

1) It was a threat, not an actual act. But by bomb or otherwise trying to seize the Suez Canal, you would screw over Freedom of Navigation because the risk of sinking a ship in the canal, even accidentally is way too great). And need I remind you the threat was to prevent the US Navy, and only the US Navy from using the Suez Canal. Any other nation would still have been able to use it.

2) Last I checked, I control the Suez, and Jeddah and Mecca are in the French UN Occupation Zone in the Hejaz. Though UN land, it is de facto French controlled and administered. The troops would've dropped off in Jeddah and then driven across Arabia to the east coast. The US Navy would be hard pressed to stop a ground convoy over 100km from the coast. And in the Red Sea, there is a French military presence not just as part of the UN in Hejaz, but also in Djibouti. If anything, a US battle fleet sailing up the Red Sea would provoked suspicion. Not civilian ships.

3) You realize that Scandinavia wants all of Saudi Arabia save for the UN zone. Part of Arabia is controlled by Iran. Specifically the part with oil. Iraq and Kuwait are also under Iranian control. So yes, saying you're protecting Iran also translates to Scandinavian and French interests being interfered with. Also, you may want to be the expansionist US, but the rest of the world seems to not like the prospect. Europe especially is not happy at all with the idea of an expansionist USA, and you seem unable to find a middle ground that is agreeable with everyone, so you just resort to threats against NATO members because you can. However the Mediteranean is not the USA's playground. Nor is the Red Sea, the Black Sea, or the Persian Gulf. And have you ever thought other nations don't want your meddling with their interests and affairs? Because no one has meddlemeddled in the USA, yet all you seem to want is to dictate other nation's foreign policies.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

1) The US never bombed Suez Canal or whatever. What I am saying OOCly does not necessarily mean I will do it ICly. However, French authorities blocking US ships to enter the Suez canal is a legitimate pretext for the US to wrestle control of it from France.

2) It would be hard for you to land a huge amount of troops with civillian ships unnoticed. Remember, the US already had warships in Arabia. That kind of invasion force will be noticed and thwarted by the US Navy.

3) To remove "suspicions" of metagaming, I don't plan to do this to Saudi Arabia at first - if you look at my earlier IC posts it clearly says "Iran" and not "Saudi Arabia". My playstyle is different with the previous player. Whereas the previous US player disregard the essence of US as a "superpower" with huge impact on geopolitics, I am more inclined with the US' expansion. That is why I sent a telegram to Vaas asking them to destabilize Mexico, proclaiming an unilateral protection upon the Middle East - however, that could and will be revoked if certain things go against the US interest such as France invading Iraq and Kuwait, which the US cannot really stop as France is a part of NATO.

1) It was a threat, not an actual act. But by bomb or otherwise trying to seize the Suez Canal, you would screw over Freedom of Navigation because the risk of sinking a ship in the canal, even accidentally is way too great). And need I remind you the threat was to prevent the US Navy, and only the US Navy from using the Suez Canal. Any other nation would still have been able to use it.

2) Last I checked, I control the Suez, and Jeddah and Mecca are in the French UN Occupation Zone in the Hejaz. Though UN land, it is de facto French controlled and administered. The troops would've dropped off in Jeddah and then driven across Arabia to the east coast. The US Navy would be hard pressed to stop a ground convoy over 100km from the coast. And in the Red Sea, there is a French military presence not just as part of the UN in Hejaz, but also in Djibouti. If anything, a US battle fleet sailing up the Red Sea would provoked suspicion. Not civilian ships.

3) You realize that Scandinavia wants all of Saudi Arabia save for the UN zone. Part of Arabia is controlled by Iran. Specifically the part with oil. Iraq and Kuwait are also under Iranian control. So yes, saying you're protecting Iran also translates to Scandinavian and French interests being interfered with. Also, you may want to be the expansionist US, but the rest of the world seems to not like the prospect. Europe especially is not happy at all with the idea of an expansionist USA, and you seem unable to find a middle ground that is agreeable with everyone, so you just resort to threats against NATO members because you can. However the Mediteranean is not the USA's playground. Nor is the Red Sea, the Black Sea, or the Persian Gulf. And have you ever thought other nations don't want your meddling with their interests and affairs? Because no one has meddlemeddled in the USA, yet all you seem to want is to dictate other nation's foreign policies.

2) That idea seems inconsistent with international law. To use a UN ground for the purpose of acting as a staging ground for a non sanctioned attack would be illegal and would constitute an act of war by France against Saudi Arabia.

This is the exact same idea Brazil had for invading a part of Africa, which you yourself pointed out as illegal.