NationStates Jolt Archive

Country A and B racially hate each other because A attacked B. A has state of the art technology and a well off economy, B however can produce up to date, state of the art technology if it attacks and invades region C that houses many smaller nations. A is deadset on destroying B, C fears A and is slightly racist toward B but not to the point where they'd want to commit genocide. B warns A that in the event of an invasion they'd do whatever is necessary to defend themselves even if it means that the innocents of C must die. A disregards the warning, war breaks out and A and B fight as B occupies C which consequently leads to a massive death toll on for C.

Which nation(s) are in the most wrong? Who is more responsible for the killing in C? Overall, whose fault is it?

Discuss!

B.
Nation A was the reason B attacked C. Nation B's lack of morality was the cause of its attack on C. Nation B is morally blameworthy for the deaths of civilians in C.

Probably the Jews.

B.
Nation A was the reason B attacked C. Nation B's lack of morality was the cause of its attack on C. Nation B is morally blameworthy for the deaths of civilians in C.

It could be that B just wanted to survive so they chose their lives over those that hate them.

It could be that B just wanted to survive so they chose their lives over those that hate them.

If you will read the original post, B attacks C because it knows that by doing so, it can develop the necessary technology to fight A. They knew that attacking C would lead to their ability to fight A, so they pursued that option, rather than seeking others which would not have resulted in the deaths of innocent and uninvolved parties.

If you will read the original post, B attacks C because it knows that by doing so, it can develop the necessary technology to fight A. They knew that attacking C would lead to their ability to fight A, so they pursued that option, rather than seeking others which would not have resulted in the deaths of innocent and uninvolved parties.

This is a hypothetical situation. There are no Russian scientists to buy off in Hypothetical Land.

If you will read the original post, B attacks C because it knows that by doing so, it can develop the necessary technology to fight A. They knew that attacking C would lead to their ability to fight A, so they pursued that option, rather than seeking others which would not have resulted in the deaths of innocent and uninvolved parties.

C harboring racist attitudes toward B preceding the war would have prevented them from helping B if they asked kindly. Especially since A seems more powerful than the other two nations.

This is a hypothetical situation. There are no Russian scientists to buy off in Hypothetical Land.

And in Hypothetical Land, Nation B is apparently more concerned with fighting back at the cost of the deaths of innocent and uninvolved people, rather than with pursuing other avenues. Even if no other avenues existed, it is still immoral to kill innocent and uninvolved people in order to win a war.

C harboring racist attitudes toward B preceding the war would have prevented them from helping B if they asked kindly. Especially since A seems more powerful than the other two nations.

I meant other avenues such as using their own resources in new and innovative ways. Not a guaranteed path to victory, but a moral one.

And in Hypothetical Land, Nation B is apparently more concerned with fighting back at the cost of the deaths of innocent and uninvolved people, rather than with pursuing other avenues. Even if no other avenues existed, it is still immoral to kill innocent and uninvolved people in order to win a war.

Nation B is more concerned about saving the innocent lives of Nation B than the innocent lives of Nation C, which wouldn't be killed if Nation A didn't invade.

Can Nations A, B and C just go chill in Nation D, have a few drinks and share fishing stories?

Nation B is more concerned about saving the innocent lives of Nation B than the innocent lives of Nation C, which wouldn't be killed if Nation A didn't invade.

Can Nations A, B and C just go chill in Nation D, have a few drinks and share fishing stories?

Hence why Nation A's actions were the reason for Nation B's actions. However, the choice was not between allowing Nation B's innocents to die or allowing Nation C's innocents to die: it was between allowing Nation B's innocents to die, and causing Nation C's uninvolved innocents to die. Nation B is morally blameworthy.

Nation D does make one hell of a Bahama Mama.

Hence why Nation A's actions were the reason for Nation B's actions. However, the choice was not between allowing Nation B's innocents to die or allowing Nation C's innocents to die: it was between allowing Nation B's innocents to die, and causing Nation C's uninvolved innocents to die. Nation B is morally blameworthy.

Self sacrifice is soooooo not heroic...

Nation D does make one hell of a Bahama Mama.

And then they can go to Nation E and maybe take in some exotic dancing...

EDIT: Oops, I said Nation C instead of E. Time for sleep?

I meant other avenues such as using their own resources in new and innovative ways. Not a guaranteed path to victory, but a moral one.

B knows that it's current resources are inadequate, hence the attack on C. And the people of B sure don't want to be mass murdered anytime soon.

B knows that it's current resources are inadequate, hence the attack on C. And the people of B sure don't want to be mass murdered anytime soon.

Granted. However, to prevent one's own murder by murdering an uninvolved innocent is immoral.

Probably the Jews.

Nah, its the ebil Moslems

Country A and B racially hate each other because A attacked B. A has state of the art technology and a well off economy, B however can produce up to date, state of the art technology if it attacks and invades region C that houses many smaller nations. A is deadset on destroying B, C fears A and is slightly racist toward B but not to the point where they'd want to commit genocide. B warns A that in the event of an invasion they'd do whatever is necessary to defend themselves even if it means that the innocents of C must die. A disregards the warning, war breaks out and A and B fight as B occupies C which consequently leads to a massive death toll on for C.

Which nation(s) are in the most wrong? Who is more responsible for the killing in C? Overall, whose fault is it?

Discuss!Well, I'd say Germany (B) shouldn't have invaded Belgium (C) to defend itself from France and Russia (A).

My algebra is a little rusty, but I think the answer is 7

Can country C be France?

Country A and B racially hate each other because A attacked B. A has state of the art technology and a well off economy, B however can produce up to date, state of the art technology if it attacks and invades region C that houses many smaller nations. [...] A disregards the warning, war breaks out and A and B fight as B occupies C which consequently leads to a massive death toll on for C.
Which nation(s) are in the most wrong?
Mu.

This isn't a computer game. The costs of invasion, local destruction caused by it, and the costs of rebuilding will produce more harm than the possible gains, throw B further backwards than it hoped to go, and thus degrade the B's ability to produce up to date armament.



In a situation where the gap between B and C is overwhelming, such as a never-even-started-developing tribe and a small modern nation, B won't be able to defeat C even with the numbers.


Who is more responsible for the killing in C? It would take a more plausible situation, such as C sitting on a mountain of gold which B uses to buy mercenary help.
The sole party responsible for the war on C is clearly B. But it's too obvious to be the point; what is the point?

It's USA's fault, no matter who attacked whom. :D

Nah, its the ebil Moslems

Nope, it was us. My bad. Sorry.

Country A and B racially hate each other because A attacked B. A has state of the art technology and a well off economy, B however can produce up to date, state of the art technology if it attacks and invades region C that houses many smaller nations. A is deadset on destroying B, C fears A and is slightly racist toward B but not to the point where they'd want to commit genocide. B warns A that in the event of an invasion they'd do whatever is necessary to defend themselves even if it means that the innocents of C must die. A disregards the warning, war breaks out and A and B fight as B occupies C which consequently leads to a massive death toll on for C.

Which nation(s) are in the most wrong? Who is more responsible for the killing in C? Overall, whose fault is it?

Discuss!

Bullshit, how does invading a country make you more powerful?

Bullshit, how does invading a country make you more powerful?
Gives you access to natural resources, supply lines (Japan's reason for invading the East Indies, Burma and the Philippines), possibly more men to fight with (many Eastern Europeans fought under the Germans in WW2), better defenses (Why not fight them off outside of our borders rather than have our own country destroyed?). Oh, and I'm unsure of where this could be categorized, but Germany's heavy water plants were in Norway.

The aggressor(s).

well i say there all wrong in there own way, but i say should that ever happen usa should nuke their asses and take the land ;)

which nation(s) are in the most wrong?

a


who is more responsible for the killing in c?

b


overall, whose fault is it?


a

Bullshit, how does invading a country make you more powerful?

Damn you know very little about war don't you? Invading a country gives one more territory, resources and facilities. Ever hear of "spoils of war"?

It was C's fault for existing.

Simple as that.

Nah, its the ebil Moslems

Ebil Commie Jewish Moslems.

Which nation(s) are in the most wrong? Who is more responsible for the killing in C? Overall, whose fault is it?

While 'A' is the nation in the 'most' wrong, (since it seems to have no motivation for invasion of 'B' other than racial hatred and conquest, and seems to be completely well-off and technologically set), nation 'B' can't blame nation 'A' for its decision to ivade region 'C'.

In particular, since 'B' and 'C' both fear nation 'A', it would have been in their long-term best interest to develop trade and defense pacts long before. After all, 'B' could fight its defensive war with 'A' far better if it wasn't fighting on both fronts, and had eager allies with region 'C'. B's invasion of 'C' isn't only immoral, it's shortsighted and stupid.