?

tlb wrote:Mannerheim may has current possession, but they do NOT have a legal claim on the wormhole (the ownership of the system is disputed and Mannerheim is not one of the claimants). Note that there are two wormholes involved at Felix and if the GA goes through the other one and finds themselves at Torch, then there are going to be serious questions demanded from Mannerheim.

PS: With regards to recon drone surveillance: if you want you could consider it the same as spying, but note that spying (for us) is a crime and NOT an act of war. A civilian spy in peacetime is jailed (unless exchanged) and a diplomat is just sent home. I think ThinksMarkedly misstated the point about spies, which are normally only shot in wartime (since there is no possibility then of an exchange).

penny wrote:If you do not have proof that a particular navy is guilty, then showing up in a system with an entire triple alliance of warships loaded, cocked and locked with an attitude plus foaming at the mouth isn't exactly the way things should go. That itself is an act of war!

Consider the SL doing the same thing. Showing up in the MBS without stating any prior gripes or diplomatic talks or correspondence at all.

tlb wrote:I think ThinksMarkedly misstated the point about spies, which are normally only shot in wartime (since there is no possibility then of an exchange).

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The point was that in war time, spies are not legal combatants because they aren't wearing uniforms and the colours of their country.

penny wrote:I was thinking about China's own use of a balloon that was shot down by the US that was used for spying. It communicated via a US carrier that transmitted data back to Beijing. If nothing else, I thought it bordered on a de facto state of war. Breaching someone's airspace is not lawful. Nobody knows what technology or weaponry is being carried aboard.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:I was thinking about China's own use of a balloon that was shot down by the US that was used for spying. It communicated via a US carrier that transmitted data back to Beijing. If nothing else, I thought it bordered on a de facto state of war. Breaching someone's airspace is not lawful. Nobody knows what technology or weaponry is being carried aboard.

There are things that are not lawful, but fall short of an act of war. The balloon was not an act of war. If it had carried what are called "weapons of mass destruction", then it could be an act of war. As it happened, it was just an unfriendly act; a step up from the recent North Korean trash balloons.

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:I think ThinksMarkedly misstated the point about spies, which are normally only shot in wartime (since there is no possibility then of an exchange).

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The point was that in war time, spies are not legal combatants because they aren't wearing uniforms and the colours of their country.

Yes, that is what I said; but you also said "Spying is not illegal" and that is wrong. It is why they can be imprisoned in peacetime and shot in wartime.

penny wrote:Maybe someone can steer me straight. I was never clear whether Galton itself was aware that it was going to be the scapegoat and thrown under the bus. I am not sure if Galton proper was actually told the whole truth. And I certainly am not sure whether top brass in charge at Galton were not all MAlign plants or whatever top brass at Galton were. Adebayo could have had only Darius' wellbeing in mind. The fact that it was simple for the MA to insert all of its own people in all key positions at Galton does not mean that Galton was guilty of any crimes. And that speech by Adebayo could have been scripted and well rehearsed. Of course Adebayo had to deliver a speech that placed Galton under the bus. Do you actually believe that Galton was told everything? Seems to me there is a good possibility that Galton was double crossed.

At any rate, with the GA posse that was foaming at the mouth at the edge of the hyper limit, of course Galton was pissed!

And again, someone already disputed it in another thread, but I was almost certain that Honor had to be discouraged from firing as soon as she entered the system. I thought Honor wanted to engage the Stations immediately. Someone certainly wanted to. So, the mission cannot claim to be a peaceful one.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:If you do not have proof that a particular navy is guilty, then showing up in a system with an entire triple alliance of warships loaded, cocked and locked with an attitude plus foaming at the mouth isn't exactly the way things should go. That itself is an act of war!

Consider the SL doing the same thing. Showing up in the MBS without stating any prior gripes or diplomatic talks or correspondence at all.

No, it is NOT an act of war, if you stay outside the hyper-limit and talk. The SLN did not do the same thing, they showed up and demanded surrender.

penny wrote:

Theemile wrote:
The longest pull in this scenario is using the Wormhole - a wormhole that you don't have specs on needs to be studied and surveyed before use - that means you need to hold the space for months while the survey is completed. And only then can you transit and see what is on the other side.

Look at the Harvest Joy's activities at Congo - The Wormhole was a Known fact, but Manpower burned all their local documentation about the wormhole and had never publicized the transit info. So the Harvest Joy had to spend months refinding that data.

That would need to be done at Felix, all the while under the threat of the Mannerheim Navy jumping out of hyper, taking a couple of pot shots, then disappearing into the black of space.

And that can only be done after :
1) you realize that there is a wormhole at Felix - a system that has no known population, or whifs of a wormhole
and
2) You fight off the Mannerheim contigent.

But if another entity is claiming the wormhole shouldn't it be an act of war to attempt to take it over? Regardless of whether or not said navy intends to transit it. I know that textev states that a navy only has rights to a wormhole if said navy can hold onto it. However, should the GA exercise that option, it would speak volumes about their integrity and expansionist tendencies.

penny wrote:I was thinking about China's own use of a balloon that was shot down by the US that was used for spying. It communicated via a US carrier that transmitted data back to Beijing. If nothing else, I thought it bordered on a de facto state of war. Breaching someone's airspace is not lawful. Nobody knows what technology or weaponry is being carried aboard.

tlb wrote:There are things that are not lawful, but fall short of an act of war. The balloon was not an act of war. If it had carried what are called "weapons of mass destruction", then it could be an act of war. As it happened, it was just an unfriendly act; a step up from the recent North Korean trash balloons.

penny wrote:Nope. It was in a completely different class than North Korea's trash balloons. China's balloon was proved to be a spy balloon illegally using a US carrier without the carrier's permission to transmit illegal spy data.