Long term consequences of the League's collapse

Zakharra wrote:You're missing one of the biggest points of the Doctrine. It includes military force at some point if the diplomacy and economic incentives fail.

SWM wrote:SWM, it does in fact imply the use of military force to prevent the League's successor states from becoming big enough to once again threaten the Star Empire's survival.

It doesn't say so in so many words, but the implication is quite clear, I think.

hanuman wrote:You've said this several times, but I don't interpret that text the same way. I do not see any mention of use of military force to keep the successor states small enough. I disagree with your interpretation.

First, the oft-quoted paragraph is only a summation of the "Harrington Doctrine" without the context of the surrounding discussion and concerns. The context pretty much removes any implication of using force after the League is broken into enough small pieces that no single Successor State is big enough to be a problem.

Second, The oft-quoted paragraph delineates a two-part plan for survival of the SEM in the long-term.

Part One: Smash the SLN and Solarian League government Militarily so the League fractures into numerous small successor states. Stop hammering any separatist/secessionist system and protect them from SLN/SL reprisals as long as they are at least neutral. Offer trade and mutual defense treaties and whatever else will turn them from "Neutral" to "Friend."

Part Two: Once the SL is broken and the SLN destroyed then put away the Military and use Diplomacy, Trade, and "Foreign Aid" to keep the Successor States from having any desire to combine into potentially troublesome size.

If the military is used, brandished, or held over someone's head to force concessions, the the Harrington Doctrine will have failed because it is proposed as an alternative to Military Occupation.

The whole point of the Doctrine is to create and maintain a situation where the military is not needed except for commerce protection and defense.

Manticore's past history of stimulating the economy and upgrading defenses of treaty partners -- and the impending collaboration between Shannon Forraker and Sonja Hemphill demonstrates the policy extends even to recent enemies -- suggests that being a mutual defense treaty partner with Manticore -- or a member of the GA -- will get successor states access to at least "Manticore Light" export versions of modern military tech.

So yes, there IS a military component of the Harrington Doctrine, but it is concentrated in Part One and counter-productive in Part Two except for "mutual defense."

Zakharra wrote: That's my reading of it too. Because there are some times when diplomacy or economic incentives to possible allies/enemies won't work. When that happens you're left with two alternatives, accept the situation as it is, or use military force to try and stomp it into the ground.

The Harrington Doctrine doesn't need to work on 100% of Successor States, it only needs to work on a majority of them.

New Tuscany is a prime example of the Manticoran philosophy; if you don't want to be a member (ally), fine. You may change your mind when all of your neighbors are reaping the economic and other benefits of being a member (our treaty partner.)

Manticore has a history of "accept the situation as it is" until a clear threat of aggression is perceived. Even then, they seek a diplomatic solution -- as they have with the SL -- rather than using their military.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote: That's my reading of it too. Because there are some times when diplomacy or economic incentives to possible allies/enemies won't work. When that happens you're left with two alternatives, accept the situation as it is, or use military force to try and stomp it into the ground.

The Harrington Doctrine doesn't need to work on 100% of Successor States, it only needs to work on a majority of them.

New Tuscany is a prime example of the Manticoran philosophy; if you don't want to be a member (ally), fine. You may change your mind when all of your neighbors are reaping the economic and other benefits of being a member (our treaty partner.)

Manticore has a history of "accept the situation as it is" until a clear threat of aggression is perceived. Even then, they seek a diplomatic solution -- as they have with the SL -- rather than using their military.

Then the Harrington Doctrine is a failure before it's even implemented. You are assuming the economic and diplomatic entreaties and incentives can/will work on -everyone-. That belief is flat out wrong. If you are looking to use just diplomacy and economic incentives to try and keep other states from ever becoming a threat to you, ever, then you're a fool if you do not plan to use military force when it fails in places. Which it will. The way I and others read the Harrington Doctrine is that it is mostly the diplomacy and economics incentives, but the goal of the HD is to flat out prevent ANY nation from attaining the size of the SL (or likely even close to as big as it was). Manticore at this time, seems to be of the mind it will not, absolutely not let ANY star nation attain the size it, Manticore, feels that could be a threat to it again. In this I feel Manticore is being hypocrites because it is setting itself up as the sole authority to dictate to every other star nation in existence that Manticore, and Manticore alone, will be the sole deciding vote of who can grow beyond a certain size. It's not outright stated that force will be used, but the underlining theme is that under no circumstances will Manticore allow itself to ever be threatened again, and that requires the use of military force to back that up.

Please remember that what's best for Manticore often will not be what's best for other star nations.

The Harrington doctrine isn't rigid ideology. It is instead a general guideline about how Manticore intends to deal with the breakup of the League. While Manticore would like the successor states not to combine into units large enough to be a threat to her and her allies, the critical point is whether or not the state in question plays nice and tries to manage its affairs with its neighbors, including Manticore, constructively.

Although the size of the successor states is mentioned, it makes a difference how a unit is formed. It's one thing if it is by voluntary covenant or if because some system takes off on a Legislaturist style binge of conquest.

As for how and when Manticore uses her military, I would expect that it would be to defend the territorial integrity of herself and her allies as well as to protect her commercial interests just like all nations try to do. There is nothing sinister about that. I would also expect Manticore to seek negotiated solutions first and use her military as a last resort. That is where those mutual defense treaties kick in.

I think that as we consider the reaction to the League's collapse, we need to remember that loyalty to the League is weak, at best, even in the core. People tend to identify first with their own systems, Beowulfers with Beowulf and so on rather than with an entity such as the League which is quite remote to most people. Then too, remember that the League is passionately hated in those areas of the galaxy where OFS is its face. There are reasons why the League is coming unglued that go beyond Manticore's refusal to be bullied. It was going to happen. Manticore and MAlign only provided the spark for the tinder.

Don

Zakharra wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:The Harrington Doctrine doesn't need to work on 100% of Successor States, it only needs to work on a majority of them.

Then the Harrington Doctrine is a failure before it's even implemented. You are assuming the economic and diplomatic entreaties and incentives can/will work on -everyone-. That belief is flat out wrong.

What part of "it doesn't need to work on 100%" are you having trouble with?

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:You're missing one of the biggest points of the Doctrine. It includes military force at some point if the diplomacy and economic incentives fail.

SWM wrote:SWM, it does in fact imply the use of military force to prevent the League's successor states from becoming big enough to once again threaten the Star Empire's survival.

It doesn't say so in so many words, but the implication is quite clear, I think.

hanuman wrote:You've said this several times, but I don't interpret that text the same way. I do not see any mention of use of military force to keep the successor states small enough. I disagree with your interpretation.

First, the oft-quoted paragraph is only a summation of the "Harrington Doctrine" without the context of the surrounding discussion and concerns. The context pretty much removes any implication of using force after the League is broken into enough small pieces that no single Successor State is big enough to be a problem.

Second, The oft-quoted paragraph delineates a two-part plan for survival of the SEM in the long-term.

Part One: Smash the SLN and Solarian League government Militarily so the League fractures into numerous small successor states. Stop hammering any separatist/secessionist system and protect them from SLN/SL reprisals as long as they are at least neutral. Offer trade and mutual defense treaties and whatever else will turn them from "Neutral" to "Friend."

Part Two: Once the SL is broken and the SLN destroyed then put away the Military and use Diplomacy, Trade, and "Foreign Aid" to keep the Successor States from having any desire to combine into potentially troublesome size.

If the military is used, brandished, or held over someone's head to force concessions, the the Harrington Doctrine will have failed because it is proposed as an alternative to Military Occupation.

The whole point of the Doctrine is to create and maintain a situation where the military is not needed except for commerce protection and defense.

Manticore's past history of stimulating the economy and upgrading defenses of treaty partners -- and the impending collaboration between Shannon Forraker and Sonja Hemphill demonstrates the policy extends even to recent enemies -- suggests that being a mutual defense treaty partner with Manticore -- or a member of the GA -- will get successor states access to at least "Manticore Light" export versions of modern military tech.

So yes, there IS a military component of the Harrington Doctrine, but it is concentrated in Part One and counter-productive in Part Two except for "mutual defense."

Harold, you changed SWM and my posts around.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote: That's my reading of it too. Because there are some times when diplomacy or economic incentives to possible allies/enemies won't work. When that happens you're left with two alternatives, accept the situation as it is, or use military force to try and stomp it into the ground.

The Harrington Doctrine doesn't need to work on 100% of Successor States, it only needs to work on a majority of them.

New Tuscany is a prime example of the Manticoran philosophy; if you don't want to be a member (ally), fine. You may change your mind when all of your neighbors are reaping the economic and other benefits of being a member (our treaty partner.)

Manticore has a history of "accept the situation as it is" until a clear threat of aggression is perceived. Even then, they seek a diplomatic solution -- as they have with the SL -- rather than using their military.

Sorry, Harold, but you forget exactly HOW BIG the Solarian League is, Protectorates included. Moreover, any effort to implement the Harrington Doctrine will have to be extended to the Verge as well, in order to make it work. The Solarian League's collapse will have a severe impact on all of human space, which will make it extremely difficult for the Star Empire/Grand Alliance to attempt a fully-comprehensive pursuit of the Doctrine.

I'm predicting that the Grand Alliance will establish nodal stations at each wormhole terminus under its control, with a 'safe zone' of several lightyears diameter surrounding each terminus, within which it will enforce the peace, and that it will only consider intervening beyond those safe zones on a case-by-case basis. Oh, and that it will establish such safe zones along its members' frontiers, as well.

hanuman wrote:Sorry, Harold, but you forget exactly HOW BIG the Solarian League is, Protectorates included. Moreover, any effort to implement the Harrington Doctrine will have to be extended to the Verge as well, in order to make it work. The Solarian League's collapse will have a severe impact on all of human space, which will make it extremely difficult for the Star Empire/Grand Alliance to attempt a fully-comprehensive pursuit of the Doctrine.

Michelle Henke, aka Adm Gold Peak, has already begun to implement the "Harrington Doctrine" in the Protectorates and Verge after her conquest of the Madras sector.

I'm not forgetting the size of the SL, OFS Protectorates, or Verge, but the Lincoln quote that follows the oft-quoted paragraph, "I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend," doesn't admit to any limits on how many star nations can be made friends.

hanuman wrote:I'm predicting that the Grand Alliance will establish nodal stations at each wormhole terminus under its control, with a 'safe zone' of several lightyears diameter surrounding each terminus, within which it will enforce the peace, and that it will only consider intervening beyond those safe zones on a case-by-case basis. Oh, and that it will establish such safe zones along its members' frontiers, as well.

The details of how the RMN/Grand Fleet will deploy is irrelevant to the intent of the Harrington Doctrine. The intent is to remove and/or smooth over the most common reasons star nations agglomerate into larger star nations. As New Tuscany demonstrated, not every star nation is ruled by rational people, but aside from being a cat's paw for "Manpower" they are no threat to the SEM or GA; a few islands of discontent surrounded by friends and allies of the SEM/GA aren't going to matter a great deal -- considering the size of human occupied space.

As and if the GA establish islands of peace and prosperity, those islands will spread. Each new "Friend" is one less "Enemy" and one more "Ally" to help spread peace and love -- it is in a way a very 60's Hippy view of the universe; that doesn't mean it won't work when applied realistically.

Weird Harold wrote:As and if the GA establish islands of peace and prosperity, those islands will spread. Each new "Friend" is one less "Enemy" and one more "Ally" to help spread peace and love -- it is in a way a very 60's Hippy view of the universe; that doesn't mean it won't work when applied realistically.

http://youtu.be/klObyJY1W_I

MaxxQ wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:As and if the GA establish islands of peace and prosperity, those islands will spread. Each new "Friend" is one less "Enemy" and one more "Ally" to help spread peace and love -- it is in a way a very 60's Hippy view of the universe; that doesn't mean it won't work when applied realistically.

http://youtu.be/klObyJY1W_I

I prefer this version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06X5HYynP5E


But this is more appropriate to the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M5Zdn4