The Grand Alliance Grand Attack

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote: My biggest issue with the doctrine is the size. Manticore is setting itself up as the arbitrator of what is allowed and what isn't. If a large SL successor state, or a large section of the SL survives the collapse and offers up peace with the SEM, but declines to be friends (not enemies, just a wary peace. Kind of like what there was before the SEM/SL issues came into the open), do you think the SEM would leave it alone if the new state was larger than what it preferred? The implication I got is the SEM won't allow -any- SL nation state to exist above a certain size and would use military force to trim it down if need be.

You're missing the point that the size limitation only applies to "Not Friends;" Nearly every member of the GA is bigger than the GA will tolerate as "not friends" that self-identify as "Solarian" -- i.e. a successor state that has a grudge or thinks of itself as the seed of a "New Solarian League."

You're also ignoring the web of mutual defense treaties that will effectively expand the GA to the point where "too large" can be a very large chunk of the former Solarian League.

You're also discounting the Reformation of the Solarian League as an end result of "Destroying" the League; The Haven that is a member of the GA is NOT the same Haven Manticore spent a couple of decades at war with. A similar transformation in the basic structure of the League (if possible) could expect similar results.

Would mutual defense treaties be a requirement? If so, that might be a stickler. I don't think that many systems will join the GA/SEM, some will, but I don't see why many/most would. Nor do I think most would have mutual defense treaties with the SEM/GA either. Maybe some form of treaty that formalize the diplomatic relationship and allow for commerce to flow, but I don't see that many systems signing up to be official SEM /GA friends either. It shouldn't be a requirement and it would make sense that most don't sign up with the GA/SEM, but just have a 'we recognize you and will trade with you, and won't make war on you, but you leave us alone otherwise', from single systems up to larger multi-system entities. By that I'm not sure a reformed SL or large successor state would be a member of the GA either. The SEM might have to be satisfied with several large successor states, or a reformed SL (under new leadership) that acknowledges the SEM's right to exist and such, but is at least not at war or hostile to the SEM.

There is precedent for that too. not ever nation in the world is allied to the others. The US isn't allied to Russia or China. They are enemies, but we're not at war with them and there is trade with them. We do business with them and they with us.



I'm iffy on whether the GA lasting that long either once the SL is out of the way. Who would lead it? Where would the HQ be located? I don't see Haven as always being willing to follow Manticore's lead forever.

Zakharra wrote:
From what I've heard and been quoted about what is now called the Harrington Doctrine on these forums, the SEM is done trying to negotiate. it's goal now, is, as lined out in the plan Honor Harrington laid out is the break up of the SL, by force, until it is small enough that no one part of it can threaten the SEM ever again.

I think the key question here is what we mean with the SL. According to the "Harrington Doctrine", the SEM and the GA in most certainly trying to negotiate. Their entire strategy and long term survival depends on it. However, they are no longer trying to negotiate with the central bureaucracy of the SL but rather the component entities of the SL - with the goal of, as you say, break up the SL. That is, breaking up the SL is never going to be a military endeavor, it can't be done by force. Force against the SLN is needed and used in so far as to create the space and atmosphere for political negotiations with potential, reasonably sized, successor states.

That is the core of the "Harrington Doctrine".

Kallisti wrote:

Zakharra wrote:
From what I've heard and been quoted about what is now called the Harrington Doctrine on these forums, the SEM is done trying to negotiate. it's goal now, is, as lined out in the plan Honor Harrington laid out is the break up of the SL, by force, until it is small enough that no one part of it can threaten the SEM ever again.

I think the key question here is what we mean with the SL. According to the "Harrington Doctrine", the SEM and the GA in most certainly trying to negotiate. Their entire strategy and long term survival depends on it. However, they are no longer trying to negotiate with the central bureaucracy of the SL but rather the component entities of the SL - with the goal of, as you say, break up the SL. That is, breaking up the SL is never going to be a military endeavor, it can't be done by force. Force against the SLN is needed and used in so far as to create the space and atmosphere for political negotiations with potential, reasonably sized, successor states.

That is the core of the "Harrington Doctrine".

The SLN as a fighting force must be eliminated, otherwise the successor states cannot secede or break off. They simply get bludgeoned by a handful of SD's even if they are obsolete. No sucessor states = no H doct.

Zakharra wrote: Would mutual defense treaties be a requirement? If so, that might be a stickler. I don't think that many systems will join the GA/SEM, some will, but I don't see why many/most would. Nor do I think most would have mutual defense treaties with the SEM/GA either. Maybe some form of treaty that formalize the diplomatic relationship and allow for commerce to flow, but I don't see that many systems signing up to be official SEM /GA friends either. It shouldn't be a requirement and it would make sense that most don't sign up with the GA/SEM, but just have a 'we recognize you and will trade with you, and won't make war on you, but you leave us alone otherwise', from single systems up to larger multi-system entities. By that I'm not sure a reformed SL or large successor state would be a member of the GA either. The SEM might have to be satisfied with several large successor states, or a reformed SL (under new leadership) that acknowledges the SEM's right to exist and such, but is at least not at war or hostile to the SEM.

There are more gradations of relationship between "trade and bare tolerance" and "allies unto death" than you're considering there.

Mutual defense treaties would indeed be a critical element. For one, they assure each successor state that the SEM isn't coming for them still, not without smearing their own dearly needed honor, and assures the SEM as best as can be within a friendly relationship of the same. For another, it means that SL successor state A cannot mess with the SEM - or successor state B - without messing with the other. That would mean that even a moderately large successor state would have a fair disincentive when it comes to a rematch as a reborn SL.

They're also a critical element in being friends. The SEM isn't looking for eternal war, or even tension. It's suffering now from having a huge neighbor that's structurally incapable of acting as a responsible peer and politically incapable of not being a jerk. That's not survivable. Creating smaller successor states is an exercise in creating potential realistic responsible peer nations. I don't think that the SEM is overly optimistic about how difficult that's going to be - I think they probably appreciate pretty well how dicey, messy, and difficult it will be. But when the alternative is death or slavery, well, you can be damn pessimistic about Plan B and still be going for it without hesitation.

Zakharra wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:You're missing the point that the size limitation only applies to "Not Friends;" Nearly every member of the GA is bigger than the GA will tolerate as "not friends" that self-identify as "Solarian" -- i.e. a successor state that has a grudge or thinks of itself as the seed of a "New Solarian League."

You're also ignoring the web of mutual defense treaties that will effectively expand the GA to the point where "too large" can be a very large chunk of the former Solarian League.

You're also discounting the Reformation of the Solarian League as an end result of "Destroying" the League; The Haven that is a member of the GA is NOT the same Haven Manticore spent a couple of decades at war with. A similar transformation in the basic structure of the League (if possible) could expect similar results.

Would mutual defense treaties be a requirement? If so, that might be a stickler. I don't think that many systems will join the GA/SEM, some will, but I don't see why many/most would. Nor do I think most would have mutual defense treaties with the SEM/GA either. Maybe some form of treaty that formalize the diplomatic relationship and allow for commerce to flow, but I don't see that many systems signing up to be official SEM /GA friends either. It shouldn't be a requirement and it would make sense that most don't sign up with the GA/SEM, but just have a 'we recognize you and will trade with you, and won't make war on you, but you leave us alone otherwise', from single systems up to larger multi-system entities. By that I'm not sure a reformed SL or large successor state would be a member of the GA either. The SEM might have to be satisfied with several large successor states, or a reformed SL (under new leadership) that acknowledges the SEM's right to exist and such, but is at least not at war or hostile to the SEM.

Weird Harold didn't say that all the successor states would have to sign mutual defense treaties with the GA. He said that there would be some nations signing mutual defense treaties with the GA, which would increase the power of the GA, which would let the GA raise the size limit on "too large".

JeffEngel wrote:Mutual defense treaties would indeed be a critical element. For one, they assure each successor state that the SEM isn't coming for them still, not without smearing their own dearly needed honor, and assures the SEM as best as can be within a friendly relationship of the same. For another, it means that SL successor state A cannot mess with the SEM - or successor state B - without messing with the other. That would mean that even a moderately large successor state would have a fair disincentive when it comes to a rematch as a reborn SL.

[/quote]
Yeah! Like the Warsaw Pact!

kzt wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Mutual defense treaties would indeed be a critical element. For one, they assure each successor state that the SEM isn't coming for them still, not without smearing their own dearly needed honor, and assures the SEM as best as can be within a friendly relationship of the same. For another, it means that SL successor state A cannot mess with the SEM - or successor state B - without messing with the other. That would mean that even a moderately large successor state would have a fair disincentive when it comes to a rematch as a reborn SL.

Yeah! Like the Warsaw Pact!

I would think it would be more like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than the Warsaw Pact, unless I'm completely missing your point.

NATO is an alliance of equals that can disagree on policy, even to the point of a member withdrawing from the alliance. (France was originally a full member, then withdrew partially from the alliance and now is an associate rather than a full member.)

On the other hand, the Warsaw Pact was solely the creation of the Soviet Union with its conquered territory's puppet governments role strictly that of window dressing to present to the rest of the world a facade of 'legitimacy' to 'disguise' the fact that it was the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union alone, that was in control of the Warsaw Pact. (Which didn't change until the Warsaw Pact's minor (puppet) members economies being unable to sustain the strain of maintaining such large military forces as a percentage of GDP, and even the Soviet Union's economy couldn't keep up with the West and the Soviet Union began falling apart, or at least failing to maintain its iron fist of control.)

Are you suggesting that the Renaissance Factor (with the Mesan Alignment playing the part of the Soviet Union) is the equivalent of the Warsaw Pact (with better window dressing since no one knows where the Mesan Alignment is, even though they now know the Mesan Alignment exists and what they stand for [with very few details])? The Renaissance Factor in the Honorverse and the Warsaw Pact of our history would seem to have many parallels.

Who was it who said "History does not repeat itself so much as it echoes", or words to that effect? If history can echo, why shouldn't future history do the same? Isn't that what science fiction writers do, after all?

Vince wrote:

kzt wrote:Yeah! Like the Warsaw Pact!

Are you suggesting that the Renaissance Factor (with the Mesan Alignment playing the part of the Soviet Union) is the equivalent of the Warsaw Pact (with better window dressing since no one knows where the Mesan Alignment is, even though they now know the Mesan Alignment exists and what they stand for [with very few details])? The Renaissance Factor in the Honorverse and the Warsaw Pact of our history would seem to have many parallels.

I think the idea is that the SEM would be playing the role of the Soviet Union, presiding over little ex-SL fiefdoms under its thrall.

If so, no, that's not the SEM's idea. No thralls wanted here. The idea is to create a stable, peaceful order with star nations acting as rough peers, friends, and colleagues in a free association for mutual benefit and protection. Whether or not that will work out is another story.

It's more possible that GA is similar to NATO and it is. SEM as the USA, Haven as Germany, Grayson as Great Britain. And Mesan Alignment is Warsaw Pact.

JeffEngel wrote:I think the idea is that the SEM would be playing the role of the Soviet Union, presiding over little ex-SL fiefdoms under its thrall.

Pretty much. Lots of tiny little fiefdoms who are free to pursue whatever policy they want, as long as it's in Manticores interest.