DPSSOC wrote...
Probably as far as they intend to enforce their rules on others. Settlements in the Attican Traverse and Skyllian Verge (to use my example) aren't outside Council borders. The colonies there must still abide by the laws of Citadel space. The Council have declared Citadel space to be under their control, it is in part their responsibility to enforce that control (by dealing with things like inter-species conflicts).
But their enforcement conists of willingness to trade and otherwise engage in diplomacy. The collectors appearantly exist just fine without the Council ever caring about their military strength, where they colonize, etc. It wasn't in Council space, so the Council just ignored them. Which worlds within Citadel space did the Council not defend? Again "Citadel space' consists of the regions claimed by the Council races, not that plus that of everyone the Council ever signs a treaty with. Can you imagine if signing a trade treaty with China obligated the US to help them against Taiwan should China every wish to attack? Or obligate China to aid in Iraq? Or much earlier vietnam or Korea? Lol.
Your analogy fails because the other races aren't annexing worlds from the Council, they're being granted rights to them. It'd be more analagous to say the US giving a portion of land in Nevada to Mexico, telling them they still have to abide by US law, limiting the number of police they can have, but refusing to offer any support of their own. Or a landlord renting a property; in return for following the rules and conditions of the landlord the tenant is owed a few things, property security being among them.
Any given 'world' within Council space is equivalent to any given city founded within a nation. I wasn't talking about Mexico taking over Reno. I was talking about Mexico simply starting a completely brand new city in the desert somewhere. If the US claims the region as theirs, and polices it, why in blazes wouldn't they expect to jave jurisdiction? As for your other analogy of the land being granted, does the Canada-US border treaty that sets most of the border as the 49th parallel obligate both countries to intervene in anything the other wants them to? In that case they likely would anyway, but Canada didn't go to Iraq and took a lot of political heat over it, from American popular opinion if not from the US government.
Ok and your point is? The NPT does limit who can have nuclear weapons it's called the non-proliferation treaty because proliferation (spreading) of nuclear weapons is what it's trying to limit. Same with the dreadnought treaty. Whatever other purposes it may have it's main purpose is to limit the production of Dreadnoughts so only a few people have genocidal fleets.
DN's aren't needed for genocide..... all it takes is a fast ship and hit and runs with big enough nukes. Planets are nice stationary targets.
If it is intended to hold others back, down, etc. it's oppressive. It may not grate on the oppressed, but it's still oppression. Now before you take that too far all laws are oppressive, it's the nature of law to be so. You telling me I can't do something, and enforcing it through an armed force, is oppressive; whether or not I'm bothered by it is irrelevant. You mentioned the Alliance hasn't even reached there limit but that could be a simple acknowledgement of economics.
But a treaty that is more generous than economics can take advantage of isn't limiting, and to the extent it appears to be limiting, it is probably immensely useful in spurring on innovation on the part of all parties.
Dreadnoughts are expensive and, because of the treaty, they'll never be able to build up a force capable of defending against any of the big 3, let alone go on the offensive, if they rely on dreadnoughts. So they think outside box and rely more on small, fast ships breaking through enemy lines. The fact the Alliance seems to be working around the treaty (by using tactics and fleet arrangments that don't require dreadnoughts), is probably a good indication that the bonds are starting to chafe.
The Alliance were using carriers as of the First Contact War, so that had nothing to do with the treaty. Also their effectiveness had as much to do with suprise as anything else. It is not a given that they are as effective against fleets designed against them.
This isn't the ocean, where aircraft are in a different medium and thus have a much greater speed and range to ships.
All ships are capable of accelerating to light speed and beyond. When fleeing the collector vessel the second time (when Joker knew what he was doing), the Normandy was able to disengage pretty much instantly.
Oh not saying I disagree with their reasoning (after the Krogan Rebellions not coming up with something like this would have been stupid), but that doesn't mean I have to stop calling it what it is. Part of the treaty is probably to stop an arms race between the big 3, but it is also to ensure they will always be the biggest dogs on the block. You can call it a necklace all you want but the fact is a leash is a leash.
And my counter is that expecting to give nothing in diplomatic negotiations is foolish. The idea is to gain more than you give, so if you give something that doesn't actually cost you (such as overly generous restrictions on warship construction) and gain something that actually gains you (such as free-er access to major markets), it is a win, not a loss. The Alliance could simply walk away from the table. The Batarans aren't there, nor are the Quarians, nor were the Collectors.
Retour en haut
