zakalwe Wrote:This is just twisted logic.
Scenario:
A signs a NAP with B, and then, without consulting with A, B signs an MDP with C.
A attacks C.
B attacks A, referring to the MDP as justification.
In this scenario, A never promised not to attack C, so he did not break his word. B did promise not to attack A, so he did break his word. Saying that A was the one to break the NAP is ludicrous.
It would be if B keeps the MDP secret. But if A signs NAP with B and B signs MDP with C and announces it so that everyone knows attacking C would be considered a wardecl on B too then it is plain simple A's fault if he attacks C.
With the announcement of the MDP it becomes clear to everybody that any attack on C is also an attack on B.