StevieG

[quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1265678634' post='2169459'] Stevie, as I pointed out in the first two sentences, I was making my earlier points about PM from the basis that it would not hurt a nation with a good warchest worse than the war would. [/quote] Fair enough, although it would significantly hurt the ones without a warchest. Those are the ones likely to be fleeing into peace mode of their own accord after a round or so of battles. Oh the irony [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1265678634' post='2169459'] Personally, I don't surrender and I'm prepared for a long enough war, so individual terms don't mean much to me. [/quote] The feeling is mutual. Somehow, though, I think we are prepared for a longer war than the majority of Nexus. Spy ops tend to lead me to that conclusion. Then again, if you and the other alliances at war with us can successfully rotate nations onto us then maybe you can eventually out us. Nexus versus TORN = TORN victory, even though you have more NS than us. Don't beleive me? take us up on it.

[quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1265677465' post='2169427'] First off, to astronaut jones, you make a good point. Having never faced bill lock, I was looking at this from the position of someone with a decent warchest who was choosing to exit the war for whatever reason. That being said, Nexus has revised the PM portion and has stated we will look at each surrender on a case by case basis because we don't wish to drive people away or destroy nations. While people may still find this unfair, we are looking to make sure that anyone who surrenders to us to exit the war before their alliance will not be a threat to us again. And ZI only comes to those nations who backstab us and break these terms. [/quote] I have a decent warchest. Why would I want to surrender when I can do more damage to your nations than you can do to mine? It is your nations who have sub-standard WarChests and will be heading for bill lock soon. If you were offering white peace on the other hand, that might be something we have to think about. Still a little premature for that though, as weve only just entered into our 2nd set of wars.

[quote name='sircrimson' date='09 February 2010 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1265655961' post='2168932'] no it wouldn't no terms would mean they would have no chance of getting out of the war, which would mean they would be continuously attacked until the war was over, which would be zi in it self [/quote] We arent the ones crying about being nuked. We arent the ones looking to get out of the war, much less to bad terms.

Welcome to the fray ML. Have a .... BLAST!

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='09 February 2010 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1265646115' post='2168780'] You can take it as a yes I suppose, but I'm in no position to be enforcing what I believe may happen so it's fairly pointless. Either way, I entirely agree with both objectives and how you're going about them. I was just surmising reasons for the harsher than average indi terms, and musing about alliance terms given Nexus as a whole and 57th's individual views on first strike nuking. TORN has made it fairly clear that 57th's opinions don't matter a jot to them and if there are consequences for going against their morals in a war with them, well that matters not a jot to you either. So... What exactly are we arguing about? Nuke away sir. [/quote] Its not so much a case of "Nexus's opinions not mattering to us". Rather, being dictated too, that the way we practice war while not being in line with foreign alliances policies is going to bring about harsher terms etc, is not something we care for. [quote name='Veneke'] Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. [/quote] I will also add that I have just learned of one of our smaller, non-nuclear/SDI nations being nuked everyday for the past 4 days or so from a tF nation. No complaints from him or us. War is war. Just thought I would throw that out there.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='09 February 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1265641718' post='2168732'] I don't think as a member of a non-Nexus alliance I can officially state anything I'm just making a prediction based on these harsher than your average indi terms. [/quote] I'll take that a yes to my first question then. Makes no difference to how we go about our war anyways. Objective 1; do as much damage to the enemy as possible. Objective 2; take as little damage possible. Since we are on the significantly weaker side, and will take significant damage we are focussed on Objective 1 first and foremost. If that goes against Nexus's moral grounds for warfare, then tough.

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='09 February 2010 - 12:48 AM' timestamp='1265633318' post='2168616'] And I'll stop you at your second There's always a couple, for whatever reason. I wasn't necessarily talking about individual surrender terms either. Unless TORN wins this war, the alliance as a whole will have to surrender to The 57th. [/quote] You are right, there is always a couple. Ghosts and inactives etc. Also, I dont fully understand your statement. Are you implying througout your posts in this thread that us using nukes against Nexus will result in proportionally harsher terms provided they win the war? Is that also an Official Nexus standpoint in regards to their moral doctrines?

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='09 February 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1265632487' post='2168603'] The moral objection is written into The Nexus treaty which predates this war going nuclear by a long way. I'm not really interested in getting into an analogy war as they irritate the hell out of me, I shouldn't have bothered analogising in the first place. Either way, realistic expectations or not, if you go against the moral code of an alliance you will most likely end up surrendering to, then it's entirely your fault when/if they force you to deal with the consequences for those actions. [/quote] "If the war we enter is nuclear, then we accept that nuclear activities are occurring and will partake." Im pretty sure the war was nuclear before Nexus entered, so whats the problem here? Also, if Nexus wanted a nuclear free war then they should have approached us prior to their DoW. I can't gauruntee that anything would have ended up differently though.

Since when did Iraq aqquire nuclear weapons? But back on topic. Should we put disclaimers in our bios warning non-nuclear/SDI nations that declaring war on us will result in full military retaliation including nuclear weapons? Would that appease those morally against nuclear warfare? Because if that would stop them declaring on me I might have to think about it.

[quote name='Veneke' date='08 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1265624952' post='2168539'] Nuking non-nuclear capable nations is abhorrent. Have a look at the 57th Charter, we don't use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear opponents, nor do we initiate nuclear hostilities. This is our perspective. Don't expect it to change. TORN wants to ride the big green wagon all the way down to 5k NS, and start nuking people who can't return the favour, I consider that in poor form. We'll deal with you folk after the war. [/quote] So if im piled on by three of your nations, only one of which has nukes, them I am only supposed to engage in nuclear warfare with him and stay strictly conventional with the others? I'm sorry, but the one nuclear nation has the ability to restrict my conventional battle successes by using nuclear weapons against me. By using nukes on all of them, I increase the damage done and then can inflict more damage, as I can gain great GA odds on all of them, and can then loot cash, steal tech and land, and destroy infra with conventional methods. This also gives me the ability to fight for longer and not use up all of my WarChest. Tell me, why would I pass on the chance to launch my nukes? Your claim of poor form and abhorrency on our part holds no water. Also, in the last while it is fair to assume that Nukes and War go together. Unless stated otherwise War goes full nuclear. Thats just how it has been. I don't even know why I'm defending ourselves.

[quote name='merdesa' date='08 February 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1265612879' post='2168425'] Our guys want to fight no matter what, they're having too much fun to accept peace. If anyone from the WFF accepts this it would be the same people who never bother to participate in the alliance, and thus explaining why they have no clue why they're being attacked, or how to properly fight back --ghosts more or less. [/quote] Took the words right outa my mouth.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='08 February 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1265612411' post='2168416'] You fought in this war? [/quote] coulda fooled me

Welcome aboard

Alliance of 10 and under, fair game, Any more? not too cool. If you had an option from 11 to 15 I would have ticked that, but you didnt, so I hit 25. Nothing morally wrong with tech raiding im ny opinion. Its not like we are out to destroy them. Just after a few tech . Dont like it? get a protector to ward off raiders, simple.

Lets roll. Boy I've been waiting a long time to unleash my nukes. Im gunna have an awesome 4 way here with you guys. o/ tR edit: 6 way if you include my attacking slots

No you! LOL. If you cannot see the point I have made about her being the one with the uncalled for comments and insults not only in this thread but numerous others, while we are only responding to those attacks, and not actively looking to insult her then it is no point carrying on. We are way off topic, so I will end this debate here. Back on topic, we are fighting a war, some of us against MK who we hold no treaty with. What is the problem, really?

The attacks against her stem from her attacks and insults towards us. You dont see us creating threads to attack her do you. She finds our threads and insults and attacks us in a range of off topic ways.

I consider the majority of those who left around that time to have "bailed out". And yes, she did do some good things for TORN, which was appreciated. Then again, there are a lot of things she has done since she left that have kind of masked over all of the good to leave a bitter taste in our mouths. Posting in this thread about our "garunteed disdandment" is just one of them, and something that insults us greatly. Posts like that can trigger an emotional response and personal attacks against said person. Fully justified in doing so as well. So, please keep it above board and classy.

Thank you for yor comments Mike, we like you too . We have moved on and have no ill feelings towards MK. This is just simple war, and we like war. And we dont like staying rusty for too long

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting us with statements such as these.

I would expect nothing less than for you to tow the party line.

No, it is not true in anyway. There are those still here in this alliance after all we went through that would not let TORN die. MK stuck their neck out did they? Its not like they werent the champions of Karma, and had major major clout. Oh wait, they did. I dont fully know what went on in Archons head, so I cant say for sure what agenda he had if any. What I do know is it smelt of something fishy. We are rolling with our allies here, simple.

At the time this occured, info and decision making process was brought to the alliance general public. We definetly did not want to skip out on rolling with our Allies, and there was of course also that big mess with the NPO. What happened, happened, and we did not go back on our word to MK and join back in the fight to defend our true allies. Here we get to put that right and roll together. If anything you can say that MK played us (thats my opinion on events anyways). At the end of the day we are here because we are paying back our dues to our brothers with our blood. That is the reason for our entrance, no silly "betrayal" cries will receive any more attention from me. We are all hitting various targets as organised by the generals of our coalition. Thats it. And yes war is fun. Good luck to all involved, hope to see you on the battlefield. And dont take this play thing to personally.

I'm hearing a lot of talk about "MK saving Torn from the Karma war" and "MK saving Torn from disbandment".I just LOL so hard at that. You must be seriously misinformed there. You really underestimate our resolve, and have major misconceptions of what went on in our couple hours of war against OV.

Congratz IRON and Boris