Azrael Alexander Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This was my policy following our abrogation of the so-called 'Think of the Children' pact. We only enacted it in our engagement against FAN during my tenure, and then only because we knew we'd be getting nuked anyway. I never was a big fan of the big red button. It was a misguided prejudice from a bygone age. Cheers for clearing that up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm fairly sure you first-struck us Did we? >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Did we? >_> It's pretty moot really. That war was going to be nuclear, regardless of who did what. If Polar really did strike first, which I can't remember either way, it was the right thing to do. I think this new formal policy clears that up. Edited March 23, 2009 by RandomInterrupt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This should be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Nice Polaris. It's nice to see you pledge to defend one of your strongest allies in the event of a defensive war, by any means necessary. Kudos. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Don't attack us or STA then This is a good idea. Listen to the man. We do love our tigers. We love you too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I'm fairly sure you first-struck us To be honest, this is one of the very reasons why we're clarifying the policy. When a Coalition of eight alliances issues a statement saying that they will launch nuclear attacks on everyone of every alliance if a nuke is launched by any single member of any alliance in our loose "coalition", some of whom assumed they were fighting their last war before disbandment (which was true for them by the way), you sort of figure that things are going to get nuclear regardless of what you do. Does it matter at that point who hit the button a split second earlier than the other? If anyone wants to sit here and argue with us that we weren't about to be hit with nuclear weapons that night regardless of what we did, go right ahead. Rather than letting this debate degrade into a circuitous "you started; no you started it" loop, I will simply state that if we're ever in a similar situation again there will be no question about who started it. It will be us. Edited March 23, 2009 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Congratulations on your rebounding success! I am impressed; you must have some amazing organization over there! Also, I like your doctrine. Good stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 To be honest, this is one of the very reasons why we're clarifying the policy. When a Coalition of eight alliances issues a statement saying that they will launch nuclear attacks on everyone of every alliance if a nuke is launched by any single member of any alliance in our loose "coalition", some of whom assumed they were fighting their last war before disbandment (which was true for them by the way), you sort of figure that things are going to get nuclear regardless of what you do. Does it matter at that point who hit the button a split second earlier than the other? If anyone wants to sit here and argue with us that we weren't about to be hit with nuclear weapons that night regardless of what we did, go right ahead. Rather than letting this debate degrade into a circuitous "you started; no you started it" loop, I will simply state that the next time we're in a similar situation there will be no question about who started it. It will be us. Especially when you had MK aggressively and enthusiastically first strike nuking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm fairly sure you first-struck us We must have rubbed off on them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ochocinco Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Penguin, you are an incredible asset to Polaris. Your hard work has certainly paid off! Congratulations, NpO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Aldarich Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Congrats NpO, may those nukes be put to good use in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Awesome policy Polaris, we appreciate the lovin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esukaresu Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This is awesome. Polaris Rising! o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This is a very pleasant announcement to read. Especially that article II part. <3 Polaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm sorry if this has been addressed previously but I feel I must give my two cents on the issue. I was just reading an article on the New England Journal of Medicine which highlights the startiling correlation between prolongued pressing of red buttons to calloused fingers. With this comes the inevitable workers compensation claims, disability, and an overall loss in productivity. How does the New Polar Order plan to address these legitimate medical issues? Medical concerns aside, congratulations and to repeat what's been already said, your play on words is both clever and refreshing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homura Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This is a policy I support. We're better prepared for war than I think I've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm sorry if this has been addressed previously but I feel I must give my two cents on the issue. I was just reading an article on the New England Journal of Medicine which highlights the startiling correlation between prolongued pressing of red buttons to calloused fingers. With this comes the inevitable workers compensation claims, disability, and an overall loss in productivity. How does the New Polar Order plan to address these legitimate medical issues?Two words, my friend... trained monkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ventus ex Gutter Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I love this, particularly line II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 This is a fine achievement and a fine policy. Forward Polaris! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 To be honest, this is one of the very reasons why we're clarifying the policy. When a Coalition of eight alliances issues a statement saying that they will launch nuclear attacks on everyone of every alliance if a nuke is launched by any single member of any alliance in our loose "coalition", some of whom assumed they were fighting their last war before disbandment (which was true for them by the way), you sort of figure that things are going to get nuclear regardless of what you do. Does it matter at that point who hit the button a split second earlier than the other? If anyone wants to sit here and argue with us that we weren't about to be hit with nuclear weapons that night regardless of what we did, go right ahead. Rather than letting this debate degrade into a circuitous "you started; no you started it" loop, I will simply state that if we're ever in a similar situation again there will be no question about who started it. It will be us. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you made a poor decision, but I think that you did legally first strike us which was apparently against your policy at the time. We expected it though ... although we did try to keep that front conventional I think. Anyway, your new policy is sensible and I thought it was pretty much what you had anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you made a poor decision, but I think that you did legally first strike us which was apparently against your policy at the time. We expected it though ... although we did try to keep that front conventional I think. Anyway, your new policy is sensible and I thought it was pretty much what you had anyway I went and looked our old policy up. It stated that any nuclear armed Polar nation who was hit by a nuke was to respond with his full arsenal against all of his opponents, no matter their nuclear stockpile, nation strength or AA. So, pretty much a forcibly measured response that allowed for the continued escalation of nuclear warfare across the alliances we were fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'm sorry if this has been addressed previously but I feel I must give my two cents on the issue. I was just reading an article on the New England Journal of Medicine which highlights the startiling correlation between prolongued pressing of red buttons to calloused fingers. With this comes the inevitable workers compensation claims, disability, and an overall loss in productivity. How does the New Polar Order plan to address these legitimate medical issues?Medical concerns aside, congratulations and to repeat what's been already said, your play on words is both clever and refreshing. I don't know about anyone else, but I press the big red button with my beak. I would advise others to do the same if they wish to avoid callouses on their weaker extremities. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you made a poor decision, but I think that you did legally first strike us which was apparently against your policy at the time. We expected it though ... although we did try to keep that front conventional I think. Anyway, your new policy is sensible and I thought it was pretty much what you had anyway Well, if that's truly the case, then I hope you'll agree to waive any sort of legal action against us after all we've been through since. It'll never happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceptor o Sordidness Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 It's been frightening and awesome seeing these numbers climb so quickly, bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bludshot Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'm proud to own a few of those 2,000 + nuclear weapons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.