youwish959 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) They had warning. We intend to keep it. We will *not* condone the use of nuclear weaponry, nor will we condone the use of spies to deplete our foe's nuclear stockpile. However, should either of these tactics be employed by the UBD, we will respond in turn. One would take that to understand that it would become a full nuclear war, not that they would be placed on ZI. To me it seems a little weird for an alliance endorsing first strike nukes to ZI for first strikes. Edited April 15, 2009 by youwish959 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uralica Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I can get behind this. o/ MK - very honorable move. Loved you guys when I was CCC, still love ya as a TOOLie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted April 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) I hate to be the rain on the parade of love for MK, because I like MK as much as the next guy, but...Seriously? ZI for nuking? Nukes are a legitimate weapon of war as you guys rightly acknowledge. Nicely done with much class MK though I have one question. UBD nations that went nuclear why are they being punished dont you also have a first strike policy. I applaud the replacement of spied away nukes it shows the level of Class MK has. Archon you trully are a great leader. o/ MK Leadership on both sides of the conflict gave strict orders not to use nuclear weapons. And, if you haven't been paying attention since the end of the last major war, MK has no first strike policy, we evaluate our nuclear strategy for each conflict we enter. Please stop spreading fallacies. Edited April 15, 2009 by AirMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertFitzy Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 looks like you two got to have some fun o/ UBD o/ MK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) One would take that to understand that it would become a full nuclear war, not that they would be placed on ZI. To me it seems a little weird for an alliance endorsing first strike nukes to ZI for first strikes. If they had gone nuclear in mass that's how we would have responded. However because this was one guy violating UBD's clearly established policy this is by our estimation the most appropriate course of action. Edited April 15, 2009 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Leadership on both sides of the conflict gave strict orders not to use nuclear weapons. And, if you haven't been paying attention since the end of the last major war, MK has no first strike policy, we evaluate our nuclear strategy for each conflict we enter. Please stop spreading fallacies. Okay, so then wouldn't it be up to UBD to punish their members for using nukes? My apologies, for spreading these "fallacies". I thought the policy was reinstated with the removal of that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 You'll be happy to note that I successfully achieved my trip to the lower echelons of the CN food chain this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Actually, yes, it would be up to UBD. Except that said nukers did so in a "going rogue" fashion, having dropped AA. So MK does not consider them UBD members, and is acting accordingly. Also, to UBD - you can thank Russell for this. Don't waste him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Salovsky Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Wonderfully handled... mdnss69 already at his ZI Very classy move overall MK. o/ MK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted April 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Okay, so then wouldn't it be up to UBD to punish their members for using nukes? My apologies, for spreading these "fallacies". I thought the policy was reinstated with the removal of that term. What part of "we never had a first strike policy to begin with" is so hard to grasp? The term that was removed was getting attacked by the NPO for first strike nuking no matter what the circumstances. Please if you would like to discuss this query me. We don't need to turn this positive thread into a discussion about the NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hombre de Murcielago Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Very Classy from the Kingdom. Best of luck to UBD in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOONS Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) Well done on peace MK and UBD. Edited April 15, 2009 by Darth Maul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdnss69 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Wonderfully handled...mdnss69 already at his ZI Very classy move overall MK. o/ MK Erm, 4487.23 infra was assisted ZI. The remainder of my warchest will flow to UBD nations in bill lock if MK stop nuking the beyjazus out it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Actually, yes, it would be up to UBD. Except that said nukers did so in a "going rogue" fashion, having dropped AA. So MK does not consider them UBD members, and is acting accordingly.Also, to UBD - you can thank Russell for this. Don't waste him. Thanks Archon What part of "we never had a first strike policy to begin with" is so hard to grasp? The term that was removed was getting attacked by the NPO for first strike nuking no matter what the circumstances. Please if you would like to discuss this query me. We don't need to turn this positive thread into a discussion about the NPO. I don't think I made it about NPO at all. Though they are evil. I could argue with you about this stupid stuff all day, but the whole nuke first strike thing wasn't my point at all, just a minor "fallacy". However, I will offer my mindless praise for you if that is all your looking for. Seriously though, I'm liking the shortened conflicts for minor things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Thanks ArchonI don't think I made it about NPO at all. Though they are evil. I could argue with you about this stupid stuff all day, but the whole nuke first strike thing wasn't my point at all, just a minor "fallacy". However, I will offer my mindless praise for you if that is all your looking for. Seriously though, I'm liking the shortened conflicts for minor things. I think this is the misunderstanding: we've never, even before the noCB war, had a set-in stone policy where we absolutely WOULD first strike nuke. We didn't nuke WAPA in both of those wars. While under NPO terms, we had to have a set in stone policy that we wouldn't first strike nuke. Before the noCB war and now, we have had a policy that we will first strike nuke if we feel it is appropriate to do so. Wars like this and the wars with WAPA didn't meet that condition. Nukes in this war would have been way overkill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empirica Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Classy move by a classy alliance. Good job MK. Congrats on peace UBD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Well done in quickly agreeing on peace, MK and UBD. My special admiration goes to the UBD, for having gained MK's respect in such a short time. Somebody there musts really be doing it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Glad to see this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You'll be happy to note that I successfully achieved my trip to the lower echelons of the CN food chain this morning. Shoulda thought about that earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerbum Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I very much like how MK offered to pay for the nukes destroyed that were never used. These are terms that I like. Thank you for bringing some reasonable terms back to CN, MK. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Cata Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) edit: ah whatever Edited April 16, 2009 by Comrade Cata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drebin Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) Hey, look, I was mentioned. I'm important. Obligatory o/ MK and o/ UBD Good luck, UBD. I shall be here to assist in my limited capacities. Edited April 16, 2009 by Drebin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) edit: joke ruined by "rules" Nice job, MK. Edited April 16, 2009 by RandomInterrupt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) Crappy move from a normally excellent alliance. When you first made your declaration of war I hope, nay I knew, that we'd get a solid week of shens and dramatics out of it. And here you are, taking the war down to three measly nations with surrender terms so cheap you're practically giving them away!Pathetic. I have always held MK in great regard but you have done great damage on this day. Please do not disappoint me with future wars of untold aggression and malice. Also good show, MK. Honorable and excellent as always. Also hello Random how are you I am fine I hope you are also fine. And I see what you did there. Edited April 16, 2009 by Electron Sponge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think this is the misunderstanding: we've never, even before the noCB war, had a set-in stone policy where we absolutely WOULD first strike nuke. We didn't nuke WAPA in both of those wars. While under NPO terms, we had to have a set in stone policy that we wouldn't first strike nuke. Before the noCB war and now, we have had a policy that we will first strike nuke if we feel it is appropriate to do so. Wars like this and the wars with WAPA didn't meet that condition. Nukes in this war would have been way overkill. Yes, that was a mistake on my part. However, that in no way changes my point. 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.