Caleb279 Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 [quote name='Sturm Soldat' timestamp='1282163088' post='2421933'] Yes, but either way, the weak cannot contend with the strong, nor the small with the massive [/quote] Thats how the world works. Nukes make this game fun, and there's not a chance in hell I'd ever sign this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 The MK nukefest during the NoCB war comes to mind as one of the more awesome sights to behold in my time here. Not only as it a thing of beauty, it was a tactic that paid off well for them. Why would anyone wish to limit their options. Nuking is the best friend an outnumbered alliance has. To make victory a hollow one for your enemies, specially if you stand fast in the end war negotiations while being able to nuke daily. On the flip side, an interesting dynamic could be introduced if parties uninvolved in the conflict brought pressure to bear to hasten the end of the conflict if their economies went south. Do not know how successful such lobbying would be but it would be interesting to see. With any luck the uninvolved would become overbearing and then we can have escalation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Nuclear weapons are a staple of warfare, you'd be an idiot to not use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulmar Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 I like my children to have sweet mutations like Spiderman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 This is one cat that is not going back in its bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 As said before there is really no point in bringing back FtLoFTotC!, or whatever the abbreviation is, back. Nukes are not that deathly anymore and with the magical fairies(?) keeping their effects on our enviroment capped, using nukes doesn't even really affect planet Bob as whole so much that it would matter enough to control their use. Besides pressing the big red button is cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartooth II Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1282191147' post='2422612'] The MK nukefest during the NoCB war comes to mind as one of the more awesome sights to behold in my time here. Not only as it a thing of beauty, it was a tactic that paid off well for them. Why would anyone wish to limit their options. Nuking is the best friend an outnumbered alliance has. To make victory a hollow one for your enemies, specially if you stand fast in the end war negotiations while being able to nuke daily. On the flip side, an interesting dynamic could be introduced if parties uninvolved in the conflict brought pressure to bear to hasten the end of the conflict if their economies went south. Do not know how successful such lobbying would be but it would be interesting to see. With any luck the uninvolved would become overbearing and then we can have escalation [/quote] I agree...nukes are essential to war. Anyone thinking otherwise is full of fail. Edited August 19, 2010 by Wartooth II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1282160279' post='2421878'] For the sake of role-playing I'd like to agree with that, but strategically talking this convention left a bad taste in my mouth since one of the reasons of "The League" had no chance in GW II and GW III was because they couldn't use nukes. [/quote] I wasn't around during those wars. Why couldn't The League use nukes? [i]Did they choose not to?[/i] (Makes no sense to me) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Because they were signatories to the Convention that's quoted in the OP here. Though they could have withdrawn and nuked anyway ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morwens Flames Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 The reason the Orders supported the anti-nuclear convention was because they didn’t have as many nuclear weapons as their opponents. Therefore, they started a massive anti-nuclear campaign, which culminated in the convention referenced in the OP. It was honestly the most successful propaganda CN has ever seen. Of course, the fact that [ooc] that sort of player [/ooc] couldn’t give a flying $%&@ about nukes is demonstrated by the fact that Tygaland nuked Duffman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall McMurphy Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 What if nukes lead to stagnation and a lowering number of players? I think it would be feasible to believe that someone with a strong nation got nuked to the stone age and decided to call it quits. Even feasible to believe this happens many times per war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 My children learn nuclear warfare first, conventional warfare second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) I'm not in government, but... Hell no. Edited August 19, 2010 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 The thing is, there will never be public outrage about GRL unless it's uncapped. Now that could make things interesting as far as the political implications of being the first to take a war nuclear. Even then though, I doubt we'll see this treaty come back... People will just try to get their enemy to nuke first so they can claim innocence when people get angry that the 65.78 GRL is killing their nations. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 If you included the clause that the terms of warfare to which the signatories adhere only apply to signatories, then that would clear up some of the potential loopholes. So, if an alliance outside the treaty declares war on a signatory, the signatory will go nukes-free on it, but two signatories will not use nukes on one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwuss Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 I promise to not use nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 We will never sign such a treaty. Doing so would endanger our people. Our nations promote the use and build up of nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Oh goodness, this brought back some fond memories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturm Soldat Posted August 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 [quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1282259180' post='2423573'] I promise to not use nukes. [/quote] I'll take your word on that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromancer V4L Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 I wholeheartedly agree with you, fine sir. We had an excellent discussion regarding this topic when my leader visited your fine nation, and I pledge to support your cause. Until civilized people regain control of the land, disparity will continue. The people will learn that destruction feeds only chaos, and order will rise again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 I wholly support non-nuclear wars when it favors me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 I thought about the children. Then I blew them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 Nukes are purchased to be used. If you don't want to be nuked, go to GPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Throne Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 Who would waste 4000 nukes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromancer V4L Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 Nuclear weaponry should be a deterrent. You all wonder why war occurs less often, and why the periods of peace are so long, and yet you launch nuclear weapons at will, completely destroying your lands and those of your enemies, causing rebuild time to grow and crippling your nation and alliance indefinitely. However, I do not expect those such as yourselves to understand. Only when civilization and honor returns to the land can common sense rise once again. 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.