Jump to content

"For the Love of God, Think of the Children!"


Sturm Soldat

Recommended Posts

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 :P
[/quote]
I agree...nukes are essential to war. Anyone thinking otherwise is full of fail.

Edited by Wartooth II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...