Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

I just wonder if it is possible to add in.

As an random event (maybe triggered if the Conservatives own the Presidency), the United States may declare War, as indicated in an Newspaper Article on the subject.

(Technically, according to the US Consitution, for war to be declared, Congress will have to approve such a declaration, but in this day and age, the President, as commander in chief, can easily deploy troops wherever he wants without needing such a declaration. In any event, the whole idea of 'War' is inaccurate, as it usually involves fighting on many different fronts...)

Wars start off very popular amongst the whole nation, and then naturally decline in popularity if the wars end up being too much of a quamire. Of course, the LCS can assist in this natural decline by conducting Protests...

However, the true reason for War is that since the US society is geared to fight this new enemy, whatever it is, society's views on the issues will start to change in order to help counter this new threat. This leads to the true reasons War is bad: War subtly shift the people's views on certain issues to C+.

Some of these 'Wars' are indeed a bit of a stretch. I kinda assume Free Speech will already be looked down upon during an War, so that is also affected during an War. There can be only be more than one War at a time!

*War on Terrorism (i.e., invading the Middle East): Privacy, Death Penalty, Police Behavior
*War on Communism (i.e, waging a cold war against a resurging China and other leftist nations): Corporate Regulation, Nuclear Power, Worker Benefits
*War on the Anti-Christ (i.e, waging a cold war against the European Union and leftists seeking to undermine religion): Abortion, Homosexual Tolerance, Flag Burning
*War on Tyranny (i.e, this desire to spread uniquely 'American Values' all across the globe [since, if Americans thought of it, it must be correct], by force if necessary...pits all Americans against Non-Americans): Gun Control, Taxes, Pollution

I cannot think of any War that could in any way 'Animal Research'. Sorry. The War on Secularism is inspired by me reading Chrisitan properganda declaring the European Union the "Beast" that will lead to the rise of the "Anti-Christ. The War on Tyranny is a bit of a stretch, but it is traced to a Liberal advocating for an American Empire to help make the world more democratic...I can see such a belief be (further) perveted.

News articles will peridoically appear stating if America is winning or losing said war. If it is winning, support for the war goes up...if it is losing, support for the war will go down.

A war will only terminate when either the President or Congress offically declares the war 'over'.

[beorn080]

Actually the president needs congressional approval to deploy any troops but I believe the marines. Once he gets approval he can deploy them any way he wants.

[Servant Corps]

Huh. I was wrong then. "War Declarations" do in fact need Congressional Approval.

[ChemicalVengence]

maybe change the "War on Tyranny" to the "War on Counter-culture" like what Regan did. All those topics as well as animal research would work since the counter culture of the 60s-80s was all based off highly leftist ways of thinking.

[Servant Corps]

The main problem is that I still believe that 'Wars', for whatever reason, has to be against...you know...other countries...just for flavor purposes (hence why I dislike War on Poverty, the War on Drugs at least have a small military aspect). I don't exactly know what nations today would advocate 'counter-culture', and thus be a threat to American security...

[ChemicalVengence]

Basically any leftist terror group, but maybe that's getting too close to the War on Terror....

[Servant Corps]

Basically any leftist terror group, but maybe that's getting too close to the War on Terror....

Got it. War on the Liberal Crime Squad. War on Terrorism is mostly focused on the Middle East.

[E. Albright]

"War on Tyranny is an awkward mouthful, but it's definitely a real American phenomenon, as a quick perusal of nearly any neoconservative screed will prove. It's normal framed as a "War for Democracy" rather than a "War against Totalitarianism", but it's there.

War on Drugs would be an obvious one. Go after "narco-trafficking/narco-terrorist" countries; negatively affects Police Behavior, Privacy; increases chances brownie sellers get busted (and makes their penalty more harsh).

The major problem I see with these from a gameplay perspective is that most of these would ideologically demand at least a C if not C+ Administration and Congress to see them proposed and put into action. And at that point, the areas affected would presumably already be fairly conservative, and so the added effect would be little felt.

[viskaslietuvai]

If you want an Animal testing war, though it would shift it liberal, "WAR ON THE GENETIC MUTANTS!" could do the trick.
If you want to get a religion bump on there add "FROM HELL!"
However, for something war related, you could say that genetically altered dolphins turn out to be amazingly adept troops. They've been engineered to walk on land now, too. That'd get some animal testing support.

[Servant Corps]

The major problem I see with these from a gameplay perspective is that most of these would ideologically demand at least a C if not C+ Administration and Congress to see them proposed and put into action. And at that point, the areas affected would presumably already be fairly conservative, and so the added effect would be little felt. 

Hm. Good point. Maybe tie it to being the War being caused by an 'random event' occuring near the endgame, like how 9/11 is commonly seen as the start of the War on Terror, to provide a challenge to the LCS...Just as society is turning more liberal, a sudden event intervenes.

I'm sure the more liberal conspiracy theorists would likely see such a sudden buildup to war as a last-ditch Conservative effort to remain revelant.

[mainiac]

Or there could just be normal wars against other nations to keep the public distracted, making the LCS's actions unpopular (traitors in a time of war!) and less effective.

[BishopX]

Actually the president needs congressional approval to deploy any troops but I believe the marines. Once he gets approval he can deploy them any way he wants.

Quick note, The president needs congressional approval to declare war and fund a war. He does not need presidential power to order any military force to invade another country, it's just impolite to do so without previously declaring war...

Also, concepts like "war on Drugs" or "War on Terror" or "War on Poverty" are generaly not actually wars, they are generally just campaigns by the exeutive branch or a set of laws passed by the legislative branch. If the public becomes interested enough in something I could see some branch of the government declare a "war".

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Quick note, The president needs congressional approval to declare war and fund a war. He does not need presidential power to order any military force to invade another country, it's just impolite to do so without previously declaring war...

The United States Government thinks declaring wars is for chumps. There hasn't been a war declaration since World War II. The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress requires the President to report to Congress the ongoing status of all military conflicts that US armed forces are engaged in and receive Congressional approval from Congress for military actions lasting more than 60 days. This at least is usually respected, but it was rather bluntly ignored by President Clinton in the Kosovo campaign, to some protest but no real consequence.

[E. Albright]

Quick note, The president needs congressional approval to declare war and fund a war. He does not need presidential power to order any military force to invade another country, it's just impolite to do so without previously declaring war...

Weeeeeeell... That's arguable. Advocates of imperial presidency would agree with this, but while this is of late a popular theory it's legitimacy is questionable, to say the least. The War Powers Act specifies:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

As Jonathan points out, though, this is not always respected by the dear old executive.