Print

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

[mainiac]

As for Sealand, sure, it would be quickly destroyed, but is it really worth sacrificing London?

London would not be sacrificed.  Whichever dumbass thought it was a good idea to hold the UK hostage would be dead and there would be nobody to retaliate.

It wouldn't be an invasion, it would be a single bombing run.  Boom, dead, gone and soon forgotten except as a historical curiosity.

Common estimate is that NK has 14 000 pieces of artillery aimed at Seoul. Sure, it wouldn't be literally flattened (even Stalingrad had plenty of buildings left standing at the end of the battle), but destruction would be immense. Too immense to make invasion of North Korea feasible.

How does killing south korean civilians and destroying a bunch of buildings damage the US and South Korean militaries?

[Aklyon]

I call God Emperor.

Dangit.

[DJ]

Sealand is actually pretty close to London. They could probably mount the nuke on a torpedo and detonate it in Thames. And they could rig it up so it's automatically launched when the glorious leader's hear stops.

As for NK, losing lots of SK civilians may not directly damage the military, but it defeats the purpose of the war.

[mainiac]

Sealand is actually pretty close to London. They could probably mount the nuke on a torpedo and detonate it in Thames. And they could rig it up so it's automatically launched when the glorious leader's hear stops.

Again in your highly speculative scenario you are assuming THERE IS ANYBODY TO LAUNCH THE ATTACK.

You can not hold a hostage against someone who can strike first without retaliation.  Sealand would have no warning of a British airstrike on them until they were already dead.  The British would have absolutely no trouble destroying the launch site.  It's like me threatening to draw my gun and shoot the president... with a secret service agent's gun against my temple.  It's not a hostage situation, it's a death wish.

[kaenneth]

I've learned enough from the Bioshock games to see where this leads.

To be a nation you need to have the force of arms (your own, or another nation with interest in your existence) to protect your sovereignty sufficiently to make an invasion cost more than the value of resources you hold.

If you got nothing (like Sealand) you don't need much of a military; but you also... got nothing.

Most  modern conceived micronations depend on creating resources where none exist; usually via intellectual property; which needs little land or people to be of value; but once you create that value, you'll need military.

[DJ]

You don't need a very elaborate launch site for a torpedo. It could easily be hidden a safe distance from Sealand.

[IronyOwl]

You don't need a very elaborate launch site for a torpedo. It could easily be hidden a safe distance from Sealand.

But you'd need to get it in the first place, and maintain it, and guard it against detection. If Britain decides London is in possible danger, do you really think they're going to have difficulty finding what is essentially a gun sitting in the ocean- at a spot where a lone guy could reach it while maintaining a clear shot to the target- with a remote controlled lever taped to the trigger?

It's like saying some guy could declare his house a sovereign nation by planting a bomb under one of his neighbors' houses. It doesn't deter anything, it just causes the offended party to go find and disable it, THEN kick the guy's ass for having the gall to threaten them.

[mainiac]

Basically in order to make a preventive strike possible you need multiple nuclear submarines.

[Megaman]

The only reasons micronations are allowed to exist is because big countries don't have any reason to care.

[PTTG??]

Which is essentially the reason big nations exist. If there was anything inside of Madagascar that India wanted, and wouldn't cost more to take than to buy, do you think Madagascar would exist?

[Aklyon]

I though Madagascar was there to irritate and confound Pandemic 2 players.

[mainiac]

Which is essentially the reason big nations exist. If there was anything inside of Madagascar that India wanted, and wouldn't cost more to take than to buy, do you think Madagascar would exist?

Cynicism in place of argument.  Note that you didn't actually provide any new information or arguments, just restated the same thing in cynical hypothetical.  I feel like this is a big problem with politics today.  One is entitled to automatically assume the worst about the outcomes of government/foreigners/the UN/globalization/protectionism/religions/atheists.  And you are taken seriously and affirmed in that cynicism as if you were behaving out of some great wisdom instead of deliberately biasing your observations.  It is to politics what angst is to art.

Yes I do believe Madagascar would exist in your cynical hypothetical.  People feel squeamish about the whole killing people and nicking their stuff in this day and age and India isn't known for being a really aggressive nation.

[Grakelin]

How does killing south korean civilians and destroying a bunch of buildings damage the US and South Korean militaries?

This isn't an RTS, Mainiac. Flatenning a nation's major city actually does do incredible damage to it. You might as well ask what damage sinking Manhatten will do to the US Army.

[mainiac]

How does killing south korean civilians and destroying a bunch of buildings damage the US and South Korean militaries?

This isn't an RTS, Mainiac. Flatenning a nation's major city actually does do incredible damage to it. You might as well ask what damage sinking Manhatten will do to the US Army.

Short term?  Almost nothing.

If a war was fought between the US and NK, it would be done entirely with weapons built before the war.  There just wouldn't be time to make more weapons before the war was already over.  Killing a bunch of civilians in Seoul would just increase the speed with which the South and the US would send troops northward.

[Blargityblarg]

How does killing south korean civilians and destroying a bunch of buildings damage the US and South Korean militaries?

This isn't an RTS, Mainiac. Flatenning a nation's major city actually does do incredible damage to it. You might as well ask what damage sinking Manhatten will do to the US Army.

Short term?  Almost nothing.

If a war was fought between the US and NK, it would be done entirely with weapons built before the war.  There just wouldn't be time to make more weapons before the war was already over.  Killing a bunch of civilians in Seoul would just increase the speed with which the South and the US would send troops northward.

But so long as there is that threat to Seoul, nobody can step on North Korea's toes.