Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

You can limit money donations if you want, but I imagine the wealthy would just find non-monentary ways to benefit the candidates they like.  Favors, lending of resources like a private jet, etc.

Donation to a "not-for-profit organization ran by the political candidate"

Hooray money laundering!

I didn't say it was morally correct, just that when you get powerful people with money it's really hard to stop them from hiring clever people who know how to break law. Moreover when you have a system where the candidate who spends the most on campaigning wins most of the time (anomalies like Trump aside), inevitably the candidates get stacked by people who accept donations cleverly

I'd rather have a mountain, or at least the earth itself between me and the radiation coming from a nuke.

Time to take a ticket to Svalbard

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think you're probably better off playing the odds with cancer than trying to survive in Svalbard without external trade. Humans got pretty good at infesting everywhere within physical possibility over the thousands of years before civilization: Svalbard wasn't one of them.

[ChairmanPoo]

Don't worry. Bring proof that you posted here at bay12games and I will give you a discount if you get leukemia. This only applies to veteran posters, though, no escaped lunatics.

[Loud Whispers]

I think you're probably better off playing the odds with cancer than trying to survive in Svalbard without external trade. Humans got pretty good at infesting everywhere within physical possibility over the thousands of years before civilization: Svalbard wasn't one of them.

There is nothing that could kill the Russian colony on Svalbard

Moreover, Svalbard is only for the first week after which most of the radioactive fallout wouldn't immediately kill you
Then, if you're lucky enough to still have a ship, begin recolonization of the mainland world
Shouldn't be too hard to start with Scotland and Norway, moving ever southwards as the human population increases

[Dorsidwarf]

I think you're probably better off playing the odds with cancer than trying to survive in Svalbard without external trade. Humans got pretty good at infesting everywhere within physical possibility over the thousands of years before civilization: Svalbard wasn't one of them.

There is nothing that could kill the Russian colony on Svalbard

Moreover, Svalbard is only for the first week after which most of the radioactive fallout wouldn't immediately kill you
Then, if you're lucky enough to still have a ship, begin recolonization of the mainland world
Shouldn't be too hard to start with Scotland and Norway, moving ever southwards as the human population increases

This sounds like the summary of the first part of your next CK2 game.

[TheDarkStar]

If either of the (very) large cities nearest to me I was nuked with a 100MT nuke, I'd be fine. Mostly because I live ~6 hours away from both of them. Odds are my state would escape getting nuked entirely (except possibly for some stuff further west if there are still missile silos out there) because there are basically no people to nuke.

[Loud Whispers]

This sounds like the summary of the first part of your next CK2 game.

[Svalbard miroslav saoshyant intensifies]

[uber pye]

If either of the (very) large cities nearest to me I was nuked with a 100MT nuke, I'd be fine. Mostly because I live ~6 hours away from both of them. Odds are my state would escape getting nuked entirely (except possibly for some stuff further west if there are still missile silos out there) because there are basically no people to nuke.

Yeah if a 100 MT nuke hit my nearby big city, i would be well in to the crispy critter range. so no chances for me if they bring the Czar bomb out

[Antioch]

If either of the (very) large cities nearest to me I was nuked with a 100MT nuke, I'd be fine. Mostly because I live ~6 hours away from both of them. Odds are my state would escape getting nuked entirely (except possibly for some stuff further west if there are still missile silos out there) because there are basically no people to nuke.

Yeah if a 100 MT nuke hit my nearby big city, i would be well in to the crispy critter range. so no chances for me if they bring the Czar bomb out

luckily the largest operational nukes are ~7MT IIRC.

[Amperzand]

Yeah, the biggest the US will admit to still having is 1.2 MT, I don't know about Russia, but they specialize in sticking a ridiculous amount of warheads on their missiles, not so much high yield ICBMs.

It's definitely worth remembering that the worst of the fallout from a standard thermonuke will have faded within a month. Cobalt bombs or other salted nukes, not so much. Cobalt 60 has like a 30 year half life, it doesn't get close to safe until about a century after detonation.

[smjjames]

So, Sen. Lindsey Graham is threatening to propose a measure to defund (or otherwise slash funding) the UN if it doesn't repeal the amendment that condemns Israel.

Certainly not the first time Congress (or Lindsey Graham) have clashed with the UN. This article mentions that it would be virtually impossible (or otherwise really difficult) to overturn it because it would require no vetoes from the permanent members on the UN Security Council, and the rest of the permanent members supported it.

It'll likely end up with Congress playing a game of chicken vs losing voting priviledges in the general assembly. Though I have no idea if Congress has had a confrontation this bad with the UN before.

[PTTG??]

It'd be cool if we had representitives that interested in providing for American interests, instead of Israeli ones.

[smjjames]

It'd be cool if we had representitives that interested in providing for American interests, instead of Israeli ones.

But Israeli interests ARE American interests. According to the GOP and some Dems.

By all appearances, the Trump admin is going to take a really hard-line and rightwing approach to it.

[Rockphed]

It'd be cool if we had representitives that interested in providing for American interests, instead of Israeli ones.

Yes, because a western style democracy in the middle east is not in America's best interests.

[Karnewarrior]

It'd be cool if we had representitives that interested in providing for American interests, instead of Israeli ones.

Or supported Human Interest through working with the UN instead of against it, but I'm biased because I love the UN.

Yes, because a western style democracy in the middle east is not in America's best interests.

Personally I think a Constitutional Monarchy like GB has might be better for the Middle East. It'd be less of a transition from Crazed Dictator>Parliament to Parliament>Crazed Dictator than from Crazed Dictator>Parliament to Crazed President>SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND STATES AND FREEDOM TO OWN FIREARMS AND JESUS GOTTA HAVE THAT JESUS

But really nothing is going to work until the Muslim World starts reforming away from this dark-age style fanaticism they've got going on right now.