Print

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

[Il Palazzo]

I really don't see how a small country having nukes is more dangerous than a large one.

[Phantom]

No one would expect it at first. If they launch the missiles before they react, Cue Fallout Plot.
And on the thread topic: What!? EU Super State? Personally, I think it'd probably become bankrupt, everyone leaves, then it collapses.

[Akigagak]

Okay.....

What are you basing this on, exactly.

And Strife, how much thought went into that post? Good God man.

[Strife26]

I really don't see how a small country having nukes is more dangerous than a large one.

Nukes are orders of magnitude more powerful than anything else.

Iran with high explosives = meh
Iran with nukes = Call of Duty Modern Warfare Scenario

There are two types of nukes, tactical and strategic.

A tactical nuke is for use by a general (or solider at least). Wipes out Strife and his tank company. 60 lives or so.

A strategic nuke is for use by a politician. Wipes out Fargo, West Fargo, Moorhead, and irradiates the surrounding area. Bad things.


Normally, you can trust a country not to use nukes, because of MAD (mutual assured destruction). You nuke us, and we'll turn your entire fucking mud ball of a country in a crater. However, the more countries that get nukes, the better the chance that some idiot will use them. I don't even know how big of a nuclear war it'd take for us to get nuclear winter (although it might cancel out global warming ).

For secondary concerns, we've got small countries being generally more unstable. Iran + nukes + civil war = rouge Rep guard division with a warhead?
Also the fact that no nuclear country has ever been attacked in a conventional war. What happens when the Saudis are pushing on Tehran? Will the Iranians respond with a nuke?
Finally, we've got the fact that it's much easier to steal from small countries. It'd be a fluke of an ungodly level to get a warhead out from the US. Collapsed USSR? Much easier. Iran? We don't know. Iran in the middle of a massive civil war? Fuck.


Honestly, nukes scare the crap out of me. The more nuclear parties, the worse the instability gets. Note however, that it'd be a disaster if the entire world were to disarm their arsenals.

Mind you, Palazzo's thought does have some value. I'd rather a small stable country get nukes than a big unstable one (A nuclear Switzerland would be kinda cool, no?) However, more nuclear countries = bad.

Not to much thought, that's what I think about on a regular basis. That and zombie preparedness. And knives.

[Nilocy]

I love the casual racism here.

Anyway, I doubt theres going to be a WW3... I think we have to many large powers for any small country to dare attack another one.

I also believe we've passed the whole imperialist mind set when it comes to war aswell. Theres no countries any more that're wanting to expand their borders... which brings two really good things with it, one the country won't attack anywhere, and two the countries will start fousing on making life better for themselves...

And strife, way to much thought went into those posts. And this thread isn't about nukes. Since they're fairly redundant now. I don't think anyone has a deathwish so much to even consider using one.

[Areyar]

big countries won't openly attack smaller ones.
They will just pressure them into agreeing to all their terms and demands, such as first choice access to natural resources.
The small ones can't say no, unless there is another major power also wanting access to the same resources.
Then the local govt. has a deathcentence on it's head; one or both of the majors will plot to make it fall. In the created chaos and power vacuum, the major powers can come in as peacemakers. Peace will be measured in the amaount of resources exported. Probably (as with Iraq, it will probably be traded for credit that can be exclusively spent with one of the conflicted powers' allies.)

That is how I see the future: extortion and backstabbing. mobster antics.

Edit: EU hmm. Tony is an americophile, so is our local PM.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

gah, don't like the EU.
If they're banning 60 watt light bulbs in the interests of the environment, how long is it before other things get banned? How long until there's a travel radius?
Personally, I don't view the EU as acting in the interests of all the member states, nor on the interests of the individual citizens.

[Nilocy]

Well, mostly the stuff that sounds like nonsense that comes from the EU isn't, its just right wing papers/tabloids just making up shit cause they can. The 60 Watt lightbulbs, hell I don't care about it, if anything its good for the environment.

I just wish they'd get their act together and come up with a proper long term power supply plan. Such as funding the fusion reactor, or more investment in nuclear power.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Such as funding the fusion reactor, or more investment in nuclear power.

The hippies are scared shitless by nuclear powers.

Even though it's the best, most efficient energy generators (except Anti-matter, but you want to use large-scale anti-matter? Fuck you. I choose nukes. At least they won't get massive existence failure syndrome.)

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Well, mostly the stuff that sounds like nonsense that comes from the EU isn't, its just right wing papers/tabloids just making up shit cause they can. The 60 Watt lightbulbs, hell I don't care about it, if anything its good for the environment.

I just wish they'd get their act together and come up with a proper long term power supply plan. Such as funding the fusion reactor, or more investment in nuclear power.

Actually, energy saving lightbulbs are chemical death monsters. Full of mercury and fluorides and god knows. Very hard to dispose of.

[Aqizzar]

Not knowing much about the internal metrics of Europe, but trying to study it, I don't fully understand the reticence against an over-arching political body.  Sure, I'm all in favor of national pride and democratic accountability, but what else are you going to do?  That many economically developed nations with that many people and that many different cultural spheres and statute laws packed into that small a region needs some kind of supra-regulatory organization, if only to smooth over trade agreements and criminal rendition.  Come on, you need the solidarity to fight off American control over your economies.  Of course, it sounds like it's being crippled with boneheaded bureaucratic minutia, but hey you people invented that stuff, it's about time you found a way to solve it.

Spoiler: What the Hell, I'll spoiler my ramblings on the future of conflict. (click to show/hide)

As long as the thread has spiraled off into it, let's talk about war.  There will no be World War 3, in the sense of a knock down, drag out fight to the finish between similarly armed superpowers.  Not for centuries.  Precisely because nations and power blocs our modern economy depend on each other too much for credit and markets.  Superpower wars are fought today, but they're fought through trade restrictions and diplomatic gamesmanship.

Armed conflict is simply inconceivable.  The modern Principle Détente is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy - everyone is so afraid of what would happen in a World War 3 that no nation, being ultimately governed by thousands of interdependent people, would ever allow such a thing to happen.  And if nothing else, no one believes they could afford the economic obliteration.  It's the funny double standard of brinksmanship that, while great for scaring each other into compliance, ultimately no one will ever blink.

Sure, one could point to North Korea as an example of a nation that can afford genuine weaponry (a handful of weapons anyway), where national policy is entirely in the hands of one unhinged man (ignoring that Kim Jong Il is a puppet of his own apparatus, but whatever).  But really, how dangerous is North Korea?  Only the South is in any way threatened by them, and then only if the South found itself having to absorb a few million refugees a la Germany reuniting.

The only real high-level international conflict I can think of would be India against Pakistan and other parts of India.  But anyone who's read World War Z already knows the theory behind why that won't happen.  Obvious flashpoints attract diplomatic alleviation - a mutually scaled war everyone expects will be constantly tended and defused before it can happen.  We've learned too much from our past.  Sort of...

You know what the largest conflict by body count was since World War 2?  The whirling mass of anarchy and genocide in the African Great Lakes from 1993 to 2004.  By anyone's best guess, it claimed the lives of about 7 million people, maimed that many more, and sent God only knows how many millions fleeing in every direction.  All with weapons no more sophisticated than AKMs, machetes, and human ingenuity.  And if you're wondering why that's such an underplayed episode, you know the answer as well as I - there's nothing there anyone outside of Africa would care to fight over.

That is your window into the future of warfare.  Don't look to the idle ramblings of movie producers and game writers.  Look to Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.  Not "Big Nuclear Superpower" vs "Other Big Nuclear Superpower" or even "Minor Scrappy Power", but "1000 Faction Shitstorm" vs "Anyone with the stones to tackle it".  Factionalism within a state, especially in the far corners of the Earth where Nationhood is a hollow dream, cycling and mushrooming until an ethic argument or criminal turf war threatens to collapse the geopolitical infrastructure of a whole region, which is then addressed by bickering alliances of industrial nations trying to untangle the cycle of recriminations, before a bloodfeud crashes the global market, and they can go back to economically dominating it.

If I had to hazard a guess to such a future event, I'd point to Indonesia and the South Pacific in general.  Environmental disruption, overpopulation, and Chinese neocolonialism, all in a region that houses dynamic cut-throat corporations, the world's busiest shipping lanes, offshore bank dumps, and the sweatshops and plantations that keep the First World chugging along in stupor.  Watch water shortages, criminal triads, and ideological extremism turn Westphalian statehood on it's head, and see how fast people starting calling it World War 3 when America and the EU have to marshal in to untangle things in the name of the status quo.

Because I'm tangential, but polite.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I think the EU is also considering having an EU army, which may involve conscription and national service.

[Siquo]

The reticence comes from the small things.

Regarding trade, customs (as in border-patrol), justice, even monetary it's mostly one big union. However, myself excluded, most of the EU citizens don't really like eachother, and it's still "us vs them".
Eg: The Netherlands has legal marihuana. The bordering countries, heck, any other country, doesn't want that on their doorstep. However, we want to keep it because we think it works.
Eg: Italy and Greece are WAY over their budget deficits. The rest of the EU is paying for that negligence. That will become worse once there is total union.
Eg: Everyone else thinks abortion should be legal, except for the catholic countries who are against it (Poland, Ireland, Spain, Italy, and of course the Vatican).

It's those small things that stop the progress. Plus that now, as there already is a form of super-state, there are just extra regulations. More bureaucracy. Except for knowing all the rules in all the countries you operate in, you also have to abide by the rules of Brussels (where the EU parliament seats). And sometimes those rules contradict eachother leading to even more confusion.

EU Army: same difference. Some countries went to Iraq, others didn't. They want to be able to choose, not being chosen for.

[redacted123]

-

[kurokikaze]

3rd WW (aka First Nuclear ) - NATO vs BRIC vs EU

And then all will be destroyed in purifying fire. Including us poor DF players