Wargame Airland Battle

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Heartmann]

Armies are a thing of the past we need to scrap them and focus on getting our Tahiti together. As I is now we have sufficent technology and understanding to try and create diplomatic resolutions, defences forces could be acceptable on a grand union scale like the in UN (but without the veto power for the security council members) all it does is promote fear and unceranty and a drain on resources:-/

[XIIcorps]

So we want to talk about governments messing with the military?

It really looks like a f-111 but with a full delta wing.
Intriguing

[Sachaztan]

Armies are a thing of the past we need to scrap them and focus on getting our Tahiti together. As I is now we have sufficent technology and understanding to try and create diplomatic resolutions, defences forces could be acceptable on a grand union scale like the in UN (but without the veto power for the security council members) all it does is promote fear and unceranty and a drain on resources:-/

That is all true, but humans are still humans and we are a vicious species.

Though you might wanna look over just how much you spend, makes you wonder just why USA spends about as much money on their army as the rest of the world combined spends on theirs... Are they going to try to solo the world or something?

[Unkn0wn]

US military spending is just a remnant of the cold war to be honest, and conservative forces refuse anything that even resembles a cut to defence spending as it is considered 'weakening the American position' and a threat to national security. This rampant spending in turn is an incentive for countries like China to boost their own military spending, so as not to fall behind in some illusionary 'arms tech race'.

So one could argue that this inflated defence budget achieves exactly what it is trying to prevent in the first place

[PonySlaystation]

What do you mean prevent? It's there so that they can have an edge in future resource wars.

[Sachaztan]

What do you mean prevent? It's there so that they can have an edge in future resource wars.

My cynical brain tells me this is true, but I don't want to believe it

[AmPM]

There are only a few finite things on this planet.

Surface area, and resources. Makes sense to me to be prepared to wage war over it, because in the end, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, only that you are still standing when the dust settles.

[Sachaztan]

^ The funny thing is that America just brings that event closer by being the worlds largest consumer (If the whole world lived like that we would require 5 Earths).

Also, no one would be left standing when the dust settles (Nukes/ not enough missile defence systems).

Well that depends...the nuclear powers could hold hands and carve up the rest of the world between them. It would be like the colonial era all over again, only this time with more genocide.

[nikomas]

We could always focus, you know, towards renewable resources... but apparently that is a drity word in America. Sure, some resources are finite but there are alternatives to pretty much everything, and the few things there are no alternatives for? Give it 50 years, it'll bet my everything we'll have come up with replacements for most of it.

A world war for resources is such a stupid idea and very unlikely to happen as it'd use up&blow up said resources in the process. At worst, china and the US will probably nuke eachother at some point, hopefully the rest of the world won't join in.+



Or what sach said, that'd be a "diplomatic" solution I suppose, lol

[AmPM]

^ The funny thing is that America just brings that event closer by being the worlds largest consumer (If the whole world lived like that we would require 5 Earths).

Also, no one would be left standing when the dust settles (Nukes/ not enough missile defence systems).

Nukes aren't really dirty anymore. They would kill people but leave areas usable.

The concern is bio or chemical weaponry.

Again though, whats to stop the US and China from splitting up the rest of the world, like what the Allies did in Europe after WW2.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

A combined Europe? The inability of America to win any war it starts since 1774?

[nikomas]

Yeah, I mean... the EU might be a "Joke" in some regards, I'm going to bet that if the US/China tried something like that people would set aside their differences might quick, and while it ain't no soviet union anymore russia might feel like bad about being left out of the party. Replace russia with china and we've got the plot to TC's:EndWar going here, lol

EU.v.US.v.RU(Or china)

Speculation is fun and all that, not that anyone can predict it really.

[nikomas]

Hey tig, I said focus, that means invest...

It's not like people arent trying, but when you've got certain people sucking the cock of certain large governments it's no wonder things progress slowly. It's no real secret that the oil giants like it the way it is right now, That ain't no fake conspiracy theory.

It's not that they don't know the jigg will be up in 50-100 years either, they don't honestly believe their own bullshit of how the gas will last for a lot longer than most predict, but why ruin a good thing when you can squeeze it for 50 more years? I mean, why'd they care when they're not going to be alive when shit hits the fan.

[nikomas]

Oh, I didn't mean fusion, I meant wind and all that shazz, it requires a large infrastructure and investment but it can be done...

It doesnt have to provide ALL of our power, but we could make our natrual reserves last significantly longer if we doubled down on switching over.

[Sachaztan]

Then there's all the non-renewable but crucial elements that we need for well, everything modern. One of the reasons Africa is still poor (there are many) is all the conflict minerals there.

And like Tig said, oil for plastic. Just such a shame that we waste so much of it on other things that could be replaced by other elements/energy sources.

[PonySlaystation]

Oh, I didn't mean fusion, I meant wind and all that shazz, it requires a large infrastructure and investment but it can be done...

Solar and wind power, while environmentally friendly, are extremely ineffective power sources compared to nuclear, coal and gas and that's not going to change any time soon, progress is very slow, although small countries like Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand invest heavily in the development of environmental power, no one else is.

And like Tig said, oil for plastic. Just such a shame that we waste so much of it on other things that could be replaced by other elements/energy sources.

Plastic is a byproduct of oil refining. It would be much more expensive to produce non-petrochemical plastic.

[PonySlaystation]

Effective how? not economically.

[AmPM]

Alpha, nuclear weapons don't have an significant long term effects on humans that survive the initial destruction and were not exposed to large amounts of direct radiation. By long term I mean intergenerational effects.

On top of that, bombs are much more efficient now, leaving less left over material. The most harmful radioactive isotopes die out in about 80 days. The US tested this extensively during the Cold War. Actually, my grandfather was involved. They would detonate a bomb, wait for the initial blast to finish, and then march out of bunkers into the blast zone to measure the effects of radiation. He ended up dying of a heart attack at a nice old age. (Interesting tidbit, not a large enough sample to be important)

This is assuming it even went nuclear, I think it more likely to be wars fought only in the areas of interest. So China, Russia, Europe and the US all competing for 3rd world resources until those run dry. Oh wait, that's how it is now.

Solar, wind and wave power are all more dangerous than nuclear power, having a larger carbon footprint (yea, those things aren't made from magic, large amounts of industrial materials go into it, including some rather nasty toxic ones) and causing more human deaths, not to mention the effects on the ecosystem (Oh hai! We just put this massive dam in the middle of your river! Oh hey! Don't mind that we cleared a mountainside for a wind farm! Don't sweat the acres upon acres of land we cleared for that solar farm!) for a much much lower return on power generated.

The key to long lasting power is nuclear power. It also happens to be the real key to unlocking the solar system. Until then, gas, oil, and coal are the winners in power generation.

[XIIcorps]

theres plenty of room for solar farms in the middle of australia.
the only thing out there is sand and uranium

[Scotzmen]

theres plenty of room for solar farms in the middle of australia.
the only thing out there is sand and uranium

Don't forget death, there's plenty of death.