So Boerd

World in Revolution: 1861

Gettin slow..

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Flooby Badoop said
Oh, that's right I forgot. . .. . . to tell you about that. You poor, poor thing. . .

Hardy har har, flooby.

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Ealdmund blockade?

To Lund ap Lunds [ Early Middle Ages NRP ]

Flooby, did you forget me?

Signups: World in Revolution: 1900

The stats cannot convey the intricacies regarding Chinese politics, so it ends up with an absurdly strong central authority.

Signups: World in Revolution: 1900

1. Boers (put me on the map!)
2. Greece
3. Serbia

World in Revolution: 1900

Dutchbag said
Coup announcement: A new thread will be made with Dutchbag as head GM. MagnificentOne will not change his nation and will run Europe. I will GM Britain, and he will GM Japan as Stein was supposed to.

Uk running Europe sounds dangerous.

Question to all Chinese/British/Americans/French/Russians/Israelis/Indians/Pakistanis

Admittedly, the scenarios I have outlined are implausible, but they serve to illustrate a point. If we are absolutely terrified to use our nuclear weapons, we make the probability of nuclear war higher, not lower.

Chapatrap said
Why would they nuke London? Relations have been chilly since the Second World War and not once have they bombed Britain. Just because we're having our generational spat with Moscow doesn't mean we're going to get turned into a Fallout gaem.

You're right, they wouldn't.

whether that's exchanging capital cities, or nuking armies to 'dissuade them from using the nuclear threat so casually in the future.'

Did I say armies? Because I thought I said silos. Feel free to correct me

Having outlined the unrealistic scenarios, time for a realistic one.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/04/putins_nuclear_option_russia_weapons

Question to all Chinese/British/Americans/French/Russians/Israelis/Indians/Pakistanis

For one who carries himself as a military expert and a redblooded American, I'm surprised.

You assumed I meant a massive countervalue strike. That is precisely what I am trying to avoid. US preemption in the scenario I described would be a limited, counterforce strike aimed at Russian subs, mobile launchers, silos, etc the moment the Russians put these forces to a higher alert level, focusing on eliminating these assets far from population centers and using conventional counterforce assets where possible. This dissuades them from using the nuclear threat so casually in the future, and forces them to a minimum deterrence posture. More likely however, our having this capability to shift the balance of strategic forces enormously in our own favor irrevocably would prevent both the invasion of Estonia and the liberal use of the nuclear threat, preventing us from ever having to use that capability. But we must be WILLING to.

Question to all Chinese/British/Americans/French/Russians/Israelis/Indians/Pakistanis

Dub post.