NationStates

New Korongo wrote:I think we should expand into defending non-member nations from attacks over slavery, while doing so encouraging them to join the IASEN.

Unilisia wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:We are not a charity. either they join us, or they die, it isn't that hard a process to join.

If we have a combined coalition of soldiers in their nation, they can join us, or we remove their government.

You obviously don't think like I do, which isn't a bad thing, but I do look for the best advantages in all situations. If we came to the aid of a slave-trading government, saved it from occupation by a neighboring power, and then kept soldiers inside in sufficient numbers, a coup et tat would be easily accomplished with swift co-ordination and efficiency, provided they refuse to join this Association of ours.

Just an example, of course. A different strategy would be needed depending on the situation we are faced with.

Des-Bal wrote:Yet our resources no matter how great could not last the endless war that would come from being involved in every conflict. There's also the issue of cost-benefit, one must question the loyalty of someone who has not willingly joined IASEN or has done so only for an instance of military backing.

Unilisia wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:Yet our resources no matter how great could not last the endless war that would come from being involved in every conflict. There's also the issue of cost-benefit, one must question the loyalty of someone who has not willingly joined IASEN or has done so only for an instance of military backing.

I never said to join every conflict, The few we could easily win and profit from, with the proper chance, we should take advantage from. Am I saying join the friggin Oblivion War ? No. Am I saying fight some tiny country out of another one ? Yes.

Onyenu wrote:My stance would be to help. Comeon ASE, untold losses? Tese aren't conscripts were talking about here. And if a conflict we enter does drag on too long wasting our resources and men, we can vote to pull out. Non-members aren't THAT important.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:

Onyenu wrote:My stance would be to help. Comeon ASE, untold losses? Tese aren't conscripts were talking about here. And if a conflict we enter does drag on too long wasting our resources and men, we can vote to pull out. Non-members aren't THAT important.

Still, even light losses for my nation are horrific. Me losing 500 soldiers is like you losing 5,000 soldiers, due to the amount I spend on each soldier. Also, pulling out isn't as simple as you make it out to be, unless it is well organized and meticulous the organized retreat could turn into a full fledged route.

Unilisia wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Still, even light losses for my nation are horrific. Me losing 500 soldiers is like you losing 5,000 soldiers, due to the amount I spend on each soldier. Also, pulling out isn't as simple as you make it out to be, unless it is well organized and meticulous the organized retreat could turn into a full fledged route.

If you waste that much money on your shoulders, they shouldn't die

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:

Unilisia wrote:
If you waste that much money on your shoulders, they shouldn't die

So you do not expect to lose 5,000 soldiers in a war? You really are optimistic. Also, I would like to reiterate the point that all they need to do to get our support is to join the damn alliance. If them not joining the alliance is more importance than them preserving slavery, and/or their independence, why do we even want them in the alliance. Also, 90% of the countries with slavery deserve to be conquered, they are poorly lead, and often, downright shit holes.

Unilisia wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:So you do not expect to lose 5,000 soldiers in a war? You really are optimistic. Also, I would like to reiterate the point that all they need to do to get our support is to join the damn alliance. If them not joining the alliance is more importance than them preserving slavery, and/or their independence, why do we even want them in the alliance. Also, 90% of the countries with slavery deserve to be conquered, they are poorly lead, and often, downright shit holes.

I haven't lost 5,000 soldiers in a war in 400 years, and I don't expect too unless I am go against a worthy adversary.

And, I partially agree. Shit-holes need to be plugged, but the concept must live on.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:

Onyenu wrote:My stance would be to help. Comeon ASE, untold losses? Tese aren't conscripts were talking about here. And if a conflict we enter does drag on too long wasting our resources and men, we can vote to pull out. Non-members aren't THAT important.

Still, even light losses for my nation are horrific. Me losing 500 soldiers is like you losing 5,000 soldiers, due to the amount I spend on each soldier. Also, pulling out isn't as simple as you make it out to be, unless it is well organized and meticulous the organized retreat could turn into a full fledged route.

Onyenu wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Still, even light losses for my nation are horrific. Me losing 500 soldiers is like you losing 5,000 soldiers, due to the amount I spend on each soldier. Also, pulling out isn't as simple as you make it out to be, unless it is well organized and meticulous the organized retreat could turn into a full fledged route.

My men arent the POSes your making them out to be. Yes, you probably spend some more on them then I do mine but that doesnt make them all that much better. 500 to 5,000? Thats like you comparing your special forces to my conscripts. Give me a break, Im not a communist clone freak who thinks half his pop can be his army and still give them the bestestar training evar. I learned how to manage and form my army from you so bleh.

Onyenu wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Still, even light losses for my nation are horrific. Me losing 500 soldiers is like you losing 5,000 soldiers, due to the amount I spend on each soldier. Also, pulling out isn't as simple as you make it out to be, unless it is well organized and meticulous the organized retreat could turn into a full fledged route.

My men arent the POSes your making them out to be. Yes, you probably spend some more on them then I do mine but that doesnt make them all that much better. 500 to 5,000? Thats like you comparing your special forces to my conscripts. Give me a break, Im not a communist clone freak who thinks half his pop can be his army and still give them the bestestar training evar. I learned how to manage and form my army from you so bleh.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:

Onyenu wrote:
My men arent the POSes your making them out to be. Yes, you probably spend some more on them then I do mine but that doesnt make them all that much better. 500 to 5,000? Thats like you comparing your special forces to my conscripts. Give me a break, Im not a communist clone freak who thinks half his pop can be his army and still give them the bestestar training evar. I learned how to manage and form my army from you so bleh.

I spend around $1 million on each person in the military per year, basic training is 30 weeks, and has a 70% failure rate, my army is probably the most over trained and over equipped army in NS that isn't total wank. 500 of my guys against 5,000 of yours guys would probably be a win for you, but my guys cost about 10 times as much to train and equip as most soldiers, so the investment lost in me losing 500 soldiers is similar to the investment most nations would lose from losing 5,000 soldiers.

Unilisia wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:I spend around $1 million on each person in the military per year, basic training is 30 weeks, and has a 70% failure rate, my army is probably the most over trained and over equipped army in NS that isn't total wank. 500 of my guys against 5,000 of yours guys would probably be a win for you, but my guys cost about 10 times as much to train and equip as most soldiers, so the investment lost in me losing 500 soldiers is similar to the investment most nations would lose from losing 5,000 soldiers.

If they are that well trained, and you give them a bunch of fancy crap, they shouldn't die in the first place.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:

Unilisia wrote:
If they are that well trained, and you give them a bunch of fancy crap, they shouldn't die in the first place.

Soldiers die, it happens. I may kill tens of thousands of enemy soldiers for each hundred men lost, but I suffer losses because I am not a godmodder.

Unilisia wrote:

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Soldiers die, it happens. I may kill tens of thousands of enemy soldiers for each hundred men lost, but I suffer losses because I am not a godmodder.

Yes, people die, but if all of your soldiers are practically special forces, then they shouldn't die in anything larger than 100 in a small-scale invasion.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:

Unilisia wrote:
Yes, people die, but if all of your soldiers are practically special forces, then they shouldn't die in anything larger than 100 in a small-scale invasion.

Who said it is a small scale invasion? This is NS, where a small scale invasion involves a couple hundred thousand soldiers, in such an incident I would be outnumbered by a lot, and no matter how good soldiers are, they can be overwhelmed, especially by NS armies that have no fear.

Briarcliffe Falls wrote:I'd like to join as a full member.