NationStates

Shofercia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:With iron axes and armor and not a single sneeze.
And they wouldn't be 'colonists' by the time Columbus came along but a mixed people who incorporated Norse religion as well as hostility to the White Christ.

So you're saying that Columbus' expedition would've been destroyed, and the Native American Lifestyle would've been preserved. I figured you'd enjoy this one, Gen:

Shofercia wrote:

Genivaria wrote:With iron axes and armor and not a single sneeze.
And they wouldn't be 'colonists' by the time Columbus came along but a mixed people who incorporated Norse religion as well as hostility to the White Christ.

So you're saying that Columbus' expedition would've been destroyed, and the Native American Lifestyle would've been preserved. I figured you'd enjoy this one, Gen:

Yusseria wrote: My question is this: is this indicative of our need to strengthen our military? For all the talk about how much the US wastes on the military... if we can not even defend Taiwan or our Baltic allies then clearly something is wrong.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Yusseria wrote: My question is this: is this indicative of our need to strengthen our military? For all the talk about how much the US wastes on the military... if we can not even defend Taiwan or our Baltic allies then clearly something is wrong.

The USA already spends more than the next 10 countries, including China and Russia, COMBINED.

Why do you think more money would help ?

Yagon wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
The USA already spends more than the next 10 countries, including China and Russia, COMBINED.

Why do you think more money would help ?

So we can develop more technology for enemies to steal.


Wait....

Shofercia wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:Cool. Its too bad that didn't happen.

This is one of the many reasons that Alexander the Uno was a bad ruler who needed proper spanking... by daddy.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Yusseria wrote: My question is this: is this indicative of our need to strengthen our military? For all the talk about how much the US wastes on the military... if we can not even defend Taiwan or our Baltic allies then clearly something is wrong.

The USA already spends more than the next 10 countries, including China and Russia, COMBINED.

Why do you think more money would help ?

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Question. Does this wargame show a brief conflict as in taking out military bases or all-out war between the US and the Russo-Chinese alliance? Because if it's the latter, that's physically impossible. If it goes nuclear, we all die, and if it doesn't go nuclear a naval invasion of America would be impossible and vice versa.

The two continents are just too far away for any kind of meaningful invasion without the help of allies.

The South Falls wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Question. Does this wargame show a brief conflict as in taking out military bases or all-out war between the US and the Russo-Chinese alliance? Because if it's the latter, that's physically impossible. If it goes nuclear, we all die, and if it doesn't go nuclear a naval invasion of America would be impossible and vice versa.

The two continents are just too far away for any kind of meaningful invasion without the help of allies.

It has to be the former. A wargame of nuclear war would be just plain useless.

The South Falls wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Question. Does this wargame show a brief conflict as in taking out military bases or all-out war between the US and the Russo-Chinese alliance? Because if it's the latter, that's physically impossible. If it goes nuclear, we all die, and if it doesn't go nuclear a naval invasion of America would be impossible and vice versa.

The two continents are just too far away for any kind of meaningful invasion without the help of allies.

It has to be the former. A wargame of nuclear war would be just plain useless.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

The South Falls wrote:It has to be the former. A wargame of nuclear war would be just plain useless.

And a war game of all-out WW2 style war would be useless as both sides would be too industrialized/far away to kill each other.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

The South Falls wrote:It has to be the former. A wargame of nuclear war would be just plain useless.

I’m rather curious of all out war minus nukes would turn out.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

The South Falls wrote:It has to be the former. A wargame of nuclear war would be just plain useless.

I’m rather curious of all out war minus nukes would turn out.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Question. Does this wargame show a brief conflict as in taking out military bases or all-out war between the US and the Russo-Chinese alliance? Because if it's the latter, that's physically impossible. If it goes nuclear, we all die, and if it doesn't go nuclear a naval invasion of America would be impossible and vice versa.

The two continents are just too far away for any kind of meaningful invasion without the help of allies.

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
This is one of the many reasons that Alexander the Uno was a bad ruler who needed proper spanking... by daddy.

And what about Nicholas I, or Alexander III? Were they so bad?

Shofercia wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Question. Does this wargame show a brief conflict as in taking out military bases or all-out war between the US and the Russo-Chinese alliance? Because if it's the latter, that's physically impossible. If it goes nuclear, we all die, and if it doesn't go nuclear a naval invasion of America would be impossible and vice versa.

The two continents are just too far away for any kind of meaningful invasion without the help of allies.

All the Wargame did was show that Russia and China are capable of capturing the Baltics and Taiwan, respectively. For some odd reason that led NSG to believe that Russia shall embark on a Polish Campaign, and if China decided to do some more adventuring in Asia.

Nea Byzantia wrote:And what about Nicholas I, or Alexander III? Were they so bad?

Alexander the Trio was bad on the Domestic Front. His policies helped radicalize the Grand Duchy of Finland, and not just them. He failed to capitalize on potential Foreign Policy achievements, and followed a mediocre Economic Policy.

Nicolas I failed at managing the economy, when it was desperately needed. He should've focused more on fixing Russia's economy, and let the Russian Military deal with securing Russia's borders. They weren't horrible, but also weren't the leaders that Russia needed at the time.

Genivaria wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
All the Wargame did was show that Russia and China are capable of capturing the Baltics and Taiwan, respectively. For some odd reason that led NSG to believe that Russia shall embark on a Polish Campaign, and if China decided to do some more adventuring in Asia.




Alexander the Trio was bad on the Domestic Front. His policies helped radicalize the Grand Duchy of Finland, and not just them. He failed to capitalize on potential Foreign Policy achievements, and followed a mediocre Economic Policy.

Nicolas I failed at managing the economy, when it was desperately needed. He should've focused more on fixing Russia's economy, and let the Russian Military deal with securing Russia's borders. They weren't horrible, but also weren't the leaders that Russia needed at the time.

I blame the misleading titles of both the thread OP and of Fox News.
But then Fox News is little better than an attention grabbing tabloid half the time.

The Alma Mater wrote:The USA already spends more than the next 10 countries, including China and Russia, COMBINED.

Why do you think more money would help ?

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Firstly, NATO would probably be quick to cuck Russia, or at least keep it distracted on the Western front.

China would be the big issue, China is massive in size, population, and Industrialization. It would either turn into the Naval Equivalent of Trench Warfare in the Pacific or into a chaotic mess of Island Hopping and massive naval battles.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:The USA already spends more than the next 10 countries, including China and Russia, COMBINED.

Why do you think more money would help ?

The amount of money spent doesn’t equal the strength of our military. China and Russia save money on certain things while still having strong militaries. The US has also allocated money to expensive projects that are not necessary. Having the coolest plane doesn’t matter if you are outgunned and without a winning strategy against superior forces. By that logic, a few extremely rich people could have an army capable of destroying the world powers.

Novus America wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:The amount of money spent doesn’t equal the strength of our military. China and Russia save money on certain things while still having strong militaries. The US has also allocated money to expensive projects that are not necessary. Having the coolest plane doesn’t matter if you are outgunned and without a winning strategy against superior forces. By that logic, a few extremely rich people could have an army capable of destroying the world powers.

Wages are a major difference.
US troops are paid far better than their Chinese and Russian counterparts.
The relatively low wages in those countries allow them to pay their troops much less.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Firstly, NATO would probably be quick to cuck Russia, or at least keep it distracted on the Western front.

China would be the big issue, China is massive in size, population, and Industrialization. It would either turn into the Naval Equivalent of Trench Warfare in the Pacific or into a chaotic mess of Island Hopping and massive naval battles.

Until American forces arrive, don’t count on Europe being able to defend themselves. Eurasia would be doomed for the most part, but an offensive on America would be much harder.

Comradeistan wrote:Three Words: Mutually. Assured. Destruction.