2020 A Brave New World (OPEN, OOC/Sign-Up/Reboot)

[Reddogkeno101]

So you don't see an issue with an African nation having a space program on par, if not higher than their first world counterparts? Also, one does not simply put money into their own economy. Your economy is how much money you have, and you cannot make money without inflation last time I checked, so k'now. Also, the combined GDP of Africa in 2014 is about as much as my country would have, so I would suggest that perhaps you revise your nation's status.

ALSO YOU CANNOT USE WHAT WAS SAID IN THE OOC AND INTERPRET IT AS IC, THAT IS METAGAMING and IT'S NOT OK.

I have US$224,798,000,000. I believe that is in PPP terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Federation

That's 224 Billion. I laugh at this. Australia + NZ + PNG = large large economy.

[United States Kingdom]

I have US$224,798,000,000. I believe that is in PPP terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Federation

That's 224 Billion. I laugh at this. Australia + NZ + PNG = large large economy.

Papua New Guniea has way more less than the EAF and so does New Zealeand. The only reason why you have such a big economy is because of Australia.

[La Republica De Filipinas]

In relation to East Africa's space program... (Not that I'm against it, of course.)

[Reddogkeno101]

That's 224 Billion. I laugh at this. Australia + NZ + PNG = large large economy.

Papua New Guniea has way more less than the EAF and so does New Zealeand. The only reason why you have such a big economy is because of Australia.

New Zealand is half the size of your economy and it has 33 times less people. PNG is a backwater, soon to be changed however. And 'Straya is better than you by a mile.

[United States Kingdom]

In relation to East Africa's space program... (Not that I'm against it, of course.)

That is an interesting story( I am not being sarcastic).

[United States Kingdom]

Papua New Guniea has way more less than the EAF and so does New Zealeand. The only reason why you have such a big economy is because of Australia.

New Zealand is half the size of your economy and it has 33 times less people. PNG is a backwater, soon to be changed however. And 'Straya is better than you by a mile.

It is because it has existed longer allowing unlimited time for what it is today. EAC is the FASTEST GROWING ECONOMIC REGION IN AFRICA AND ONE OF THE FASTEST IN THE WORLD.

[Reddogkeno101]

In relation to East Africa's space program... (Not that I'm against it, of course.)

That is an interesting story( I am not being sarcastic).

And that's why even Poland will beat you into space.
Also Australia is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world and has existed since 1901.

[United States Kingdom]

That is an interesting story( I am not being sarcastic).

And that's why even Poland will beat you into space.
Also Australia is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world and has existed since 1901.

EAF is the EAC and the EAC hosts the fastest growing economic region in the world giving it the legitimacy to be one of the fast growing countries in the world and also an African country can have a space program and they might be an East African Federation soon

[United States Kingdom]

That is an interesting story( I am not being sarcastic).

And that's why even Poland will beat you into space.
Also Australia is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world and has existed since 1901.

Africans can join the space race you know. It isn't limited to whites.

[Reddogkeno101]

And that's why even Poland will beat you into space.
Also Australia is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world and has existed since 1901.

Africans can join the space race you know. It isn't limited to whites.

It's limited to countries who can afford it and not have huge amounts of people in complete poverty. Oh wait, that's you.

[United States Kingdom]

Africans can join the space race you know. It isn't limited to whites.

It's limited to countries who can afford it and not have huge amounts of people in complete poverty. Oh wait, that's you.

Countries in the EAF actually have conducted poverty reduction programs.

[Reddogkeno101]

It's limited to countries who can afford it and not have huge amounts of people in complete poverty. Oh wait, that's you.

Countries in the EAF actually have conducted poverty reduction programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Af ... ment_Index

Let's see, has anything changed? nope.

[Hobbesistan]

Is AEGIS intentionally named after the Missile Defense system?

[Reddogkeno101]

Is AEGIS intentionally named after the Missile Defense system?

Among all these other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_(disambiguation)

[Papait]

Can Ikeepthe terrritories I had in the previous RP:

Turkey, SOuth East Bulgaria, Syri, Lebnon, Sunni Iraq and Kurdistan, plus West bank s a protectorate

Yes.

Nice do i also need to post a new app?

[Cymrea]

Is AEGIS intentionally named after the Missile Defense system?

Not intentionally, no. I dig the word in general, and it means shield, so I figured it was appropriate. And I checked with Mars; it seems likely that our alternate history may have precluded the formation of NATO (and might require a small tweak of your IC post, Hobbes). In its absence, I'm having us form an analog.

[Hobbesistan]

Is AEGIS intentionally named after the Missile Defense system?

Not intentionally, no. I dig the word in general, and it means shield, so I figured it was appropriate. And I checked with Mars; it seems likely that our alternate history may have precluded the formation of NATO (and might require a small tweak of your IC post, Hobbes). In its absence, I'm having us form an analog.

A lack of NATO wouldove probably been quickly followed by a Soviet invasion of europe.

If we're going to go as far back as dissolving NATO, we're looking at the soviet union not existing, which will fuck with all kinds of shit, or a Soviet europe.

[Reddogkeno101]

Not intentionally, no. I dig the word in general, and it means shield, so I figured it was appropriate. And I checked with Mars; it seems likely that our alternate history may have precluded the formation of NATO (and might require a small tweak of your IC post, Hobbes). In its absence, I'm having us form an analog.

A lack of NATO wouldove probably been quickly followed by a Soviet invasion of europe.

Even lacking a formal Group, the US could have had individual alliances with each of the European nations you realise?

[Hobbesistan]

A lack of NATO wouldove probably been quickly followed by a Soviet invasion of europe.

Even lacking a formal Group, the US could have had individual alliances with each of the European nations you realise?

17 nations without any formal alliances between all of them and a lack of a modular Command and Control structure like NATO wouldove really fucked the allies, and quite possibly resulted in loosing a war.

The main achievement of NATO is a joint command and control structure.

[Hobbesistan]

Also, without a 'attack one - attack all' policy that NATO had, the Soviets, without any deterrence, could start taking countries 1 by one while countries hesitated.

[Reddogkeno101]

Still, it doesn't take away from the fact that they never were prepared to risk it all for that.

[Cymrea]

That all presupposes a Soviet Union having existed. To be honest, I'm quite sure how far back our butterfly effect began. No Soviet Union would be quite a drastic change.

We could perhaps ret-con NATO as having devolved after the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and Warsaw Pact. Or it could become revised into a militant arm of the UN - which would never work, and might be the whole reason NATO withers into pointlessness, necessitating a new alliance.

[Hobbesistan]

That all presupposes a Soviet Union having existed. To be honest, I'm quite sure how far back our butterfly effect began. No Soviet Union would be quite a drastic change.

We could perhaps ret-con NATO as having devolved after the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and Warsaw Pact. Or it could become revised into a militant arm of the UN - which would never work, and might be the whole reason NATO withers into pointlessness, necessitating a new alliance.

The U.S, for one, would never permit NATO devolving into a militant arm of the U.N.


A valid argument against NATO is that its regionalized, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which might neccessitate a new organization.

[Reddogkeno101]

That all presupposes a Soviet Union having existed. To be honest, I'm quite sure how far back our butterfly effect began. No Soviet Union would be quite a drastic change.

We could perhaps ret-con NATO as having devolved after the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and Warsaw Pact. Or it could become revised into a militant arm of the UN - which would never work, and might be the whole reason NATO withers into pointlessness, necessitating a new alliance.

The U.S, for one, would never permit NATO devolving into a militant arm of the U.N.


A valid argument against NATO is that its regionalized, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which might neccessitate a new organization.

Well this is an AH RP, so it doesn't really require an explanation because that would take a long time to come up with one to fit everyone's history.

[Hobbesistan]

The U.S, for one, would never permit NATO devolving into a militant arm of the U.N.


A valid argument against NATO is that its regionalized, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which might neccessitate a new organization.

Well this is an AH RP, so it doesn't really require an explanation because that would take a long time to come up with one to fit everyone's history.

It should make sense to avoid this being lack-of-realism-RP.