The Great Restoration (Semi-PMT/Nation/OOC/Dead)

[SangMar]

-snip-

If you followed the chain of reasoning that led to that response, you'd have noticed that at no point did I claim that Norden's air defences were impenetrable.

What I did say is that they're good enough that if someone did manage to pierce it and strike a military target, that leaves a pretty short list of potential "someones" for us to investigate. It's not the kind of thing you can cover with plausible deniability and say "terrorists must've done it". You cannot hide a military operation of that scale. If someone manages to bomb our military installations then we know for sure that it's a major power, of which there aren't that many. We will know who you are, and we will know who to retaliate against.

I will also add that 36 years is a long time. In 1984 South Korea was a second-rate developing country. Why would Scandinavia be incapable of transforming itself on a similarly drastic scale, especially considering all the advantages that we had going in our favour after the Central European War? Certainly with both Continental Europe and Asia tearing itself apart in unstable civil wars, there would have been an exodus of both capital and labour and we'd have absorbed a big part of that in the 2040s.

---

That was pretty good. I was confused as to why you used the July instead of the Gen, but it makes sense (since the July is small, and it'd be easier to put it on a scale/graph/chart than the Gen bill/banknote. I also guess that's because it's in Crown/Kroner. That's also impartial of you.)

Of course it's written in kroner. Why would I ever choose something else? There isn't really a big dominant economy in this RP, nothing comparable to the US dollar. I imagine most foreign reserves would rely on a fairly even mix of several prominent currencies - in addition to NDK, probably the Cascadian Dollar, Chinese Yuan, Japanese Yen... there's no real reason to write my figures in a particular currency, so I just picked the one I'm most familiar with - my own.

---

True. Plzen's just being very cocky again. Honestly, I'm just waiting for someone to give him his slice of Humble Pie. I guess this is it, though.

No matter how many foreigners there are and no matter how good they are at war and fighting, that doesn't make them truly civilised people!

Norden definitely leans towards the nationalistic side of things in this RP. Politically I imagine that the Centre would have absorbed the Nordic Freedom bloc parties, since both are fairly protective of what they see as the Nordic way of life without really being socially conservative per se. They're very proud of their way of life and social institutions in 2056, even if a bunch of impoverished foreigners insist on calling it "dystopian", "hopeless", and other such hurtful words.

The real question is, what are the North American P O W E R A N K I N G S ?

Well, in your opinion.

*Cries in need for validation*

[Plzen]

-snip-

If you can convince the other players here and it is the considered consensus of the participants in this RP that technology in 2056 would advantage stealth over detection, sure. I will accept that.

Of course, if this is the technological environment that we are operating under, nothing stops everyone else from adopting a similar doctrine. There are a lot of oil or methane clathrate rigs in North America and East Asia I'd like to clandestinely get rid of, and if we agree on a technological environment where a strike like this is possible to make undetected, then I too shall be delving in that opportunity.

[SangMar]

If you followed the chain of reasoning that led to that response, you'd have notice that at no point did I claim that Norden's air defences were impenetrable.

What I did say is that they're good enough that if someone did manage to pierce it and strike a military target, that leaves a pretty short list of potential "someones" for us to investigate. It's not the kind of thing you can cover with plausible deniability and say "terrorists must've done it". If someone manages to bomb our military installations then we know for sure that it's a major power, of which there aren't that many. We will know who you are, and we will know who to retaliate against.

I will also add that 36 years is a long time. In 1984 South Korea was a second-rate developing country. Why would Scandinavia be incapable of transforming itself on a similarly drastic scale, especially considering all the advantages that we had going in our favour after the Central European War? Certainly with Continental Europe tearing itself apart in civil wars and actual wars, there would have been an exodus of both capital and labour and we'd have absorbed a big part of that in the 2040s.

I am not sure if you read anything I wrote but I will do a brief recap since you could just scroll up...

-Most cruise missiles while expensive are capable of avoiding detection (meaning basically any country is capable of hitting you) Take Iranian cruise missiles bypassing both Saudi and American radar and defenses to hit Saudi oil.
-Drones which are cheap and easy to make are very capable of hitting targets and going undetected due to their small size, and ability to fly very low like cruise missiles, except they can be much smaller
-In your current app you lack AWACs meaning your military has zero detection capabilities outside of home or your ships, making your air forces vulnerable, and nearly as effective as that in WW2. Your post shows the classical ww2 tactic of sending out scouts (drones in this case) which are completely ineffective. They are looking for hostile forces sure, but this to cover a large area is very hard and costly
-Multiple countries have 6th generation fighters capable of avoiding detection (I can't speak for others but Japan has an export version for the 6th generation fighter they operate)

Overall, it would be easy to claim terrorist did it. Many terrorist groups use drones to hit targets worldwide. They are fairly simple and cheap but very effective. Again you are operating off of a WW2 like principal that a plane is required to drop a bomb. There are four ways that don't require a plane that I know of. 1. Missile 2. Drone 3. Cyber Attack 4. Long range artillery

Long range artillery is an interesting topic, as there are railguns under development that would be able to hit from a hidden location hundreds of miles away with no one knowing who was responsible. Although there are some railroad guns that while impossible to mount on a ship, would be able to fire from 100+ miles away.

To know who carried out the attack in modern day is quite hard. It usually requires a group or nation to take responsibility. To be able to tell who's tech was who's would moreover require you to either get amazing footage of the attacks (hard) or to capture an attacking personnel or whatever was being used to carry out the attack which if using drones, is also hard. It would almost be godmodding to know who carried out the attack without specific proof of who carried it out.

In my case, if I launched a drone strike, which would purposely utilize non-Japanese style drones, I could successfully hit targets and while you would be able to determine the area the strike originated from, the drones would not be able to have been launched from Japan anyways. I strive for realism. And if your government finds out it has been attacked, but in a limited fashion and doesn't know exactly who did it, maybe have a rough guess but no solid proof, 9 times out of 10 that sane government will not launch a military response, especially on a nation thousands of miles away where you have no bases, no assets.

I agree with Sarderia, you do not have anything that is so technologically advanced that it would make major powers look like peasants. And you probably aren't able to easily identify origin either, especially on unmarked craft. Also South Korea is a bad example, they had a lot of support from the US.

Except, Plzen never said that you couldn’t hit Norden forces, instead, they said that only a small number of nations would be strong enough to - and that since those nations were in such short order, it’d be relatively easy to guess who.

Also, South Korea was mainly undeveloped due in part to its style of government - being just as bad as North Korea up until the late 1980s. Even then however, when it did modernise, it cut corners heavily. Plus, Scandinavia is already modern - unlike how South Korea changed, Scandinavia wouldn’t have that much to do regarding legwork. Think about it - Europe’s just gone through a major war, with Scandinavia mostly untouched, due to the vacuum of most European states being destroyed/heavily damaged, they’d have had to develop their own skills.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

-snip-

If you can convince the other players here and it is the considered consensus of the participants in this RP that technology in 2056 would advantage stealth over detection, sure. I will accept that.

Of course, if this is the technological environment that we are operating under, nothing stops everyone else from adopting a similar doctrine. There are a lot of oil or methane clathrate rigs in North America and East Asia I'd like to clandestinely get rid of, and if we agree on a technological environment where a strike like this is possible to make undetected, then I too shall be delving in that opportunity.

It seems you aren't really reading what I am writing.

Well say detection was amazing in 2056. Radar was able to pick up everything in the air. That would still not stop a small drone from hitting a target. I am no radar tech person myself, but on radar, things show up as blobs to put it simply. It doesn't tell you oh there's a bird, theres a jet, theres a drone. It is just a blob. And drones can be very small. Small as some birds even. So unless you were to shoot down every bird you saw on the radar, it would be impossible to take out every single threat.

It is hard to explain technical things to people but radar isn't some magical thing. And I am saying based off of historical precedent, they are weak at detecting small objects, low flying planes or missiles, and stealth. Not to mention you have ZERO AWACs meaning your detection capabilities don't reach far from ground radar.

I am very shocked that you seemingly never heard of how Iran attacked Saudi Arabia's oil facilities. But let me explain this to you. An attack by my part, would almost 100% be with a cruise missile, because drones, the ones I am taking about, have a very short range. There are some experimental drones, but those would be hard to use in this situation without discovery.

Let me make this clear. It is very very hard for you to launch a strike into Asia undetected. As is it would be very very hard for me to launch my attack undetected if I use cruise missiles. Although you have zero AWACs so it is actually easier for me. A cruise missile attack is going to require some sort of plane or ship to deliver it.

My strategy only works with low tech drones that would have to either be launched from land, or on a private boat where deniability is possible, but you will not take out the oil rigs with these drones.

It is impossible to achieve full deniability unless one uses a PMC of sorts which is one of my plans.

But then again you actions are in direct violation of international law and by definition are war crimes so I have very good Casus belli.

EDIT: Actually since you have no AWACs it is much easier for me to get away with it than it is for you. You won't ever see my ship or plane that launches the missile most likely so that option is back on the table.

-snip-

Except, Plzen never said that you couldn’t hit Norden forces, instead, they said that only a small number of nations would be strong enough to - and that since those nations were in such short order, it’d be relatively easy to guess who.

Also, South Korea was mainly undeveloped due in part to its style of government - being just as bad as North Korea up until the late 1980s. Even then however, when it did modernise, it cut corners heavily. Plus, Scandinavia is already modern - unlike how South Korea changed, Scandinavia wouldn’t have that much to do regarding legwork. Think about it - Europe’s just gone through a major war, with Scandinavia mostly untouched, due to the vacuum of most European states being destroyed/heavily damaged, they’d have had to develop their own skills.

You did not read a single thing I wrote I take. Anyone with the knowledge and capital can attack Norden forces, it isn't hard. Just to be in range is hard if you want deniability.

[Plzen]

It seems you aren't really reading what I am writing.

Repeating the same odd arguments over and over again doesn't make them any more correct, but fine. I'll respond to them if it gets you to stop.

Well say detection was amazing in 2056. Radar was able to pick up everything in the air. That would still not stop a small drone from hitting a target. I am no radar tech person myself, but on radar, things show up as blobs to put it simply. It doesn't tell you oh there's a bird, theres a jet, theres a drone. It is just a blob. And drones can be very small. Small as some birds even. So unless you were to shoot down every bird you saw on the radar, it would be impossible to take out every single threat. It is hard to explain technical things to people but radar isn't some magical thing. And I am saying based off of historical precedent, they are weak at detecting small objects, low flying planes or missiles, and stealth.

RADAR, of course, is not the end-all and be-all of detection. For example, infrared imaging is pretty good at detecting what goes for "stealth aircraft" nowadays. They're not used much today because thermal imaging has a very small visual field, but solving limitations and problems is what technological progress does. It seems unnecessarily conservative to say that RADAR will be basically the only technique for aircraft detection in another 35 years just because it is now. Not to mention that artificial intelligence image recognition is pretty good even now - after 35 years, you just take a big thermal image of the sky, feed it through an AI and have it identify anything that looks artificial. Job done.

Not to mention you have ZERO AWACs meaning your detection capabilities don't reach far from ground radar. [...] Although you have zero AWACs so it is actually easier for me. [...] EDIT: Actually since you have no AWACs it is very easy for me to get away with it. You won't ever see my ship or plane that launches the missile most likely so that option is back on the table.

I would think that it's sufficiently obvious that AWACs and their successors fall under the general category of "reconnaissance aircraft", of which my air force has 50, but apparently this isn't obvious to you.

I am very shocked that you seemingly never heard of how Iran attacked Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

And we all know that Iran did it. Sort of undermines your argument that you can do it without being detected. Also, Saudi Arabia may be pretty oil-rich, but in terms of its infrastructural development and technological prowess it isn't exactly Western Europe.

Let me make this clear. It is very very hard for you to launch a strike into Asia undetected. As is it would be very very hard for me to launch my attack undetected if I use cruise missiles. A cruise missile attack is going to require some sort of plane or ship to deliver it.

I'm glad we agree.

My strategy only works with low tech drones that would have to either be launched from land, or on a private boat where deniability is possible, but you will not take out the oil rigs with these drones.

Since you're claiming that you can successfully attack and disable inland installations using low-tech drones launched from a private boat, I'd be very interested to hear why you think I'd not be able to take out oil rigs with a similar strategy.

But then again you actions are in direct violation of international law and by definition are war crimes so I have very good Casus belli.

If spraying things into the atmosphere constitutes valid casus belli, then I have a valid casus belli on every nation that uses hydrocarbons for energy generation purposes or assists other nations in doing so. That would include, I believe, Japan.

[SangMar]

If you can convince the other players here and it is the considered consensus of the participants in this RP that technology in 2056 would advantage stealth over detection, sure. I will accept that.

Of course, if this is the technological environment that we are operating under, nothing stops everyone else from adopting a similar doctrine. There are a lot of oil or methane clathrate rigs in North America and East Asia I'd like to clandestinely get rid of, and if we agree on a technological environment where a strike like this is possible to make undetected, then I too shall be delving in that opportunity.

It seems you aren't really reading what I am writing.

Well say detection was amazing in 2056. Radar was able to pick up everything in the air. That would still not stop a small drone from hitting a target. I am no radar tech person myself, but on radar, things show up as blobs to put it simply. It doesn't tell you oh there's a bird, theres a jet, theres a drone. It is just a blob. And drones can be very small. Small as some birds even. So unless you were to shoot down every bird you saw on the radar, it would be impossible to take out every single threat.

It is hard to explain technical things to people but radar isn't some magical thing. And I am saying based off of historical precedent, they are weak at detecting small objects, low flying planes or missiles, and stealth. Not to mention you have ZERO AWACs meaning your detection capabilities don't reach far from ground radar.

I am very shocked that you seemingly never heard of how Iran attacked Saudi Arabia's oil facilities. But let me explain this to you. An attack by my part, would almost 100% be with a cruise missile, because drones, the ones I am taking about, have a very short range. There are some experimental drones, but those would be hard to use in this situation without discovery.

Let me make this clear. It is very very hard for you to launch a strike into Asia undetected. As is it would be very very hard for me to launch my attack undetected if I use cruise missiles. Although you have zero AWACs so it is actually easier for me. A cruise missile attack is going to require some sort of plane or ship to deliver it.

My strategy only works with low tech drones that would have to either be launched from land, or on a private boat where deniability is possible, but you will not take out the oil rigs with these drones.

It is impossible to achieve full deniability unless one uses a PMC of sorts which is one of my plans.

But then again you actions are in direct violation of international law and by definition are war crimes so I have very good Casus belli.

EDIT: Actually since you have no AWACs it is much easier for me to get away with it than it is for you. You won't ever see my ship or plane that launches the missile most likely so that option is back on the table.

Except, Plzen never said that you couldn’t hit Norden forces, instead, they said that only a small number of nations would be strong enough to - and that since those nations were in such short order, it’d be relatively easy to guess who.

Also, South Korea was mainly undeveloped due in part to its style of government - being just as bad as North Korea up until the late 1980s. Even then however, when it did modernise, it cut corners heavily. Plus, Scandinavia is already modern - unlike how South Korea changed, Scandinavia wouldn’t have that much to do regarding legwork. Think about it - Europe’s just gone through a major war, with Scandinavia mostly untouched, due to the vacuum of most European states being destroyed/heavily damaged, they’d have had to develop their own skills.

You did not read a single thing I wrote I take. Anyone with the knowledge and capital can attack Norden forces, it isn't hard. Just to be in range is hard if you want deniability.

Since you really seem to be enjoying repeating yourself like a broken record, I’ll keep myself simple. First of all, I read what you said, accusing someone of ignorance isn’t the artful cop-out you think it is. Secondly, let me cover a few things.

First of all regarding radar, the fact that you claim to be no “radar tech” person, but then have the gall to state about how hard it is to explain “technical things to some people” is laughably pretentious. Also, what you said isn’t necessarily correct: air traffic controllers for example - who rely on radar, cannot see a single bird or anything else like it on their radar. They can see flocks if birds, but only because of their size. If this wasn’t the case, they could not do their job - as they would be unable to monitor the aircraft they’re monitoring. Secondly, whilst we’re still on this point, aircraft on radar are not just a “blob” - an aircraft’s transponder will send information about that aircraft’s height, heading and speed to controllers on the ground or on say, an AWACS plane, in the air. And radar could do that all the way back in 1996, so imagine what it could do 60 years later? Hell, with many modern militaries, in the fields that require it they’ll often include designations regarding various friendly and non-friendly aircraft - of all types in their software. Therefore, pretty much any aircraft would wind up being spotted - and if it wasn’t any of the loaded designations? Then, it would appear as a blob. Which, wouldn’t exactly be a common occurrence - given how most military tech in this roleplay is 20 to 30 years old.

More importantly, let’s look at the context of the post. Since it wasn’t talking about being on land, or cruise missiles or whatever, it spoke about the following...

It’s very advanced aircraft, over the mid-Atlantic on a mission. Once again, they didn’t say no one could, just that only a few nations could actually attack them. Which is fair - once again, they’re over the Atlantic - and from the sounds of it, nowhere near the former United States or Canada - which means any opposing nation’s aircraft thrown at them would likely be at the limits of its operational range - not to mention the technological disadvantage given how the US and much of Europe have either been through a huge war or collapsed completely. Whereas, by contrast - Scandinavia was relatively peaceful - and thus able to progress. I’m not saying no one is on Scandinavia’s level, it’s just that they spend so much on their military research while simultaneously having a relatively small military manpower wise, that of course they can invest in more technological options. Rather than say, Germany - which has 3 million troops and a gigantic navy.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

It seems you aren't really reading what I am writing.

-snip-

-snip-

RADAR, of course, is not the end-all and be-all of detection. For example, infrared imaging is pretty good at detecting what goes for "stealth aircraft" nowadays. They're not used much today because thermal imaging has a very small visual field, but solving limitations and problems is what technological progress does. It seems unnecessarily conservative to say that RADAR will be the best technique for aircraft detection in another 35 years just because it is now. Not to mention that artificial intelligence image recognition is pretty good even now - after 35 years, you just take a big thermal image of the sky, feed it through an AI and have it identify anything that looks artificial. Job done.

-snip-

I would think that it's sufficiently obvious that AWACs and their successors fall under the general category of "reconnaissance aircraft", of which my air force has 50, but apparently this isn't obvious to you.

-snip-

And we all know that Iran did it. Sort of undermines your argument that you can do it without being detected. Also, Saudi Arabia may be pretty oil-rich, but in terms of its infrastructural development and technological prowess it isn't exactly Western Europe.

-snip-

I'm glad we agree.

-snip-

Since you're claiming that you can successfully attack and disable military installations using low-tech drones launched from a private boat, I'd be very interested to hear why you think I'd not be able to take out oil rigs with a similar strategy.

-snip-

If spraying things into the atmosphere constitutes valid casus belli, then I have a valid casus belli on every nation that uses hydrocarbons for energy generation purposes or assists other nations in doing so. That would include, I believe, Japan.

For one, it is known Sweden and the northern regions you occupy are not well known for their space programs, which is what you would require for thermal imaging of the sky. Not to mention your satellite will not always be over your country, there is such thing as an orbit.

Two that is pure BS. Either that or you don't know what an AWAC is. An example of a recon aircraft is a Boeing RC-135, RC-26B Metroliner, or as I personally use, the Beechcraft Super King Air. An AWAC usually engages in air superiority, global integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, rapid global mobility, global strike, and command and control. Usually a recon aircraft is classified as a recon aircraft, and a AWAC is something else completely. So you should add a little bit more detail. But it brings the question, why do you have 50 AWACs (mind they are much more expensive than regular recon aircraft) when IRL the USAF has 31? And why you have 70 AWACs for two carriers?

Three we think Iran did it. But we can't confirm it. That is why both Saudi Arabia and the US did not retaliate physically. What you also fail to note is there were American systems in the region at the time.

Five, I am saying you aren't going to destroy an oil rig with the drones I describe. The explosives are far too small. In my case, I am not trying to take out the base, rather I am trying to send a message.

Six, According to the CWC, a chemical weapon includes all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the Convention – in quantities consistent with such a purpose. You are launching a dangerous chemical agent with intention use to harm humans or animals through chemical action on life processes. Your Prime Minister openly accepted the use of the agent despite warning from his own government and there is the intent.

[Arvenia]

To keep the train going, Germany (German Empire) and Frankland (Grand Frankish State) are accepted, even though some changes can be made.

PS: Chewion, rename the Kaiserliche Marine Korps to "Kaiserliche Marinekorps", since "Marinekorps" is accurately German for "Marine Corps".

[SangMar]

To keep the train going, Germany (German Empire) and Frankland (Grand Frankish State) are accepted, even though some changes can be made.

PS: Chewion, rename the Kaiserliche Marine Korps to "Kaiserliche Marinekorps", since "Marinekorps" is accurately German for "Marine Corps".

Arvenia! You’ve come back to us.

Also, Germany needs to change its ethnic composition for one, to something more like this:

German: 78.5%
Polish: 13.5%
French: 3%
Other: 5%

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Since you really seem to be enjoying repeating yourself like a broken record, I’ll keep myself simple. First of all, I read what you said, accusing someone of ignorance isn’t the artful cop-out you think it is. Secondly, let me cover a few things.

First of all regarding radar, the fact that you claim to be no “radar tech” person, but then have the gall to state about how hard it is to explain “technical things to some people” is laughably pretentious. Also, what you said isn’t necessarily correct: air traffic controllers for example - who rely on radar, cannot see a single bird or anything else like it on their radar. They can see flocks if birds, but only because of their size. If this wasn’t the case, they could not do their job - as they would be unable to monitor the aircraft they’re monitoring. Secondly, whilst we’re still on this point, aircraft on radar are not just a “blob” - an aircraft’s transponder will send information about that aircraft’s height, heading and speed to controllers on the ground or on say, an AWACS plane, in the air. And radar could do that all the way back in 1996, so imagine what it could do 60 years later? Hell, with many modern militaries, in the fields that require it they’ll often include designations regarding various friendly and non-friendly aircraft - of all types in their software. Therefore, pretty much any aircraft would wind up being spotted - and if it wasn’t any of the loaded designations? Then, it would appear as a blob. Which, wouldn’t exactly be a common occurrence - given how most military tech in this roleplay is 20 to 30 years old.

More importantly, let’s look at the context of the post. Since it wasn’t talking about being on land, or cruise missiles or whatever, it spoke about the following...

It’s very advanced aircraft, over the mid-Atlantic on a mission. Once again, they didn’t say no one could, just that only a few nations could actually attack them. Which is fair - once again, they’re over the Atlantic - and from the sounds of it, nowhere near the former United States or Canada - which means any opposing nation’s aircraft thrown at them would likely be at the limits of its operational range - not to mention the technological disadvantage given how the US and much of Europe have either been through a huge war or collapsed completely. Whereas, by contrast - Scandinavia was relatively peaceful - and thus able to progress. I’m not saying no one is on Scandinavia’s level, it’s just that they spend so much on their military research while simultaneously having a relatively small military manpower wise, that of course they can invest in more technological options. Rather than say, Germany - which has 3 million troops and a gigantic navy.

You while in cases support my point fail to recognize during wartime operations, and sometimes during combat practice in dedicated airspace, for military aircraft the transponder is operated in a different mode and will not be replying to radar interrogations. So no your not getting all that info except from friendly forces.

If you had looked at previous posts, I had stated a strike would occur at a base. These aircraft have to fuel, load up, and get repaired somewhere. In most military operations it is favorable to attack the enemy at their base.

Peace and time does not always equate to technological progression. By that metric, Switzerland would be the most technologically advanced nation in the world, which is clearly false.

[Plzen]

For one, it is known Sweden and the northern regions you occupy are not well known for their space programs, which is what you would require for thermal imaging of the sky. Not to mention your satellite will not always be over your country, there is such thing as an orbit.

A thermal image need not be taken from space.

Two that is pure BS. Either that or you don't know what an AWAC is. An example of a recon aircraft is a Boeing RC-135, RC-26B Metroliner, or as I personally use, the Beechcraft Super King Air. An AWAC usually engages in air superiority, global integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, rapid global mobility, global strike, and command and control. Usually a recon aircraft is classified as a recon aircraft, and a AWAC is something else completely. So you should add a little bit more detail. But it brings the question, why do you have 50 AWACs (mind they are much more expensive than regular recon aircraft) when IRL the USAF has 31? And why you have 70 AWACs for two carriers?

An AWAC does two things. One is command and control, the other is reconnaissance and surveillance. Air superiority, rapid mobility, and global reach are objectives that an AWAC aids other aircraft in achieving; they are not inherent to the AWAC itself. Considering that the whole purpose of the craft is intelligence management, I think "reconnaissance aircraft" is a good enough description.

And obviously, AWACs being reconnaissance aircraft doesn't imply that all reconnaissance aircraft in the Northern Air Force are AWACs. I didn't list in the application every specific type and class of aircraft that the Northern Air Force will be fielding in this RP, because that would be an unnecessary level of detail. The application is supposed to be a general overview, not a technical manual or a comprehensive list.

Five, I am saying you aren't going to destroy an oil rig with the drones I describe. The explosives are far too small. In my case, I am not trying to take out the base, rather I am trying to send a message.

Then you are also agreeing that it isn't an effective tactic of war, except maybe psychologically.

Six, According to the CWC, a chemical weapon includes all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the Convention – in quantities consistent with such a purpose. You are launching a dangerous chemical agent with intention use to harm humans or animals through chemical action on life processes. Your Prime Minister openly accepted the use of the agent despite warning from his own government and there is the intent.

Having intent to accomplish some objective or having some objective accomplished as part of the pursuit of some other objective are two distinct concepts.

---

You while in cases support my point fail to recognize during wartime operations, and sometimes during combat practice in dedicated airspace, for military aircraft the transponder is operated in a different mode and will not be replying to radar interrogations. So no your not getting all that info except from friendly forces.

Seriously? 2 minutes of research on the internet would tell you that's utter nonsense.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

For one, it is known Sweden and the northern regions you occupy are not well known for their space programs, which is what you would require for thermal imaging of the sky. Not to mention your satellite will not always be over your country, there is such thing as an orbit.

A thermal image need not be taken from space.

Two that is pure BS. Either that or you don't know what an AWAC is. An example of a recon aircraft is a Boeing RC-135, RC-26B Metroliner, or as I personally use, the Beechcraft Super King Air. An AWAC usually engages in air superiority, global integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, rapid global mobility, global strike, and command and control. Usually a recon aircraft is classified as a recon aircraft, and a AWAC is something else completely. So you should add a little bit more detail. But it brings the question, why do you have 50 AWACs (mind they are much more expensive than regular recon aircraft) when IRL the USAF has 31? And why you have 70 AWACs for two carriers?

An AWAC does two things. One is command and control, the other is reconnaissance and surveillance. Air superiority, rapid mobility, and global reach are objectives that an AWAC aids other aircraft in achieving; they are not inherent to the AWAC itself. Considering that the whole purpose of the craft is intelligence management, I think "reconnaissance aircraft" is a good enough description.

And obviously, AWACs being reconnaissance aircraft doesn't imply that all reconnaissance aircraft in the Northern Air Force are AWACs. I didn't list in the application every specific type and class of aircraft that the Northern Air Force will be fielding in this RP, because that would be an unnecessary level of detail. The application is supposed to be a general overview, not a technical manual or a comprehensive list.

Five, I am saying you aren't going to destroy an oil rig with the drones I describe. The explosives are far too small. In my case, I am not trying to take out the base, rather I am trying to send a message.

Then you are also agreeing that it isn't an effective tactic of war, except maybe psychologically.

Six, According to the CWC, a chemical weapon includes all toxic chemicals and their precursors, except when used for purposes permitted by the Convention – in quantities consistent with such a purpose. You are launching a dangerous chemical agent with intention use to harm humans or animals through chemical action on life processes. Your Prime Minister openly accepted the use of the agent despite warning from his own government and there is the intent.

Having intent to accomplish some objective or having some objective accomplished as part of the pursuit of some other objective are two distinct concepts.

---

You while in cases support my point fail to recognize during wartime operations, and sometimes during combat practice in dedicated airspace, for military aircraft the transponder is operated in a different mode and will not be replying to radar interrogations. So no your not getting all that info except from friendly forces.

Seriously? 2 minutes of research on the internet would tell you that's utter nonsense.

One, If thermal imaging need not taken from the sky, your range is highly limited.

Two, you stated "I would think that it's sufficiently obvious that AWACs and their successors fall under the general category of "reconnaissance aircraft", of which my air force has 50, but apparently this isn't obvious to you." And in that claimed to have 50 AWACs leaving it up to assumption that the others you classify as such suite such purposes.

Three, it is extremely effective, as seen by their use in numerous terrorist organizations to cause damage though many attacks.

Four, a toxic chemical held by a State Party in agreement with the “Principle of Consistency” must be produced, stockpiled or used for a legitimate purpose, and be of a type and quantity appropriate for its “peaceful” purpose. If you plan to "fix" the world, you are going to need way more than what is considered abiding by the Principle of Consistency.

If you want to get technical, by definition any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals is a toxic chemical. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. By this, a chemical weapon is any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b). Which is munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices. A states chemical weapons are toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes. All according to Article II of the CWC.


Five, feel free to use wiki because we all know that wiki is the most reliable source. Here is one of the sources I looked at. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... hanges.pdf

[Chewion]

To keep the train going, Germany (German Empire) and Frankland (Grand Frankish State) are accepted, even though some changes can be made.

PS: Chewion, rename the Kaiserliche Marine Korps to "Kaiserliche Marinekorps", since "Marinekorps" is accurately German for "Marine Corps".

Arvenia! You’ve come back to us.

Also, Germany needs to change its ethnic composition for one, to something more like this:

German: 78.5%
Polish: 13.5%
French: 3%
Other: 5%

What about 80% German
11.5% Polish
Etc.

Bear in mind I’ve incorporated a few million Germans in Austria etc.

[Newne Carriebean7]

Bonnie Blue Republic
Real GDP: 10,652 billion NDK (104,469 per capita)
Nominal GDP: 7,081 billion NDK (69,447 per capita)
Market Exchange Rate: 0.496 BBD : NDK

Cascadia, Federal Republic of
Real GDP: 8,220 billion NDK (223,062 per capita)
Nominal GDP: 6,606 billion NDK (179,248 per capita)
Market Exchange Rate: 0.209 CS$ : NDK

Great Lakes, Republic of the
Real GDP: 846 billion NDK (9,719 per capita)
Nominal GDP: 310 billion NDK (3,568 per capita)
Market Exchange Rate: 24.2 $B : NDK

Siberian Confederation
Real GDP: 160 billion NDK (8,004 per capita)
Nominal GDP: 56 billion NDK (2,799 per capita)
Market Exchange Rate: 2.26 SIB : NDK

Huh, most of my neighbors are richer than me. Maybe basing my economy purely on corrupt state run industries and relying heavily on a polluted industrial base instead of diversifying heavily wasn't a great idea.

Wait a minute, I'm Newne this should be par for the course.

Well at least I'm not dead last in terms of nominal and real GDP, so I'm a little shocked.
I must change this for the better, PRINT MORE MONEY GODDAMMIT

[Plzen]

Huh, most of my neighbors are richer than me. Maybe basing my economy purely on corrupt state run industries and relying heavily on a polluted industrial base instead of diversifying heavily wasn't a great idea.

Wait a minute, I'm Newne this should be par for the course.

Well at least I'm not dead last in terms of nominal and real GDP, so I'm a little shocked.
I must change this for the better, PRINT MORE MONEY GODDAMMIT

The odds of the Great Lakes reuniting the former United States is so low as to be not worth thinking about, so we can safely support their ambitions without risk that those ambitions will actually get realised. :p

[Newne Carriebean7]

Huh, most of my neighbors are richer than me. Maybe basing my economy purely on corrupt state run industries and relying heavily on a polluted industrial base instead of diversifying heavily wasn't a great idea.

Wait a minute, I'm Newne this should be par for the course.

Well at least I'm not dead last in terms of nominal and real GDP, so I'm a little shocked.
I must change this for the better, PRINT MORE MONEY GODDAMMIT

The odds of the Great Lakes reuniting the former United States is so low as to be not worth thinking about, so we can safely support their ambitions without risk that those ambitions will actually get realised.

And the overall probability that either major political party would be stupid enough to try something like that's low.. The Emperor might be a bit more gung ho, preferably in getting a pacific sea port by bombing the shit out of Cascadia.
Now all I need to hope for is that Cascadia doesn't have any allies or the international community is as apathetic to north american affairs as the Nordic Confederation.

[Arvenia]

Arvenia! You’ve come back to us.

Also, Germany needs to change its ethnic composition for one, to something more like this:

German: 78.5%
Polish: 13.5%
French: 3%
Other: 5%

What about 80% German
11.5% Polish
Etc.

Bear in mind I’ve incorporated a few million Germans in Austria etc.

• German: 77.5%
• Polish: 12.5%
• French: 3.5%
• Italian: 2.6%
• Czech: 2.4%
• Other: 1.5%

[Arvenia]

Who's NatLib?

National Liberalism (the Korean ideology)

National liberalism is an ideology that combines liberal policies and issues with nationalist elements. This Korean ideology you mentioned would actually refer to "Hyeongje" (check out the terminology post on page 1 for more info).

[Revlona]

Damnit, I might be about to fuck over the Great Lakes

Tired of this shit

lel

[SangMar]

Damnit, I might be about to fuck over the Great Lakes

Tired of this shit

lel

Revlona! You’ve come back! I was so bored hanging out with all of my BBR mannequins!

[Revlona]

Damnit, I might be about to fuck over the Great Lakes

Tired of this shit

lel

Revlona! You’ve come back! I was so bored hanging out with all of my BBR mannequins!

We're putting our shit on hold

The south is going on a crusade to free the blacks in the Great Lakes

[Newne Carriebean7]

Damnit, I might be about to fuck over the Great Lakes

Tired of this shit

lel

I was wondering why my milita members were still alive, maybe that officer will accept the "forget me money" and everything will be just jake!

Revlona! You’ve come back! I was so bored hanging out with all of my BBR mannequins!

We're putting our shit on hold

The south is going on a crusade to free the blacks in the Great Lakes

well shit.
welp better call back the quebec dick measuring contest in holding a parade, they'll have to actually prepare for war or something.

[Revlona]

Damnit, I might be about to fuck over the Great Lakes

Tired of this shit

lel

I was wondering why my milita members were still alive, maybe that officer will accept the "forget me money" and everything will be just jake!

We're putting our shit on hold

The south is going on a crusade to free the blacks in the Great Lakes

well shit.
welp better call back the quebec dick measuring contest in holding a parade, they'll have to actually prepare for war or something.

"While we were marching through ohio!"

Mchams march to the lakes anyone?

[SangMar]

Damnit, I might be about to fuck over the Great Lakes

Tired of this shit

lel

I was wondering why my milita members were still alive, maybe that officer will accept the "forget me money" and everything will be just jake!

We're putting our shit on hold

The south is going on a crusade to free the blacks in the Great Lakes

well shit.
welp better call back the quebec dick measuring contest in holding a parade, they'll have to actually prepare for war or something.

Newne! Newne! Newne! Newne Caribbean! Newne Caribbean! Newne!

[Nazeroth]

Hurray im accepted