International Freedom Coalition (OOC, APPS TEMP CLOSED)

[Rostogovia]

When can I reasonably expect my application to be processed?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I'd just like to inform Libraria and Ausitoria that I would be honored to serve as a general minister.

Thank-you.

When can I reasonably expect my application to be processed?

Within 24 hours of Novo Wagondia and I being elected, if we win, and if OS hasn't got round to it before!

[Shazbotdom]

It's too quiet...
Anyway, I'm working on a Sengoku Jidai or Warring States Period of Japan RP. So, it'd be awesome if you guys joined in.
Ironically, yesterday I started on the maps, but lost all my data because I closed paint.net without knowing I hadn't saved.
Url's aren't working for me today.

Fixed for ya.

[Yohannes]

Tis' here for easy view your posts search. Also want to say sorry for being an overall useless/inactive slob

I wont be pretentious enough to ask 'how are you guys doing' as I know the answers would probably be 'a bit of inter alliance negotiation with [x] here, inter alliance subterfuge/drama with [y] there, and a bit of IC (and longer OOC) threads to complement the lot

Anyway, taggity tag (no tag posts ha!)

[Krjder]

Come Christmas holidays, I'll be back! And, with a littke taster/background RP for my big summer RP..

[Ardoki]

Come Christmas holidays, I'll be back! And, with a littke taster/background RP for my big summer RP..

Welcome back.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Tis' here for easy view your posts search. Also want to say sorry for being an overall useless/inactive slob

I wont be pretentious enough to ask 'how are you guys doing'

Then I won't be useful enough to answer 'elections'. =P

Hope you're well!

I inherited This thread from Smoya.
I'd advise everyone here to post and wait for a rating by me.

I certainly will - after the elections, as that could result in a slight but significant impact on diplomatic influence.

I was wondering about whether there would be any interest in a Global cities/economics ranking?

Come Christmas holidays, I'll be back! And, with a littke taster/background RP for my big summer RP..

I'll look forward to it!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Yup.

So, would I be completely mad to have Ausitoria intercept this silly nonsense?

[Inyourfaceistan]

Yup.

So, would I be completely mad to have Ausitoria intercept this silly nonsense?

Well considering you were the one to try and bring nuclear retaliation into the Aravea thread, I would say that thread is about par for the course with you...

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I've think we've discussed that quite enough. My aim was not to bring nuclear retaliation into the thread, but the realistic possibility of nuclear retaliation.

Since Ralkovia uses what is often labelled Lyras-Tech - i.e. the 'old' standard of MT, which makes allowances for vast economies of scale, and is equivalent to about 7 years into the future by my estimation - by 2022 Ausitoria would have at least one base on the moon and a well developed capacity to place lasers around L1 to intercept, so it's perfectly feasible to intercept most of them.

The more important question is: if this was not Ralkovia posting, the posting standard would be more deserving of the ignore cannon - but perhaps I've simply grown spoilt. Do you think the RP would be enjoyable?

[Ardoki]

Yup.

So, would I be completely mad to have Ausitoria intercept this silly nonsense?

Well considering you were the one to try and bring nuclear retaliation into the Aravea thread, I would say that thread is about par for the course with you...

Nuclear weapons are generally frowned upon in RPs, for obvious reasons.

However if one wanted to truly conduct a realistic RP, they would acknowledge that nuclear retaliation is a reasonable option for a country who is under threat of defeat in a war.

It could start of with a very small attack between two nuclear powers. Perhaps one country conducts a strategic bombing of key infrastructure, the defender would most likely retaliate with any means necessary (this could be caused by a combination of public outrage and calls for revenge, along with the more important reason for a country needing to exact retribution in order not to look weak and become a target again in the future), the aggressor would then retaliate in kind. This chain of repeated attacks/retaliations would very likely increase in intensity, with both sides unable to back-down (it would be an admission of defeat to your people and the entire world, possibly tempting other countries to attack as well), it is quite possible that it could eventually evolve into a nuclear war.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Well considering you were the one to try and bring nuclear retaliation into the Aravea thread, I would say that thread is about par for the course with you...

Nuclear weapons are generally frowned upon in RPs, for obvious reasons.

However if one wanted to truly conduct a realistic RP, they would acknowledge that nuclear retaliation is a reasonable option for a country who is under threat of defeat in a war.

It depends on the level of defeat.

A nation facing absolute destruction may resort to *strategic* nuclear weapons, but any nation with anything to loose isn't going to hit a button which garuntees their own destruction over anything short of absolute destruction.

This is why despite the fear-mongering, the US and Russia would never go *strategic* nuclear over something ultimately trivial like Ukraine or Syria, because it would never be worth it for either side. Even if worse case scenario for the Russians they loose Assad/puppet regime and all of Ukraine goes back to the EU, it's not worth getting Moscow, St. Petersburg, Smolensk and Vladivostok glassed over and the rest of the country thrown into a crippling nuclear winter.
Even in some alternate scenario if the Russians totally destabilized Colombia and turned Mexico into a puppet state against the U.S. it still wouldn't be worth D.C., New York, Miami and Los Angeles getting vaporized with radiation being spewed across the breadbasket states.

A rational country would only ever resort to *strategic* nuclear warfare if it faces absolute destruction anyway and has no choice but to drag their enemies down with them...

It could start of with a very small attack between two nuclear powers. Perhaps one country conducts a strategic bombing of key infrastructure, the defender would most likely retaliate with any means necessary (this could be caused by a combination of public outrage and calls for revenge, along with the more important reason for a country needing to exact retribution in order not to look weak and become a target again in the future), the aggressor would then retaliate in kind. This chain of repeated attacks/retaliations would very likely increase in intensity, with both sides unable to back-down (it would be an admission of defeat to your people and the entire world, possibly tempting other countries to attack as well), it is quite possible that it could eventually evolve into a nuclear war.

No it would boil until some either strategic aim is accomplished by one side (I.e. destruction of enemy long-range capability, forcing them out of territory, etc. or both sides run out of weapons, soldiers, equipment, etc. and it stalemates into a ceasefire of some sort.

[New Aeyariss]

Not to mention that there are several kinds of nukes with different blast radius, operated by different forces and with different purposes.

[Bashriyya]

For example, Bashriyya operates very few nukes in secret, but most of the nukes developed are suit-case nukes which have small blast radius.

[Ardoki]

Nuclear weapons are generally frowned upon in RPs, for obvious reasons.

However if one wanted to truly conduct a realistic RP, they would acknowledge that nuclear retaliation is a reasonable option for a country who is under threat of defeat in a war.

It depends on the level of defeat.

A nation facing absolute destruction may resort to *strategic* nuclear weapons, but any nation with anything to loose isn't going to hit a button which garuntees their own destruction over anything short of absolute destruction.

This is why despite the fear-mongering, the US and Russia would never go *strategic* nuclear over something ultimately trivial like Ukraine or Syria, because it would never be worth it for either side. Even if worse case scenario for the Russians they loose Assad/puppet regime and all of Ukraine goes back to the EU, it's not worth getting Moscow, St. Petersburg, Smolensk and Vladivostok glassed over and the rest of the country thrown into a crippling nuclear winter.
Even in some alternate scenario if the Russians totally destabilized Colombia and turned Mexico into a puppet state against the U.S. it still wouldn't be worth D.C., New York, Miami and Los Angeles getting vaporized with radiation being spewed across the breadbasket states.

A rational country would only ever resort to *strategic* nuclear warfare if it faces absolute destruction anyway and has no choice but to drag their enemies down with them...

It could start of with a very small attack between two nuclear powers. Perhaps one country conducts a strategic bombing of key infrastructure, the defender would most likely retaliate with any means necessary (this could be caused by a combination of public outrage and calls for revenge, along with the more important reason for a country needing to exact retribution in order not to look weak and become a target again in the future), the aggressor would then retaliate in kind. This chain of repeated attacks/retaliations would very likely increase in intensity, with both sides unable to back-down (it would be an admission of defeat to your people and the entire world, possibly tempting other countries to attack as well), it is quite possible that it could eventually evolve into a nuclear war.

No it would boil until some either strategic aim is accomplished by one side (I.e. destruction of enemy long-range capability, forcing them out of territory, etc. or both sides run out of weapons, soldiers, equipment, etc. and it stalemates into a ceasefire of some sort.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Luckily most countries are rational.
States such as North Korea are the real worry, and even Russia and Turkey were potentially worrisome (not nuclear though) due to the fact that the leaders of neither country are politically able to back down (both leaders have an image of a strong foreign policy).

However that is why a war between two nuclear states is incredibly unlikely, due to mutually assured destruction. If any such war were to occur, the chances of a nuclear exchange rise exponentially, that's why any such war probably won't happen (at least both sides would try to avoid one as much as possible).

For example, Bashriyya operates very few nukes in secret, but most of the nukes developed are suit-case nukes which have small blast radius.

Ardoki is a peaceful country, with only about 40 million people, so we don't have any nuclear weapons.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I completely understand where you're coming from. Luckily most countries are rational.
States such as North Korea are the real worry, and even Russia and Turkey were potentially worrisome (not nuclear though) due to the fact that the leaders of neither country are politically able to back down (both leaders have an image of a strong foreign policy).

North Korea isn't too much of a worry, nuclear weapons just sort of help "entrench" their horrific monarcho-commie Juche regime. The Kim dynasty would rather enjoy the fruits of their "workers paradise" than get leveled in a no-win exchange with several nations...
Iran on the other hand, actively preaches the destruction of Israel as well as mass death upon the Sunni sect, paired with a despotic hatred of the West in general, so they potentially are the ones who would choose nuclear martyrdom. On top of that, the idea of a nuclear armed Iran will undoubtedly forces the Saudi's to develop or aquire some form of a nuclear arsenal and keep the Israeli's finger that much closer to trigger.

However that is why a war between two nuclear states is incredibly unlikely, due to mutually assured destruction. If any such war were to occur, the chances of a nuclear exchange rise exponentially, that's why any such war probably won't happen (at least both sides would try to avoid one as much as possible).

Not necessarily.
Truth be told the concept of "war" is a bit outdated, modern combat is more likely to involve sides shooting missiles et al at each other but nobody "declaring war".
But a US-China stand-off or even shootout in the West Pacific is plausible, just as a US vs Russia air war in Syria or ground war in Ukraine, just as another Russo-Chinese border skirmish or not to mention Pakistan and India fumbling again, and by no means have nor would any result in war.

[Ardoki]

I'm not going to ask you not to reply, denying someone a response is very unfair.
However this has drifted off-topic, so I won't be responding if anyone replies.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Luckily most countries are rational.
States such as North Korea are the real worry, and even Russia and Turkey were potentially worrisome (not nuclear though) due to the fact that the leaders of neither country are politically able to back down (both leaders have an image of a strong foreign policy).

North Korea isn't too much of a worry, nuclear weapons just sort of help "entrench" their horrific monarcho-commie Juche regime. The Kim dynasty would rather enjoy the fruits of their "workers paradise" than get leveled in a no-win exchange with several nations...
Iran on the other hand, actively preaches the destruction of Israel as well as mass death upon the Sunni sect, paired with a despotic hatred of the West in general, so they potentially are the ones who would choose nuclear martyrdom. On top of that, the idea of a nuclear armed Iran will undoubtedly forces the Saudi's to develop or aquire some form of a nuclear arsenal and keep the Israeli's finger that much closer to trigger.

I would say it is the other way around entirely.

Not only is the population of North Korea incredibly brainwashed into loving their government (they literally believe that Kim Jong Un can read their minds and will punish them if they think anything bad about him, which leads to self-censorship and ignoring of critical thoughts), their leadership is also brainwashed. Especially Kim Jong Un, he has grown up believing he is the centre of attention and the best person in the world, he would have gotten everything he wanted and no one would have disobeyed him. I wouldn't be surprised if he also believed he was a god, which could be problematic.
But what I was mainly hinting at, would be the North Korean regime's possibly willingness to launch nuclear annihilation against its neighbours if the regime fell (even from internal factors such as a coup or civil war).

Don't believe all the American propaganda you here about Iran. Their leadership is sane and not suicidal, they're interested in regional power. The rhetoric against Israel is simply rhetoric, they would never attack Israel and the only reason they might want nuclear weapons is to defend against a nuclear-armed Israel (which in turn has threatened to nuclear bomb Iran several times). Saudi Arabia would not need a nuclear deterrent against Iran (if it had nuclear weapons), the US defends the Saudi oilfields and is more than enough of a deterrent.
They even clarified recently, that when they chanted "death to America" they did not mean any ill to the American people, they only hated US imperialism and foreign policy. Yes they want more power in the region, but they are not suicidal and they can be described as rational actors.

However that is why a war between two nuclear states is incredibly unlikely, due to mutually assured destruction. If any such war were to occur, the chances of a nuclear exchange rise exponentially, that's why any such war probably won't happen (at least both sides would try to avoid one as much as possible).

Not necessarily.
Truth be told the concept of "war" is a bit outdated, modern combat is more likely to involve sides shooting missiles et al at each other but nobody "declaring war".
But a US-China stand-off or even shootout in the West Pacific is plausible, just as a US vs Russia air war in Syria or ground war in Ukraine, just as another Russo-Chinese border skirmish or not to mention Pakistan and India fumbling again, and by no means have nor would any result in war.

Escalation is very likely in any such confrontation, especially if countries which can defend themselves are involved (such as the US, Russia, China). Public outrage in some countries like the US and Russia, would basically force a response - Only weak countries can be bullied as such (and only if they are not allied with countries who would defend them).

[The Lendol Archipelago]

Death to America ≠ We disagree with your politics...

[Ardoki]

Death to America ≠ We disagree with your politics...

Well the Iranian Supreme Leader said it means exactly that, it is believed to be related to the slow normalisation of relations between the US and Iran.

But hey, if you think you know the intentions of Iran better than the Iranian leadership, I won't judge.

EDIT: I had to respond to this falsehood, as facts are not subjective.

[The Lendol Archipelago]

Death to America ≠ We disagree with your politics...

Well the Iranian Supreme Leader said it means exactly that, it is believed to be related to the slow normalisation of relations between the US and Iran.

But hey, if you think you know the intentions of Iran better than the Iranian leadership, I won't judge.

EDIT: I had to respond to this falsehood, as facts are not subjective.

So you're saying that he can speak for anyone who has ever said it?

[New Aeyariss]

Well the Iranian Supreme Leader said it means exactly that, it is believed to be related to the slow normalisation of relations between the US and Iran.

But hey, if you think you know the intentions of Iran better than the Iranian leadership, I won't judge.

EDIT: I had to respond to this falsehood, as facts are not subjective.

So you're saying that he can speak for anyone who has ever said it?

Frankly there are more issues to mention, such as Shiite - Sunni conflict.

It was confirmed by multiple terrorism experts that Iranian - run Hezbollah has bigger network in the West than Al - Queda has. Iran however is on this disadvantage that Shiites are less than 10% of total Muslim population, making recruitment harder.

Still, I do believe that Iran is as much a threat as ISIL is. This state is frankly almost the same - it operates the same laws and the same ideas drive them both. Their only difference is that ISIL is Sunni, and Iran is Shiite.

[Aravea]

I apologize for my absence but the past few days have been hell due to some health problems. Due to said health problems I will be turning the duty of running the election over to my deputy speaker...As to who will fill that role..Well that task will fall to Deian Salazar.

Again I apologize and best of luck to you all.

[West Aurelia]

I apologize for my absence but the past few days have been hell due to some health problems. Due to said health problems I will be turning the duty of running the election over to my deputy speaker...As to who will fill that role..Well that task will fall to Deian Salazar.

Again I apologize and best of luck to you all.

Get well soon!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Do get well soon!

I am a little concerned about having one of the candidates running the election, just on the principle of the thing - although I expect Feng will be impartial, it sets a bad habit.

Probably it would be best to let people just come forward with their questions - please ask any if you have any - or, if there aren't any; maybe we should just start voting?

(On the subject of nuclear escalation, I agree completely with Ardoki; that Cuscy and IYF don't is the reason why there are still greatly different viewpoints on the Aravean conflict. I think we all hold our opinions very strongly and I'm not particularly convinced that we're about to settle the debate, so probably best to agree to disagree for the moment...)

[Zunkwentania]

I'm not going to ask you not to reply, denying someone a response is very unfair.
However this has drifted off-topic, so I won't be responding if anyone replies.

North Korea isn't too much of a worry, nuclear weapons just sort of help "entrench" their horrific monarcho-commie Juche regime. The Kim dynasty would rather enjoy the fruits of their "workers paradise" than get leveled in a no-win exchange with several nations...
Iran on the other hand, actively preaches the destruction of Israel as well as mass death upon the Sunni sect, paired with a despotic hatred of the West in general, so they potentially are the ones who would choose nuclear martyrdom. On top of that, the idea of a nuclear armed Iran will undoubtedly forces the Saudi's to develop or aquire some form of a nuclear arsenal and keep the Israeli's finger that much closer to trigger.

I would say it is the other way around entirely.

Not only is the population of North Korea incredibly brainwashed into loving their government (they literally believe that Kim Jong Un can read their minds and will punish them if they think anything bad about him, which leads to self-censorship and ignoring of critical thoughts), their leadership is also brainwashed. Especially Kim Jong Un, he has grown up believing he is the centre of attention and the best person in the world, he would have gotten everything he wanted and no one would have disobeyed him. I wouldn't be surprised if he also believed he was a god, which could be problematic.
But what I was mainly hinting at, would be the North Korean regime's possibly willingness to launch nuclear annihilation against its neighbours if the regime fell (even from internal factors such as a coup or civil war).

Don't believe all the American propaganda you here about Iran. Their leadership is sane and not suicidal, they're interested in regional power. The rhetoric against Israel is simply rhetoric, they would never attack Israel and the only reason they might want nuclear weapons is to defend against a nuclear-armed Israel (which in turn has threatened to nuclear bomb Iran several times). Saudi Arabia would not need a nuclear deterrent against Iran (if it had nuclear weapons), the US defends the Saudi oilfields and is more than enough of a deterrent.
They even clarified recently, that when they chanted "death to America" they did not mean any ill to the American people, they only hated US imperialism and foreign policy. Yes they want more power in the region, but they are not suicidal and they can be described as rational actors.

Not necessarily.
Truth be told the concept of "war" is a bit outdated, modern combat is more likely to involve sides shooting missiles et al at each other but nobody "declaring war".
But a US-China stand-off or even shootout in the West Pacific is plausible, just as a US vs Russia air war in Syria or ground war in Ukraine, just as another Russo-Chinese border skirmish or not to mention Pakistan and India fumbling again, and by no means have nor would any result in war.

Escalation is very likely in any such confrontation, especially if countries which can defend themselves are involved (such as the US, Russia, China). Public outrage in some countries like the US and Russia, would basically force a response - Only weak countries can be bullied as such (and only if they are not allied with countries who would defend them).

I do recall reading in a travel book that in Iran, "death to" isn't actually too strong of an expression of hate. People say "death to traffic" there. It's like saying "damn that teacher!" You don't necessarily want that teacher to rot in eternal flames.