Curse

Daenara · Sep 30, 2008, 11:11 AM // 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Hah, I like how Australia aren't even involved. Just the way it would be.

Yay, go team Australia! The only country that is too lazy to give a damn.

McMullen · Sep 30, 2008, 12:03 PM // 12:03

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

That video seems to reckon Australia won't be involved as well.

pumpkin pie · Sep 30, 2008, 12:12 PM // 12:12

O.o at the video, China? i see japanese flag when he says china. ... wtf?

shru · Sep 30, 2008, 12:41 PM // 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

if i am the us president in 2014, I'll secretly sell weapons to all those countries listed. All the time secretly make them hate each other even more. Continue to sell them more weapons and to make it looks like all other countries are evil. then unashamedly sending out agents to assasinate other countries president saying they have traded weapons of mass destruction and then put in a "fake" president that listen to me, and only me. all this while training more terrorist in other country afterwhich destroy all traces that can lead back to me, make my countrymen more comfortable, give them more luxury so they are immerce in comfort that they forget what is actually happening in the world outside, at the same time also instill fear into my countrymen/women so that I may control them easier, with words like terrorist, weapon of mass destruction.

Ch-Cheney? Is that you?

Etta · Sep 30, 2008, 12:56 PM // 12:56

Worries about World War 3? The end of the world as we know it is keeping you awake at night? Call the Vault-Tec toll free hotline at 1-888-4-VAULTTEC.

And remember folks, duck and cover. *Maybeee,..you will think of me...

Abedeus · Sep 30, 2008, 07:06 PM // 19:06

My guess is that Russia and the Koreans will bomb USA and Europe will have to save their asses.

OR!

I would send 2 groups of elite Spec Ops equipped in nanosuits and Short Ranged Plasma Generators and Tactical Nuclear Launchers (end-game Crysis and Warhead weapons ;d one of them makes boss easy, the other one is required to kill him), one group goes to Russia and destroy Moscow (dudes with SRPG), the other one goes to Korea and nukes everyone (TNL people).

Then vaporize uniforms, brainwash those soldiers and make them lieutenants or something and pretend you were not doing anything.

Oh, and nuke what's left from Russia and Korea. And Chinese, I don't like them.

karunpav · Sep 30, 2008, 07:35 PM // 19:35

]

We win.

Dante the Warlord · Sep 30, 2008, 08:30 PM // 20:30

I would side with the Europeans with their black hole LHC technology and send it to send russia and China into another dimension Mwahahahaha.

No but I would probably start manufacturing nuclear bombs and selling them off to every country and at the same time making a full proof nuclear defense grid.

RPGmaniac · Sep 30, 2008, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMullen

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

That video seems to reckon Australia won't be involved as well.

I don't even have to click on the link to know that this video is End of Ze World.

HOKAY, SO HERE'S THE EARTH...

Also, I like winterclaw's plan but leave repopulating the earth to me

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

if i am the us president in 2014, I'll secretly sell weapons to all those countries listed. All the time secretly make them hate each other even more. Continue to sell them more weapons and to make it looks like all other countries are evil. then unashamedly sending out agents to assasinate other countries president saying they have traded weapons of mass destruction and then put in a "fake" president that listen to me, and only me. all this while training more terrorist in other country afterwhich destroy all traces that can lead back to me, make my countrymen more comfortable, give them more luxury so they are immerce in comfort that they forget what is actually happening in the world outside, at the same time also instill fear into my countrymen/women so that I may control them easier, with words like terrorist, weapon of mass destruction.

You forgot the "oh wait" part

Kerwyn Nasilan · Sep 30, 2008, 08:47 PM // 20:47

Assassinated leaders in Russia, Korea, China, and watch Cuba and V.
Surge in after leaders dead with help of other countries. And....watch some scrubs.

ALF71BE · Sep 30, 2008, 08:47 PM // 20:47

tl;dr, you're all wrong and it's gonna be like the following:

France vs. Others.

USA makes big money the first three or four years of war by selling weapons and supplies to the allies (like they did the first two wars). Doesn't gives a shit about.

When they see England and France RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up, USA finishes by sending bombs all over the enemy using a poor excuse to get into the war.

Enemy doesn't matters.

But anyone with half a brain can see that China will conquer the world without declaring war but instead by over populating the world and filling it with stuff made in China.

lrn2internationalrelations pl0x.

P.S. Switzerland is neutral.

Nick Of Troy · Sep 30, 2008, 09:06 PM // 21:06

"Nick of Troy used Pacifism on the Earth!"

but seriously, Ion Cannon ftw. Drop some GDI justice on those wayward bastards

The Royal New Zealand Navy (consisting of, what, two old frigates?) stands availible to the highest bidder

illidan009 · Oct 01, 2008, 01:46 AM // 01:46

I really hope this doesn't happen as the most likely things that will happen to me is:
1. Concentration camp in the US
2. Assassinated after returning to China.
If it does, I think everyone will just fire their nukes...nuclear wastes causes nuclear winter...everything dies.

Avarre · Oct 01, 2008, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Too easy.

Since it's not mentioned otherwise, we can assume the US fleet is still stationed in the Taiwan/Singapore region. This was done during the Korean War partially to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression - it's speculated that it was the Korean War that diverted the CCP from retaking Taiwan altogether.

For China to attempt any military action against Taiwan, they would have to have accepted the fact that this will provoke a US response, and are either confident they can take the US on or are banking that the US will maintain its (in the scenario) attitude of isolation. Backing down from the situation and allowing China to succeed in its bluff/gambit is therefore essentially green-lighting them to do whatever they want, and hence the only logical option is to move in direct opposition - both diplomatically and in reinforcing East Asia.

Likewise, no mention of US withdrawal from RoK is mentioned, and thus any Northern incursion would be grounds for war in the first place. It is highly unlikely the DPRK would move without Chinese or Russian support due to the connections of their government and the situation in which the country was created and supported - thus, a reaction to DPRK would have to mirror the response to China as it is highly possible the two are involved. Regardless, the DPRK is too economically starved to maintain a significant attack for a long period, and thus is only a threat so long as they are aggressive. A full retaliation would break the country entirely, or simply holding to a stalemate - the incorrect response is allowing their short-term goals to come to fruition, since it is a heavy gamble and likely supported by further opposition.

The nature of the DPRK response would determine on the motivation behind the move - it can be assumed either Russia or China is lending support, and hence, that will heavily influence policy. It is possible a two-front war can be opened if evidence of this can be brought out, in order to bring down the state proxying through the DPRK. A war of containment is more economical for the most part, until the DPRK simply wears out its poor supplies - unless China or Russia openly moves, in which case, the US should move to a full on offense breaching into the hostile state.

Regarding Russia, the outright insanity of its actions will likely bring a huge amount of pressure against it. With both China and Russia looking heavily expansionist (particularly China), it is possible they will turn against each other, as Sino-Soviet relations have been questionable since the 60s. This situation should be monitored and any opportunity to exploit this taken - as both China and Russia are open global threats in the scenario, defeat of both politically is necessary, and using one to exhaust the other before defeating both is a potential convenience.

Assuming the DPRK push goes ahead (as I would believe fully that Russia and/or China are involved), a combined Japan/US/RoK force can counterattack into Russia (or China) and open a second front. The difficulty is that for political capitulation, invading through Siberia is hardly cost-effective, thus first engaging China while allowing the European powers to play with Russia may be necessary, as Chinese northern infrastructure could be essential to any military options. However, Russia also is the greater threat in this position - thus far, China has shown expansionism, Russia has shown insanity. A great deal of aid should be sent to the European parties involved, however, most of the US attention should be expended on shoring up naval defenses and operations in Taiwan/Japan/RoK.

The response to Russia is more complicated as there is no knowledge of the motivations behind it, and thus diplomacy is a weaker approach. In other fields, a combined diplomatic/military effort can be made. Depending on the economic situation, a trade approach can be put in place too - however, it's questionable how much this would work as China would, at this point, be largely self-sufficient and not maintained on foreign trade, or worse, floating a massive foreign surplus. They may be weak in some supplies, and blocking them would be a high priority in order to slow their war machine through starvation, though it could also just provoke quicker aggression (example: Japan in WW2 after American pressures). With Russia cut off, however, it's questionable how long they would be able to maintain a campaign without foreign support.

In all cases, it is unlikely atomics will be continually used simply because of global pressures - simply speaking, wars of conquest do not use nuclear weapons because they need something to be left to conquer. Restricting operations to conventional warfare is a necessity in all cases - even if said conventional warfare means excessive firepower. In any case, this is not a tactical advisory, but a political one.

fenix · Oct 01, 2008, 02:32 PM // 14:32

sup avarre.

12 chars

Etta · Oct 01, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Avarre, have you been reading too much Tom Clancy again?

Avarre · Oct 01, 2008, 02:45 PM // 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

sup avarre.

12 chars

hi fenix, whats up

And no Etta, I haven't. If I had, I would have just written 'AMERICAN GETS INVOLVED AND WINS LOL SO GOOD'.

zwei2stein · Oct 01, 2008, 02:59 PM // 14:59

China vs. Russia conflict is pointless: They both have more cost/effective ways to expand, and USA taking advantage of their conflict would be disastrous for them.

They would be much better off cooperating (if at least by agreeing of spheres of influence and upholding to that.

Of course, Russians won't do that because they had their share of unfortunate relations with insane (see WW2 for prime example) and would most likely either passivelly wait for china/us conflict to take advantage of or attempt to provoke it.

Avarre · Oct 01, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

They would be much better off cooperating (if at least by agreeing of spheres of influence and upholding to that.

They'd be 'better off' simply co-existing in the global system and continuing to make ridiculously large profit from their trade surplus (China).

Countries with a recent history of not being the closest of friends tend to not co-operate, especially when they're both moving for regional dominion. They may make pragmatic, short-term treaties (Nazi-Soviet Pact, etc), but in that nature of global environment, with political tensions, it's unlikely to last forever.

The scenario establishes that China wants to gain territory, and is willing to go up against the US for it by example of their move against Taiwan. Hence, they would have no qualms against moving on Siberia if the situation became beneficial. On the other side, Russia in the scenario is clearly hitting the Vodka pretty hard and who knows what they'll do.

The US exploited the Sino-Soviet split, and if there's anything to exploit in this situation, it is the first priority.

Master Fuhon · Oct 01, 2008, 07:45 PM // 19:45

As for the scenario in particular I couldn't take it seriously because of the assumptions that are made that lead up to the war. But I'll try...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretchman Drake

You strive to give the United States a new face, going against the 'world police' role, and would like to start over and try to be everyone's friend.

Upon accepting the presidency I strive to uphold the United States role as 'world police'. I see how some world leaders treat their own people; they will have no friendship with an outsider until they have respect for their own. I do not show my hand to an enemy under any circumstances, and I force them to negotiate under my terms. In most cases, I demonstrate how mentally unstable I will be if provoked. I wouldn't consider letting my guard down within 6 years, or possibly ever.

Someone said the U.S. will start the next war. This is partially correct. The position of the United States is to take a side prior to any war being able to start. That way we have all the information we need to know, and whether or not any enemy needs to be viewed as a threat. Any country who is an ally would have presented this conflict to NATO already so the U.S. would be able to react immediately. Anyone not accepting the terms of NATO can fight for themselves until they accept our terms. We can send them weapons and aid to help them in fighting the war; but we dangle this like a carrot on a stick to convince them to join our side for future conflicts.

As for my generic war fighting policy, I find people who have an intense hatred for the enemy I plan on fighting. I provide them weapons and a minimal promise of support (either covert or open). I do not back out of this promise since that creates a future enemy similar to what we have been dealing with this current decade. Presidents who broke commitments in the past brought us where we are today; this is possibly in part of them having no idea of what those commitments were when trying to win a previous election.

Any country using nuclear weapons takes a higher precedence over any other type of conflict. Upon the first use of nuclear weapons, as president, I would make sure that WW3 occurs as quickly as possible to try to reduce the possible long term consequences of this type of warfare. I would create an alliance to deal with the country responsible, and consider any country that sides with them as an enemy also. Immediate action would have to be taken to prevent the further usage of nuclear weapons; even the consideration of a response nuclear strike on the leadership of the country responsible. Response nuclear strike would be the most likely option if there was no world support for fighting the war. I would try to seek world approval for 'a type of strike', but in any case, they were warned if they did not join in. If more enemies join that side, the strike becomes more important to be able to disable that part of the arsenal.

I found the hardest part to be determining that I needed to escalate the conflict to bring about a quick end. The first step is determining whether or not the leader of a country is suicidal when he initiates a conflict. A suicidal leader will only drop more bombs, so he needs to be killed immediately. Most leaders care about self preservation, so upon realizing that someone is willing to escalate the conflict, they would come to the table to negotiate before both sides sustain heavy losses. I also intended the response nuclear strike to create outrage from within the country who dropped the first bomb; people who wanted to live would have to take action to overthrow government.

But I just want to make something clear: the first person to initiate nuclear war is most likely suicidal (in that moment), wants to see the world end, or the type of person who didn't know the consequences before he did it (far less likely). Can't ever let suicidal people or psychopaths get their hands on bigger weapons. When we first started the nuclear race humans didn't know any better; now we should. I believe that China/Russia have demonstrated they care about living enough to become powerful, which is why I would expect the next war to be started by a smaller country or an individual acting on behalf of a minority. But I watch them just in case.