I am tired of this...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MADLAX, Mar 3, 2006.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
  1. Jungle Japes

    Jungle Japes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    66
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    It's called imminent domain. If the government wants to build something, they can give you what they say is the fair market value of your land and make you get out. This also applies if a third party wants to build something that will increase the tax value of your land, like a shopping center. I think it's one of the stupidest laws we have here in America.
     
  2. Qilikatal

    Qilikatal New Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Agreee toataly with japes here. Particullary about that third party part.
     
  3. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Heh, can't say I didn't use it at least a couple of times. Sorry 'bout that.
     
  4. Qilikatal

    Qilikatal New Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    A proffesor in international relations once told me that there is three countries inn the world that can never be counqered and held as the world is today. China, russia and the US. China because of its wast population and sise. The US because of its great sise, army and its strategic location. Russia because of its great sise alone. The US and China would never win a war against eachother as the world stand today.
     
  5. Sofokl

    Sofokl New Member

    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Russia cannot be conquered not only because of its size, but also because of fear of "civilized men" before "wild russians" and because of winter, where only norway, finnish, swedish, russian and penguin army can survive. But without penguins those scandinavians cannot conquer Russia. :)
     
  6. Bunny

    Bunny New Member

    Messages:
    2,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Somehow, I'd like to see that happening. Because one should be more powerful than the other.
     
  7. Qilikatal

    Qilikatal New Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    It is all a question on how you define victory. The US might win an aerial campaign, but they do simply not have the forces to conquer and control the wast population of china. So the chinese leaders can play saddam and hide from bombs until the americans go tired and go home.
     
  8. MADLAX

    MADLAX New Member

    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    The more powerful one would like to play the role of a invador, thus lost most of its advantages, have you ever played the Civs?

    And the winter of Russia... wow, i think it is the most powerful weather condition that had more than once changed the fate of the whole world.
     
  9. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    No need to invade Russia today. We don't really NEED armies. If the US (or any other country with nukes) decided that Russia had to be brought down, they'd use nukes as a probable last resort. If they lost all their troops in the Russian winter, then Russia would've to face a nuklear winter instead of their own.
     
  10. Blinky969

    Blinky969 Active Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    A war between China and the US would be long and drawn out, but I think the Chinese would lose from economic attrition. The other powerful nations of the world would side with us, and the Chinese economy, which is completely dependent upon American, European, and Japanese trade, would crash. The Chinese produce, we buy, they make money. The beginning years of the war would be brutal for both sides, because both countries are so efficient at war production, but after awhile China would be basically starved out.
     
  11. Sofokl

    Sofokl New Member

    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Some information: Russia has estimated 6000 nukes, America has estimated 7000.
     
  12. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Yes. Estimated. And those that we don't know about? Eitherway, no offence Sofokl, the rest of the world would probably side with America, since they're the reckoned world police right now, and many other powerful nations are more afraid of them than of Russia.
     
  13. Sofokl

    Sofokl New Member

    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Right. Those cowards always agree with the world's police.
     
  14. Grossenschwamm

    Grossenschwamm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    If any of the nuclear devices made in the last twenty years were used, any ONE of them, the blast would send enough debris into the atmosphere to cause a nuclear winter. That's one nuke. Also, the radiation thrown out would be inconcievable compared to how small the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. Don't joke about these weapons. Don't start.
     
  15. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    I don't think that they're going to be used, you know. I hope that the US will come to their senses and destroy the weapons as soon as possible.
     
  16. Sofokl

    Sofokl New Member

    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Don't hope. "Than America" will say all countries to destroy weapons, but America itself wouldn't, because they're so-called "guards of Democracy". No one will destroy them, I think, because it's dangerous to live on one planet with America or/and China (World Policeman or/and Great Crowd) if you're without nukes.
     
  17. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,485
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    It's the other way around, I think. It's safer to live WITHOUT nukes today, 'cause if these weapons are placed in the wrong hands, the whole world might be blown to pieces before any agency even knows what's goin' on.
     
  18. Grossenschwamm

    Grossenschwamm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,618
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Sofokl has a point; It's why his country still has some smallpox in vials.
    No one will ever part with their nukes willingly. They might say they disarmed them, but they'd always keep ten or twenty active, just to have an edge over their neighbor.
     
  19. MADLAX

    MADLAX New Member

    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    For one thing, Chinese is not like Bagistan, who 'completely depends upone other countries', and if we stopped trading, American would suffer from the lack of basic nessessaries.
    For anther, I don't think that all the developed countries would side with US, and if they did, they would not get involved on the battlefield, instead, they would wait for a chance to take the place of the US, there is no such faithful alliance in the world today.

    That's right, and that's our duty.
     
  20. Sofokl

    Sofokl New Member

    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    The point is that "wrong hands" might be hands of USA President, because USA now has nonofficial right to invade any "antidemocratic" country they dislike, and no one wants to be this "antidemocratic" country if he doesn't has nukes.
     
Our Host!