Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:14 am**

http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/medialibrary/2014/11/05/3b2f357f/Dangerous%20Brinkmanship.pdf

We believe the nearly 40 incidents logged are a very serious development, not necessarily because they indicate a desire on the part of Russia to start a war butand because they show a dangerous game of brinkmanship is being played, with the potential for unintended escalation in what is now the most serious security crisis in Europe since the cold war

Can anyone see a better plan than full scale nuclear mobilization targeting all their nuclear bases?

...

...

Nope, since there isn't one.

The only thing is that I'm worried that Russia may be involved in "The Mouse that Roared" style planning and we may end up paying for this in the long run.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:40 am**

If we take them out now, we won't have an enemy and therefore the US will stagnate. We need a powerful enemy to maintain our international dominance. Putin is the best thing for America since Stalin.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:02 am**

How about nuking Canada instead? Free trade deals and currency swaps with China is a direct attack on the US currency.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:05 am**

shickingbrits wrote:How about nuking Canada instead? Free trade deals and currency swaps with China is a direct attack on the US currency.

$30 billion doesn't amount to shit; and Obamer asked for us to push FTA forward.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:21 am**

No, you are right, $30b is nothing, neither is $80b, nor $500b.

I suppose some of the clauses in the agreement are nothing as well. And with Canada's strong record of maintaining their position through legal channels, the clauses shouldn't be worried about.

Do you think China would come to Russia's defence if Russia was nuked? Jack Ma wants 200,000 lobsters, so maybe they'd wait for those before reacting.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:28 am**

shickingbrits wrote:No, you are right, $30b is nothing, neither is $80b, nor $500b.

Well, its not nothing, but in terms of any impact on the American economy, or even the Chinese economy, its nothing.

shickingbrits wrote:Do you think China would come to Russia's defence if Russia was nuked?

Well, I can't imagine any nuclear strike being done without the full, or almost full, co-operation of NATO. I doubt China would want to directly interfere. They would probably try to capitalize on any NATO countries who didn't support nuclear strikes and drive rifts in there.

Turkey would be the country with the most to lose in the immediate aftermath.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:44 am**

It's just 21st century gun boat diplomacy.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:58 pm**

DoomYoshi wrote:http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/medialibrary/2014/11/05/3b2f357f/Dangerous%20Brinkmanship.pdf
We believe the nearly 40 incidents logged are a very serious development, not necessarily because they indicate a desire on the part of Russia to start a war butand because they show a dangerous game of brinkmanship is being played, with the potential for unintended escalation in what is now the most serious security crisis in Europe since the cold war

Can anyone see a better plan than full scale nuclear mobilization targeting all their nuclear bases?

...

...

Nope, since there isn't one.

The only thing is that I'm worried that Russia may be involved in "The Mouse that Roared" style planning and we may end up paying for this in the long run.

Yeah, Russia is such a serious economic and political threat to Europe. Let's consistently apply the 'roaring mouse' reasoning to other Potential Threats: China, North Korea, Iran. They seem small... BUT THEY COULD BECOME INSANELY AGGRESSIVE!! NUKE EVERYTHING!!!

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:00 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:If we take them out now, we won't have an enemy and therefore the US will stagnate. We need a powerful enemy to maintain our international dominance. Putin is the best thing for America since Stalin.

I want to agree, but the USG excels in perceiving new threats to its ambiguous interests. They're already one step ahead too: the war on terror. Enemies! Enemies everywhere!

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:10 pm**

Nuclear missiles should only be used to deliver spacecraft into space so we can attempt to break the warp speed barrier:

--Andy

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:35 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:Nuclear missiles should only be used to deliver spacecraft into space so we can attempt to break the warp speed barrier:

--Andy

The government blows a lot of money on reducing the current risk from terrorism (almost zero) to almost zero. Why not do the same for the threat of asteroids? I'd love to watch a nuclear missile smacking into an asteroid!

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:37 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:The government blows a lot of money on reducing the current risk from terrorism (almost zero) to almost zero. Why not do the same for the threat of asteroids? I'd love to watch a nuclear missile smacking into an asteroid!

Actually BBS, you are probably onto something. If we need perpetual enemies, blowing up larger asteroids to create thousands or tens of thousands more asteroids, we can exponentially increase the number of our enemies.

Someone do the maths.

--Andy

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:57 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The government blows a lot of money on reducing the current risk from terrorism (almost zero) to almost zero. Why not do the same for the threat of asteroids? I'd love to watch a nuclear missile smacking into an asteroid!

Actually BBS, you are probably onto something. If we need perpetual enemies, blowing up larger asteroids to create thousands or tens of thousands more asteroids, we can exponentially increase the number of our enemies.

Someone do the maths.

--Andy

I agree banana lover. We should bomb the shit out of an asteroid that is not going to hit our planet, thus turning it into multiple fragments and increasing the likelihood that some pieces will hit our planet.

Lets call this interstellar bowling.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:40 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The government blows a lot of money on reducing the current risk from terrorism (almost zero) to almost zero. Why not do the same for the threat of asteroids? I'd love to watch a nuclear missile smacking into an asteroid!

Actually BBS, you are probably onto something. If we need perpetual enemies, blowing up larger asteroids to create thousands or tens of thousands more asteroids, we can exponentially increase the number of our enemies.

Someone do the maths.

--Andy

Aren't we already doing that every time we kill an innocent civilian in a drone strike?

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:55 pm**

I like the idea of nuking asteroids too, those guys are the real outsiders. And putin let s just poison him. Faster and lest costy.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 7:56 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The government blows a lot of money on reducing the current risk from terrorism (almost zero) to almost zero. Why not do the same for the threat of asteroids? I'd love to watch a nuclear missile smacking into an asteroid!

Actually BBS, you are probably onto something. If we need perpetual enemies, blowing up larger asteroids to create thousands or tens of thousands more asteroids, we can exponentially increase the number of our enemies.

Someone do the maths.

--Andy

Aren't we already doing that every time we kill an innocent civilian in a drone strike?

No, because the pieces are considerably smaller and they never escape the earth gravitational field. Basically, though sometimes they fly into the air, the impact is not as hard because of the small amount of mass, which provokes the force to be small. More importantly, they never reach US soil.

You should know this, you're a physicist of some sort.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:28 pm**

I'm reporting this thread to Putin. Got you now, Canada!

Bollocks.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 8:54 pm**

I always suspected you of being a rat fink snitch.

Even GoranZ didn't threaten Canada.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:25 pm**

notyou2 wrote:I always suspected you of being a rat fink snitch.

Even GoranZ didn't threaten Canada.

You knew I'm Serbian. Not my fault you expected more of me!

Bollocks.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:39 pm**

Serbia wrote:
notyou2 wrote:I always suspected you of being a rat fink snitch.

Even GoranZ didn't threaten Canada.

You knew I'm Serbian. Not my fault you expected more of me!

Bollocks.

You realize this will effect hockey?

Don't you?

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:50 pm**

notyou2 wrote:
Serbia wrote:
notyou2 wrote:I always suspected you of being a rat fink snitch.

Even GoranZ didn't threaten Canada.

You knew I'm Serbian. Not my fault you expected more of me!

Bollocks.

You realize this will effect hockey?

Don't you?

Positively, of course. Red Army improve hockey. Play way Mother Russia intended. Play good, not like Canadian brutes.

Bollocks.

Posted: **Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:58 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The government blows a lot of money on reducing the current risk from terrorism (almost zero) to almost zero. Why not do the same for the threat of asteroids? I'd love to watch a nuclear missile smacking into an asteroid!

Actually BBS, you are probably onto something. If we need perpetual enemies, blowing up larger asteroids to create thousands or tens of thousands more asteroids, we can exponentially increase the number of our enemies.

Someone do the maths.

--Andy

Aren't we already doing that every time we kill an innocent civilian in a drone strike?

Innocent civilian? Sir, the US drone strikes only target militants--men of military age. All other targets are unknowns, so it's possible that they're all guilt of something. Therefore, it's highly implausible that innocent civilians die from drone strikes. And if they do, then according to my cost-benefit analysis which is confidential, you're wrong, and I'm right in my decision to strike. There.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:38 am**

Metsfanmax wrote:If we take them out now, we won't have an enemy and therefore the US will stagnate. We need a powerful enemy to maintain our international dominance. Putin is the best thing for America since Stalin.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:44 am**

But who will save Australia?? :shock:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25496667/russian-warships-bearing-down-on-australia/

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:03 am**

TeeGee wrote:But who will save Australia??

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25496667/russian-warships-bearing-down-on-australia/

From the tone of that article you'd think there was a serious risk of those warships opening fire on Brisbane, rather than just sailing around a bit and then leaving as they will inevitably do.

Conquer Club

Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?

Re: Should we Just Nuke Russia?