Discussion [Poll] What sort of war crimes would you ban?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by lychee, Dec 1, 2019.

Tags:
?

Thoughts on war?

  1. I'm male - YES!!! War!!! Kill them all!

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  2. I'm male - War is good if we're winning!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I'm male - War is good if there's a clear benefit we can gain from it

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  4. I'm male - It's important to attack your enemies before you get attacked yourself

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  5. I'm male - There are certain dangerous "terrorist countries" and they should be eliminated

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  6. I'm male - It's important to defend yourself AND your interests

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  7. I'm male - It's important to have the ability to take violent actions in the right situation

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  8. I'm male - It's important to support your allies and their military operations

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. I'm male - It's important to have a military to threaten/bluff the use of force

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. I'm male - It's important to have offensive military capabilities, but only take defensive actions

    3 vote(s)
    13.0%
  11. I'm male - ONLY defensive military operations and technology are acceptable

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  12. I'm male - We should rely on alliances with other military powers to defend us

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  13. I'm male - We should rely on economic/political capabilities to negotiate with enemies

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  14. I'm male - All forms of war is bad and a country should surrender if attacked

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  15. I'm female - YES!!! War!!! Kill them all!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. I'm female - War is good if we're winning!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  17. I'm female - War is good if there's a clear benefit we can gain from it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  18. I'm female - It's important to attack your enemies before you get attacked yourself

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  19. I'm female - There are certain dangerous "terrorist countries" and they should be eliminated

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  20. I'm female - It's important to defend yourself AND your interests

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  21. I'm female - It's important to have the ability to take violent actions in the right situation

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  22. I'm female - It's important to support your allies and their military operations

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  23. I'm female - It's important to have a military to threaten/bluff the use of force

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  24. I'm female - It's important to have offensive military capabilities, but only take defensive actions

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  25. I'm female - ONLY defensive military operations and technology are acceptable

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  26. I'm female - We should rely on alliances with other military powers to defend us

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  27. I'm female - We should rely on economic/political capabilities to negotiate with enemies

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  28. I'm female - All forms of war is bad and a country should surrender if attacked

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  29. I'm unsure

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  30. I do not wish to respond

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  1. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    I read a pretty depressing news article, so I'm back at NUF crafting a poll scenario to hear people's thoughts.

    The Magical Girl of Melancholy and Melons transmigrated you to an isekai universe to deal with an annoying and troublesome problem.

    Let's start with a description of the setting.

    + + +

    [​IMG]

    You are the Minister of Foreign Affairs in an island country called Penolopia.

    You live in a Pangea-type world, and Penolopia is conveniently located on the opposite side of the planet of everyone else, so it is isolated from the troubles and problems of the rest of the world. Overall, your country is very peaceful and a nice place to live.

    Incidentally, Pangea (The Main Continent) is an extremely violent place. There are over 500 countries and they are very frequently at war. The geopolitical situation is highly complex and there is broad diversity of many nations with different cultures and philosophies.

    There is no international organization analogous to the United Nations, and there is no are international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions — meaning that any country can do whatever they want in war, irregardless of how cruel or nasty or excessive it is.

    Recently, World War XXVII ("World War 27") was concluded, and the peace talks are being hosted in Penolopia — a neutral country. As the Foreign Minister, you are responsible for hosting these peace talks, and over 500 countries are in attendance.

    + + +

    Historically, your country has engaged in an isolationist foreign policy.

    However, several recent major technological developments are a cause for concern. Humans have recently entered an atomic age. Nuclear weapons were recently invented and utilized in the recent war. Space warfare is beginning to blossom. Chemical and biological warfare is reaching new heights. Electronic and cyber warfare — such as EMP devices — have the potential to impact your country.

    Regardless of how you look away, war will reach Penolopia regardless of how "neutral" your country tries to be. Atmospheric radiation will float to your island, space debris will fall from the sky, and poisonous chemicals in the ocean will kill the fish and enter the sushi that your civilians eat.


    Your Prime Minister has instructed you to draft a treaty and somehow get 500 countries to agree on its terms. The goal is for the countries to come to a consensus banning certain war activities.

    However, getting agreement will be difficult.

    The more that you ask for, the more resistant countries will be towards signing.

    "Banning war" — while idealistic — probably is not realistic. Some countries are more inherently violent than others, and many countries have major economic/political/social reasons for starting wars. Many countries are reluctant to part with their military assets (e.g. nuclear weapons, giant space lasers).

    Consequently, you should focus on your priorities and target achievable goals.

    + + +

    As a neutral country, Penolopia has relatively little leverage over other countries.

    You have a small military, so if a major Pangea country targeted you, they could completely steamroll over and crush you. Thankfully, Penolopia lacks critical natural or strategic resources, so most countries have little incentive to annex a country far away on the opposite side of the world.

    Penolopia's neutrality is a critical feature of your country's foreign policy. If you show excess favoritism to one country over another, you will be dragged into the next world war, and you could potentially have space lasers and nuclear warheads flying towards you.

    Penolopia's major assets are in education and finance. Penolopia has a reputation for being a peaceful and stable place, so many international investment and financial institutions have headquartered themselves in your country. Penolopia is the headquarters for the World Stock Market and various other philanthropic organizations such as the World Health Organization. The top-ranked universities in the world are located in Penolopia, and you have many wealthy citizens.

    Your system of government is a Representative Technocracy (candidates nominated by public universities and voted upon by the population), and the economic alignment is free-market capitalism. There is a strong sense of individual rights, and as the Foreign Minister you have no jurisdiction over domestic affairs anyways.

    The cost-of-living is high and immigration is restrictive (everyone wants to immigrate to Penolopia, but there's not enough space in an island country). In fact, you can get deported from the country and lose your citizenship for the sole reason of being bankrupt/poor. Consequently, everyday life can be stressful, since being jobless is very very bad in Penolopia.

    You should try your best acting as the Foreign Minister... and avoid getting fired if you can...

    1. What are your thoughts on war? What war crimes would you try banning?

    2, How do you get 500 countries to agree on something?

    3. Would you hate your job as the Foreign Minister? Would you try to resign and do something else, although it might mean you would get deported from the country if you can't find a job?

    4. A bombing occurred during the peace talks and the Prime Minister (and other government officials) were killed. As the highest ranking member of the cabinet, you are now the Prime Minister of Penolopia. Is there anything else you would try doing as the new Prime Minister?

    5. A suspicious individual appeared and offered you $10 million gold to add an obscure line into the treaty you are writing so that Country X has a slight advantage over Country Z. This line will probably allow Country X is launch a surprise attack on Country Z in the future. Will you accept this bribe?

    6. Suppose you are friends with the Interior Minister (responsible for domestic affairs). Would you try to talk them into to changing the deportation/immigration laws of Penolopia?
     
    gallantkun likes this.
  2. Deleted member 155674

    Deleted member 155674 Guest

    Reading List:
    Link
    How does such small country still exist in a world that got 27 world wars already, this doesn't make sense even if it is neutral :blobconfused:?
    And in a hentai kind of situation, Penolopia would be making preparations to become a place that would thrive from R-18+ kind of business :blobamused:
     
    acip80x3jfse likes this.
  3. Robbini

    Robbini Logical? Illogical? Random? Or Just Unique?

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    2,886
    Likes Received:
    1,749
    Reading List:
    Link
    War is what has shaped our civilization to this point, and will continue to do so as long as there are reasons to . As for war crimes... unnecessarily brutal weapons meant to prolong suffering, rather than quickly dispatch them to the next life I guess.
    Depends on how common those weapons are, if there are several nations using them to some scale or if there's few nations that are using it massively.
    It would atleast let me meet some foreigners.
    Immediately ask the other nations to crush the bomb group, because if they can do it over here with that logistical nightmare (unless they're entirely your own citizens), it's entirely possible for them to do it to any of them.
    Doubtful that any line that would give such an advantage wouldn't be noticed by Z or anyone else, unless they're idiots or bribed as well, so no.
    Propose some artificial island technology competitions. Winners get to stay. On those islands they're responsible for making, motivating them to make them hospitable & safe. Switch them around the islands so they can try the different styles out, and have repeated competitions every 5 years to add new islands and competitors. Allow an equal proportion for all nations to live on those islands as well, but informing them that they're currently testing them out, and the better those islands hold, the longer they can live there and more people they can invite in, making them sort of quasi-custodians / engineers.
     
    lychee likes this.
  4. mio

    mio just me

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    432
    Reading List:
    Link
    I haven't read your entire posy, so i'll just share my view of war in RL with you.

    war happens for many reasons, but all can be summed up with one word; power.
    All war happens because of power. take for example, going to war because your people are starving; you could join another country and allow to your people to live there, but that would mean sacrificing your own power. Of course, it would be a lot better if hundreds of thousands died in a war, since they would've died of hunger anyway, and then you get to keep your precious power.

    Now, even if you do decide to capitulate, the other country might not agree so easily. Why? Power! your people are not their people, they might not listen, they might take advantage, cause a war from within, they might gain power slowly and take over positions of power that others hold. As such, it's easier to go to war; if they win, your population will be demoralised, and thus easier to integrate. Plus, a lot would have died, which is less people taking up resources, which makes it easier to maintain your power.

    Of course, wars in these times are minor, and should someone start a major war, he/she would doom us all. Why? because no matter how much people will say that nuclear warfare should never be used, you better believe that as soon as someone starts to lose without any way out, they will use it. That is the problem with power, it is very hard to give up.

    Of course, power comes in many forms, and almost always comes with more downsides than anything else. Sadly, few people actually realize this, and hence conflict remains.

    If you achieve power in a democratic country, your power would be so interlinked with other powers, that making any actual significant moves would be hard to do. It might even have the opposite effect just because other powers want to show you your place.

    Of course, you could go the dictator-route, but then you have to keep the population under your thumb, have to make sure your army is happy at all times, since they will betray you otherwise, and you will live your entire life in fear of betrayal. Not to mention that the moment you fall, your whole family is liable to get slaughtered by whomever replaces you so as to solidify their position.

    But even knowing all this, people keep repeating the same mistakes, because humanity is at a point in it's advancement where we have reached the peak of our potential. It is possible that we find a new peak and advance beyond our planet, but currently, we are starting to stall in our advance. You could even say we are showing early signs of decline.

    Sad really, so much potential, yet most is wasted on trying to get that illusory power.
     
    lychee likes this.
  5. Westeller

    Westeller Smokin' Sexy Style!! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    24,948
    Reading List:
    Link
    The easiest way to get everyone to agree is to involve everyone. Don't just draft something up and expect them all to sign it. Don't come up with all of the details on your own. Get these people into a room and let them hash it out together. That's how international treaties are born, and the best way to ensure they're enforced.

    I'm not really familiar with the finer points of the Geneva Conventions, but the highlights are good: don't harm civilians, don't shoot the medics, take care of the wounded and ill - yours and your enemy's.
     
    kkgoh, acip80x3jfse and lychee like this.
  6. Osamaru

    Osamaru 『Shem's Best Pal ✧ Lexi's Ani ✧ Hamster's Keeper』

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2016
    Messages:
    3,403
    Likes Received:
    34,127
    Reading List:
    Link
    After 27 World Wars without something like the Geneva Conventions popping up, I'm pretty sure these people are Helpless anyway and we should just let them wipe each other out and take their stuff when its over.
     
  7. acip80x3jfse

    acip80x3jfse Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    9
    Reading List:
    Link
    All an army/ foreign affairs department does is protect the nation's interest and does whatever it can to achieve that protection.
    Reasoning that any governing body outside of Penolopia is illegitimate and should be screwed over, there is context to take the sus. individual's money and encourage warmongering - the context seems to contradict the idea of massive repurcussions since the country is undesireable to conqueor + in this argument, you'd want the countries not to stabilize.

    This exacerbation of war can also be justified in a conjecture that as weapons become more destructive, so to the rewards of using them - no warmongerer wants to rule in or next to a wasteland. The conjecture can be backed up by the fact these countries are even interested in this peace council.

    As a stakeholder of your individual nation, it is within interest to keep the enemies in turmoil and
    focus on creating an impregnable nation via army creation to defend invasions and probably encourage anti pollutants for the radiation.

    On the other side, in the conjecture that hotter heads will prevail, the path forward is to discourage war:
    Trade sanctions seems to be the easiest method to deter warmongering - advantageous for your small military and isolationalist foreign policy. Without the context of a small military, seems reasonable to pre-empt threats to the nation.
    Denounciations that serve as propaganda for the warring nation's citizens, weakening a claim for conflict; or giving justification for other countries to join against them, would also work.
    The very concept of war-crimes is just deterrents of war for populist/democratic rant nations via propaganda.
    The key for countries to agree is the ease of enforcement and benefits for an assumed majority conflict-hating board of countries.

    When it comes to immigration, there are security risks.
    Otherwise in a capitalist state, immigration would be low, likely be economically beneficial at best and neutral at worst.
    Spacing/land seems to be a non-problem that works itself out, in context to Penolopian capitalism.

    There really is no need to deport anyone, inability to produce value and therefore not producing value tends for the negative actors to work themselves out of the nation.

    Overall, the general gist is to deter countries from warring Penolopia and tech race(via waiting) out of the planet or at least to the point you can defend yourself from interventions or their indirect effects.
    You can achieve this goal by giving easily accessible ways to decrease the rewards and ease of entry for wars denunciations/propaganda(war-crimes)., or destablizing threatening countries by encouraging it.
     
    lychee likes this.
  8. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,278
    Likes Received:
    24,346
    Reading List:
    Link
    Destroying toilets is a war crime worthy of a death penalty. Seriously, if you bomb the only toilet within 20 miles, Ai-chan will find you and Ai-chan will kill you.
     
    kkgoh, otaku31 and Westeller like this.
  9. Lazriser

    Lazriser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,258
    Likes Received:
    6,254
    Reading List:
    Link
    I find it ironic they uphold humanitarian policies when they're so willing to pull the trigger on each other's countries.

    I have no comment on the actual horrors during war, but wouldn't war itself stagnate in one or two generations if they remove those hypocritical policies? Hey, I'm not against those policies, since they're good measure in justifying war and retaining our human integrity. This is just a alternative rules of war to end war in my honest belief.
    1. Harming civilians and non-combatants physically but not psychologically is allowed only inside war zones.
    2. Imprisoning civilians is not allowed inside and outside war zones.
    3. Targeting medics and medical facilities is allowed, but should no artillery on the terrain or air be used to do so.
    4. Euthanizing friendly combatants is allowed on duty only inside and outside war zones.
    5. Requesting aid from hostile combatants or aiding hostile injured combatants is not allowed inside and outside war zones.
    Let only madmen and warmongers suffer in a far crueler and brutal war. War still happens, because people believe they can win or survive. Let us save the unfortunate souls by destroying those despair inducing wishes of theirs. War shall end when wars could no longer be managed. Humans normally desire growth and survival, and a war that eradicates such desires is a war no human dares to start. Maybe only demons in human skin seek such wars.
     
    Westeller likes this.
  10. Westeller

    Westeller Smokin' Sexy Style!! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    24,948
    Reading List:
    Link
    No, of course not. We have thousands of years of human history to attest to the fact that collateral damage is totally acceptable to every country you care to name, if not the outright GOAL. These humanitarian restrictions were agreed to because every country knows its in their best interest to uphold and enforce them. Otherwise, no one will give a shit how much damage is done. ... If politics wasn't banned on these forums, I could directly bring up examples of CURRENT DAY ongoing genocides, ffs, and that's DESPITE these international resolutions. That's DESPITE the horror of World War II. There have been wars ongoing all over the planet ever since. Nothing has stopped. Nothing will ever stop. It doesn't matter if there are only two people left. They'll find something to kill each other over.
     
    lychee likes this.
  11. Lazriser

    Lazriser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,258
    Likes Received:
    6,254
    Reading List:
    Link
    There goes all my hope for a true peaceful Age for humanity to ashes and dust. It seems a planetary scale human genocide is the only true pathway to world peace. Of course, unless someone develops a means to brainwash humanity into a standstill over resources and regulates them like a hive like a certain god who unintentionally paradox himself to death.
     
    Westeller likes this.
  12. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    I’ve always been confused about the “genocide is the only way for peace” statements.
     
  13. Lazriser

    Lazriser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,258
    Likes Received:
    6,254
    Reading List:
    Link
    Genocide is a sane person's last option and an insane person's first option. Genocide is always a choice when a person is filled with zealous despair over war or peace. It's an extreme method to achieving peace, as we believe humanity is the ruler of this planet. Excluding religious or political reasons, majority of the aggressive change in the climate, the dwindling of natural resources, and mass destruction everywhere is all due to us - humanity.

    You're wondering how global genocide achieves peace? It actually does not in a certain sense, but it does give peace to humans in the form of euthanasia. Genocide works whether you believe in the supernatural afterlife or not. The dead tell no tales.
     
  14. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    But I mean, what’s the difference between genocide and suicide?

    if you’re bothered by the “unpeaceful” world, isn’t it simpler to just suicide? “Peace” is acquired either way.

    Why worry so much about the world if you’re not even there?
     
  15. Lazriser

    Lazriser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,258
    Likes Received:
    6,254
    Reading List:
    Link
    They don't desire to die, but rather live peacefully in all levels.

    Suicide to them is a weakness. If they were not such zealous souls, then they could have to die out of despair. I assure you, it is human nature to rule over anything they deemed worthy of their rule. The sin of pride dwells deep inside all of us. Sin is abstract to modern humans, but sin exists. You can say, it's a part of our blueprint already. It makes us who we are now from the beginning.

    I'll stop here, because we're approaching political and religious territory. You'll understand what I mean if you combine the concepts of "peace" with "suicide". If you're wondering why, wonder about those who actually implemented it in history. What is peace if you're isolated? Humans aren't lone wolfs. We were created in pairs, so we shall in groups willingly so. It's a genetic function in us. The zealous are able to resist such functions with their knowledge. The knowledge that curses them to seek peace in a grand scale. The curse that spites them into warranting mass genocide.
     
  16. Kadmos1

    Kadmos1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Reading List:
    Link
    This very thread is a war crime!
     
  17. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link
    Agreed with @Westeller.

    I'm guessing Penolopia is similar/modeled after Iceland, one of the few countries on Earth with no standing military, although it does have a small Coast Guard and is part of NATO.

    Spoke to Icelandic guides when I was there on vacation. Iceland can't afford a military because of their small size and costs of upkeep. The only way Iceland historically survived was relying on protection from Norway (was part of the Danish kingdom). Iceland joined NATO under the promise that they didn't have to maintain a military. They enjoyed NATO protection in exchange for offering up use of their land for strategic naval bases. i.e more or less @Westeller's solution.

    Practically speaking, it's impossible for Penolopia to have followed an isolationist policy. They still have geographic importance being the only major island nation covering that entire expanse of ocean. It's a military thing. One of those 500 countries should have conquered them by now.

    Of the war options provided, it's also impossible to maintain a defensive position only. Again, it's a military thing. With large bombs (even w/o nukes), it's not physically possible to defend a small island nation. Even simple naval artillery (firing large rounds from naval ships at a distance) would take out the whole island. So Earth countries in the same situation adopt an aggressive stance (Israel, Singapore), where the military doctrine is fast response and launching preemptive attacks.

    Here's a real act of terrorism then, the Upper Decker.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2019
    Ai chan likes this.
  18. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    Hmm, it definitely wasn't explicitly modeled after Iceland, or really any country in particular.

    I think your impression of the island's size and power is a bit weaker/pacifist than my own imagination.

    UK and Japan are both island countries, but that doesn't necessarily make them weak.

    Additionally, historically the size of the country did not always correlate with its military might. The strongest naval forces during the age of sail were relatively small countries (e.g. Portugal, Netherlands, England) -- which should go to say that "size" does not directly correlate with "might". Having a strong merchant mariner tradition lended an incredible boost to the naval capacities of these small countries (to a dominant extent), although their land armies were small/nonexistent.

    Consequently, Penolopia in my imagination certainly was not "pacifist" to any degree, at least in its history. But to have reached the point of becoming the economic seat of the world (e.g. host of the World Stock Market), it should be anticipated that they have sprawling sea-based trade networks and the associated naval forces to defend those economic interests. The entirety of their side of the ocean is probably regarded by them as de facto their own territorial waters -- and they probably would not look kindly to a massive fleet sailing through their side of the ocean.

    By "isolationist" -- my intention was more so to say that they didn't involve themselves in "Continental/Inland/Pangea" affairs. In a sense, it has nothing to do with them either. As a maritime country, they lacked the capacity for surface/land operations to begin with.

    The US in it's "isolationist" period wasn't strictly isolationist per say -- they engaged in all sorts of activities in the Americas although they avoided anything to do with Eurasia...

    I think it's hard to say.

    If Penolopia has a military capacity to a lesser-average degree, waging an offensive war halfway around the planet is rather nightmarish -- especially if Penolopia has a sizable navy with comparable technology.

    Thinking of the supply chain alone... :blobsweat_2::blobsweat_2::blobsweat_2: I don't envy that task. Operation Downfall for the invasion of Japan had a projected six million invaders... and that was with complete dominance of the Pacific from the Allied side. In the absence of complete naval and air superiority, are you willing to send a landing ships of several million soldiers on a several month-long journey halfway across the planet? Those landing ships are sitting ducks in transit... and we're not really talking about submarines or anything...

    Furthermore, I'm doubtful of the fact of whether a Pangea country would be willing to open another front and pull all those military resources off their Pangea land fronts. In Pangea truly is as violent as stated, no country should have the excess forces to spare for a "side quest" on the opposite side of the planet. A country with several million soldiers on an invasion route to Penolopia is several million soldiers weaker on their home front, and vulnerable to counter attacks by more nearby enemies.

    Historically, the annexation of the Pacific Islands (and other areas) during the Colonial Era occurred with massive technological advantages on the side of the Europeans. For example, Spain could park Cortez with a single small fleet of 11 ships and conquer all of the Aztecs. :blobsweat_2::blobsweat_2::blobsweat_2::blobsweat_2: In the absence of that incredible lopsided technological advantage, I doubt the Europeans would have had such an easy time colonizing all the places that they did.
     
    kkgoh likes this.
  19. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link
    Ah, noted.
    I was taking reference from the "host of the World Stock Market", which was what Iceland's financial industry was doing pre-2008. It was briefly the darling of world finance because of ridiculous tax haven policies.
    And from modern warfare reference, since it appeared that this planet was entering the age before nukes.

    Played way too many iterations of Civilization ... a seemingly innocent outpost island in an oceanic expanse is ripe for building a new colony/base. You can easily launch attacks since it halves the logistics required for military transport (refueling, military equipment, food stocks, etc). Took too many Gandhi nukes out of nowhere.
    Same concept applies to most Earth historical forts/fortresses. Also it's kinda why the Cuban missile crisis happened.
    So any coastal nation nearer to Penolopia would be under threat.

    Here's a decent video explaining US overseas base strategic siting ... the "loss of strength gradient" and "power projection" philosophy. Take it with a grain of salt ... the kid producing the videos is in his 20s, but the research is decent :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    lychee likes this.
  20. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    XD I feel like it's less effective when it's a Pangea setting. Going the long way around isn't that useful unless you're trying to launch a surprise attack... right?

    I mean the same applies to missiles and coal refueling stations and aircraft staging areas.

    Most missiles prior to the atomic era didn't have the kind of range to reach halfway around the planet.

    The circumference of the Earth is 24,901 mi (40,075 km).

    The farthest reaching North Korean missiles in the ICBM category are in the 8100 mi category, which only reaches a third of the way around the planet.

    The cuban missile crisis missiles were intermediate range: 4,500 km (2,800 mi) / 2,080 km (1,290 mi).

    In a true Pangea/Penolopia setting, getting a missile to fly halfway around the planet...? (12500 mi or 2000 km) ...That isn't an easy technological feat prior to the space/atomic era. I really think Penolopia would have been irrelevant for most of Pangea until after the start of atomic age... which is the setting of the poll to begin with.

    [​IMG]
     
    kkgoh likes this.