2 Guests viewing this page
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Cartwright said
I believe napalm has also been marked chemical weapon therefor has been marked illegal on 1980. Sorry to burst any bubbles here but napalm isn't really an easy item to get even in the black market. You guys should research abit....


They still had white phosphorus, which is similar to napalm.... strange, I'll have to do some research.

But yeah, killing of thousands is never a smart thing to do in war.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

XxLyraxX said
I agree with the leaving the bombs at home. We can have a World War without chemical warfare. Lets just keep to guns and stuff, alright? Oh, no rocket launchers or the like either. xD


Hey, Hey, Hey. You gotta leave something for me. Let's not be too hasty here.

I'm okay with leaving out airstrikes and artillery... because, you know, destroying a city would mean millions in collateral damage.

Besides, a rocket launcher is like... an oversized gun you know... And... you know, I need at least that. because... I'm probably not going to have tanks either.... And I'll be lucky to have a few APCs...

Please don't take that away from me too. xD
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by JessieTargaryen
Raw
Avatar of JessieTargaryen

JessieTargaryen Celestial Queen-in-Waiting

Member Seen 11 mos ago

XxLyraxX said
I agree with the leaving the bombs at home. We can have a World War without chemical warfare. Lets just keep to guns and stuff, alright? Oh, no rocket launchers or the like either. xD


This isn't a world war then. World Wars aee violent abd deadly things. I'll leave the chemical warfare and the Napalm. But rocket launchers, tanks, jets, helicopters. They stay.

Cities will be taken out. Thats the effects of a world war. WMD's can stay out but I need tanks and jets and naval bombardments. Mass causlties is a fact of war. Lets have it in europe and the pacific. They always get violent anyways xD
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by XxLyraxX
Raw
GM

XxLyraxX

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

Fine. xD
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Jasonhero said
This isn't a world war then. World Wars aee violent abd deadly things. I'll leave the chemical warfare and the Napalm. But rocket launchers, tanks, jets, helicopters. They stay. Cities will be taken out. Thats the effects of a world war. WMD's can stay out but I need tanks and jets and naval bombardments. Mass causlties is a fact of war. Lets have it in europe and the pacific. They always get violent anyways xD


The cities would be damaged, but not leveled. Severely damaged, but still there, as long as conventional weapons are used....

And why does it have to be just europe and the pacific? they already had two world wars there.. just have it anywhere...
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Maxxorlord
Raw

Maxxorlord

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

Did the first atomic bombs level Hiroshima and Naga..something or another? I can't seem to recall if they destroyed everything..

Annnyway. I feel as if were nitpicking at this point. We should like, focus on getting to WW3 first. xD
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Maxxorlord said
Did the first atomic bombs level Hiroshima and Naga..something or another? I can't seem to recall if they destroyed everything..Annnyway. I feel as if were nitpicking at this point. We should like, focus on getting to WW3 first. xD


Nagasaki. There were still buildings and bridges left intact though, and atomic bombs ain't really conventional.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Maxxorlord
Raw

Maxxorlord

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

Nytem4re said
Nagasaki. There were still buildings and bridges left intact though, and atomic bombs ain't really conventional.


Yeah, that was my point. Leveling a city takes a whooole lot of fire power.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by JessieTargaryen
Raw
Avatar of JessieTargaryen

JessieTargaryen Celestial Queen-in-Waiting

Member Seen 11 mos ago

Maxxorlord said
Yeah, that was my point. Leveling a city takes a whooole lot of fire power.


London was pretty much leveled by german air raids. Not all the way but close. But I agree with Maxxy, we should probably focus on getting there
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Cartwright
Raw

Cartwright

Member Seen 8 yrs ago

Jasonhero said
This isn't a world war then. World Wars aee violent abd deadly things. I'll leave the chemical warfare and the Napalm. But rocket launchers, tanks, jets, helicopters. They stay. Cities will be taken out. Thats the effects of a world war. WMD's can stay out but I need tanks and jets and naval bombardments. Mass causlties is a fact of war. Lets have it in europe and the pacific. They always get violent anyways xD


Then it seems two thing have to happen:

We gotta rethink and revote and

You going against the GM Jason? :3

One thing is for sure, Harry s Truman was the ONLY president to make such a dramatic call (the use of nuclear weapons) ever since, the rules have changed. Weapons of mass destruction and chemical warfare were banned in the UK convention... Tell me if we ever carpet bombed a city in the recent 20 years and were NOT beaten about by NATO.

World war 2 is a terrible example to back up your argument. The rules have changed over the years and weapons have been restricted.

I just hate this bombing idea period and firmly stand against it still.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Jasonhero said
London was pretty much leveled by german air raids. Not all the way but close. But I agree with Maxxy, we should probably focus on getting there


Hardly. Buildings were destroyed, but not leveled. That implies that there's no trace of the building. Many buildings in London were left in pieces, but technically still standing. Far from leveled.

And cart, I'm with you, but didn't the US pretty much bombard Baghdad with missiles and bombers? 1991 gulf war. Sure, not on the scale that Jason in suggesting, but still. And I think you mean the UN, not NATO... Yeah, the rules weren't exactly followed during the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq... White Phosphrus, which was declared inhumane by the Geneva Convention, because it is technically a chemical attack, was used by American troops to flush out insurgents in Iraq. In war, rules tend to be broken. A lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

If this is taking place in america, then there would be more reason NOT to use arty and strikes. It would destroy much of the city and cause millions of damage. Not to mention irreplaceable damage to monuments and the sort. Tanks are already pushing it, but if I'm controlling the other side, there won't be an airstrike or artillery unless it was an extreme situation. Even capture of a city would not warrant that as well. Maybe if the leaders of the side hunting down the supers were in danger, or imminent destruction of a war factory would warrant a strike. And it would not be made lightly.

If there a civilians around, air support and artillery would likely be declared not an opinion anyway, killing civies is a great way to get the public on the other side..
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Slypheed
Raw
Avatar of Slypheed

Slypheed Idiotic and Degenerated

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

Nytem4re said
Hardly. Buildings were destroyed, but not leveled. That implies that there's no trace of the building. Many buildings in London were left in pieces, but technically still standing. Far from leveled.And cart, I'm with you, but didn't the US pretty much bombard Baghdad with missiles and bombers? 1991 gulf war. Sure, not on the scale that Jason in suggesting, but still. And I think you mean the UN, not NATO... Yeah, the rules weren't exactly followed during the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq... White Phosphrus, which was declared inhumane by the Geneva Convention, because it is technically a chemical attack, was used by American troops to flush out insurgents in Iraq. In war, rules tend to be broken. A lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_IraqIf this is taking place in america, then there would be more reason NOT to use arty and strikes. It would destroy much of the city and cause millions of damage. Not to mention irreplaceable damage to monuments and the sort. Tanks are already pushing it, but if I'm controlling the other side, there won't be an airstrike or artillery unless it was an extreme situation. Even capture of a city would not warrant that as well. Maybe if the leaders of the side hunting down the supers were in danger, or imminent destruction of a war factory would warrant a strike. And it would not be made lightly. If there a civilians around, air support and artillery would likely be declared not an opinion anyway, killing civies is a great way to get the public on the other side..


While the chemical weapons/WMDs shouldn't be used. If we are to use the Nazi-esque regime, I don't think they'll care much for the destruction of a city. So long as it means the Supers are dead, they'll consider the loss of a few hundred innocent lives, as well as the cost to rebuild, worth it
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by JessieTargaryen
Raw
Avatar of JessieTargaryen

JessieTargaryen Celestial Queen-in-Waiting

Member Seen 11 mos ago

Slypheed said
While the chemical weapons/WMDs shouldn't be used. If we are to use the Nazi-esque regime, I don't think they'll care much for the destruction of a city. So long as it means the Supers are dead, they'll consider the loss of a few hundred innocent lives, as well as the cost to rebuild, worth it


Pretty much what I was trying to say
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Slypheed
Raw
Avatar of Slypheed

Slypheed Idiotic and Degenerated

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

Jasonhero said
Pretty much what I was trying to say


along with the use of nukes and napalm*
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by deadpixel101
Raw
Avatar of deadpixel101

deadpixel101 Still Around

Member Seen 2 mos ago

So...I'm just like....here, kinda
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by XxLyraxX
Raw
GM

XxLyraxX

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

deadpixel101 said
So...I'm just like....here, kinda


*huggles* it otay
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Cartwright
Raw

Cartwright

Member Seen 8 yrs ago

@Nyte: The UN convention applies to all involved in nato. And the bombings you described ACTUALLY resulted in the termination of the use of cluster bombs, making them illegal to use as a military organization. 98% of the world population follows these guidelines while the 2% well.. You see them on the news >.>
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

Cartwright said
@Nyte: The UN convention applies to all involved in nato. And the bombings you described ACTUALLY resulted in the termination of the use of cluster bombs, making them illegal to use as a military organization. 98% of the world population follows these guidelines while the 2% well.. You see them on the news >.>


Still doesn't explain the use of white phosphorus, which is basically napalm, on infantry. And seriously in real life, if WW3 broke out, no one would give two shits about Geneva. Just saying. Even torture on Iraqi prisoners was allowed despite the geneva convention. Rules are made to be broken. Who's going to follow those written rules in war? I could go on and on about violations of geneva done by NATO countries. They turn a blind eye to it, thats all... Just pointing out that those rules are broken anyway, despite this so called convention.
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Slypheed
Raw
Avatar of Slypheed

Slypheed Idiotic and Degenerated

Member Seen 10 hrs ago

Don't yell......don't yell.....don't yell.......don't yell.......don't yell....
Hidden 11 yrs ago Post by Maxxorlord
Raw

Maxxorlord

Member Seen 5 yrs ago

I kinda agree with Nyte. The Geneva Convention is only ever used when one country wants justification to act against another. Course there are NATO countries who actually follow the rules. Its too bad they happen to all be small countries that can't really affect the global community.

What Sly and Jason said. The hardcore fascists are notorious for being toppled by their own people for, say, blowing up friendlies. :P
↑ Top
2 Guests viewing this page
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet