War Games: Is it a win win situation?
•
by sukoidha
One of Uncle Sams main point in his presidential platform is the fact that he will bring in war games.
Now this has received a mixed response from the general population.
As an officer in the eMarine Corps I was extremely happy to hear that war games would be starting after discussing this with my fellow officers for many weeks as we thought it may be another way to bring up the average rank and experience of the military and indeed the general public who wish to fight.
After many discussions we came to that fact that it wasn’t feasible no matter how much we wanted it. This is coming from the Marines who are in a way, warmongers. If there isn’t a war we are bored and when there is one we are complaining that there are no weapons.
The first thing that we saw was that it would be to costly to have war games as is costs 50 gold to attack a region and then the costs of supplying the military with weapons to fight and everything else that comes with the territory of having a “war”, even if it is just friendly.
With the National Federal Reserve cleaned out, this puts us in a completely different situation as shouldn’t the government be trying to save as much money as possible at the moment instead of just spend of war games which if in all honestly there is no need for them at the moment.
If Sam does win this election I would be very happy, he is a very respectable person, just as his VP, Joe DaSome but there is no way that he can guarantee war games, can he?
I may not have all the facts at the moment but shouldn’t there be a bill in congress to pass before this can happen?
What would happen if the congress does not approve of this bill, will they just vote it down all the time when Sam brings it up?
I suppose he could just overturn congress and make the wars happen anyways but im sure that could lead to him being impeached which is something he would not want to happen.
As for the economic reasons which he presented, that it will give our economy a little “boost”, I think this is a good idea and it is well justified. I also have a more pessimistic view of this boost for economy and that is that fact that we cannot say who can and how cannot fight in this war. Once the war doors are open, it is open to everybody.
Now I hear you say, “no you are talking rubbish, only the citizens of the country that is in war is allowed to fight”.
Which is right, yes, but what is to stop other nations citizens buying a moving ticket and coming to our country to fight, with or against us? I have done it loads of times under presidential orders, go to country or RW which is losing a fight against PEACE, the marines come, tank it up and we have won the fight and then we make it back to USA.
Imagine this situation, We decide to have war games with Canada, so that we can help them to build up their strength as well because in all honestly, Spain and Romania don’t need the help with their military.
So start some war games with them, and suddenly we have an influx of PEACE members coming into Florida to make use of the Q5 hospital and they fight WITH the US time, so that we conquer a region of Canada.
Now in a few days, as planned there is a RW in that region of Canada and the Canadians and US citizens fight on the Canadian side but the PEACE members do not. Lets say for arguments sake, that the PEACE members win and the region is still a US region, what happens now?
Do we have another resistance war?
Of course!!!
The president of Canada will not tolerate this so after a few days another RW is coming into play and let just pretend that the previous situation happens again and again and again and again.
That could really damage our economy worse then what’s happening to it at the moment. The rate of supply and demand will become to high, people will start to spend large amounts of money to buy weapons which have had their prices sky rocketed due to the demand of weapons and its just one big problem now.
When it is an actual war it’s a different story but when two nations have agreed to some war games and then it starts to turn serious due to outside members then its not just a game any more.
Just something to think about.....
If there is some things which I have not explained well enough, then I am sorry, but please leave a comment with your questions and I will respond to you as fast as I can.
Please vote this up so that it can be read by everybody.
~Sukoidha
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I'd have to agree. Like you I love the idea of war games. But in practice it just leaves too much room to be exploited by our enemies.
Agreed as well. I'm itchin' to fight and become a better soldier, but there seems to be a lot of weirdness going on out there with PEACE and other types. A mild isolationism is probably the best idea while we repair our economy.
I see War games as a win win. If negotiated right, we could even split the 50 gold, pay 25 per country. As for the argument that Finbar leaves here, Why can we not have an agreement with the opposing country to sign a peace agreement if we notice enemy involvement?
We could also set up a RW somewhere and fight for both sides. I think we need to at the very least discuss it again. I believe Sam could accomplish this, he has friends in power around the globe. I f Cananda continues to be disinterested, we should look elsewhere instead of simply writing this idea off as impossible.
Oh. To all. Sorry if I seem over-commenty lately. I'm not trying to clog things up. But as an enthusiastic newcomer with basically no money and no resources, no suffrage, no party membership, and any chances of owning a newspaper, company, or joining congress a long way off, the comments sections are basically the only place open for me to participate or actually do anything with the game.
Joe DaSome
Joshua: Would you like to play a Game?
Davi😛 Global Thermonuclear War
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
Davi😛 Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.
@Citizen Dru
Dont feel bad in the slightest. I wish all our population commented as much as you do. It really facilitates communication and lets people know how active you are. Keep it up 😃
To sum things up. I agree with Finbar for the most part. War games sound fun in theory, but they have no practical application. They just dont work that way.
Lets look at it this way instead. We are playing a game, and therefor all wars are war-games. That being said, why should we attack an ally? Ruin our MPPs, Trades, and probably our overall citizen moral. When we have people we are not allies with who we can attack. If we don't want to take them over. We can just give it back. No harm at all.
Think about it
Lets liberate eChina😃
then instead start a real war and risk another France incident?
War games lacks the political aspect of war, which makes it more fun than serious business. Regarding the statements made in the article, War games are indeed feasible. Not at this moment, however I believe halfway into the term after the treasury has been built up it will be.
@Justinious: I agree with you. Sadly, the only problem is the reaction from both sides of the coin. We tend to lick the silver a little too much..
@Johny: I've been itchin' for that chance for a while now. Heh.
I don't see why we need to negotiate war games when we already have two open wars. If you want to train us just go to battle with one of those countries, 50 gold is not much and you can get about 11 weapons for one gold at the cheapest price however those would be bought up quick so the demand would sky rocket and prices would go through the roof.
for about 200 or 300 gold you could have a pretty successful war game however if not done properly it would deplete the entire weapons market. Best strategy would just be to get people to invest their extra money in weapons and tell them to just save up for war.
Military life = 99% Boredom and 1% Sheer Terror.
As such, its no wonder the Military is itching for a fight.
I was around in only the last half of the eFrench war. Much of the truth behind it ended up getting soggy in illusory mumbo-jumbo, so I have not much opinion regarding it.
However, I think the overall idea that is being proposed by the President is one based on an economical stance. It's better business to beat the "bad guy" up then in fisticuffs with a valued friend.
I say we have war games w/ iran, that way if it gets out of hand we can just say "O well, lets just liberate China".
That is, of course, if Iran agrees
War games should be the military deploying themselves to other countries wars. It leaves all politics and ramifications of territory out of it and lets us just fight for experience on other peoples stress.
lol, if we try war games with iran, they will try to take us over.
not if we improve our military
I'm a noob so excuse me if this sounds stupid, but it sounds like war games are feasible if negotiated correctly, the only problem being weapons prices. My question is: couldn't the government stock pile some weapons ahead of time at low prices, or even negotiate with weapons firms ahead of time to, say, contract to fund wargames at reasonable prices?
Of course, if that does cost too much, then I would agree with Arbryn that sending troops to other coutries' wars would be the next best thing. Of course that could be possibly damaging to our foreign relations.
Good article and comments!