D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Yes mr_lewington, yes.
He scares me
.
He scares me
.
The Three Phases of Expansionism
- Thread starter D0NIMATRIX
- Start date
mr_lewington
King
______
_____
lol seriously though, monarchy PWNS so much over republic, by middle ages im making like 60gpt
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
The unit support is what gives monarchy the edge. Otherwise, republic is far better. However, we seem to like having a standing army for reasons of security. For me, maintaining a small army in the interest of commerce is suicide, so republic isn't the government for us.
mr_lewington
King
exactly, like lets compare the USSR (Monarchy) to the US (republic) russians had like 1,000,000 troops on standing army and americans like 400,000, sure russia didnt have the econemy but if there were no nukes russia woulda creamed US, who had great econemy.
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
That's the advantage of nukes, they require no maintenance in the real world, so the U.S. relied more on nukes than troops during the Cold War.
ChaosArbiter
King
Why would the USSR be a Monarchy? IIRC, they were Communists . . .
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Well, yeah, but I know what he meant.
ChaosArbiter
King
"... but just to be funny, I took a big bite right out of his jugular vein!" Sorry, it just sort of popped in there. But wasn't the USSR much bigger than the US anyway? I though Russia alone was nearly equal in size, so all those extra specialist farms . . .
Snarkhunter
Prince
Dubious in the extreme, even if the numbers were correct (which they aren't). It ignores NATO, for starters, & the Brits & Germans would have helped put up a pretty good fight. It also ignores serious deficiencies in the way the Soviets organized/trained their troops. In any non-nuclear war that lasted any length of time, the extra production power of the West would have buried the Soviets--and they knew it. They would have had to win outright by D+90, and that was never remotely certain a proposition.
Granted--the "hollow army" of the post-'Nam '70s, combined with a "come as you are" war (ie, no mobilization, no warning, just leave the barracks & head west) would have made it a dicey proposition for *both* sides. But there would have been no "creaming" of anybody, unless nukes were involved. Continental powers cannot be defeated in a single battle, or even a single campaign.
kk
PaperBeetle
Emperor
Mm, but possibly the soviets were planning on using ROP rape. Does anyone know what their rep was like? Of course, I'm assuming that the Cold War was two groups of embargoes and MPPs, not military alliances. 
mr_lewington
King
i was representing Totalarianism vs Democracy
also while were on the cold war subject, was india an ally of russia?
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
@Snarkhunter
Napoleon defeated the combined armies of a bunch of people at Austerlitz, and though that didn't completely defeat them, it took such a huge bite out of their resistance that it hardly mattered.
But yes, NATO would have beat back the Russians, but the nuclear deterrant was enough.
@mr_lewington
India being formerly British, it was whole-heartedly against the USSR.
Napoleon defeated the combined armies of a bunch of people at Austerlitz, and though that didn't completely defeat them, it took such a huge bite out of their resistance that it hardly mattered.
But yes, NATO would have beat back the Russians, but the nuclear deterrant was enough.
@mr_lewington
India being formerly British, it was whole-heartedly against the USSR.
mr_lewington
King
lol some1 on wikipedia must b a little 
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Did they write that India was an ally of the USSR?
If so, they might *accidently* get an axe to the face.
If so, they might *accidently* get an axe to the face.
mr_lewington
King
hmm knives leave less of a mess though
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
mr_lewington
King
Snarkhunter
Prince
In 1805, no power could have been considered continental in the sense that it means today, not even Russia. But it is worth noting that of the powers Napoleon defeated at Austerlitz, all came back to fight him--some multiple times. And all of them were in at the 1st kill in 1814.
As for India, it was officially--and practically--neutral during the Cold War. Given that it had major issues with China, it tended to get support from the Soviet Union. And its neutrality tended to tilt against the West, as well; a legacy of anti-colonialism. The only country it was whole-heartedly against was Pakistan, though.
kk
mr_lewington
King
india and pakistan r sorta in a smaller "cold war" rite now, rite?
Snarkhunter
Prince
I suppose. They've fought 3 wars since partition in '47 & there has been considerable guerrilla activity in Kashmir until just recently. Plus they are both armed with nukes. So it's a bit warmer than "cold war" would suggest, although there is little chance for outright war at present. that could easily lead to out-and-out nuclear exchanges, especially as time-of-flight is about 5 minutes between major targets on both sides & the temptation to strike first would be tremendous.
Maybe we could get all the AIs to declare on both of them at that point
kk
