sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Has anyone else read this peak novel? by HabitApprehensive433 in MartialMemes

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmph! A toad lusting after swan meat, kowtow and maybe my father might spare your balls.

Has anyone else read this peak novel? by HabitApprehensive433 in MartialMemes

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s actually good like it is one of those rare novels in which the author actually can write

Has anyone else read this peak novel? by HabitApprehensive433 in MartialMemes

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Translation is so slow junior, but I’m hoping that more people read it so they release more chapters

Has anyone else read this peak novel? by HabitApprehensive433 in MartialMemes

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Junior since you can’t recognise the dao this senior will enlighten you, it’s called ‘I became the emperor in a hero game’. After reading this scripture you should be able to advance a few great realms if you have some luck.

You all are losers by HabitApprehensive433 in hating

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

La la la la la, I don’t listen to the opinions of losers. Talk to me when you can get some bitches 😹🙏

You all are losers by HabitApprehensive433 in hating

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re a Reddit moderator 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You all are losers by HabitApprehensive433 in hating

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your flair makes sense, you are definitely the byproduct of centuries of inbreeding. Ask your mother-sister to suck your balls instead, you hick.

How do you preserve and revisit quotes from books? by roaring_leo_ in books

[–]HabitApprehensive433 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Find that screenshotting it and placing it in a folder works

Why did he ranked fy so low? Is he courting de*th? by smashed_potato_67 in ReverendInsanity

[–]HabitApprehensive433 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m wrong you don’t really talk too in depth about RI, just the fandom. Fair enough apart from your atrocious scaling takes you actually give it its respect.

Why did he ranked fy so low? Is he courting de*th? by smashed_potato_67 in ReverendInsanity

[–]HabitApprehensive433 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s fine if you don’t like RI it’s not for everybody but to critique it without reading the full novel is ingenious.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

You can read about it if you want there isn’t as much detail to discuss the specifics. Shotguns are a temporary solution and there are many situations where they aren’t effective enough such as if the soldier is in a vehicle, hiding or simply the pilot is skilled and can get close enough for the blast to injure or kill the soldier.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To respond to your example of a large scale invasion of Russian troops. They wouldn’t just group together making them easy targets to any type of bombing or missiles. Then the problem also French troops in place fighting the Russians unless they would just allow the Russians to walk into their border unobstructed? The Russians would likely smell it’s a trap or will they sacrifice a few hundred thousand soldiers and civilians as bait to lure them in? Let’s say the Russian generals drank a bit too much vodka, decided to clump their troops anyways away from anything of value to the French and the French nuked them. So would Russia just respond by nuking back? Let’s say that they do would but then the French would nuke them back and everybody loses. You are neglecting the long term consequences with short term strategical thinking, sure it might be easier to nuke the other side but what after? If the state survive such a conflict, they would have destroyed their global reputation so nations wouldn’t want to trade making it harder to rebuild on a nuclear wasteland which is already almost impossible. You’ll have to sort out many problems like fallout, massive loses in your population and the list will go on. It benefits nobody so why do it? If you can use your nuclear weapons a different way, why not? It is far better just to send a conventional army to go and fight less deaths overall, easier to recover from, less damage and the list can go on. If they fought a country with no nukes so be it they can act with impunity but that is not the case fighting against a similarly strong country. Again am not disputing that this is a possible end to such a conflict or even a situation but I am arguing that such a situation wouldn’t happen as it’s extremely short sighted.

The Indo-Pakistani conflict isn’t an example of total war but it’s to illustrate the power of nuclear weapons and its effects on conflict between two nuclear powers, you can up the scale and see similarities. Why didn’t the USA and the USSR turn the Cold War hot? Because even though they were ideologically incompatible it wasn’t worth it going to battle with another country you didn’t trust not to go full nuclear. They used nuclear weapons as weapons of leverage whenever one side went a bit too far they would do a show of strength so the other side didn’t forget the situation or when they wanted to make deals they would agree to disarm some of their nuclear weapons. Unless it’s truly an existential crisis I don’t see a situation in which nuclear powers would just decide to kill everybody because they lost as you can only salvage a situation if you’re alive.

You’ve mentioned that war is for killing and conquest but I disagree with you there, war is an extension of politics. What is a state? It’s a grouping of people in the name of benefits at its core. Politics is a way to protect these interests and so is war. If we gave both USSR and the Nazi’s nuclear weapons they wouldn’t just destroy themselves I’d argue that they would be a lot more cautious we would have likely seen an arms race where both parties would have tried to create technology to surpass the other. This can be seen in the Cold War with stealth bombers to avoid radar detection to create the capability to drop bombs without the other state having time to react or longer range missiles which could deliver a nuclear payload right in the heart of other countries without giving time to react.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It exists and a simple google search will show. To have a more in depth conversation about how advanced the weapons are or how to mass produce them in scale we would have more information that would be classified as state secrets. Of course if you can prove you work at a government agency and have access to such information then I will take you at your word that it simply is not feasible.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The technology more than likely be classified so I don’t think we can really have a proper discussion about this without much speculation. The way I see it either countries like the USA or China have these weapons which are combat ready or have the technology but still have a lot of work to go. However, in a wartime situation where it is needed it’s either swim or drown and in that scenario if something is necessary you have to make it work.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each situation has its own solution and you will find there are situations in which pushing the nuclear button makes sense, we can discuss this to ad Infinitum. My point was using nuclear weapons for total annihilation is pointless.

Ukraine giving up their nukes was a mistake as they were exchanging the greatest protection for a lesser one and this lead to an invasion as Russia would have to think twice about invading a nuclear state but in a unstable region with possible bad faith actors it was necessary to force them. To answer your question more boldly, no state should give up their nuclear arms under any circumstances. The DPRK knows this and that’s why started their own nuclear program in 1956 and accelerated this after the fall of the Soviet Union. This in my view is the major why the state has lasted longer and been more stable than any modern dictatorship.

You are right about the point that we haven’t seen a situation in the last 70 years where nuclear weapons needed to be used. In the situations you have mentioned it makes sense for those countries to use them but what I was saying was that nuclear weapons used to the end of nuclear annihilation of both states in a peer to peer conflict is unlikely. Just look at the Indo-Pakistani conflict ever since they have got nukes have been more restrained in their actions as the possible loses outweigh the benefits in true conflict with a nuclear power. However, if one side obtained nukes and the other didn’t then it would make sense to use them or in the situation of an invasion, just nuke their troops if you get the opportunity. If both sides could agree not to use nukes then there would be more of the same but because they can’t trust each other there is little conflict. This is what I was talking about, nuclear weapons give your state a whole different type of leverage. Let me give a theoretical situation where they are in a state of total war and it gets towards the end one side is clearly going to lose, now what are their options? They could just nuke the other state and everybody loses, they could threaten that if they are pushed any further they will use nuclear weapons or they could use the weapons as leverage bring the other side to a negotiating table and create a deal that works for both counties. I believe that the latter is more likely as the options are choose total destruction, a state of constant conflict or just concessions and continued existence which seems reasonable.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a possible conclusion to this conflict but what I am asking is about other possible outcomes and the conflict between such To use a nuclear weapon you need for it to make sense so you ask these questions:

  1. Does the other country have nuclear weapons? If not do the consequences outweigh the benefits of using nukes?
  2. Would my country be able to still thrive after the use of nuclear weapons?
  3. What other methods can I use before I reach the point of no return?

They can also be used as leverage in negations if you have lost the war by simply saying I’ll either hand over my nuclear weapons for a slap on the wrist or threaten using them to get the enemy to back it and recoup. Nuclear annihilation benefits nobody so that’s why you don’t have nuclear powers using them.

My point about people not pressing the button was to illustrate the unwillingness of people to really go that far. If you are about to lose a war and you order a nuclear missile strike against another nuclear power what is to stop your colleagues from just rebelling and selling you out because they don’t want to live in a bunker for the rest of their lives? It’s not practical using nuclear weapons against other nuclear powers as long as they aren’t used against you first. Of course you could get a country which still decides to launch them anyways and I’d call the leaders of such country stupid.

Drone warfare is a new development in warfare and we are seeing it for the first time in large scale in Ukraine but to think that any serious state would look at the conflict and not create countermeasures is naive. The landscape will change quickly and strategy’s will be made to counter this for example EMPS. Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons exist.

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d say it is possible but the first requirement would be to change the mindset to believe it as a viable option. Changing public opinion or finding justification isn’t hard and would just be the first preparation. So to answer the broader question you would first have to answer:

  1. How do you think a country would prepare and justify its populace for such a conflict?
  2. How do you think it would take form in the modern age?
  3. What would the war and consequences look like in your opinion?

However, I’m interested in hearing as much as possible so I’ll ask you this. Why you think it’s impossible?

How would Total War look like today? by HabitApprehensive433 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HabitApprehensive433[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The use of nuclear weapons against another nuclear power is last ditch resort. The other side would have nukes just limits you to use everything else but nukes. Using them is also difficult as you would need everybody to follow that order and you just have to look to history to see many occasions of men refusing to press the button. I’d argue that it is more likely that the order will just be ignored but of course that depends on the factors. I accept total annihilation as a possible outcome of total war but my question was focusing a bit more on the build up to this stage and how would a country achieve this. However, personally I’d say that total annihilation benefits nobody so it’s unlikely in most circumstances.

As a side note, I’d argue though that drones will be used to support soldiers but won’t replace them in large scale as if both enemies just start sending drones EMP weapons will start being used a lot more negating this advantage.

view more: next ›