Fox Fire

Foxburo officials would like more information on the origins and reasons of this conflict in Chernigov so that we may take an official stance. (I've been away and ignoring this section lately).

Updated map? If anyone else claims Ireland, I claim Leinster at the very least.

Wait. Wut is this?

There's only room for one Foxburo on this Island.

All of Ireland.

Just so you know, Sheepy. The Su-35 and T-14 images aren't showing: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=25693

Well honestly, if people don't want nukes they can just not buy them. Problem solved. Everyone wins.

I think we should get rid of missiles too then. Why? Because some people find them inefficient. I'm not trolling. I'm just saying that people making suggestions shouldn't be a reason to remove something. If you don't want nukes, don't get them. I've never used them so I couldn't tell you how to solve this apparent problem, but removing them is for quitters.

So we can argue about who's relevant enough for what reference and why?

Yes, exactly. However, we can remove nukes and then missiles become the top weapons. Just like planes are the top weapons on the battlefield. I don't think this "flaw" is reason to completely remove nukes. Why do tanks exist in the game? I mean nobody has ever given me an answer as to why they must exist in the game, so I should now assume that they shouldn't? That's just silly.

This turned out to be a fun thread.

No. I'm just waiting for him to sell the alliance for RL money just before internally sabotaging the whole thing out of butthurt.

Did you just post this in V mode? You're not in an alliance. Who are these peace terms for?

Grealind lying!? That's so not surprising.

And here I thought I was completely alone in the idea that changing the mechanics every month was stupid. There should be some consistency around here. Regardless of whether or not people like it. However, the fact is, there is no consistency. Never really has been. This game is certainly not the PaW I started playing and it's consistent changes have lead me to mostly ignore the updates because It's simply WAY too often. How do you expect a game to play out with inconsistent rules? You can't. The game never plays out. It becomes a new game all the time. I'm not saying I'm opposed to improvements and suggestions. I'm saying it happens way to often for me to even bother trying to keep up and change my game play so often. One fundamentally changing update per year at most, should be just fine.

Not me.

Besides, the F-22 is from 2005, yet it's on the list.

That doesn't mean they can't be added. I mean we'll be caught up to the appropriate dates pretty soon anyway and this isn't earth. I'd just like to see some more modern Russian weaponry in there. It's not just the US that has post-1980's weaponry.

Abu is just getting too much attention.

To the military customization menu for more modern weaponry: Planes: Su-35 Flanker Tanks: T-14 Armata

Congrats, as we ourselves stand blockaded.

Why not just give nukes their own kind of "timer" or limitation separate from the MAP system?

No, the UN report specifically says "(say 2030-2050)". The World Banks Global Monitoring Report for 2015 gives completely different numbers and explains the figure has shifted from $1.25 to $1.90. They go on to say that they intend to make future revisions for certain regions because it's the World Bank. You can trust them. But let's be honest. $2 a day is a bit of a joke. If that many people are that poor....... I suppose I can't deny that global poverty has decreased, but the cost of living increases and it seems like around the same amount of people are starving from over a decade ago. I'm not saying the drought is the primary cause of the war, but I'm saying it played a significant role in the build of of tensions that lead to war. If you know anything about how the climate is expected to change, you'd know the middle east is getting the worst of it. The whole area could be uninhabitable in 100 years, because the heat alone will kill you. People in the whole area are feeling it right now with this drought. It's forcing people out of rural areas and into urban areas and straining the nations: http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/11/beyond-conflict-water-stress-contributed-europe%E2%80%99s-migration-crisis http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1235367.abstract?sid=652b3be8-1226-4d4c-b499-47ed360459bc/ The stress of water shortages in the middle east in a situation that only gets worse with time cannot be brushed aside. The entire area is basically being slowly baked to death while all the aquifers continue to be sucked dry. The trouble with major war in modern times is the pure potential for destruction. I think a crusader war with Islam and aggravated tensions with Russia could be catastrophic for the whole world when combined with issues like climate change. There are a LOT of Muslims out there and a religious war.... Is basically already happening. Could get worse. The migrant crisis is insane and the tensions that's building up within Europe during a fundamental economic crisis is crazy. It's already brought violence and killing between natives and refugees. It's a lot of people flooding in, and they don't want to leave. Those people are fleeing more than just war. And OK, not everything is dying, but it is a mass extinction, it is caused by humans. It could severely impact our society.

The UN report said food production was sustainable until 2030-2050. Everything on the planet actually is dying, by that I mean there is a mass extinction happening right now. This is well documented and proven. Experts say it is the result of human activity. People are still starving and poverty is what a government defines it as. Define poverty. The World Bank, one of the sources in your random article (you sure like graphs) defines it as earning less than $1.90 USD per day and that accounts for nearly a billion people. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/10/503001444058224597/Global-Monitoring-Report-2015.pdf Water definitely plays a role in the build of of tension before the Syrian civil war. Like all the farmers leaving their land and moving into urban areas, straining the nations economy. Go read a book. There is nothing green about nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is clean" is the biggest lie in the industry. Sure, it doesn't put smoke into the air. Instead, it just leaks radioactive particles into the air, ground and water while leaving us with insanely harmful byproducts we can't figure out what to do with. Did I mention what happens if something goes wrong with them? Civilization has regionally ended a few times. Arguably broke down globally for a while during the black death. There is a lot of ideological tension built up in the modern world. What happens when that's combined with a lack of resources?

You don't seem to like me too much. I hope that didn't influence your decision to leave IRON. Anyway, just because I point out an issue doesn't mean I need to have a solution. My ideal government would be much smaller, have a flat tax code, discourage capitalization beyond ones needs, enforce fair trading and accountability, have a neutral foreign policy and work to shrink the upper and lower classes of society. Basically the total opposite of what the US is now. Though that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Whatever government system I want is irrelevant to what the entire planet actually is. As for solutions to the actual topic: Population: There is no standard solution. Government regulated reproduction on a global scale, a mass extermination, forced sterilization? We are overpopulated as is and still growing. The only thing to do at this point is stop reproducing faster than we are dying. Which, on a global scale, is impractical. Our society is actually dependent on endless growth and without it our global economic system would collapse. Society would need to fundamentally change itself to even try to look for a practical solution. Climate Change: Not much to be done here either. Stop polluting the planet with fossil fuels and let the earth do it's thing. Nuclear energy is not a very bright idea either. PMC's: Stop using them. Tax payers fund a military for a reason. One which has not even been used to it's extent for decades. OK..... And I just gave you something from the UN that agrees with me from the actual UN website rather than some random shit I found on google because it has cool graphs. Did you read it? It's their full report on world population monitoring, buddy. In 2000 there were 790 million starving people. In 2015 that number is 795 million according to WFP: https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf I think you underestimate the severity of a mass extinction, especially when the primary cause is overpopulation. We are consuming many resources faster than they can reform. That is a fact. Another fact is that it is not sustainable. Which is what I'm defining overpopulation to be. You say water is a regional problem until it actually becomes a global problem (see Syria). Forest, oil, metals, gasses, all of these things are only regional until sustainability reaches it's tipping point. Calling it a regional problem is just a convenient way of ignoring it. And of course we can attempt to modify our behavior, but it's a slim chance. Our behaviors are natural and people are far more concerned with the direct issues of their daily life than something that not only hasn't effected them but would require a fundamental change in their lifestyle or behavior. The climate talks in Paris were a joke, as if nobody even wanted to be there. I mean, I think the issue has already reached a tipping point where we may just be screwed no matter what we do. Even at this point, nobody is doing anything. I don't mean to sound like an alarmist, I just think people should take it more seriously. Human civilization is more fragile than you're thinking it is. But even if we are screwed and nobody does anything, so be it. Yin and Yang will do their thing.