Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes

[Redeye]

Hey found this site on the web and thought it may prove interesting
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/hazards-1.php
Most of this info comes straight from the Army Survival Manual

DAC should have a Fallout Survival Manual - with RL info/etc.
But done with the same types of crazy art as the game manuals.

[King of Creation]

And, well, that's what I call victorious. Zero loss, massive gain = victory.

Yeah...but by that logic, I am the victor of the invitational track meet over at the sports complex. Even though I didn't participate, and remained neutral in my support of either side, I still won. It doesn't make sense.

[Redeye]

And, well, that's what I call victorious. Zero loss, massive gain = victory.

Yeah...but by that logic, I am the victor of the invitational track meet over at the sports complex. Even though I didn't participate, and remained neutral in my support of either side, I still won. It doesn't make sense.

Did you experience massive gain as a result/in spite of your neutrality?
I guess this is a matter of definition - how you set your victory parameters. Perhaps beneficiary would be a better term for a party that was not a direct actor in a conflict, yet benefitted anyway.
Then, did Sweden benefit from its neutrality in terms of profit? Or did it just not get damaged? Is not having something bad happen a benefit or a victory? Or is it just zero sum?

[King of Creation]

I benefitted because I live near a bunch of track people and they had a party.

[Redeye]

I benefitted because I live near a bunch of track people and they had a party.

What did the party smell like?
Did it smell like napalm in the morning?
If so, then...

[St. Toxic]

If a majority gets damaged, avoiding damage is a victory.

I didn't participate, and remained neutral in my support of either side, I still won.

If you didn't want to participate, due to the participation having an ill effect on your being, you win by avoiding participation. Remaining neutral in your support to either side is avoiding to risk a loss. If majority supported the loosing team, you win. If majority supported the winning team, you can pretend to win.

Perhaps beneficiary would be a better term for a party that was not a direct actor in a conflict, yet benefitted anyway.

I'd call it a long term victory. "A killed B thus [not killing C] or [giving C free access to the stuff of late B]" = "C can kill bruised up A"

[Redeye]

If a majority gets damaged, avoiding damage is a victory.

I didn't participate, and remained neutral in my support of either side, I still won.

If you didn't want to participate, due to the participation having an ill effect on your being, you win by avoiding participation. Remaining neutral in your support to either side is avoiding to risk a loss. If majority supported the loosing team, you win. If majority supported the winning team, you can pretend to win.

Perhaps beneficiary would be a better term for a party that was not a direct actor in a conflict, yet benefitted anyway.

I'd call it a long term victory. "A killed B thus [not killing C] or [giving C free access to the stuff of late B]" = "C can kill bruised up A"

Ah, Glasshoppah...
Refusing to choose is also a choice.

[King of Creation]

Argh...you're still not understaing the fact that if you don't participate in something, you can't be a victor or that activity! Regardless of the aftereffects. Winning and losing are clear cut. What you keep describing as winning is just the benefits of the results.

[St. Toxic]

Which is a long term victory.

[ApTyp]

WTF... So everyone is a winner, now?

[King of Creation]

Benefitting and Winning/Being the Victor are two commmpletely different things. Stop trying to make them synonymous.

[Mismatch]

I think that the whole winning concept with wars is kinnda obscure anyways...
If you don't loose, do you automatically win?
I'd say no, you just finish second last.
And the neutrals win.
Since wars are politics, and in politics Id say success is measured in benefit...
or something like that.

[Kashluk]

... I think the best thing when it comes to international disputes and war mongering between big nations is to keep neutral. But I also think it isn't winning - you can't still win something you don't take part in.

It's all basic math, really: a conflict between groups A, B and C means the victor (if any) comes from this group and this group only. This little swell guy D over here doesn't have anything to do with it. Even when A, B and C are multiplied, divided and kicked around in various ways, D still can't win the bloody race since it wasn't in the bean bag to begin with

Fuck this is retarded. Like we wouldn't have anything better to do?

[Redeye]

Argh...you're still not understaing the fact that if you don't participate in something, you can't be a victor or that activity! Regardless of the aftereffects. Winning and losing are clear cut. What you keep describing as winning is just the benefits of the results.

I'm just arguing in my spare time.

Up next, getting hit on the head lessons.

[A_M]

... I think the best thing when it comes to international disputes and war mongering between big nations is to keep neutral. But I also think it isn't winning - you can't still win something you don't take part in.

It's all basic math, really: a conflict between groups A, B and C means the victor (if any) comes from this group and this group only. This little swell guy D over here doesn't have anything to do with it. Even when A, B and C are multiplied, divided and kicked around in various ways, D still can't win the bloody race since it wasn't in the bean bag to begin with

They won't loose, yes. But they can benefit from the defeat of other's. Some call it victory. But a better name for it is money makeing.

Fuck this is retarded. Like we wouldn't have anything better to do?

So what exactly is better to do? Drink beer?

[Kashluk]

Um, yeah

[King of Creation]

Some call it victory.

And those people would have made a mistake.

[St. Toxic]

It's all basic math: a conflict between groups A, B and C means the victor (if any) comes from this group and this group only. This little swell guy D over here doesn't have anything to do with it.

Lets make a Civ example:

a) The Krauts and the Frenchies are at it again. You being Dutch, close to the action to say the least, refuse to pick sides, and stay neutral. While they're drafting their cities dry and wasting money on getting those units out to combat, you're improving your military, science and domestics.

b) At the end of the war, you have gained more points on neutrality, than K&F gained on the war. You also have a functional military, while they're left with scraps.

This gives you an opportunity to attack both parties and overtake their cities, an opportunity you'd take in a 'normal' world. If you decide to play it peaceful, at least you got a good reputation with both media and population, on how your stance on the war was negative, while the other two countries are considered troublemakers. It also grants you more decisive power in the UN, and you're more likely to get away with a war against two former agressor parties as a "war for peace".

c) Any city won over by the former agressor parties, may be 'reclaimed' peacefully and returned to the original owner ( for a fee ), but not before it's introduced with your population and industry. You've also won another ally, if you plan on starting a war.

Whatever you choose to do, you are the winner of this era.

[RGE]

"Winner of the era" isn't the same as "winner of the war" though, not even if "beneficiary of the war" led to being the "winner of the era".

[PsychoSniper]

If we went into Iran, which I believe we should definitely do, then what you'd probably see are the new nuclear bunker busters, nuclear grenades, and things of that sort. Obviously, the grenades are rocket propelled. All of these things, and many more, have already been developed.

Considering the failure rate of things like the AT4....... I sure as hell wouldnt want to use a nuke RPG.