Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Application Center
Topic Started: December 14, 2014, 10:36 pm (5,085 Views)
JustinVuong
Member Avatar
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Before your country can officially take part in the Altverse community, you must first go through the application process. Before you apply, make sure to read the Rules and the official page. In addition, you must provide a link to the main article of the country you plan to be using. Although strongly encouraged but not required, the article should be of decent length that provides sufficient information about the country. Be prepared to make the necessary changes to your country before it can be deemed a part of Altverse. Under no circumstance may you add your nation, claim your nation is part of, or otherwise insert information that may give the impression that your country is in any shape or form connected to Altverse and/or its material until you have been given explicit approval from the community consensus/moderator.

Code:
 
[center][b]Your Country Name[/b][/center]
[list]
[*][b][url=http://www.conworld.wikia.com/wiki/Your_Country_Name]Link[/url][/b]
[*][b]Real World Countries and Land Claimed[/b]:
[*][b]Why you want to join[/b]:
[*][b]Have you read everything concerning Altverse?[/b]: (Y/N)
[*][b]Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?[/b]: (Y/N)
[*][b]Other[/b]: Your additional comments here.
[/list]


Example
Kingdom of Sierra

  • Link
  • Real World Countries and Land Claimed: California, Nevada, Arizona, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Hawaiian Islands, American Samoa, Easter Island, Kiribati
  • Why you want to join: I really enjoy collaborating with others and I want to have fun.
  • Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Y
  • Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Y
  • Other: This is just an example but I'd like to point out that you can also provide links to other important pages related to your country to enhance understanding. Links to the government page, flags, or military are great.
Edited by JustinVuong, January 3, 2015, 6:49 pm.
| Kingdom of Sierra (main) | Mexican Social Republic | Great Korean Empire | Republic of Vietnam |
Posted ImagePosted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
(ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
AlbertWesker

I'm just going to do a little correction. Technically the Atomic bombs weren't war crimes because
A) Use of atomic weapons in war was not (and still isn't) illegal
B) The US was not bound by any international law against bombing civilian populations since it didn't sign the treaty against it

While I agree the bombings were morally reprehensible and I find it a shameful mark on my countries history up there with the ethnic cleansing of the Natives and slavery, it technically wasn't illegal because international law only applies to countries which sign the treaties. That and total war tends to blur the line between civilian and military. (though, for me at least, it isn't much of an excuse)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertWesker

Threussia

  • Link
  • Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Warmian-Masurian, Gdańsk, Gdańsk County, Nowy Dwór Gdański County, Kaliningrad Oblast, Klaipėda Region
  • Why you want to join: I like this idea of mine which I had for a while.
  • Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
  • Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
  • Other: I will add much more information. I just wanted to get this part out of the way first.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dog of War
Member Avatar

AlbertWesker
April 21, 2015, 11:27 am
Threussia

  • Link
  • Real World Countries and Land Claimed: Warmian-Masurian, Gdańsk, Gdańsk County, Nowy Dwór Gdański County, Kaliningrad Oblast, Klaipėda Region
  • Why you want to join: I like this idea of mine which I had for a while.
  • Have you read everything concerning Altverse?: Yes
  • Do you agree to comply to all rules and policies?: Yes
  • Other: I will add much more information. I just wanted to get this part out of the way first.

Poor Poland ;) I'll support this when there is a bit more on its history, but that shouldn't be a problem
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dev271
Member Avatar

Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dog of War
Member Avatar

Dev271
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
India would not have nukes if Pakistan was not a major power/had none of their own. Outside of the big five, the only reason other nations have ever had nukes is as a deterrent. Israel has them for example to make sure its Arab neighbours don't try and wipe it off the map. South Africa developed them after the west started to criticise Apartheid and Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) had new revolutionary governments that were hostile to the nation. India and Pakistan have them so they don't have an all out war with each other and China. North Korea is the exception, but they are, well, crazy. I highly, highly doubt in any case it would have the third largest stockpile not being a member of the NPT. As well as that I doubt Pakistan would have been created without a greater diaspora of Muslims, meaning they would be a much larger minority. In this case it would be much easier to have Pakistan and Bangladesh as they are today, as that would help solve the nuclear weapons/Muslim diaspora problems.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dev271
Member Avatar

Dog of War
April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
Dev271
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
India would not have nukes if Pakistan was not a major power/had none of their own. Outside of the big five, the only reason other nations have ever had nukes is as a deterrent. Israel has them for example to make sure its Arab neighbours don't try and wipe it off the map. South Africa developed them after the west started to criticise Apartheid and Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) had new revolutionary governments that were hostile to the nation. India and Pakistan have them so they don't have an all out war with each other and China. North Korea is the exception, but they are, well, crazy. I highly, highly doubt in any case it would have the third largest stockpile not being a member of the NPT. As well as that I doubt Pakistan would have been created without a greater diaspora of Muslims, meaning they would be a much larger minority. In this case it would be much easier to have Pakistan and Bangladesh as they are today, as that would help solve the nuclear weapons/Muslim diaspora problems.
Ok man that is good. Well there was no Bangladesh but Balochistan and NFWP and tribal areas. What would it solve I couldnt understand, and cant India have nukes to deter China.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dog of War
Member Avatar

Dev271
April 27, 2015, 5:09 am
Dog of War
April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
Dev271
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
India would not have nukes if Pakistan was not a major power/had none of their own. Outside of the big five, the only reason other nations have ever had nukes is as a deterrent. Israel has them for example to make sure its Arab neighbours don't try and wipe it off the map. South Africa developed them after the west started to criticise Apartheid and Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) had new revolutionary governments that were hostile to the nation. India and Pakistan have them so they don't have an all out war with each other and China. North Korea is the exception, but they are, well, crazy. I highly, highly doubt in any case it would have the third largest stockpile not being a member of the NPT. As well as that I doubt Pakistan would have been created without a greater diaspora of Muslims, meaning they would be a much larger minority. In this case it would be much easier to have Pakistan and Bangladesh as they are today, as that would help solve the nuclear weapons/Muslim diaspora problems.
Ok man that is good. Well there was no Bangladesh but Balochistan and NFWP and tribal areas. What would it solve I couldnt understand, and cant India have nukes to deter China.
Britain was only willing to divide India and Pakistan as the Muslim community was pretty big. If the community was smaller then the Muslim League would have less support especially from densely populated areas like the Punjab and the Bengel meaning that Britain would see no serious pressure that demanded the states be divided, and keep the colony as it was. This in turn will mean that Muslims would be a much larger minority in India by percentage as they would probably not move to Burma, Iran or Afghanistan unless off course there was a genocide against them (on Holocaust levels) . By having a larger Muslim community in the British Raj then the British would see the benefits of dividing India and creating Pakistan and Bangladesh, with there being less incentive to live in India for the remaining Muslims.

As for the nukes, I can't see any country supporting India's nuclear weapon program. The threat of war between India and China is not as much as that between India and Pakistan who have had 4 wars in 50 or so years. As no other countries have WMD outside of the big five if Pakistan lost its nukes India would be under huge international pressure to give up its program unless it became incredibly friendly to the US like Israel (as in, protect American interests at all and any cost, and any attempt to piss off America is laughed out of government).
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dev271
Member Avatar

Dog of War
April 27, 2015, 9:54 am
Dev271
April 27, 2015, 5:09 am
Dog of War
April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
Dev271
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
India would not have nukes if Pakistan was not a major power/had none of their own. Outside of the big five, the only reason other nations have ever had nukes is as a deterrent. Israel has them for example to make sure its Arab neighbours don't try and wipe it off the map. South Africa developed them after the west started to criticise Apartheid and Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) had new revolutionary governments that were hostile to the nation. India and Pakistan have them so they don't have an all out war with each other and China. North Korea is the exception, but they are, well, crazy. I highly, highly doubt in any case it would have the third largest stockpile not being a member of the NPT. As well as that I doubt Pakistan would have been created without a greater diaspora of Muslims, meaning they would be a much larger minority. In this case it would be much easier to have Pakistan and Bangladesh as they are today, as that would help solve the nuclear weapons/Muslim diaspora problems.
Ok man that is good. Well there was no Bangladesh but Balochistan and NFWP and tribal areas. What would it solve I couldnt understand, and cant India have nukes to deter China.
Britain was only willing to divide India and Pakistan as the Muslim community was pretty big. If the community was smaller then the Muslim League would have less support especially from densely populated areas like the Punjab and the Bengel meaning that Britain would see no serious pressure that demanded the states be divided, and keep the colony as it was. This in turn will mean that Muslims would be a much larger minority in India by percentage as they would probably not move to Burma, Iran or Afghanistan unless off course there was a genocide against them (on Holocaust levels) . By having a larger Muslim community in the British Raj then the British would see the benefits of dividing India and creating Pakistan and Bangladesh, with there being less incentive to live in India for the remaining Muslims.

As for the nukes, I can't see any country supporting India's nuclear weapon program. The threat of war between India and China is not as much as that between India and Pakistan who have had 4 wars in 50 or so years. As no other countries have WMD outside of the big five if Pakistan lost its nukes India would be under huge international pressure to give up its program unless it became incredibly friendly to the US like Israel (as in, protect American interests at all and any cost, and any attempt to piss off America is laughed out of government).
So you are saying India cannot have nukes here and I dont want to be like Israel.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dog of War
Member Avatar

Dev271
April 28, 2015, 8:41 am
Dog of War
April 27, 2015, 9:54 am
Dev271
April 27, 2015, 5:09 am
Dog of War
April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
Dev271
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
India would not have nukes if Pakistan was not a major power/had none of their own. Outside of the big five, the only reason other nations have ever had nukes is as a deterrent. Israel has them for example to make sure its Arab neighbours don't try and wipe it off the map. South Africa developed them after the west started to criticise Apartheid and Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) had new revolutionary governments that were hostile to the nation. India and Pakistan have them so they don't have an all out war with each other and China. North Korea is the exception, but they are, well, crazy. I highly, highly doubt in any case it would have the third largest stockpile not being a member of the NPT. As well as that I doubt Pakistan would have been created without a greater diaspora of Muslims, meaning they would be a much larger minority. In this case it would be much easier to have Pakistan and Bangladesh as they are today, as that would help solve the nuclear weapons/Muslim diaspora problems.
Ok man that is good. Well there was no Bangladesh but Balochistan and NFWP and tribal areas. What would it solve I couldnt understand, and cant India have nukes to deter China.
Britain was only willing to divide India and Pakistan as the Muslim community was pretty big. If the community was smaller then the Muslim League would have less support especially from densely populated areas like the Punjab and the Bengel meaning that Britain would see no serious pressure that demanded the states be divided, and keep the colony as it was. This in turn will mean that Muslims would be a much larger minority in India by percentage as they would probably not move to Burma, Iran or Afghanistan unless off course there was a genocide against them (on Holocaust levels) . By having a larger Muslim community in the British Raj then the British would see the benefits of dividing India and creating Pakistan and Bangladesh, with there being less incentive to live in India for the remaining Muslims.

As for the nukes, I can't see any country supporting India's nuclear weapon program. The threat of war between India and China is not as much as that between India and Pakistan who have had 4 wars in 50 or so years. As no other countries have WMD outside of the big five if Pakistan lost its nukes India would be under huge international pressure to give up its program unless it became incredibly friendly to the US like Israel (as in, protect American interests at all and any cost, and any attempt to piss off America is laughed out of government).
So you are saying India cannot have nukes here and I dont want to be like Israel.
I'm saying that without Pakistan having its prosperous Eastern regions and nuclear program it would be unlikely that India would have nukes.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dev271
Member Avatar

Dog of War
April 28, 2015, 10:02 am
Dev271
April 28, 2015, 8:41 am
Dog of War
April 27, 2015, 9:54 am
Dev271
April 27, 2015, 5:09 am
Dog of War
April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
Dev271
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this India
Any problems.
:D
India would not have nukes if Pakistan was not a major power/had none of their own. Outside of the big five, the only reason other nations have ever had nukes is as a deterrent. Israel has them for example to make sure its Arab neighbours don't try and wipe it off the map. South Africa developed them after the west started to criticise Apartheid and Mozambique and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) had new revolutionary governments that were hostile to the nation. India and Pakistan have them so they don't have an all out war with each other and China. North Korea is the exception, but they are, well, crazy. I highly, highly doubt in any case it would have the third largest stockpile not being a member of the NPT. As well as that I doubt Pakistan would have been created without a greater diaspora of Muslims, meaning they would be a much larger minority. In this case it would be much easier to have Pakistan and Bangladesh as they are today, as that would help solve the nuclear weapons/Muslim diaspora problems.
Ok man that is good. Well there was no Bangladesh but Balochistan and NFWP and tribal areas. What would it solve I couldnt understand, and cant India have nukes to deter China.
Britain was only willing to divide India and Pakistan as the Muslim community was pretty big. If the community was smaller then the Muslim League would have less support especially from densely populated areas like the Punjab and the Bengel meaning that Britain would see no serious pressure that demanded the states be divided, and keep the colony as it was. This in turn will mean that Muslims would be a much larger minority in India by percentage as they would probably not move to Burma, Iran or Afghanistan unless off course there was a genocide against them (on Holocaust levels) . By having a larger Muslim community in the British Raj then the British would see the benefits of dividing India and creating Pakistan and Bangladesh, with there being less incentive to live in India for the remaining Muslims.

As for the nukes, I can't see any country supporting India's nuclear weapon program. The threat of war between India and China is not as much as that between India and Pakistan who have had 4 wars in 50 or so years. As no other countries have WMD outside of the big five if Pakistan lost its nukes India would be under huge international pressure to give up its program unless it became incredibly friendly to the US like Israel (as in, protect American interests at all and any cost, and any attempt to piss off America is laughed out of government).
So you are saying India cannot have nukes here and I dont want to be like Israel.
I'm saying that without Pakistan having its prosperous Eastern regions and nuclear program it would be unlikely that India would have nukes.
I take Pakistan and Bangladesh, so in the 1964 war the Chinese dont stop until the Americans position their carrier. Due to China having nukes then just of the fear of another war for China claiming Gilgit baltistan and some northern areas as well as being in the Siachen conflict. There can be another border skirmish near Arunachal Pradesh in 1959. And constant incursions into India after 1964. Another proxy war in Sikkim in 1989. Aint that enough for India to have a secretive nuclear program in 1966 under less international pressure relatively, even if not the 3rd largest but at least 200.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Alt-Verse Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply