|
Replies:
|
|
AlbertWesker
|
April 21, 2015, 10:23 am
Post #231
|
|
- Posts:
- 13
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2014
|
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)
|
|
|
| |
|
AlbertWesker
|
April 21, 2015, 11:27 am
Post #232
|
|
- Posts:
- 13
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2014
|
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dog of War
|
April 21, 2015, 6:46 pm
Post #233
|
|
- Posts:
- 126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2014
|
- 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
|
         Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
|
| |
|
Dev271
|
April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Post #234
|
|
- Posts:
- 51
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Dec 26, 2014
|
Take a look at this India Any problems.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dog of War
|
April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
Post #235
|
|
- Posts:
- 126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2014
|
- Dev271
- April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this IndiaAny problems. 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.
|
         Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
|
| |
|
Dev271
|
April 27, 2015, 5:09 am
Post #236
|
|
- Posts:
- 51
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Dec 26, 2014
|
- Dog of War
- April 26, 2015, 5:10 pm
- Dev271
- April 26, 2015, 10:36 am
Take a look at this IndiaAny problems.
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dog of War
|
April 27, 2015, 9:54 am
Post #237
|
|
- Posts:
- 126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2014
|
- 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 IndiaAny problems.
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).
|
         Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
|
| |
|
Dev271
|
April 28, 2015, 8:41 am
Post #238
|
|
- Posts:
- 51
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Dec 26, 2014
|
- 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 IndiaAny problems.
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dog of War
|
April 28, 2015, 10:02 am
Post #239
|
|
- Posts:
- 126
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2014
|
- 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 IndiaAny problems.
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.
|
         Left<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Right
|
| |
|
Dev271
|
April 29, 2015, 9:42 am
Post #240
|
|
- Posts:
- 51
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Dec 26, 2014
|
- 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 IndiaAny problems.
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.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|