Will Fallout the game become Fallout the reality?

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Quagmire69, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. Quagmire69

    Quagmire69 Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Mar 17, 2011
    I mean war with US and Red China. Red China is once again becoming beliegerante towards both the United States and our ally the Republic of China. A Chinese offical even stated that war is innevatable. Castro has even come out and declared that a war will break out with the US and Western Europe on one side, and the Middle East and China on the other. I think he's right. Its funny how across the world thiers talk of war but in the US things are suprisingly silent. I think its the US government trying to keep the public calm while they decide what to do. I could also see things go nuclear given that it may be the only way to defeat Chinese manpower. Your thoughts?
  2. James Snowscoran

    James Snowscoran Still Mildly Glowing

    Jun 1, 2011
  3. I don't see why you compare this to Fallout. Sure, a war with China is plausible, but other than that this has nothing to do with Fallout. The culture isn't 50's inspired, energy weapons are far from our grasp, our robots will take more than 60 years to get our robots to Fallout's level. I just don't get why you compare this to Fallout.
  4. Chromevod

    Chromevod Nope.

    May 25, 2011
    That, and I really doubt nuclear war is a possibility when everyone pretty much assumes that no matter who fires first everyone dies.
  5. madplaysHD

    madplaysHD First time out of the vault

    Aug 20, 2011
    China has understood that the wars of today are fought economically, and its pretty sucessfull in that regard.
    The only atomic threat of today could be pakistan, along with the nuclear weapons that were lost after the fall of the soviet union. However, thats not global thermonuclear war, so no nuclear winter, and no wasteland.
    So, watch your issue of 'how to survive a nuclear attack' and you will be fine.
  6. LinkPain

    LinkPain Mildly Dipped

    Jan 18, 2011
    Or go read Metro and be done with imaginations.
  7. Wintermind

    Wintermind Vault Senior Citizen

    Jan 21, 2011
    Y'know, because we aren't heavily economically codependent on each other at the moment.
  8. Sabirah

    Sabirah Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 10, 2011
    Why would China buy us? That's like killing the dude that owes you 6 grand lol
  9. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    who knows how things in the future might look like. Though it is a bit worrisome that many nations actually run for nuclear reactors. Including Brazil for example. How so ? Well the jump from a domestic use of nuclear technology to a military one is well very small. Nations claiming today they would have no ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons of any kind could change their mind quite fast in the future.

    Take Japan as example. They are between North Korea and China. Of course they know best about the effects of nuclear weapons. And thus they decided not to get them. That is easy though because they simply fall under the nuclear umbrella of the United States (similar to Germany thx to the NATO). So when you "don't need them" its easy to say no. But even in Japan they had a serious discussion about what might happen once the USA has neither the will nor the possibility to "defend" Japan. Then they might have to get nuclear weapons as well.

    The more nations have access to those kind of weapons the more likely it might be that we see their use in smaller conflicts. And as people said it in the past. Nuclear weapons are like a genie in a bottle. Getting it back inside once its lose can be quite difficult.
  10. Makenshi

    Makenshi Ahoy, ye salty dogs!

    Jul 28, 2006
    Our constitution banned nukes and any other armageddon stuff. Reactors for subs and carriers are allowed, as well as any nuclear tech that doesn't result in disaster (like nuclear medicine).

    We are pushing for rockets and satellites, but not ICBM's. Most of our military is about power projetion and defense, both of the territory/airspace and the economic interest zone (300 miles into the south atlantic).

    Don't think you (or any of your descendents) will ever see Brazil invading countries and stuff unless something like WW3 happens and we are dragged to it. And even then, brazilian nukes? C'mon...
  11. Wintermind

    Wintermind Vault Senior Citizen

    Jan 21, 2011
    Yeah, but dropping nukes is a very serious line to cross. If India or pakistan gets tired and just says fuck it and starts nuking each other, they're just going to piss off the rest of the world. While I doubt we'd just toss more nukes into the mix, we'd ruin the shit out of them conventionally, and put some people on trial for war crimes.
  12. Sabirah

    Sabirah Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 10, 2011

    That won't happen. Indians don't like war the way westerners do. For all their blustering, nothing will ever happen there except for some saber rattling
  13. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant

    Jan 29, 2004
    That's an interesting way of reading history, considering India's fought a dozen or so wars (or at least 'conflicts') since it's independence.
  14. Makenshi

    Makenshi Ahoy, ye salty dogs!

    Jul 28, 2006
    She said "like westerns"; they do war, but not as an economic gear (is this expression correct, grammar nazis?). It's more about old fashioned national pride and territory borders.
  15. Quagmire69

    Quagmire69 Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Mar 17, 2011
    Westerners probably have the greatest aversion to war and conflict of anyone. If anything the problem the US has is everytime we win a war we want to demilitarise and we forget that only the dead have seen the end of war.
  16. Makenshi

    Makenshi Ahoy, ye salty dogs!

    Jul 28, 2006
    The western people think that way, but not the governments - surely not USA governments. The only aversion they have is to war in their soil.

    US governments rather sink than cut military budgets.
  17. LinkPain

    LinkPain Mildly Dipped

    Jan 18, 2011
    So this is a critic to the invasion of Iraq, Afghan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, Vietnam and possibly even more countries?
    It was never about wining the war, it was either money or oil. Or do Americans really think that politicians have an aura of righteousness like bullets on people?
  18. Alphadrop

    Alphadrop A right proper chap.

    Aug 21, 2008
    That explains why the Americans have the largest army in the Western nations and have spent about a third of their annual GDP on "defence" since time immemorial. Not to mention help start two pretty big wars in the previous decade while still managing to keep fully manned bases in Germany, Japan and many other counties.
    Unless I have really misunderstood what you meant by demilitarised.
  19. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Aug 13, 2004
    Well, no one in Asia will want Japan with nukes. That means that the US have to provide the security for Japan. Same thing with Germany in Europe. And even though we get dragged into wars of late (don't get me even started on Europe begging the US to get involved in Libya) it is not our fault the European counties do not want to spend enough for a full defensive role. And outside of the US, only a few counties can provide force projection to maintain security be it state vs. State (Iraq invasion of Kuwait) Civil wars (Former Yugoslavia), or protecting civilians from being killed off (For example, french failures in Rwanda, or the current Libyan farce. )

    What other nation has the ability to provide regional security? Europe has the ability, but not the will to spend the money. South Africa abilities are being rapidly eroded for internal politics. Nigeria has a hard time with African Union duties. India is focused on Pakistan, and fubared its Sri Lanka intervention. Asian countries do not trust China or Japan due to historical issues. South Korea has a madman north of the border. So who else could for example, prevent a Srebrenica massacre, or prevent smaller nations from being overrun by larger, aggressive nations?
  20. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    my friend. What is written on a "peace" of paper can be changed quite easily if the people see the need.

    don't misunderstand me. I am not comparing Brazil with the Sovietunion or Nazi-Germany or what ever.

    I am just saying. We can not say how things will be in 10 even less in 50 years. Though many agree that South America is on the rise. Just like China in Asia. This naturally will spawn questions and issues in the future. Is South America big enough for more then "one" Super Power ? Who will be the "leading" figure in South America ? Brazil is definitely the nation with the biggest size. And they have a huge potential. If the situation in the future might become more aggressive I would not completely rule out the possibility of nuclear weapons.

    Besides. Nations could be simply ling. When was the last time Israel acknowledged to have nuclear weapons ? Its some kind of open secret (granted how much of a secret is something everyone knows ... ).

    As said. The change from a peaceful use to a military one is so small. It could be almost the same. centrifuges and facilities used for many peaceful reactors can be just as well used for the military use. And we are not only talking here about ICBMS. Those are just "one" part of a nuclear arsenal. There are short range ballistic missiles, weapons which can be used directly on the battlefield either by artillery or planes and of course submarines and there are "dirty bombs". There has been recently an evolution to nuclear weapons of much smaller size at least in the US and Russia.

    The business of nuclear technology is very profitable for a small group of people and companies. Libya got most of its technology from a Pakistani scientist (Im Profil Abdul Qadeer Khan) who got his education in the west. Nations claiming today about peaceful use sure do NOT have only that in their mind. Even if they claim they don't want nuclear weapons today they keep the possibility in their mind for the future. Anything else would be simply unrealistic. Otherwise there would not have been such a big fuzz around the Iranian nuclear program. Western nations like the US and Europe know dam well from their own experience that domestic use and military use are almost the same because it is so easy to change it from the one to the other.

    Thats pretty wrong.

    It is not so much about the "will" or "money" but a different concept of politics.

    For the US military actions are part of their politics for the European commonwealth military actions are the "ultima ratio" - and most of the time the individual european states are pretty inconsistent with each other in the details.

    Not to mention their last military actions didn't really helped the US much. Terrorism didn't stoped nor did it got less dangerous yet the nations remain still as unstable. Or does anyone believe either Afghanistan or Iraq will continue as a democracy once the "foreign" forces are out ? A pipe dream ...

    Not to mention the way how Europe is deciding about politics is not the same like the US. For a start. Europe has no clear agenda regarding foreign policy. Simply because every state inside Europe is seeing things individually and dealing with it on a different scale. For example France and Britain have been in the past 60 years much more involved in military actions compared to the Germans which probably does not need any explanation why. I want to see Texas deciding on its own to start military actions against some foreign nation for example.

    Not to mention many states here still remember what it means to have foreign military forces fighting on your ground and that still throws a huge shadow on things - most of the time for the better. many have family members which could still tell stories. Or at least know people which have been Soldiers in WW2. The US never was any occupied territory since their independence (and even that is not quite the same like being "defeated" on your own ground). And probably many Americans can not even imagine something like that ever happening.

    don't confuse the EU with a "full" State. Not when it comes to politics.