NationStates Jolt Archive

I not a religious right madman, before anyone complains. I am not speaking on any issue of religion. However, I am shocked that so many nations are selling weapons in RP. In RL, weapon sales drain the funds of the buyer country (usually poor), supply tyrants like Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons (US-funded Iraq-Iran war) and supply corrupt governments with instruments of torture (eg. electroshock batons - see Amnesty International). Yet so many countries are taking part in this barbaric trade. WEAPON STOCKPILING IS USELESS, ESPECIALLY IF EVERY COUNTRY HAS MANY WEAPONS. Think of the Cold War. The arms trade should be stopped. It is a new twist on the phrase "blood money".

I know it's only a game, but NS is a game of politics, and, since it is only a game, why are nations selling weapons.

Please reply with your opinions - unlike in many forums, I am genuinely interested. Rant over.

I don't sell weapons too often so I don't have an answer to this.

We're good at making them. On top of that, not every nation is a poor defenseless nation and most who buy weapons actually buy responsibly. They do not have imploded economies like those of certain countries and yet they still need to field a defense force. This also lets other nations know the specifications of their weapons as they are out there for everyone to see. If I sell a tank and the person who buys it engages in a war, he/she can then go to that thread and refer to it for RP accuracy.

It is also a fact that every major nation in world history has produced weapons and sold them as a means of income. We are no different.

Is that not immoral in the extreme, though? The sheer notion of arms sales? Excessive capitalism, human rights abuses, wasting of taxpayers' money, militarism, war...

War is not immoral. It is a means to an end. And war does not need to be fought with physical weapons. You can just as easily fight an economic war and leave a country in worse shape than a physical attack. You can wage a theologic war in an attempt to convert the populace. You can wage an informative war and simply clue the peoples of a nation in on that which their government hides from them.

And we do not promote war. We promote defense. If we did not produce the weapons, someone else would. We are simply capitalizing on an industry that is necessary due to human nature.

Why is capitalization evil? What is wrong with the avid pursuit of wealth? Capitalization does not have to come at the expense of your citizens. As you can see, I belong to an inoffensive democratic system. Who said anything about violting human rights? I have not once invaded another country. In fact, I give those nations that may be invaved, a fighting chance to mount some kind of resistance to the hostile intent of an agressor nation.

As I see it, I provide a necessary industry to a world filled with madmen or those with delusions of grandeur.

capitalism is evil because the avid pursuit of wealth encessarily leads to seeking mroe wealth than anybody ellse;sinc ehter eis only a finite ammount of wealth available,one can conclude that any form of capitalsim inherently includes abuse of others,inorder to take away their fair share of the wealth so you can increas eyour own;in capitalist countries,if somebody poor tries to do that they call it theft,but the already rich are allowed to continue ad infinitum;in socialist sates any form of this is called hgih treason.

I not a religious right madman, before anyone complains. I am not speaking on any issue of religion. However, I am shocked that so many nations are selling weapons in RP. In RL, weapon sales drain the funds of the buyer country (usually poor), supply tyrants like Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons (US-funded Iraq-Iran war) and supply corrupt governments with instruments of torture (eg. electroshock batons - see Amnesty International). Yet so many countries are taking part in this barbaric trade. WEAPON STOCKPILING IS USELESS, ESPECIALLY IF EVERY COUNTRY HAS MANY WEAPONS. Think of the Cold War. The arms trade should be stopped. It is a new twist on the phrase "blood money".

I know it's only a game, but NS is a game of politics, and, since it is only a game, why are nations selling weapons.

Please reply with your opinions - unlike in many forums, I am genuinely interested. Rant over.

I feel your pain, dude, but there are only three kinds of threads here.


MARRY THIS PRINCESS!1!!1` threads.
BUY MY SHIT!!11 threads.
War threads.


-Kits
Ye Olde Forum Curmedgeon

Pfff. Weapon sellers are foolish. As soon as they develop a new technology for a weapon, they sell it, taking away the advantage new weapons bring them. We only sell our outdated equipment, and only to allies or neutral states.

You are under the impression that those nations that sell their weapons wish to carry on war themselves. Most do not care to. Thus we supply those who do and in turn, we are left alone because we give them the tools with which to act their will.

War is not immoral. It is a means to an end. And war does not need to be fought with physical weapons. You can just as easily fight an economic war and leave a country in worse shape than a physical attack. You can wage a theologic war in an attempt to convert the populace. You can wage an informative war and simply clue the peoples of a nation in on that which their government hides from them.

And we do not promote war. We promote defense. If we did not produce the weapons, someone else would. We are simply capitalizing on an industry that is necessary due to human nature.

Why is capitalization evil? What is wrong with the avid pursuit of wealth? Capitalization does not have to come at the expense of your citizens. As you can see, I belong to an inoffensive democratic system. Who said anything about violting human rights? I have not once invaded another country. In fact, I give those nations that may be invaved, a fighting chance to mount some kind of resistance to the hostile intent of an agressor nation.

As I see it, I provide a necessary industry to a world filled with madmen or those with delusions of grandeur.

Physical war is deeply immoral, though. And I do not think nuclear missiles are "informative" - the only thing they teach you is how to be blown up. And it's defence? How can a long range missile be classed as "defence"?
Capitalism. I think it is immoral, others do not. If you look at my previous post, I used the term "excessive capitalism" - making money at any cost to people or the environment.
You may not have personally violated human rights, but you will sell weapons to countries that do on a rgular basis. Look at RL.
You therefore provide an industry to a world filled with people like you.

War is not immoral. It is a means to an end. And war does not need to be fought with physical weapons. You can just as easily fight an economic war and leave a country in worse shape than a physical attack. You can wage a theologic war in an attempt to convert the populace. You can wage an informative war and simply clue the peoples of a nation in on that which their government hides from them.

And we do not promote war. We promote defense. If we did not produce the weapons, someone else would. We are simply capitalizing on an industry that is necessary due to human nature.

Why is capitalization evil? What is wrong with the avid pursuit of wealth? Capitalization does not have to come at the expense of your citizens. As you can see, I belong to an inoffensive democratic system. Who said anything about violting human rights? I have not once invaded another country. In fact, I give those nations that may be invaved, a fighting chance to mount some kind of resistance to the hostile intent of an agressor nation.

As I see it, I provide a necessary industry to a world filled with madmen or those with delusions of grandeur.

Physical war is deeply immoral, though. And I do not think nuclear missiles are "informative" - the only thing they teach you is how to be blown up. And it's defence? How can a long range missile be classed as "defence"?
Capitalism. I think it is immoral, others do not. If you look at my previous post, I used the term "excessive capitalism" - making money at any cost to people or the environment.
You may not have personally violated human rights, but you will sell weapons to countries that do on a rgular basis. Look at RL.
You therefore provide an industry to a world filled with people like you.


A long-range missile can be classed as defense due to it's power of retlatiation. Most people do not rule by force but by threat of force. In the case of defense, I do not promote the use of a "first-strike" weapon in the wrole of anything except as a deterrent for other nations. By giving a small nation a "first-strike" capability, you enable it to defend itslf against a nation many times its size. peple will not invade said nation due to the fact that the smaller nation can fire a few missiles and lay waster to the agressor's cities.

It essentially allows the little guy to enter the arene af MAD, thus protecting him/her from the designs of more powerful nations.

Excessive capitalism can only work with the agreement of the people. Without the people, you have no consumers, nor do you have wrkers. Unless you run a police state, chances are that you ar enot going to succeed in an "excessive capitalistic" mindset. I don't see how it's immoral if the people from whom you need to earn your income are willing to pay for your products. That is consent and thus absolves the retailer of guilt.

Pfff. Weapon sellers are foolish. As soon as they develop a new technology for a weapon, they sell it, taking away the advantage new weapons bring them. We only sell our outdated equipment, and only to allies or neutral states.

Know what you mean Vortex...nothing more iratating then posting an OOC on your stuff and having someone say CAN I BUY THAT!!! when its your top of the line stuff. Personally I sell plans only as I don't want my limited constuction farcilites jamed with orders.

Frankly I only sell Expensive items only to fund the development of my nation (plus people balk at the price, hence consider wheather they need it or not) and I don't sell often. What iratates me the most are the people selling nukes & other WMD to anyone with money...Boy that is dumb every little war monger ends up with 1000 nukes *Shudder*

A long-range missile can be classed as defense due to it's power of retlatiation. Most people do not rule by force but by threat of force. In the case of defense, I do not promote the use of a "first-strike" weapon in the wrole of anything except as a deterrent for other nations. By giving a small nation a "first-strike" capability, you enable it to defend itslf against a nation many times its size. peple will not invade said nation due to the fact that the smaller nation can fire a few missiles and lay waster to the agressor's cities.

It essentially allows the little guy to enter the arene af MAD, thus protecting him/her from the designs of more powerful nations.

Excessive capitalism can only work with the agreement of the people. Without the people, you have no consumers, nor do you have wrkers. Unless you run a police state, chances are that you ar enot going to succeed in an "excessive capitalistic" mindset. I don't see how it's immoral if the people from whom you need to earn your income are willing to pay for your products. That is consent and thus absolves the retailer of guilt.

Your system ends up in a Cold War scenario. The USSR and USa had 50,000 nukes between them. It would have been easy to make a mistake - technical error, misunderstanding, terrorists...and we are plunged into a nuclear holocaust. The chances of a nuke being stolen or accidentally launched are very small, but multiply that by 50,000...
Oh, and PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED. Propaganda, fear makes people buy...the USA runs an excessive capitalism system.

I have only sold weapons once in our history, and that was to a group of Orcs who needed chainguns and had none.

We mostly sell airplanes and assult vehicles, both of which are frequently sold between nations in the real world.

A long-range missile can be classed as defense due to it's power of retlatiation. Most people do not rule by force but by threat of force. In the case of defense, I do not promote the use of a "first-strike" weapon in the wrole of anything except as a deterrent for other nations. By giving a small nation a "first-strike" capability, you enable it to defend itslf against a nation many times its size. peple will not invade said nation due to the fact that the smaller nation can fire a few missiles and lay waster to the agressor's cities.

It essentially allows the little guy to enter the arene af MAD, thus protecting him/her from the designs of more powerful nations.

Excessive capitalism can only work with the agreement of the people. Without the people, you have no consumers, nor do you have wrkers. Unless you run a police state, chances are that you ar enot going to succeed in an "excessive capitalistic" mindset. I don't see how it's immoral if the people from whom you need to earn your income are willing to pay for your products. That is consent and thus absolves the retailer of guilt.

Your system ends up in a Cold War scenario. The USSR and USa had 50,000 nukes between them. It would have been easy to make a mistake - technical error, misunderstanding, terrorists...and we are plunged into a nuclear holocaust. The chances of a nuke being stolen or accidentally launched are very small, but multiply that by 50,000...
Oh, and PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED. Propaganda, fear makes people buy...the USA runs an excessive capitalism system.

So, as a US citizen, I buy goods out of fear? I find that idea ludicrous. I buy stuff because I want it, not because I'm afraid the almighty hand of Dubbya is going to smack me down. I don't buy stuff because I neither need nor want it. I fail to see how we purchase our goods because we are frightened. Otherwise most people in the US are afraid of forgeign car-makers, computer systems, video games, foods and publications.

I guess that means that all goods imported to Britain that are bought by British consumers are purchased through fear? Right. And Canada... it fears the US? Please... if anything, Canadians do everything they can to NOT buy from us. They buy goods they think they need from us and leave the rest to Canadian industry.

I guess I buy gas from British Petroleum because I'm terrified of the consequences of my actions should I not. Maybe they're just conveniently located.

Ahem. Lesson in economics. Please, I shouldn't have to teach you your own game.
Fear fuels consumerism. People are scared, people buy more. Simple, ask any expert on the subject.
Post the 11th of September, SUV's took on a more aggressive design. Some were promoted by Swarzenegger, one was designed to resemble a 30's ganster car, manyy had grills added. These sent aggressive impulses to the brain, making people feel safe. However, these changes actually made SUVs (2% more likely to kill in a crash) less safe, but sales soared. See how fear produces consumerism?

Some were promoted by Schwartzenegger...
Hummers, probably, but you also consider the always-present trend towards action movies and extreme sports/off-roading...
...one was designed to resemble a 30's gangster car
The first example I think of here is the PT Cruiser, which was already present, or at least in development before 9-11, and which comes from another recent trend towards retro designs. I don't think "gangster" had anything to do with it...all cars in the 20s and 30s had this design.
And please check your spelling. Not just you, but whoever else tries to type 10,000 wpm or likes doing tHiS tHiNg. Just because it gets really tiresome after a while.

Ahem. Lesson in economics. Please, I shouldn't have to teach you your own game.
Fear fuels consumerism. People are scared, people buy more. Simple, ask any expert on the subject.
Post the 11th of September, SUV's took on a more aggressive design. Some were promoted by Swarzenegger, one was designed to resemble a 30's ganster car, manyy had grills added. These sent aggressive impulses to the brain, making people feel safe. However, these changes actually made SUVs (2% more likely to kill in a crash) less safe, but sales soared. See how fear produces consumerism?

The PT cruiser is hardly an SUV...try an attempted retro station wagon. It's more like a fashion statement as well as being a joke on the road. Your "SUV" is actually nothing more than a Plymouth/Dodge Neon chassis and engine with a redesigned body and interior. Just like the H2 is not based on the original HMMWV chassis, but a commercial SUV chassis. The so-called "agressive" body styles that you are talking about were already coming into style. Funny that you equate the new body styles with the 2002 vehicles, but perhaps you didn't know that new car models are usually released in the early fall time frame. The Pontiac Aztec (another horrible design) was already on the market. The sleeker SUVs were adopting the greater economy of sleeker designs. The majority of SUVs simply maintained what they had. Sure, add a grill, but those were also the trends through movies, tv shows and saying "that looks cool." The majority of SUVs still do not have grilles added. The average US family owner has an SUV without a grille. A simple glance through populated areas will show that.

SUVs had less to do with security versus the hip hop trend. Many new consumers are influenced by the physical appeal, I agree, but to say because it's safe is fallacy. In truth it is because SUVs are the "in" thing. I support my statement with increased sales in foreign compact cars and the increase in business shown by paint shops, glitz and performance car parts. Following the movies "Fast and the Furious" and "Gone in 60 Seconds," rice racers and high end luxury sports cars and classics became the trend.

The United States is all about trends. I'd like you to tell me how buying a plasma screen television is prompted through fear. What about my brand new computer? Was I afraid and so bought myself a 3,200 dollar gaming laptop? I think that's a little too much of a stretch for the average person to even consider. Certain things I agree with. Groceries such as long-lasting foods are bought in anticipation of disasters, but that is human nature. Hoard if you think the shit is going to hit the fan. Not just fear of a terrorist attack. They do this is communist countries if they can as well.

I feel your pain, dude, but there are only three kinds of threads here.


MARRY THIS PRINCESS!1!!1` threads.
BUY MY SHIT!!11 threads.
War threads.


-Kits
Ye Olde Forum Curmedgeon

I have tried to start other kinds of threads and options other than the three you listed do tend to fall flat often.

Heck, most of the time I can't even get anyone to buy stuff.

Ask any expert - fear drives consumerism!

Then I'll make sure and let all the experts know that the reason I buy things are because I need them. And I'll make sure veryone else I know tells them too so they can correct their "expert" opinion.

Not everything experts say is always true. At one point in time, experts said that the world was flat. In the late 1800s or early 1900s, an "expert" came up with the famous quote, "Everything that can be built, has been." Some experts say that the Holocaust never happened. Others say that the Bible is a true account of the creation of the world.

Movie experts commonly say that certain flicks suck. Being an expert simply means you've been doing something for long enough and have ideas that many or even a few intellectual friends recognize.

When it comes to economics, you look at past trends. Coincidences do not always consitute fact. Just because there was in influx in the numbers of people buying SUVs after 9-11 doesn't mean all that much. The new models were appealing, more economical, you have a new crop of college kids going to or just graduated from school and getting jobs. SUVs have been on the rise since the mid 90s and so the continual trend seems to denote more people buying SUVs PERIOD, than just because they got scared and thought an SUV was going to help them out.

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/61785/3.jpg
Camdeans Shop (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50231&highlight=)

Look, really, it's common knowledge! It is also logic, and this theory (basically proven) is used by companies and governments worldwide. I'm not in some communist conspiracy - it's not usually even debated, even by capitalists! Fear drives consumerism.

And I call this common knowledgea load of BS. Their "studies" may prove it and it may be printed in tons of textbooks worldwide, but no one I know is driven to buy goods out of fear. I simply take offense that it's even hinted that I live in an excessive capitalist system. The US may practice a slightly more aggressive policy for foreign affairs, but that is not oppressing its citizens and in most cases (not all) is not oppressing that of other countries. If their own economy is decent, they have nothing to worry about. Simply boycott US goods. Try to find a nation where this omnipresent fear exists and then show me how your concept applies.

Better yet, offer up evidence in the form of a citation where I can read the material you absorb so that I may judge it for myself. No offense, but this is like arguing over what a "smart" person is. A person can read books all they want and be "book smart" but socially challenged. And vice-versa. I just happen to think that these authors, based on my having not seen any of their works, are "book-smart" people and need to look at the common person, not their schizo, nerdy, econ major friends.

Consumerism is driven by fear and insecurity. Comfort buying. If we take it for granted that the world is real...