NationStates Jolt Archive

....Who would win?


earlier today i was reading through this thread on how America should step down as world police force and who sould step up. I said Andorra and a few others said Sealand would be next. So NSG i ask you, who would win if the two battled it out?


Andorra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra)


Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)

Sealand! Nothing can beat Sealand.

Andorra because it has healthy strong people, it resides in the mountains, and it has lots of cash!

Liechtenstein would win it is one of two doubly landlocked countrys and it relys on Switzerland for protection and Switzerland would Own Andorra (and France and Spain since they protect it) and Sealand.

Seeing as one of the Andorran co-princes is the French head of state, Andorra would have quite a lot more help, not to mention that it is a real country.

Andorra is a tax shelter and playground for the rich of the world; Sealand has no such political connections. There is no way that Sealand would be allowed to win by the rest of the world.

Seeing as one of the Andorran co-princes is the French head of state, Andorra would have quite a lot more help, not to mention that it is a real country.

As is Sealand.

....Who would win?


earlier today i was reading through this thread on how America should step down as world police force and who sould step up. I said Andorra and a few others said Sealand would be next. So NSG i ask you, who would win if the two battled it out?


Andorra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra)


Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)
Andorra, it has an International Rugby team.
*Nods*

I say Andorra, since it would pwn Sealand.

I also say "who cares!" because admittedly, I'd love to see Andorra kick some arse and see the USA step down as "world policeman", but unfortuantely i's not going to happen anytime soon.

I also voted for myself. :)

Andorra. If it doesn't have a standing army, it could probably conscript one. What does Sealand have, like, a population of 2?

I say Andorra, since it would pwn Sealand.

I also say "who cares!" because admittedly, I'd love to see Andorra kick some arse and see the USA step down as "world policeman", but unfortuantely i's not going to happen anytime soon.

I also voted for myself. :)

How would Andorra pwn Sealand?

Andorra (if memory serves) is landlocked...and has no airforce....and no military...

Seeing as one of the Andorran co-princes is the French head of state, Andorra would have quite a lot more help, not to mention that it is a real country.

Sealand is a real country. It's just not recognised by many others.

Seland would pwn Andorra, hands down. :p

Andorra, seeing as nobody lives in Sealand any more, they could take it over pretty easily. In fact, the prince could just fly over in his helicopter, making Andorra a European nation with a comparitively sizeable EMPAHR!

Sealand has HACKERS!. And they are badass.

They would be able to hack the enemy army and conquer it without one bullet fired.

As is Sealand.

No, it's not. Not only have courts ruled that the installation never in fact stopped being UK property, it is not recognised as a country by any other country. So, really, it's not. Claiming that it is, the failed attempt at funniness of it aside, is moronic.

Sealand has HACKERS!. And they are badass.

They would be able to hack the enemy army and conquer it without one bullet fired.
But... but... nobody lives there any more!

Seland would pwn Andorra, hands down. :p

how? they have no army.

No, it's not. Not only have courts ruled that the installation never in fact stopped being UK property, it is not recognised as a country by any other country. So, really, it's not. Claiming that it is, the failed attempt at funniness of it aside, is moronic.

Get over yourself.

Monaco beats them both, they have soldiers.

I say Andorra, since it would pwn Sealand.

I also say "who cares!" because admittedly, I'd love to see Andorra kick some arse and see the USA step down as "world policeman", but unfortuantely i's not going to happen anytime soon.

I also voted for myself. :)

*nods*

Andorra's army has, at last count, 6 members. My family has, at last count, 7. My family could pwn Andorra lol, and don't even get me STARTED on Sealand.

All their bases are belong to us!!

I'm upset because I was all ready to vote for Seaworld but I misread it. Now, I'm not going to vote at all.

No, it's not. Not only have courts ruled that the installation never in fact stopped being UK property, it is not recognised as a country by any other country. So, really, it's not. Claiming that it is, the failed attempt at funniness of it aside, is moronic.

errr....this was settled in the UK courts in the late 60's and through actions during the lifetime of Sealand.

Sorry Fassigen but its not moronic. Thanks for the insult though. Ever so nice of you....attacking someone for no reason whatsoever.

Sealand, of course.

Sealand Ftw.

errr....this was settled in the UK courts in the late 60's and through actions during the lifetime of Sealand.

It was not settled through either UK courts or actions. The UK court only ruled that it had no jurisdiction as the installation was outside of UK territory and in international waters - claiming that that ruling acknowledged Sealand as a nation is as nonsensical as claiming that if I were to take a boat into international waters and commit something that is a crime in Sweden, and a Swedish court were to find that Swedish law does not apply outside of Swedish territory (duh!), that the boat I was on was suddenly magically transformed into a country.

If you knew the story of Sealand, you'd also know that German and US courts have ruled that the installation never ceased being the property of the United Kingdom, which means that Roughs Tower isn't even this family's property to claim this ridiculous "sovereignty" over in the first place. They were nothing but squatters of UK property in international waters, and nowadays they can't even claim that what with the UK having extended its territory.

Sorry Fassigen but its not moronic. Thanks for the insult though. Ever so nice of you....attacking someone for no reason whatsoever.

It still remains moronic, and please do learn to differentiate between yourself and what you spout.

Depends. If TPB gets Sealand, than they will totally win because they can just download tanks of the internet.

It was not settled through either UK courts or actions. The UK court only ruled that it had no jurisdiction as the installation was outside of UK territory and in international waters - claiming that that ruling acknowledged Sealand as a nation is as nonsensical as claiming that if I were to take a boat into international waters and commit something that is a crime in Sweden, and a Swedish court were to find that Swedish law does not apply outside of Swedish territory (duh!), that the boat I was on was suddenly magically transformed into a country.

If you knew the story of Sealand, you'd also know that German and US courts have ruled that the installation never ceased being the property of the United Kingdom, which means that Roughs Tower isn't even this family's property to claim this ridiculous "sovereignty" over. They're nothing but squatters of UK property in international waters.

It still remains moronic, and, please do learn to differentiate between yourself and what you spout.

Fass...your reading of Wiki does not make you an expert. And your analogy is quite frankly pathetically wrong in so many ways that I really can't be arsed to go through it with you.

The UK ruling was that the UK has no jurisdiction over Sealand. All the courts in the world can say otherwise but the fact remains that it is up to the UK to make that judgement.

Which is why I did not mention it. I would have thought you as an expert in international law and sovereignty understood that those court cases were sops.

Really you ought to take care of what you spout matey.

I'm upset because I was all ready to vote for Seaworld but I misread it. Now, I'm not going to vote at all.

Srry :(

Fass...your reading of Wiki does not make you an expert. And your analogy is quite frankly pathetically wrong in so many ways that I really can't be arsed to go through it with you.

The UK ruling was that the UK has no jurisdiction over Sealand. All the courts in the world can say otherwise but the fact remains that it is up to the UK to make that judgement.

The court simply ruled that the installation at the time was in international waters. No court has jurisdiction over those, so it had to rule that way. It didn't rule that way because Sealand was somehow sovereign. So, the boat analogy is indeed spot on - Sealand is no more sovereign than my boat would be.

And of course, this is all moot anyway since the court case is irrelevant now that the UK has expanded its territorial waters to encompass the waters Sealand is in. The courts would have jurisdiction to throw these bums out this time around.

Which is why I did not mention it. I would have thought you as an expert in international law and sovereignty understood that those court cases were sops.

They're even more pieces of sanity against these squatters on Sealand, who have nothing to support their claims. The only reason they're still squatting UK property is because the UK can't be bothered to give a fuck.

Really you ought to take care of what you spout matey.

I spout the simple truth, as opposed to you, so it needs no tending.

The court simply ruled that the installation at the time was in international waters. No court has jurisdiction over those, so it had to rule that way. It didn't rule that way because Sealand was somehow sovereign. So, the boat analogy is indeed spot on - Sealand is no more sovereign than my boat would be.

And of course, this is all moot anyway since the court case is irrelevant now that the UK has expanded its territorial waters to encompass the waters Sealand is in. The courts would have jurisdiction to throw these bums out this time around.

They're even more pieces of sanity against these squatters on Sealand, who have nothing to support their claims. The only reason they're still squatting UK property is because the UK can't be bothered to give a fuck.

I spout the simple truth, as opposed to you, so it needs no tending.

All boats need to be registered with a country. It cannot be a country of its own right under Maritime Law. That is why your analogy fails.

The issues you raise are quite similar to Prof Churchill. What the good Professor fails to mention is that he is stating an opinion. Until it is tested in a court of law in the UK he is just blowing hot air. Like yourself.

Sealand is a real country. It's just not recognised by many others.

Well it isn't really as it has no natural land (it was an abandoned platform) and it is not recognised by actual states.

The terrorists. I do not see how it would help any other side if the servers of sealand would disappear.