NationStates Jolt Archive

You fail, and you won't survive invading me, that should be a good enough guideline.

[ Lies!

You have no idea how fast my tracks can run away! ]

Your classification is lawl.

Any moderate sized NationStates nation has the ability to produce such a tremendous volume of firepower that directly invading its territory and manufacturing base is tantamount to suicide.

I BELIEVE that this is a mock of the Greal thing. That was quite funny, to be honest.

Your classification is lawl.

Any moderate sized NationStates nation has the ability to produce such a tremendous volume of firepower that directly invading its territory and manufacturing base is tantamount to suicide.

Want to test that theory? :)

nuke why waste sending troops

Cause of MAD. Dur.

nuke why waste sending troops

Because its highly likely that the nation you're nuking is going to have a near impregnable anti-ballistic missile system and interceptor network and large reserves of their own nuclear weapons, leading to a nuclear stalemate, unless a significant enough discrepancy in size of nuclear arsenals and countermeasures exists where one side will take more extensive damage than the other.

nuke why waste sending troops

Want to test that theory? :)

Quite frankly, I have no desire to waste my time resolving an out-of-character battle of egos.

Velkie is in Haven >.>

Quite frankly, I have no desire wasting my time to satisfy an out-of-character battle of egos.

I was only half-kidding. Relax. However I do question that theory. While a nation may be able to produce vast quantities of ammunition and weapons, men cannot be mass-produced, and it takes some time to train a soldier on how to use complex weapons systems. Also, if your opponent is competent at all, he would most likely go for your industrial centers first, while also using precision weaponry to destroy factories and armies. The ability to produce munitions doesn't matter when your enemy as more skill than you do.

Of course if you are in Haven and have those superpowers to back you, then yes.

My sarcasm detector is also beeping.

I realize this thread is a mockery of Greal's and DMG's threads. =P

love the time wraping of my post there

From ZERO TO PENIS INSIDE 5 MINUTES! Excellent job, II.

I was only half-kidding. Relax. However I do question that theory. While a nation may be able to produce vast quantities of ammunition and weapons, men cannot be mass-produced, and it takes some time to train a soldier on how to use complex weapons systems. Also, if your opponent is competent at all, he would most likely go for your industrial centers first, while also using precision weaponry to destroy factories and armies. The ability to produce munitions doesn't matter when your enemy as more skill than you do.

However I do question that theory. While a nation may be able to produce vast quantities of ammunition and weapons, men cannot be mass-produced, and it takes some time to train a soldier on how to use complex weapons systems.

The invading force is at even more of a disadvantage on this point, as replacing his losses is going to be tenfold as difficult as the defender replacing his own, as a defender has easy access to reserve forces and partisans, whilst the attacker must move his reserves across oceans which are likely to be swarming with the defender's submarine and surface forces.

Also, if your opponent is competent at all, he would most likely go for your industrial centers first, while also using precision weaponry to destroy factories and armies.

And an equally competent defender will recognize this and plan for it. Industrial centers and military installations are going to be protected by the thickest concentrations of munitions and support equipment in the nation, remember, and will not be easily destroyed. Precision weapons and air support in general are only truly war winners when you have achieved complete and utter air superiority over an enemy, which is not going to be the case by a long shot, rendering air support just that, support.

Of course if you are in Haven and have those superpowers to back you, then yes.

I'm an independent power which happens to reside in Haven, and am apart of no military or political alliances. Besides, this is proposed conflict is between two roughly evenly matched coalitions or nations.

The ability to produce munitions doesn't matter when your enemy as more skill than you do.

History will prove you wrong on that point. World War II was one by the vastly superior industry of the Allies, not the skill and generalship of the Axis.

The invading force is at even more of a disadvantage on this point, as replacing his losses is going to be tenfold as difficult as the defender replacing his own, as a defender has easy access to reserve forces and partisans, whilst the attacker must move his reserves across oceans which are likely to be swarming with the defender's submarine and surface forces.
This is true, to an extent. The issue becomes less of a point if the two nations are in the same landmass. Then again, this is where it becomes critical for the invading force to cause as many casualties as possible. When you look at the deaths that Germany used against the USSR, its a miracle they didn't just give up. an invading army would be looking for the same result, or they would be looking to secure a foothold where more men could be brought in easier, thus evening the field.

And an equally competent defender will recognize this and plan for it. Industrial centers and military installations are going to be protected by the thickest concentrations of munitions and support equipment in the nation, remember, and will not be easily destroyed. Precision weapons and air support in general are only truly war winners when you have achieved complete and utter air superiority over an enemy, which is not going to be the case by a long shot, rendering air support just that, support.


While true, the attacker could just as easily use that to his or her advantage. They could surround just cities and blow them to hell with artillery, and just let the enemies' armies wither away. And if its surrounded the munitions are only going to be used for the defenders anyway. However, as you stated, it would cause much fighting to get within range in the first place. While true for air support, you could also use escorted bombing runs, although casualties would be high. Also, you could use cruise missiles, albeit THAAD and Patriot like systems would limit their effectiveness.

History will prove you wrong on that point. World War II was one by the vastly superior industry of the Allies, not the skill and generalship of the Axis.

Then again, German industry didn't even reach its peak until 1944, at the height of strategic bombing raids and lack of resources. The loss of the luftwaffe also contributed here to the overall industry loss. Until Speer came along, the Germans were horrible at mastering their industry.

This is true, to an extent. The issue becomes less of a point if the two nations are in the same landmass. Then again, this is where it becomes critical for the invading force to cause as many casualties as possible. When you look at the deaths that Germany used against the USSR, its a miracle they didn't just give up. an invading army would be looking for the same result, or they would be looking to secure a foothold where more men could be brought in easier, thus evening the field.

Thus the war becomes a stalemate, and is thus likely eventually ended by the mutual consent of both parties.

While true, the attacker could just as easily use that to his or her advantage. They could surround just cities and blow them to hell with artillery, and just let the enemies' armies wither away. And if its surrounded the munitions are only going to be used for the defenders anyway. However, as you stated, it would cause much fighting to get within range in the first place. While true for air support, you could also use escorted bombing runs, although casualties would be high. Also, you could use cruise missiles, albeit THAAD and Patriot like systems would limit their effectiveness.

No option is ideal, although some (such as missile attacks) do tend to be more effective, although the point stands, an assault on valuable and well defended targets is going to cost you a great number of trained crews and equipment, and turn into a war of attrition.

Then again, German industry didn't even reach its peak until 1944, at the height of strategic bombing raids and lack of resources. The loss of the luftwaffe also contributed here to the overall industry loss. Until Speer came along, the Germans were horrible at mastering their industry.

Germany was outclassed, however, by the combined industries of the USSR, the United States, and Britain. They fought well, but in the end, could not outproduce their opponents.

Thus the war becomes a stalemate, and is thus likely eventually ended by the mutual consent of both parties.


Unless either side was able to launch a successful offensive, which isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

No option is ideal, although some (such as missile attacks) do tend to be more effective, although the point stands, an assault on valuable and well defended targets is going to cost you a great number of trained crews and equipment, and turn into a war of attrition.


You are right on this regard. Most of the deaths would take place when the offensive army was getting there, not when it actually got to the city.

Germany was outclassed, however, by the combined industries of the USSR, the United States, and Britain. They fought well, but in the end, could not outproduce their opponents.

Indeed. But they did improve greatly. And when you are talking NS, usually production doesn't matter as much, mainly due to the horribly-inflated defense budgets. If two nations fought and they equal economy and population, it would matter much more on their respective skills than industry.
If I invaded you, then I could expect to be defeated quickly, due to Haven's huge power. If I invaded you and it were 1v1, I probably would still be defeated, but I'd actually have a chance.