- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
On further reflection, this is probably correct. The clear implication is that the, ah, weapon is a blunt instrument with a form factor very similar to a sword, yes. The word 'bokken' is used repeatedly, probably because it is familiar as a word for a blunt wooden training sword with the same form factor as traditional Japanese swords.Bokken are made of wood; that's what the Bok(u) means. It might be a Tekkan, a sword-shaped metal club.
...
For reasons I will explain by PM if anyone is curious, I am not going to reply to more than three things said in Spart117MC's specific post at a time. This is not meant to ignore any particular thing Spart117MC said, and I hope to get around to responding to everything eventually.
Hopefully. On the other hand, lack of cultural familiarity may make this difficult, unless the "not allowed" things are extremely vague topics such as "no embarrassing us." Also, having to beat up every Amazon who causes a problem could get time-consuming, and may force us to make difficult adjudications as to which 'offenses' justify a beating and which do not.No but if the Senshi lay out at the start, you the Amazons are not allowed to do so and so, and then some Amazon does it, it's completely within their rights to beat the sense into them.
Among other things, because while Sailor Moon is all about delivering punitive beatings in the name of the Moon, she usually reserves them for monsters trying to drain people's life force and destroy the Earth, not for some random superpowered Chinese villager who picked up a vending machine and broke it over her knee to access the contents because she didn't realize that it was private property.
I think that a mass defection of nuclear scientists would be unlikely to lead to war, even as it is likely to lead to international incidents short of war.The warship is a metaphor. That it's an object doesn't matter. That is not the point. The point is a massive chunk of firepower just defected on it's own. The point is that there was a mutiny that threatens the security of the nation. The point is that an irreplaceable resource that cannot be manufactured in anything short of years that is critical to a present crisis, has picked itself up and left.
But fine, let's change the metaphor, since the object thing is throwing you. The Amazons are nuclear scientists that know how to make nuclear weapons. Does that help to clarify the point I am attempting to make for you?
Of course, this is in part because all prudent nations with a nuclear program have the sense not to threaten to murder their entire cadre of nuclear scientists and accusing them of being in league with the enemy. Because doing that kind of thing is exactly how you goad your nuclear scientists into defecting, exactly as we are now seeing with the Amazons.
Assuming that the PRC's leadership has not had their brains eaten by stupidity-demons recently, it stands to reason that the PRC has at best mixed feelings about keeping the Amazons around. Either they genuinely believe that the Amazons are complicit in the Dark Kingdom's activities, or they believe that the Amazons are in some other way problematic, or they are engaged in some kind of internal faction fighting that makes it politically convenient for one or another part of the PRC government to behave as though they believe one of those things. In any of those cases, the Amazons simply are not viewed in a simple, uncomplicated way as vital defense assets who must be kept within China at all costs. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the PRC would have been making at least rudimentary efforts to keep the Amazons happy and treat them with respect. Assuming Cologne speaks accurately on the Amazons' behalf, then, the PRC must be less than fully enthusiastic about having them remain in China.
If the consensus position of the PRC were that the presence of the Amazons in China was vital to China's survival as a state, or to the stability of the PRC as a government, we would not be in this situation. China would not simultaneously regard the Amazons as so essential that their defection is worth risking armageddon for, and as so expendable or undesirable that it is in any way sensible policy to harass them until their leadership considers defection en masse as the only chance her people have to survive.
Why yes, yes I do. However, this is complicated, and I think that to adequately explain what I'm getting at would involve many hundreds and hundreds of words of political discourse.You're saying this about the PRC in 1992? The PRC three years removed from the events of Tiananmen Square? The PRC that in two years is going to start firing missiles into Taiwanese waters because the United States let the ROC president visit his alma mater?
My underlying point is that, all self-righteousness aside, governments do value a reputation for not actually invading anyone over stupid things or in pursuit of goals that cannot feasibly be remedied by any means. Even apart from the enormous dangers of a nuclear war, a reputation for invading neighbors outright results in all one's other neighbors becoming quite paranoid and resolving to see to their defensive arrangements, resulting in a lot of trouble on all the other borders. Russia is seeing this now with Ukraine; all their other neighbors are now galvanized to take action to protect themselves because Russia cannot be trusted to leave the neighbors alone.