- Pronouns
- It/Its
That's still capitalist though???
Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition
- Thread starter Blackstar
- Start date
- Alt. History Users' Choice!
Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
- Location
- Fawnland
Dice and Tarots are getting involved for the decision, I will trust in the heart of the cards and vote:
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms
I am just imagining the utter hilarity of the common people learning that Soviet decision makers used dice rolls and tarot reading to decide if escalating would lead to nuclear war. Like imagine knowing that Nuclear Armageddon was avoided only because some dice and cards said France would fire their missiles. Utter hilarity in the history books and future Youtube videos.
I mean was Nazi Germany a capitalist country and they were fascist/authoritarian. Capitalism doesn't immediately = authoritarian hellscape after all.
I am not sure it is possible to argue with a person who thinks that nuclear war is impossible because ... uhhhhh.... human nature basically??? Becuse when you see nonexistant to minor risks , I see a very real risk of quite literally the worst thing that could realistically ever happen. Logically , while you think getting some concessions is significant , for me deescalation means incomparebly more than absolutely any geopolitical objectives
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- It/Its
Yeah they were??? The political specifics can change but the underlying economic system is the same
As of right now in this tl, unless someone else has done something cool I missed, all nations (including us) are functioning on a capitalist mode of production
I mean both sides here escalated about as much as they could and no nukes were fired. I don't see why it would lead to anyone in the field thinking we need to back off hard after more or less a success, if a tense one. Even if you do fear the atom bomb this has shown that even when you have ships shooting eachother from two nuclear armed states, it doesn't get let out of its bag
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Let's be the adult in the room, the dice informed us that we are in for bad luck after all. Plus the horoscope said "You will make a new friend, and be at high risk of triggering nuclear war. Be mindful of unexpected situations and don't forgot to enjoy your day." Seems pretty definitive to me, we should follow best practices in regards to foreign policy.
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms
Ashheap
Friend-shape little shrimp smoking remnants
- Location
- Bottom of the pot
We def did with our our missile bases for a few day now.
Actually they were a mixed economy and had a high degree of central planning.
But that isn't the point the point is that capitalism doesn't automatically make something evil.
- Location
- Asia
Tough day at the French naval HQ. Got into a ramming match with the Soviets and lost that. Then got into a a shooting match and lost that too.
[X] Advocate for Accepting the Terms
We should accept it. But we should creatively interpret the terms asking to punish the officer. Bro did nothing wrong.
[X] Advocate for Accepting the Terms
We should accept it. But we should creatively interpret the terms asking to punish the officer. Bro did nothing wrong.
Wait , what? You are telling me "this is a highest possible level of escalation and still no Apocalypse , therefore we should escalate more"??? We... WE LITERALLY HAVE THE CHOICE TO INVADE FUCKING FRANCE , HOW THE HELL IS THIS "about as much as possible"? Your own proposal (send fucktonne of guns ) is literally escalating more.
Also I love the mentality of "it hadn't any catastrophical consequences this time , therefore we should do that again". Have you tried russian roulette? It has a huge chance of winning of 5/6 , and if you win once , that'd be a reason to continue playing
Last edited:
- Location
- Asia
Also, what good timing doing the tech trade with the Americans this turn, eh? Too bad, we won't be doing that again in the near future...
- Pronouns
- It/Its
A mixed economy with central planning is still capitalist idk where your going here
And yeah sure, but the capitalist bloc is our geopolitical opposition, our main enemy. What is bad for them is good for us and Vice versa
Russian Roulette with a gun with no bullets sure. We have proven that we can escalate and win, there's no reason to start backing down as soon as aggression becomes proven to work
- Location
- Philippines
The sheer number of books, tv shows, biopics, historical references and endless memes surrounding the Algerian Naval Crisis will certainly be interesting. From a US perspective, theyve largely been in the background of this spat that nearly ended the world and that might shape foreign policy. Wonder how Germany thinks of this whole thing.
That is wrong we still can, as we all know politicians telling companys not to do something doesn't really stop them from trading technologies or committing crimes against humanity to make bananas a few Penny's cheaper, it just makes them do it more sneakily and having a lot of interns at the ready to sacrifice for the sake of profit.
Red Rationalist
Spinning in eternity
- Location
- Andro-Orlando Hair Saloon
- Pronouns
- They/Them
This reads to me like a misunderstanding of how foreign policy, escalation and nuclear weapons policy actually work. No state sane enough for medium-term survival has a policy of "immediately fire all nuclear weapons as soon as any element of our armed forces are hit". Because nobody actually wants nuclear war, it doesn't bode well for the stock market/5 year plan. Does this mean shooting at each other is actually harmless? Hell no.
To simplify the issue as game theory, in reaction to such an incident there are two basic strategies here: "deescalate" (accept sacrifices for the sake of avoiding open conflict) and brinksmanship (insist on concessions and show willingness to escalate further). If one side is willing to deescalate, things are fine. The worry is never from the initial incident, but the reaction to the incident. If one sides misreads the others stance, plays hardball for something where the other is unwilling to back down, the interaction can take on a life of it's own. If both the SU and France engage in brinkmanship (like your "never back down strategy" would suggest), you could see a very real risk of real war, followed by nuclear war. We've accidentally lit a match in the powder keg, and nothing bad happened so far. That doesn't mean we should make a habit out of lighting matches there. If you make a habit out of risking escalation, the reaction of the americans won't be "offer them concessions because it was clearly an accident" the third or fourth time.
Also, we have very much not escalated as much as we could. This is fairly low on the escalation ladder, we had a naval skirmish and there is already risk present if we try to exact concessions. High escalation would be "prepare forces for a invasion of Europe", followed only by "tactical nuclear strikes" and "nuclear war".
Last edited:
Not necessarily we have been able to work with them in the past with various trades and agreements it doesn't have to be one or the other. Besides I am pretty sure America's economy collapsing will be bad for us simply due to the sheer size of it.
The only problem is... THERE IS A FUCKING BULLET. A bullet that kill not only you , but the entirety of human civilisation. If you played one time and won you haven't proven anything , you just got lucky. And if you plan to play untill you can't anymore , you will (who could've thought!) end up getting the bullet
- Pronouns
- It/Its
I mean as I've said I don't consider nuclear war to be a real possibility, leaving the maximum option as a shooting war, which I think we would beat France in (though it would do great economic damage to all sides involved for sure)
Detente can happen sure (unfortunately) but this is still the Cold War. America and the Soviets are still diametrically opposed for the time being
plotvitalnpc
Once more walking the path of the catgirl.
France's IRL nuclear doctrine allows the possibility of using nukes as a warning shot. They're even more on edge here. They'll consider firing nukes precisely because we'd beat them in a shooting war.
Yeah… Sometimes ya win some times ya lose. Like here we successfully humiliated France at sea and somewhat diplomatically isolated them while getting nukes outa their hands. But we also likely made things a lot rougher for everyone in Algeria and gave the new U.S administration a good justification to start being more standoffish.
At the end of the day we've made our choices and have to take the good with the bad… and hopefully avoid destroying everything for the sake pride misplaced or not.
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms
At the end of the day we've made our choices and have to take the good with the bad… and hopefully avoid destroying everything for the sake pride misplaced or not.
[X]Advocate for Accepting the Terms
- Pronouns
- It/Its
Tactical nukes yes, I get those, but I do not believe in MAD, or the probability of a general nuclear exchange. I just don't think it can happen unless you have a doctor Strangelove autofire thing that malfunctions
As for tactical nukes, their very bad yeah, especially long term environmentally, but I don't think it'd be too much of an issue especially since the Soviet army was pretty focused on how to survive them in the cold war