If you had a nation, what are some alternative not obvious ways to make it harder for enemies to fuck with you? I learned this from the middle east.
>Have military / gov intelligence command centers built underneath a school, church, or hospital acting as a physical barrier to attacks and also making the enemy look evil if they ever attack such places
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): FA73E0B9B067120A1B714E51C1177CA6-22398.jpg (21.9 KB, 720x509, 1674406834723689.jpg)
Don't be a sandnigger country and develop nukes.
>but the collateral damages
It's not my fault if the enemy hides into civilians, if the civilians protect them they are guilty as well.
>But muh children
Especially the children.
>but the collateral damages
It's not my fault if the enemy hides into civilians, if the civilians protect them they are guilty as well.
>But muh children
Especially the children.
File (): 9FDA8F59F66DCBB0207C6082050406FC-929177.png (907.4 KB, 1024x1024, 00101-1640052877.png)
>>373454
>develop nukes
Having nukes is a pretty strong strategic deterrent to prevent foreigners from attacking your country. Glowniggers also prefer not to start civil wars in countries that have nukes.
>if the civilians protect them they are guilty as well
That's stupid reasoning. Civilians hardly ever choose to shelter armed militants hiding among them; they typically just live in fear of them. People with no choice in the matter aren't guilty.
>>373453
>Have military / gov intelligence command centers built underneath a school, church, or hospital acting as a physical barrier to attacks and also making the enemy look evil if they ever attack such places
That works if you're a terrorist group, but it doesn't work if you're trying to run an actual country.
It worked for Hamas because Hamas doesn't actually care about Palestine, just defeating Israel and damaging it's international reputation: for them, maximizing casualties on both sides furthers their goal, because they're terrorists, not a regime. It wouldn't work in any place where you actually care for the well-being of your people, because it will result in more civilian casualties.
>develop nukes
Having nukes is a pretty strong strategic deterrent to prevent foreigners from attacking your country. Glowniggers also prefer not to start civil wars in countries that have nukes.
>if the civilians protect them they are guilty as well
That's stupid reasoning. Civilians hardly ever choose to shelter armed militants hiding among them; they typically just live in fear of them. People with no choice in the matter aren't guilty.
>>373453
>Have military / gov intelligence command centers built underneath a school, church, or hospital acting as a physical barrier to attacks and also making the enemy look evil if they ever attack such places
That works if you're a terrorist group, but it doesn't work if you're trying to run an actual country.
It worked for Hamas because Hamas doesn't actually care about Palestine, just defeating Israel and damaging it's international reputation: for them, maximizing casualties on both sides furthers their goal, because they're terrorists, not a regime. It wouldn't work in any place where you actually care for the well-being of your people, because it will result in more civilian casualties.
>>373457
>Civilians hardly ever choose to shelter armed militants hiding a
I don't give a fuck, I will be kind and deliver an ultimatum : Surrender the terrorists or face a complete annihilation by all means possible. You have 24 hours.
>Civilians hardly ever choose to shelter armed militants hiding a
I don't give a fuck, I will be kind and deliver an ultimatum : Surrender the terrorists or face a complete annihilation by all means possible. You have 24 hours.
>>373458
>Surrender the terrorists
How are unarmed civilians supposed to "surrender terrorists"? They're just peasants, thru can't do anything.
Can you imagine if the government carpet-bombed the city you live in just to kill the mafia?
>Surrender the terrorists
How are unarmed civilians supposed to "surrender terrorists"? They're just peasants, thru can't do anything.
Can you imagine if the government carpet-bombed the city you live in just to kill the mafia?
>>373458
>kill innocent people and then blame them for their death
>that will convince them to give up the terrorists
Read a history book you retarded frog. This is a Vietnam situation and your hatred for a group of people that don't even live near you is turning you into the thing you hate.
>kill innocent people and then blame them for their death
>that will convince them to give up the terrorists
Read a history book you retarded frog. This is a Vietnam situation and your hatred for a group of people that don't even live near you is turning you into the thing you hate.
File (): 10BBCB8D256391CFF14BBE7806436C03-900413.jpg (879.3 KB, 1242x1320, IMG_0797.jpg)
>>373462
>Read a history book you retarded frog. This is a Vietnam situation
I was gonna say. The thing that the frog suggests has never, ever worked in history. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in the Gulf Wars, it didn't work in Afghanistan, and it's currently not working in Gaza. Armies only do this shit when their leaders have failed to set clear objectives and they're floundering around because they don't know wtf they're supposed to do.
Terrorizing peasants will not make them hand you the enemy on a silver platter. If it were really that simple, you should be able to do it yourself with a single squad.
>Read a history book you retarded frog. This is a Vietnam situation
I was gonna say. The thing that the frog suggests has never, ever worked in history. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in the Gulf Wars, it didn't work in Afghanistan, and it's currently not working in Gaza. Armies only do this shit when their leaders have failed to set clear objectives and they're floundering around because they don't know wtf they're supposed to do.
Terrorizing peasants will not make them hand you the enemy on a silver platter. If it were really that simple, you should be able to do it yourself with a single squad.
>>373463
They razed WW2 Germany, but the point was to burn everything down.
It was only maintained by constant fear, rape and death by multiple different groups under a single vision.
Then they got to test out various walls and means of populous control.
They razed WW2 Germany, but the point was to burn everything down.
It was only maintained by constant fear, rape and death by multiple different groups under a single vision.
Then they got to test out various walls and means of populous control.
>>373464
Even that didn't contribute to Germans giving up their leadership. It was just killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians.
Even that didn't contribute to Germans giving up their leadership. It was just killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians.
File (): 6EC5B6EFFCB1956D07652595C5E003D5-4794964.mp4 (4.6 MB, Resolution:480x360 Length:00:01:28, Samurai Applejack.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>373453
>inb4 God.
>hypothetically speaking.
It's quite simple. Let's say a nation was in the worst location tactically and strategically.
To prevent destruction is to be the biggest asset to everyone who would even think of trying to destroy the place.
It's not that if they conquer that nation they get the thing and they can continue onward. No it's that only the people and nation and all residing entities therein have to be completely and totally unmolested to have the greatest assest that nation provides and nobody else can even produce it not even former citizens or soldiers or sellouts and it can't be made by foreign fuckwits even in the soil that arrest comes from or abroad.
Something that can't be forced or coerced. Something that demands and requires the highest quality of life.
Nukes work on the opposite principle. Everyone looses end of game, get fucked.
Nukes however are flawed and boundaries can be pushed and tested and subversion occurs.
>I want to employ this give a real example.
Horsefuckers have the unique ability of being able to safely and humanely harvest snowpity.
>Nobody wants snowpity yet give another example.
Horsefuckers can generate positive outcomes by shear autism. Not actually autism. It's the power of friendship ect ect ect. At competitive rates with low numbers, but increase in effectiveness with deeper bonds and wider network.
As in by technicality horesfuckers guide the what could be into what is.
A more concrete example every single horsefucker lead and run organization is widely successful, in the trenches it doesn't appear that way but it does happen repeatedly and consistently.
Even in locations where there are no horsefuckers, horsefuckers still win long after the fact as well. Continually.
By the nature of the phenomena horsefuckers remain horsefuckers and increase in horsefucker abilities via friendship and horsepussy and God.
>They don't seem that successful.
Yet. The study into this is essentially new grounds nobody knows what even the tiniest budding will accomplish.
However notice there are little to no redditors, shills and other various malcontents. Even in the lack of the quality originator content horsefuckers thrive.
>inb4 God.
>hypothetically speaking.
It's quite simple. Let's say a nation was in the worst location tactically and strategically.
To prevent destruction is to be the biggest asset to everyone who would even think of trying to destroy the place.
It's not that if they conquer that nation they get the thing and they can continue onward. No it's that only the people and nation and all residing entities therein have to be completely and totally unmolested to have the greatest assest that nation provides and nobody else can even produce it not even former citizens or soldiers or sellouts and it can't be made by foreign fuckwits even in the soil that arrest comes from or abroad.
Something that can't be forced or coerced. Something that demands and requires the highest quality of life.
Nukes work on the opposite principle. Everyone looses end of game, get fucked.
Nukes however are flawed and boundaries can be pushed and tested and subversion occurs.
>I want to employ this give a real example.
Horsefuckers have the unique ability of being able to safely and humanely harvest snowpity.
>Nobody wants snowpity yet give another example.
Horsefuckers can generate positive outcomes by shear autism. Not actually autism. It's the power of friendship ect ect ect. At competitive rates with low numbers, but increase in effectiveness with deeper bonds and wider network.
As in by technicality horesfuckers guide the what could be into what is.
A more concrete example every single horsefucker lead and run organization is widely successful, in the trenches it doesn't appear that way but it does happen repeatedly and consistently.
Even in locations where there are no horsefuckers, horsefuckers still win long after the fact as well. Continually.
By the nature of the phenomena horsefuckers remain horsefuckers and increase in horsefucker abilities via friendship and horsepussy and God.
>They don't seem that successful.
Yet. The study into this is essentially new grounds nobody knows what even the tiniest budding will accomplish.
However notice there are little to no redditors, shills and other various malcontents. Even in the lack of the quality originator content horsefuckers thrive.
>>373463
You think DeGaulle ordred nukes against! Russia ? Yes. Algeria, especially vietnam too. But muh human rights.
Algeria was the thing. If we play by human rights we will lose, the enemy don't play like that. We are titans but there's mommy who says “don't fight the bully back !”
What we should do ? Squish them. Traumatize them. Make bomb rains, systematically torture and mutilate the enemies. Make war against your nation so horrible and incencitive an attack will be unthinkable.
Napalm their fucking schools and hospitals, what do you think they're taught in there, math and logic ?
>the western man must be murdered
>saving your shot enemies
Geneva convention made war possibkle again due to 0 possible response and 0 way to stop it.
Yes a nuke would be more humane, a flash of light, clear place. wasn't that McArthur who suggested it in korea war ?
You think DeGaulle ordred nukes against! Russia ? Yes. Algeria, especially vietnam too. But muh human rights.
Algeria was the thing. If we play by human rights we will lose, the enemy don't play like that. We are titans but there's mommy who says “don't fight the bully back !”
What we should do ? Squish them. Traumatize them. Make bomb rains, systematically torture and mutilate the enemies. Make war against your nation so horrible and incencitive an attack will be unthinkable.
Napalm their fucking schools and hospitals, what do you think they're taught in there, math and logic ?
>the western man must be murdered
>saving your shot enemies
Geneva convention made war possibkle again due to 0 possible response and 0 way to stop it.
Yes a nuke would be more humane, a flash of light, clear place. wasn't that McArthur who suggested it in korea war ?
>>373476
>What we should do ? Squish them. Traumatize them. Make bomb rains, systematically torture and mutilate the enemies. Make war against your nation so horrible and incencitive an attack will be unthinkable.
>Napalm their fucking schools and hospitals, what do you think they're taught in there, math and logic ?
This didn't work in Vietnam. It hasn't worked any time in history. It's a silly power fantasy.
>What we should do ? Squish them. Traumatize them. Make bomb rains, systematically torture and mutilate the enemies. Make war against your nation so horrible and incencitive an attack will be unthinkable.
>Napalm their fucking schools and hospitals, what do you think they're taught in there, math and logic ?
This didn't work in Vietnam. It hasn't worked any time in history. It's a silly power fantasy.
12 replies | 5 files | 7 UUIDs | Archived