WesWorld

The Iberian Army might be far more modern than the Chinese Army, but the problem with Iberia's army is that it is spread out across the world. Only a small part of all those units will be at San Hainando. China's forces are pretty much concentrated in the Asia region.

Iberia has a LOOooooog way to ship those troops to China, who happens to have a large allied naval force to back it up while Persia has more resources and manpower than Armenia and Azerbaijan and has a narrow front to defend. For Persia the equilizer is simple, raise an army like it had before.

There are other MAD threats to be created, I seriously doubt a 1930's Persia will be developing an atom bomb....

Ok... where has it even been hinted that Persia will develop nuclear weapons? As for raising an army that can perhaps happen with massive Japanese support since "Persia can not expect do what other nations do"

Quoted

Iberia has a LOOooooog way to ship those troops to China, who happens to have a large allied naval force to back it up

You forgot to add that it is quite easy to surround San Hainando and starve the forces into surrender while fending off the reinforcements coming from Europe...
... and what large allied naval force is going to back China up? Persia will probably be too busy guarding the Persian gulf, Chosen and Pacifica are too small to send much units without compromising the safety of their own territories, India is pretty much out of the SATSUMA alliance and Japan does not believe that it is worth ruining relationships by bothering about such a small, insignificant speck of Asian soil held by the Iberians.

I for one agree with Walter. SEAR seriously destabilized the balance of power.

AS for nukes, if there had NOT been a WWII I could see Germany having the technology to build them by 1944. The German atomic program was very advanced, but the Nazis and Norwegians did not help it along. Also a considerable amount of resources that could have been allocated to it were instead allocated to mass producing weapons. Same with the jet planes, the He 178 first flew in 1939 but the Me 262 didn't enter service until 1944, mainly because of the resources diverted to building Bf-109s and FW-190s.

I for one have no problem with nukes in WW. And yes I know that Mexico and Australia do not have the capability to develop them.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I for one agree with Walter. SEAR seriously destabilized the balance of power.

Perhaps, but the time for OOC complaints was when it was formed, now it's too late to try and retcon. And despite Walter's ruminations....it is a purely defensive pact. Pressure from SAER may have prompted India's recent decision, but the only direct negotiations were between India, UK, and Australia (as far as I know).

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I for one have no problem with nukes in WW. And yes I know that Mexico and Australia do not have the capability to develop them.

-quietly adjusts Mark Oliphant's passport to Canadian citizenship- (:

Quoted

And despite Walter's ruminations....it is a purely defensive pact.

Well, I seriously doubt that that is the truth. Either you are lying or your boss (i.e. GB) is lying to you... but if it is true what you said about "the only direct negotiations were between India, UK, and Australia", then it is most likely the latter...

Quoted

-quietly adjusts Mark Oliphant's passport to Canadian citizenship- (:

What? Are Matt Jefferies and Zefram Cochrane not enough for Canada?

Ok, as for nukes I really can't see where any nation would get the justification to build them without a second Great War. Although the scientists might explore the theory, I really can't see any justification for any government in WW to expend the massive amount of money that would be needed for a nuclear program. Actually IMO it would be better for Japan to develop rockets rather than nukes but thats just me.

Now as for the whole SEAR/SATSUMA thing, well your right it did change the strategic balance in the Far East from SATSUMA running the show, to a more equal contest. Before the creation of SEAR, none of the other alliances on their own could match the shear number of men SATSUMA could put in the field. FAR? Nope, the Indian and Chinese armies can keep the Russians busy, and the Japanese/Filipinos can take the only colony, Indochina before significant French/Atlantean reinforcements reach the scene. AEGIS? Nope, not enough manpower, and San Hainando, the DEI, and likely Siam will fall before a reinforcement army arrives from Europe. Even against SEAR, SATSUMA minus India will likely have some sucess, the Chinese can match the Russian firepower with uncountable numbers of Chinese, and the Japanese/Filipinos can take Hong Kong, Indochina, or the DEI before any significant reinforcements arrive. Its only in a long war against SEAR that SATSUMA will lose.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

And despite Walter's ruminations....it is a purely defensive pact.

Well, I seriously doubt that that is the truth. Either you are lying or your boss (i.e. GB) is lying to you... but if it is true what you said about "the only direct negotiations were between India, UK, and Australia", then it is most likely the latter...

I'm curious; What evidence of belligerant behaviour are you alluding to? I'm unaware of any attempt by a member of SAER to expand their territorial holdings or threaten any other power with the use of force to accomplish any goals in the region. SAER is not at all similar to the various "blocs" with close nit cooperation in all fields of development (ie; SATSUMA, AEGIS, NATO). It quite literally is a defensive agreement that does nothing more than say "This is the Status Quo, we quite like it, and will generally agree to defend it should someone attempt to upset it".

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

-quietly adjusts Mark Oliphant's passport to Canadian citizenship- (:

What? Are Matt Jefferies and Zefram Cochrane not enough for Canada?

One can never have enough mad scientists. (:

Quoted

SAER is not at all similar to the various "blocs" with close nit cooperation in all fields of development.

And it is limited to one geographic region. Conceivably, Russian Federation could find themselves at war with the British Empire in Europe, facing their allies Germany and Nordmark as well and whatever British Dominions feel up to tagging along, and relying on her faithful Atlantean and French allies.

That situation is of course unlikely, since Russia respects British, German, and Nordmarkian interests, and that respect is reciprocated. It really does provide refreshing break from constant imperial frictions, not to mention continent-spanning bloodbaths lasting years. RF government heartily recommends it!

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Iberia, Axerbaijan and Armenia are poor examples as they are all stronger military than the "threat".

Azerbaijan and Armenia have larger armies only because you totally castrated your own.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Iberia, Axerbaijan and Armenia are poor examples as they are all stronger military than the "threat".

Azerbaijan and Armenia have larger armies only because you totally castrated your own.

True that. He defeated his own army!

You mean the army that was barely allowed use gunpowder?

...?

Dammit, people, I opened the thread to read about nukes, not bloc politics.

Personally, as a player, I always thought I'd forego nukes and just concentrate on good ol' chemical and biological agents. Not as showy as atomics, but probably a lot less expensive.

....and acctually alot nastier.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Dammit, people, I opened the thread to read about nukes, not bloc politics.

Heh, it would be nice to keep bloc politics out of this, wouldn't it... though I suppose on a hot-button topic like this, it's inevitable.

It seems to me that, from those who have spoken thus far, the overwhelming consensus would prefer for a "No nuclear weapons in game" rule, with nuclear power/reactors perhaps trailing OTL by five to ten years. (So SSNs and CVNs start in 1960 or later.) Is this a correct analysis of the currently offered opinions?

Seems reasonable enough.

A weapon that is better than your enemy's will always be sought after. I fully support allowing nukes in Wesworld. We have biological and chemical weapons. Why not nukes?

I do agree that biological weapons are a lot more effective, scarier, and cheaper. Just put the warhead on a sub launched V-1 and surface of the coast of Iberia...

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I do agree that biological weapons are a lot more effective, scarier, and cheaper. Just put the warhead on a sub launched V-1 and surface of the coast of Iberia...

Your Iberiaphobia appears to be acting up again. Might want to have a good doctor look into removing that.