|
So what did the British all die to a plague or something in that universe?
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 23, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
The truth is there isn't much Canadian irredentism because Canadians have a cultural inclination to defer to authority even if they don't like it. Part of being a willing member of the British Empire and in fact clinging to it for dear life.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:You've really been posting up a storm lately. Would you say that the main issue in national Canadian politics, the Quebec independence movement, is down to deference to authority? I've been taking advantage of GBS 2.1 to let off some steam, if that's what you're talking about. I'll admit that when I said that I should've specified English Canada. Quebec not only doesn't have the imperial history that English Canada does (at least not to the same extent, particularly since they were sold out by France after the Seven Years War) but it's also resulted in them being far more protective of any sense of cultural sovereignty that they have. Still, you don't see much irredentism even in Quebec. There's an independence movement that has lost most of its steam since the 1991 referendum but even that shifted from "sovereignty" to "sovereignty association" a while ago. Sovereignty association basically means sovereignty but still with a degree of deference to Ottawa as far as political and economic issues are concerned. So while it's different in Quebec I'd still say that there's a degree of deference to authority there. Heck, even when they want independence they reject force as a means of doing so and are really only willing to do it with permission from the Canadian government. Hence a referendum instead of a rebellion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
So that one was from Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
United States of Canada and Ireland? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Panas posted:So this maritime culture that was the only part of English Canada to exist prior to the revolutionary war is responsible for Canadian deference to authority? Continue to enlighten me good sir! I don't think I mentioned anything about any maritime culture. It has less to do with maritime culture and more to do with English Canada being largely founded by loyalists. quote:As for Quebec there was something called the FLQ. They had no problem using violence in their fight for independence. They killed one politician (by accident) and blew up some mailboxes. They were the pussiest revolutionary group ever even by Canadian standards.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
China isn't going to destroy the world with only 240 nukes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
There isn't any US diplomatic presence in North Korea and Iran because it would be dangerous to send Americans to those places. North Korea wouldn't respect American diplomatic immunity and the Iranians have a history of not respecting American diplomatic immunity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Only three at NORAD HQ? It would survive three hits.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
made of bees posted:Is this from The Years of Rice and Salt or something? And what's with the trigrams on the compass rose? Is that series any good by the way? I think it has an interesting premise but what I'm told is that everything that happened in real life happened again except it was Chinese and Arabian.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
It seems very likely that for countries like Afghanistan and Japan the majority of the searches are from US servicemen. Most Afghan's don't have the internet and I'll bet that there's probably Japanese porn sites.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
I don't think that any internet statistics coming out of China are reliable, to be honest. Isn't porn illegal there?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Quicker and dirtier. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
No Alaska, Manchuria, Turkey, or Hokkaido 3/10
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Capital is Moscow of course.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Even Russia must bow before the might of Greater Turkiye. What the gently caress is this. So basically every city in Eurasia part of the "Turkish World?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love how the ancient Glorious Korean Worldspanning Empire conveniently vanishes just before writing was invented. I'm surprised they didn't add Australia and parts of the Americas as well because why the gently caress not. They already added frigging England (conveniently ending at present-day borders with Scotland too!)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's almost like those in power will use whatever means available to them to make sure they hold onto that power and ethnic/cultural divides are a very handy tool for that. I don't think it's anything like this, I think it's just that people have a tendency to distrust anyone who doesn't look like them or have a similar background and hence are more reluctant to fund things like social welfare because they think that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
I don't see why just a giant picture of a human skull wouldn't be sufficient considering it's a pretty universal symbol of death.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
poo poo Kazakhstan, get it together.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
rscott posted:
edit: Nevermind I'm dumb and illiterate. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
I like how the political borders are exactly the same as in real life in spite of the Mediterranean sized inland-sea.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Roseo posted:Cause it 'happened' in 1973 Yeah but you'd think that basically every state in the center of the continent being obliterated would redraw state lines a bit. Like look at the Dakotas.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I dunno. For an "exploration" fleet, they didn't really go anywhere that China wasn't already trading with / already knew about. Almost all of the places on the map that were visited were filled with civilizations just as advanced as China was at the time. Also bear in mind that if we're talking about the Americas, the Pacific Ocean is really, really, incredibly huge. A voyage from China to the Americas and back would've taken so long with contemporary technology that the crew would've starved to death before reaching their destination, let alone being able to make a return trip. I suppose that Australia would be a possible place for China to colonize, but nobody actually wants to live in Australia as it's mostly desert.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Japan, France, etc. have more than I thought there would be.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
That is a really broad definition of "imperialism" that I don't think would hold up under scrutiny in a globalized world.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Lets be honest though basically everyone wants to drill with America. It's beneficial for all parties involved really. The Chinese get to feel like an important growing diplomatic partner AND get to see first hand just how powerful the US Navy is.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Given how China didn't really give a gently caress about naval matters till about 20 years ago and are now on the verge of a full scale blue-water force they have come a long way. They still aren't likely to actively destroy large parts of the American fleet like the Russian one would (Everyone admits the reason that not a single American warship went near the Bosporus during the Ukrine Crisis is the Black Sea fleet would blow them to poo poo) in 20 years the worlds ocean will look different. Especially with China's massive economic links in Africa. Russia's navy is pretty poo poo as well and consists largely of SSBM's meant to launch nukes, not to fight another Navy. Furthermore what ships they do have consist mostly of, like China's, old Soviet rustbuckets. China's military is nowhere near as strong as the media often portrays, and they're still a long way from even having a respectable blue water navy, let alone one able to challenge the US Navy. http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/chinas-deceptively-weak-and-dangerous-military/
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:You're absolutely right. Yes, for patrolling. But I can't think of any missile bases in the continental United States where you need to transport supplies via horse. Keep in mind this isn't some remote mountain on the other side of the planet we're talking about regarding China, these are bases inside their own borders. I'm sure that horseback patrols still exist in the continental United States but I suspect that they're civilian police forces rather than the military. Correct me if I'm wrong. quote:The submarine he references that contained "the cream of Chinas Navy" or some other such rubbish was on a training patrol with its regular crew and some cadets, whilst his claim that China has never conducted a nuclear missile patrol ignores the Type 092 (one vessel introduced 1981) and the Type 094 (three to five in service, first introduced 2004). His knowledge of PLA Special Forces training exercises is impressive, assuming they are true.. but maybe his presumably Chinese military source told him what they want him to say? Everything I can find on the Type 094 is that they haven't begun any operational patrols with it, though they're slated to start this year. Regarding the type 092 I can't find any operational history for it, which makes sense since this is the PLAN, but the US Defense Intelligence Agency lists the Type 092 as not being operational. Perhaps it was at some point, but it seems to no longer be the case. quote:That whole article stinks of desperation and bias. Well I'll bet it does when you presume that he must be lying.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:What the gently caress NATO is the better question. NATO exists to fight a hypothetical total war with a parity opponent so it makes sense that most members (  ) wouldnt be willing to fully take them off the table
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Can anyone guess this one?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
China's inflated sense of historical grievance has a tendency to make them look like crybabies on the world stage and its really hurting their attempts to gain great power recognition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:International politics isn't a loving high school prom election. If you have power then you have it. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks of you. That's pretty much the whole loving point in having power in the first place. China has power, they've got a drat veto seat on the UNSC. They don't have as much power as several other countries. That could change or it might not, but it won't have anything to do with them whining about the Opium wars or whatever the gently caress. I too believe that soft power doesn't exist and all that matters is nukes and money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:The got on the Security Council because they kicked out the Republic, not because they had nukes or money or whatever. And that presence on the security council hinged on diplomatic recognition from other countries, not the size of the PRC's army or how much money it had.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I mostly agree that soft power is very much a thing, but why do you think that even the anti-communists like the USA agreed to swap the capitalist ROC for the PRC? The US actually voted against giving the ROC's seat to the PRC, though you're right that most of NATO and the rest of the western bloc voted to admit the PRC in the actual vote itself. Since this is still a map thread here's a map of the votes.  As for why, most of the West was seeking diplomatic rapprochement with the PRC for various reasons, one of the biggest being to drive a wedge between the Soviets and the Chinese, but also because continued recognition of ROC severely hurt their ability to conduct diplomacy with the PRC. And yes, I agree that China is always going to have a certain amount of power owing to material influences (most particularly its massive size) but it's still not as simple as "They have power because they have power," particularly as far as international affairs are concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Rumda posted:
That's nothing; did you know that Greenland isn't really the size of Africa?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 10:29
|
|
The real problem is that they could'nt be bothered to use an overlay with the right borders look at Sudan and South sudan
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:Maybe it means "to be born right now" - a baby born in China today has a good chance of living in the world's dominant superpower when they grow up. They have a far better chance of starving to death when climate change makes China's population unfeedable. Or during a civil war when China's demographic bomb explodes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I was trying to figure out how the US could be exactly as peaceful as Thailand, with its ongoing insurgencies and coups; or the Philippines, with its assorted insurgencies and random gun violence. Apparently they include high military spending as a form of violence, so of course the US is gonna be pretty insanely violent by that measure. I thought that it was because as the global hegemon the US is more likely to get involved in international disputes than any other country.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:Here is a fun one. Have you used cat treats in the last six months? The south literally is terrible at everything isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 23, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:This is a politically-loaded 1914 map I came across on some french blog: That's the strangest shade of yellow I've ever seen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 16:50
|
|
