The Western IslesBoard

Miklania wrote:

First. The rest would make you look like a Nazi.

I prefer the third one, although the nazi thing crossed my mind as well. In that case you could e.g. change the black for dark green or blue, or darken the red a little bit.

Nhoor wrote:

I prefer the third one, although the nazi thing crossed my mind as well. In that case you could e.g. change the black for dark green or blue, or darken the red a little bit.

I tried blue, but then it's just Norway with a coat of arms in an odd size. The green works surpirsingly well imo, thanks for the advice!

Veltora wrote:

Do ICBM's loaded with conventional explosives count as WMD's? Because if so then I have them, if not, then I dont.

ICBMs are intended to deliver nuclear warheads. You could use theoretically operate conventional ordinance on ICBMs, but these are best delivered on cruise missiles and other much smaller missiles. After all, such ordinance is hardly a deterrent.

Edit: As Balnik stated, it would be a waste of time to develop a launch vehicle (ICBM) just to deliver the explosive power, of, let's say, ten or twelve JDAMs.

Miklania wrote:

Would that necessarily be a waste? There are large distances in this region. If he wants to have a conventional ballistic missile capability, it makes sense to develop one with the range to reach the targets he needs to. That means ICBMs or IRBMs.

Idk. Seems like the main purpose of a ballistic missile is kinda nullified imo,to deliver a large weapon over great distances where it cannot be intercepted in re-entry. There are also long range cruise missiles and bombers if a conventional payload needs to be delivered over a long distance.

Dormill and Stiura wrote:

But to answer the question asked, no an ICBM or really any missile platform not loaded with a WMD is not considered a WMD.

The people of London in 1945 might argue that point as V2 rockets were dropping on the city.

I likely (secretly IC) have chemical weapons. No nuclear though. Although all that untouched uranium could change that if me and Ostehaar ever sort out our deal. lol

I have enough nukes to obliterate the whole of eastern Europe.

Thuzbekistan wrote:

So, like 5?

The figure is slightly closer to 380.

Dormill and Stiura wrote:

Last I remember, TWI isn’t large enough for ICBMs but well large enough for IRBMs.

Last number i saw was that TWI, map edge to map edge, was slightly larger than the Continental USA

So who used WMD''s and when?

Dormill and Stiura wrote:

Which brings up a rather interesting point. So I decided to hop on Google Earth and approximately draw out the area TWI represents, and there's a bit to say.

Just doing crude drawing from around the border of the Okhotsk, Philippine Sea, and Pacific plates, TWI covers an area that extends on its northwestern corner halfway between Pensacola and Panama City, FL, and to a southwestern point around the same latitude as Rio. Needless to say, TWI is massive now that I have a firm visual reference. And in that I retract my previous statement, ICBMs are totally viable on a map as large as TWI actually is.

This. I have always been saying that Gael itself is as large as Europe. The Pacific Ocean is nearly half the circumference (antipode or something) of Earth (those darned Polynesian sailors were amazing); so no surprises there.

We have plenty of large nations.

The Central Canal itself is around 110-120 km in range.

Balnik wrote:

So who used WMD''s and when?

Me, just now, in the bathroom.

Miklania wrote:

It is significantly larger than that. It's 7,000 miles longways and 4,000 miles along the short axis. Coast to coast in the USA is something like 2,500 miles, give or take.

to be fair "last time i checked" was about a year ago. so it may have been changed