The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Tripledoc: Europeans can't do much about US "warmongering" as long as they allow the US to be unequalled militarilly in the world.
It is not true that the US is warmongering entity. The US has allowed the political agenda to be hijacked by a neo-con cabal of Christian fundamentalists and Likudites.
A more assertive Europe means that the US would not be completely in the driving seat anymore, and I don't think that is a situation the US relishes one bit.
After all, perhaps one day, some US backed thug might come into the bomsights of more assertive European military: could be bad for policy, no?
Sandman:
The probem is, the reason archons. in the US can say: "who gives a damn about Europe" is that to them, diplomacy is a game of counting Bombers.
Things will change, anyway. HIstory is always moving, and it is folly to think the last 50 years are going to remain a "normal' condition.
I bet that US predominance in the world will last as long as I live ( I giv myself 60 more years), but by the time I die, it will be facing real challenges. The problem is figuring out if the US has already reahced its Appex, or if that has yet to happen.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
It would be supreme folly to start churning out supercarriers and stealth bombers just to placate the US.
Of course that can´t be our goal. But more modern, more mobile forces are certainly. Maybe not for Britain, but Germany hadn´t even enough air transport capacity to transport its own peacekeepers to Afghanistan. A good part of the Bundeswehr has only crap as equipment. OTOH we store ca. 5000 Leopard tanks waiting for WWIII. I don´t say we should have everything the USA has, but our current forces aren´t much useful for conflicts today.
"and I don't think that is a situation the US relishes one bit."
Not true. That's exactly what we're proposing.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by GePap
Europe has enough firepower to defend itself from an invasion. That's for sure. The capabilities Europe lacks are those to move significant forces aorund the world anytime, and techs to make war far cheaper, casualty wise, for itself.
So war is justified if the selfproclaimed protagonist do not suffer any casualties?
Strangelove: While true, overall credibility is proportional to military strength. For instance, the EU can't be a kingmaker in the Israel-Palestine conflict, once it comes to that, even though it's really right in their back yard and doesn't require military strength.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by DanS
Strangelove: While true, overall credibility is proportional to military strength. For instance, the EU can't be a kingmaker in the Israel-Palestine conflict, once it comes to that, even though it's really right in their back yard and doesn't require military strength.
THe US role as "king-maker" in that conflict comes from the fact that it is Israel's diplomaitc bodyguard at the UN and it gives Irsael 3 billion a year, plus more (the Palestinians are too weak to matter much). Since Israel has nukes, threats of force are somewhat meaningless.
The US wants Europe to be able to make small but significant contributions: it does not envision, nor does it want to see, a world in which the US is not top dog militarilly. The US wants a useful sidekick, not a co-equal.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
It is Europe's budget priorities. Europe spends $2.50 a day on every cow that grazes happily on the grass of the EU. Yet defense spending lags.
If we were to spend the 2 1/2 Euro on militairy stuff we would be shooting the heads of fellow Europeans because their cows would be grazing on greener grass...
guns make peace. Cows only makes people fat. Choice is obvious.
In da butt.
"Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
"God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.
of course the US doesn't want to see europe as equal. And not because the US is evil. It is simple competition.
"Europe" is far from being a superstate, and until it is one, there is no way it could influence global politics in it's full force. Instead of one concentrated effort, you get 25 little arrows pointing in different, sometimes opposite directions.
Comment