h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We might as well go ahead and start WWIII so that we can get it out of our system. I don't think that the US should attack China though to start it off. Lets face it the US should take out Mexico, Canada, and Greenland first so that we can get the extra 5 armies per turn. China is going to have a hard time getting all of Asia and holding it anyway.

No making fun of universal armegeadon. Paranoisa is the order of the day. Go forth and bash a Bush.

Besides, I always like to start out with South America or Autralia. I think China is cheating by starting with too many armies.

This sort of reminds me of the line in Red Dawn. "'We have 300 million chinamen on our side.' 'Aren't there 700 million chinamen?' 'There were.'"

Maybe the other 400 million are woman and children

"Everybody fights. No one quits. You guit and I'll kill ya myself" well kinda a quote but i might of got part of it wrong.

yes I also like to start with South America or Austraila but we don't really have the choice.

What no trading before the start of the game?

I usually prefer Australia to SOuth america if possable, Easyer to defend. On the otehr hand, south america does open up Africa.

It's been said that Australia would be a good place to sit out a nuclear war - it's far enough away from anywhere else to be effected by all but the worst nuclear winters and the's not enough there for anyone to bother nuking it.
Anyway, I've never got Risk

As a SEATO member wouldn't Australia be dragged into World War too?

Well, before you commit us to a world war. .. realize the cost of human life in the endeavor. . .it is men like myself that would be fighting this war. .. unless you are willing to commit yourself. .. do not insinuate the obvious. . .the purpose of the US Army INfantry branch is the ability to hold a two front war. .. and this will come to fruitition in the future I am sure of it. . .but please do not denigrate the sacrifice guys like me will make in the commitment to the next world war. . .although I realize the necessity of warfare as a human culture, I look not forward to the implentation of the short sightedness of it. .. wars are not won anymore. . .politics prohibit it. . .wars are fought nouw by men on the front line killing other men while much older men wait for political referendum to assure their reelection. Is this wrong . . .yes. . ..is it reality. . .yes. . .

I'm not really fit to be an infantryman any longer. I did the infatry thing during the Gulf War. If there were another one I'd do whatever I could to support the infantry. I'm a passable EOD tech, cop or clerk. I'll do what I can, but I'm not front line material any more.

I appreciate the support and give you a big cheers to your service in the gulf war. . .as long as more people feel the asme as you. .. then men like me will have not died in vain.

I think I must apologize for this post. While trying to put a little humor into a serious subject I had lost point of the goal. Anyone who looses sight on the goal will never win. The discussing of war is a touchy issue but let me make a few things clear to you.

"Wars are not won anymore . . .politics prohibit it . . .wars are fought now by men on the front line killing other men "
Believe it or not this is how it has always been. People who only care about their political ties has always called out Young men to do battle on the front lines. Politics my good friend is not a new thing but it has been going on for years. Now saying this I can hear someone screaming in the back of my head "but so many things have been fought for and people have died for that were worth it. Things like freedom and equality of the classes." I understand that warfare is a tool of change. Warfare used correctly is actually a very effective tool. But do not think for one minute that warfare has ever been pure and unaffected by politics. With that said let me just make yet another statement before you make a judgment about me if you don’t know me. If it came to it I would gladly take the banner into battle. I am not a pacifist but a realist (or at least what I think one is). War is not pretty. War is not glorious. War should never be the first solution to a problem, but if there is to be one you better believe I will be standing right beside you (well maybe not standing cus that’s a good way to get shot but you get the idea).

Do I think that a third world war will actually happen? I think that is always a possibility. Will there be total nuclear war? I don't see it happening.

As far as my original post about the game Risk was meant in a light hearted way. I was thinking along the lines of when people think of world wars they automatically think of one country trying to take over the world (witch has happened a few times in history) but the next world war (at least this is what I think) will probably start out as a civil war in one country. Counties will side with the different factions. This will finally escalate until the two or more backers start fighting each other and so on. This seems to be the popular way to fight now a-days. Basically what we have been practicing ever sence the Korean war. Much of the traditional fighting ways have been thrown out of the window. I think that the model of fighting a two front war is outdated. We now have to be prepared (if the politicians have there way) to fight in 97 different countries with 1/10th the budget when all we had to do was not piss off Russia. Ok now I have gone off on a tangent. So I will get to the moral of the story.

War, while it has its good points basically sucks.
Risk is a lot of fun and when a piece dies no one has to write a letter home to its moma.
Lets forget about having another WW and just get our fix by playing some Risk or maybe a game of chess.

Your point is well said and true to form. . .and I will gladly stand with you as well. . .though the radio guy usually gets it just as quick. . . . .but back to the point. . .perhaps a game of chess is in order. . .or a good drinking game. . .perhaps if politicians enjoyed a good drink together much of our worlds problems would disappear.. .I mean look at amsterdam. . .

good point...I think I might have to make it down to GA soon so we can get some a game going and a little drinking going anyone else want to go?

Or hopefully i will be in NY by the end of next month. . so all of those NY based researchers can get together circa NYC

I don't think you have a thing in the world to apologize. If anyone should apologize, it's the staff for bringing up such a dismal topic on a board based on a comedy science fiction story.

I don't think any subject should be taken to seriously, including war. Levity is a good way to cope with many situations that woiuld otherwise overwhelm us.

Let me know when you're coming. We'll make it a point to have a little meet.

Tacsatduck and myself will through the bash of a century for all of us researchers. .. bring a friend

I think there definately shouldn't be another war but not meaning to be pessimistic there probably will be! on the subject of Risk i always prefer to take North America and then South

You are a heck of a leader then. I wouldn't want to rule America for all the tea in China. Americans are too unruly.

I think if anyone were to conquer us, they'd leave us in about a week.

Plus if anyone ever invaded the american continent, just about every us citizen owns a gun or two. . .it would be picking a fight with every body and not just the body politic.