Pseudonym

@ -dante-  It appears as though my opinions perhaps run contrary to our great lord. As such, I shall now be referring to you exclusively as "Dante" for the heresey of my beliefs.

I will always look to you for moral guidance, even if I disperse from you opinions, Dante.

@ Dingle Pooper  Lets say isreal, and every isreali was no longer capable of fighting (like a reverse order 66 where they had no ability to fight anymore). I think all of israel would die.

Let's say, instead, everyone who kind of feels like killing israel got reverse order 66'ed. I do not think israel would kill them.

"fact is Iran hasn't attacked another country in like 300 years" iran hasn't been the same government for 300 years. and if you look at what you said more literally, they have shot missiles at israel, seemingly targeting civilians. If we look at what you said less literally again: if i see someone wants to kill jewish people, and tell him "Yo bro, big fan! have some guns" that's pretty much attacking another country. You don't get to claim your going the pacifist route if it's your minions doing the killing for you.

"but you know who did let the IAEA inspect their facilities.. Iran." I think that's a controversial statement. If we look at something IAEA Director General said in Jun 9:

"In addition, Iran’s unilateral decision to stop implementation of modified Code 3.1 has led to a significant reduction in the Agency’s ability to verify whether Iran’s nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and is also contrary to its legal obligations set out in Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement and in the Subsidiary Arrangements.

The rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium – as detailed in my other report before you: Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) – is of serious concern and adds to the complexity of the issues I have described. Given the potential proliferation implications, the Agency cannot ignore the stockpiling of over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium."

Do I know what any of this means, or have any clear idea what the implications are? Abso fucking lutely not. But this doesn't seem to be open cooperation with IAEA so that everyone is 100% sure iran only has a peaceful nuclear program.

One of the points about iran always being months away from nuclear weapons is: they want to be months away from nuclear weapons. Being years away is to dangerous cuz nukes can be nice for deterrence, actually having them comes with more complications, sanctions, potential attacks to stop you from having them if you only have like 1 or 2. So their strategy is be able to make them relatively quickly if they need to, but not directly actually have them. Even anti israel people think this.

"lets say Iran are terrorists" If they are terrorists who want to kill israel, they would try killing israel. If israel then tries to kill them back, iran would still want to kill israel.

"I mean everyone has the right to defend themselves no?" In the example you give for this sentence, iran were literally the terrorists who wanted to make nukes, who used being attacked by israel as an excuse to make nuclear weapons.

"what good came out of the Iraqi war?" honestly about as much good as the iranian revolution. Sometimes brutal horrible dictators are better than the alternative. I don't think you can really say it would be morally bad to kill a brutal dictator, but interestingly enough people seemed to prefer saddam pre 2003 invasion OVER the current system. And Iran under the shah also seemed to be better. 

I didn't touch on israel killing civilians vs other organizations. cuz that is very difficult to exactly determine. But I will say: I think israel tries to target military targets, which is very difficult because their targets usually hide among civilians, and civilian buildings in gaza. When they target Iran it basically turned into easy mode where they get to fight in symmetrical warfare.

I think Israels opponents are happy with targeting isreali civilians, and don't care to much whether they get the soldiers or civilians. Like what's the point of just generally shooting missiles at israel as a whole, rather than at it's military targets? Israel tries to shoot at the military targets.

depth charges NOW

i've finally found the olympus life hack to get -1000 karma, i just have to openly support israel and jewish people

Iran supports terrorist organizations. They want jews to die because of their religion. The houthi flag on it literally says (copy paste from wikipedia)

@ lukie  Iran be like: Death to Israel! Death to America! Lukie be like: "Nah Iran is just trying to get mostly peaceful nuclear weapons they don't want to kill America, Kill Israel? Of course they want to but they just lying when they say Death to America and try to build ICBMs"

@ Milo  yo i'm willing to die for it

Reading this be like: "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear site in Iran ***YOU EVER HAD A PIECE OF PUSSY MAN, THAT BE ON YO MIND LIKE MONEY?***"

holy shit god bless @ -dante-

Quote

To be fair I think I wrote that bit so its me interpreting my interpretation

The level of humbility, and objectivity that @ David Miller strives for proves that he is one of, and perhaps the, best admin on Olympus. He regularly criticizes himself to people he is talking to, then addresses that criticism, then moves on. The maturity in that action nigh incomprehensible, not just for Olympus, but for everything. He is kind, and understanding to other people as well, which let's him actually understand all the multiple perspectives to any given situation, and feel what it is like for each separate player in complex engagements.

We don't deserve him. I play Olympus Forums and Olympus Altis Life Rules because I like poking holes in things. David Miller doesn't design things so that holes can't be poked into things, but he designs them so that I don't even feel the desire to because it's just well made.

Normally when I see something, I think the whole structure is rotten so I start peeling of the individual panels so I can get to the structures framing. David Miller designed it so that the structure its self is well laid out, and strong. Even with a bunch of bad panels, the structure still holds strong because who cares? It's designed well so that it can still handle the bad parts. Maybe I could fix a few things here and there, but at it's core it's good.

Thank you.

I'm defending his choice of words. It's a perfectly fine choice of words. Depending on the exact rule, maybe it would be slightly misleading.

@ Parker R  Context? I 100% could understand this in different situations. E.g: If you accidentally drive into the water, that's not a waterlog, that's a skill issue. It's just that if you "accidentally" do it when you wanted to do it intentionally, theres like no chance you genuinely did it accidentally.

like dawg do you not have any philosphical conception for the rules? we aren't running on game mechanics here, we are running on RP systems with certain words and ideas that you are supposed to follow. The game is glitchy, and many rules are based on your state of mind. The exact same action with a different state of mind could either be allowed or disallowed.

oh my god a proud and the sovereign relationship would be so cute! they are literally exactly alike!

@ The Sovereign  I haven't been watching all the new drone models, but they generally aren't going supersonic, and don't have the variety of options that jets do.

Drones can't respond as fast as jets can to more distant targets. Can a drone take out a jet? not really, UNLESS it is carrying anti air weapons (yeah, a lot cheaper than a plane, but who cares if your drone is $5k if the missile it carries is worth a million?)

There aren't drones which are as stealthy as f22, f35, or b2 (i have not fact checked this). From a certain medium-long range starting position, those planes can get much closer to a defended position than drones from a similar starting position, and those drones are most likely going to get shot down, and their response time is going to be much slower than one of those planes, and when they get to that location, the drones will have many less options than those planes would.

How would you go about taking out an f35? Would you use land based weaponry? maybe something like a s400 or s500? those are extremly expensive systems, even more so than the f35, and if the opponent could invest a lot into positioning drones, then you could actually destroy half a billion dollar systems for quite cheap.

If you try placing cheap drones in the air with anti air missiles, it's going to get detected way ahead of time by an f35 or f22, or even not stealthy planes, and either destroyed or just ignored and flown around. 

Anti air missiles are already designed to kill aircraft, and they can go incredibly fast, yet the US is still good at avoiding them. I don't see how a drone could try to do that job better.

If you wanted to strike the enemy, I don't see how a drone could do that if it doesn't already have a foothold rather close to the enemy so they have very minimal time to react and can get swarmed by them. Once you get to medium or longer range, the drones start getting more plane like, but without the stealth and speed, and thus become easier to kill. AH-64s literally shot down some shahedd with a 30mm chaingun.

Also, yeah, you can absolutely fire great munitions from predator drones, but they are vulnerable to electronic warefare, do you propose running a one thousand kilometer long fiber optic cable for them? they are also slow and vulnerable in general. Predator drones have been shot down multiple times. Jets are less vulnerable, and can more easily fight back.

Drones do not have the same capability at range as planes do.

Also with the drone vs submarine example. Sure maybe a $5000 munition could take out a submarine if it got the chance, the problem is: how are you going to detect it to begin with?

I will have to agree drones will change this massively, but there is still just to much they can't do. Even if we get basically f35, but it's a drone, and autonomously piloted with permission to kill, there are still gonna be cases where it's nice to have a human in the loop that can make some decisions.

We even got to see in irans first wave of counter attacks against israel that all their drones got shot down, and they had to rely on more traditional ballistic missiles to be able to hit israel at all.

Are drones currently the worse they will ever be, and they are already rather powerful? Absolutely, will they get more stealthy? Yep. Do we need to invest a lot into drones, and counter drone systems? 100%. But there's just some stuff that cheap drones will never be able to replace