i have a computer cus i live in america with my mom if i never came here i would never of had a computer

Night

Ah, ok. I just havent heard of the "oxymoron" word before, and I didnt know what it meant. No, really, I havent.

He he, indeed

Skidi, you say that your people believe that it is best to stay away from the influence of modern society, while you use a computer, and probably a phone, and who knows what else.

So.....yeah

"Mr Anderson, welcome back....we missed you...."

i have a computer cus i live in America i will not say it agen if i wasn't in America ATM i wouldn't be on this computer or on a phone or watching TV or whatever im in America so i live like American if i was in Siberia i live like the tribe

and the mechine gun thing...

my people have fought agenst modern weapons and won because Siberia is a harsh land and we know how the snow mother works we know how to use the land we know its layout we know its secrets you do not sop if your men dont starve or freeze to deth then we slowly pick you off with ambushes and freeze you with long winter as simple as that

1. My point was that this is contradictory to your people's beliefs because you live like an American, like you said. So it opposes Siberian life. Either you are one or the other, cant be both.

2. This has nothing to do with weapons. The fact that your people are used to extreme conditions that occur in Siberia, has nothing to do with weaponry. If you fought a straight battle against soldiers with automatic weapons, while your people carried bows, swords, spears, and similar weapons, you would get slaughtered, end of story.

"Mr Anderson, welcome back....we missed you...."

The flaw that was initially raised with "modern weapons will slaughter you" was that both parties here assumed that they themselves would be defenders. In a Siberian winter, your guns will need to have been designedto work in such cold. The Nazi's army lacked this, and thus got their asses frozen and handed back on a platter.

Skidi might also be referring to a British-Afghan war, during which a division of some 40000 troops were lost while marching through the Khyber pass, in Winter, while being continuously sniped from the upper ridges. One docter survived that event.

As Ghandi said, "One man killing a thousand while shooting from a hill. This is civilization."

Both groups here have made incorrect assumptions. Party 1 completely ignores terrain, guerilla warfare, weather, and compitence. Party 2 (ie Skidi) ignores the element of surprise belonging to both sides ina would-be battle.

Your arguement will solve nothing. A commander can win any battle from either faction in either position, providing luck and competance. I can have archers kill unwarry LMG gunners, and vice-versa.

And Maccilia, you should know better than to assume one can actually use a nuclear weapon.

Edit: sorry Skidi, I was typing this before you asked to drop it.

Fine carpet bombing... napalm... a 2 ton bomb in general...

Because all the other nations of the world are really going to let you get away with randomly attacking Siberia... right...

And to be honest, this is a pointless discussion, because what reason would we actually have to attack Siberia? Tell you what, why don't we stick to killing Taliban. Pretty interesting, really, how they picked up modern (well, WW2-technology level) guns, and still got 100% owned by the Northern tribes (who still use cavalry charges, successfully) once we started deploying special forces to encourage the tribes to fight the Taliban.

Okay, so my example did involve Western Special Forces and the RAF and USAF did provide some airforce, but the point stands. Doesn't matter what kit you have if you aren't skilled in using it. I bet if Skidi had a bow (with an arrow in the quiver) and one of you had your country's most-used assault rifle (with a magazine in your pocket) that Skidi would've shot you first.

Of course, if it was me with an SA80 L85A2 assault rifle, it may be a different story...

(Come to think about it, comparing the rough time to whip out an arrow, aim and fire it, to the time taken to load the magazine and cock the rifle, I think Skidi would just beat me...)

Anyway, back to Republic Commando. I managed to get it to work on the SPARKLY NEW Windows 7 PC! To be honest, despite the Star Wars setting, it is one of the smartest FPS games I've played...

It doesn't matter who has what weapon, they are all designed for killing.  Besides, think of it this way:

Bullets = One time use on the battlefield.

Arrows = Many uses if retrieved.

Say you have 30 round clip, and the bow has around 12 arrows.

And let's be uber-detail oriented, and say you even have a silencer.

It will still come down to who sees who first.

Same thing with gun vs Sword or SPEAR btw.  A weapon is a weapon.

Besides, the weapon is only half a warrier's strength.  Armor, anyone?

-Twilight Storm

most of skidi's post make me smile.... in a positive way... no offense here pls.

can't see how this could detoriate into... well...

you ppl stil can separate btw game & reality, yes?

Morph, we'd rather get back to politics again

better not okay

but one thing we skipped the "Hadron Collider" very very interesting thing

some pretty paranoid friends of mine believe that this thing could bring the end of the world

like the Romulans destroyed Vulcan in the last Star Trek yeah too much movies n drugs probably

but basically that thing is HUGE... plasma heats up several millions of decrees... and the energy that might dwell within

what happens if outta control?

Let's say I take the gun and simply shoot an archer okay.

I might have lost one bullet, but gained a bow + 12 arrows.

Once my gun is empty I'll have 360 arrows.

PURE WIN.

How? Do tell, I would like to know to avoid future misunderstandings.

And as an answer that doesn't involve apology, I don't see what guns don't have to do with warfare. It's a weapon which is used to kill things, unfortunately usually humans and also unfortunately animals for sport. So guns do admittedly have applications in sport, but your context would apply either in a wartime situation or as murder. I was assuming, due to me also misunderstanding the context, that you meant warfare, but I now see that this was purely a comparison of what was the better weapon. And yes, for the record, I would rather have a gun than a bow, not just because I actually know how to use a gun...

Anyway...

Hadron collider. What I thought was a real fail was when the media was trying to play on the "will the world end?" thing just before it was turned on. In the news that night: the collider was broken. It was leaked coolant or something. Meant that the super-conductive materials lost their optimum conductive temperatures and the entire thing broke down. It made the "end of the world" theorists look twice as silly for getting all panicky.

TV news, Fear spreaders, theorists, they all grab the first chance they see to call "doomsday", and "the world is gonna end".

Because Skidi clearly gets offended by these subjects regarding her people (Siberian), and there was a small chance that she might come, posting a "counter-attack"comment, trying to defend Siberia and who knows what else.

And, like I said,

obvious misunderstanding is obvious misunderstanding

Aaaaanyway, I wish I knew something solid and scientific to comment on the Hadron Collider, but unfortunately, I dont. I'm very noob on this subject

Now, what kind of weapon do you use in the military? Or what kind of weapon you'd like to use, for that matter?

"Mr Anderson, welcome back....we missed you...."