Weapons, yet again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivancito
  • Start date Start date
I

Ivancito

Guest
Don't worry, this is not another one of those "I want a Gatling Guided MIRV Missile Launcher in FO3" posts. If anything, it will be the exact opposite.

Assuming most (if not all) weapons and ammunition factories were destroyed, and most (if not all) professionals and skilled workers, experienced in the manufacture of firearms were killed, we should expect that there would be very few (modern) firearms around and even less in working conditions.

Ammunition would be extremely scarce. I have no idea what's the shelf-life of a bullet or a grenade, but I don't think it exceeds 20-30 years. After a century or so, most of the ammo would be extremely unreliable, causing jams more often than not and in some cases blowing up the gun.

With the technology available in the given time period, I'd say a muzzle-loading brass musket is about as good as it gets.

If someone in a post-apocalyptic world finds a way of making/repairing firearms and the way of making ammo for them, don't you think it would be a damn well-kept secret, known only to the owners of the technology? You think they would trade away the very tools that would ensure their eventual destruction? I'd say it would be just the opposite. Ergo, no "newly made" guns and ammo on the free market.

However, man's imagination is boundless when it's time to invent tools to inflict death and destruction. Swords, spears, lances, knives, bludgeons, maces, hammers would be much more frequent than guns and grenades. Ranged weapons like bows, crossbows, slings, javelins etc. require relatively low technology and yet have surprising effectiveness.

Before anybody sneers at the idea of the Vault Dweller or the Chosen One running around with a crossbow, I would like to remind you that it is a standard weapon of special forces around the globe today. It is a silent, deadly, armour-piercing weapon that can go through Kevlar much easier than a bullet. Slings are also used to this day. You seldom fire rocks from a sling, you usually fire a lead or iron pellet that can easily crack a skull.

Keep the guns, by all means. Just make them less available. Make all firearms skills much lower in the beginning (Where does a Tribal learn 45% small arms skill, anyway? Speaking of, how the hell does he know how to access a computer?)

The problem that I can see in this case is how to keep the game a "Post-nuclear" adventure. Fire Geckos, Super Mutants and Ghouls we already have, all we need is some psi powers and we have a fantasy RPG on our hands.

What do you people think?
 
I personally wouldn't mind seeing some more primitive weapons around, and especially weapons which bust up easier.

But weapons should also become more fatal. I'd like to see it where bullets are lethal if they hit your chest and head, and automatically disable you when it in the leg.

Sledge hammers should inflict a lot of pain if you get hit by one and fist fights should be common.

Get primitive.

-Xotor-

>Don't worry, this is not another
>one of those "I want
>a Gatling Guided MIRV Missile
>Launcher in FO3" posts.
>If anything, it will be
>the exact opposite.
>
>Assuming most (if not all) weapons
>and ammunition factories were destroyed,
>and most (if not all)
>professionals and skilled workers, experienced
>in the manufacture of firearms
>were killed, we should expect
>that there would be very
>few (modern) firearms around and
>even less in working conditions.
>
>
>Ammunition would be extremely scarce. I
>have no idea what's the
>shelf-life of a bullet or
>a grenade, but I don't
>think it exceeds 20-30 years.
> After a century or
>so, most of the ammo
>would be extremely unreliable, causing
>jams more often than not
>and in some cases blowing
>up the gun.
>
>With the technology available in the
>given time period, I'd say
>a muzzle-loading brass musket is
>about as good as it
>gets.
>
>If someone in a post-apocalyptic world
>finds a way of making/repairing
>firearms and the way of
>making ammo for them, don't
>you think it would be
>a damn well-kept secret, known
>only to the owners of
>the technology? You think
>they would trade away the
>very tools that would ensure
>their eventual destruction? I'd
>say it would be just
>the opposite. Ergo, no
>"newly made" guns and ammo
>on the free market.
>
>However, man's imagination is boundless when
>it's time to invent tools
>to inflict death and destruction.
> Swords, spears, lances, knives,
>bludgeons, maces, hammers would be
>much more frequent than guns
>and grenades. Ranged weapons
>like bows, crossbows, slings, javelins
>etc. require relatively low technology
>and yet have surprising effectiveness.
>
>
>Before anybody sneers at the idea
>of the Vault Dweller or
>the Chosen One running around
>with a crossbow, I would
>like to remind you that
>it is a standard weapon
>of special forces around the
>globe today. It is
>a silent, deadly, armour-piercing weapon
>that can go through Kevlar
>much easier than a bullet.
> Slings are also used
>to this day. You
>seldom fire rocks from a
>sling, you usually fire a
>lead or iron pellet that
>can easily crack a skull.
>
>
>Keep the guns, by all means.
> Just make them less
>available. Make all firearms
>skills much lower in the
>beginning (Where does a Tribal
>learn 45% small arms skill,
>anyway? Speaking of, how
>the hell does he know
>how to access a computer?)
>
>
>The problem that I can see
>in this case is how
>to keep the game a
>"Post-nuclear" adventure. Fire Geckos,
>Super Mutants and Ghouls we
>already have, all we need
>is some psi powers and
>we have a fantasy RPG
>on our hands.
>
>What do you people think?


[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Hmmmm....maybe, but...

Yes yes yes. I do like cross bow and bow+arrow weapons. It's a good idea. Consider this however. Now matter how big a war we have, people will survive (this part is irrelivent to my message) and so will technology. The reason people didn't have automatic weapons back in the day of slings and such was they didn't know how to make an automatic firearm. The didn't even think of them! So I would think higher technological guns would still be around because people know how to make them and, to survive, would definately have the need. I DO AGREE that firearms would be more difficult to find, and therefor be much more expensive. I would like to experiment with piercing crossbow bolts myself, hehehe.

As for the tribals (you especially) knowing how to use computers, and having a high small arms skill, don't you assume that The Vault Dweller would have taught his people things about computers? I admit it would be a lost art, but there would be pipboy info out there, huh? The guns thing I think was badly put in FO 2. Even though you only had the clothes on your back to begin with. The tribe as a whole still traded with others. They could have easily come about defenses, food, and CLOTHES for god's sake hehehe.
But we all know what happens when we ASS U ME things don't we?
 
RE: Hmmmm....maybe, but...

>Yes yes yes. I do like
>cross bow and bow+arrow weapons.
>It's a good idea. Consider
>this however. Now matter how
>big a war we have,
>people will survive (this part
>is irrelivent to my message)
>and so will technology. The
>reason people didn't have automatic
>weapons back in the day
>of slings and such was
>they didn't know how to
>make an automatic firearm. The
>didn't even think of them!
>So I would think higher
>technological guns would still be
>around because people know how
>to make them and, to
>survive, would definately have the
>need. I DO AGREE that
>firearms would be more difficult
>to find, and therefor be
>much more expensive. I would
>like to experiment with piercing
>crossbow bolts myself, hehehe.

The problem is not so much the knowledge of how to make the weapons, but the whole infrastructure needed. You would have to have access to high-alloy steel, for example. You could substitute it for normal carbon steel, but it would last a lot less and be a lot more prone to failure. Weapons are precise mechanical contraptions with very low tolerance for errors in their manufacture. You *can* get somebody to slave away trying to make a bolt or a spring with primitive tools but it would take a looong time and be a lot less effective. You might use the homemade parts as replacements, I guess.

>
>As for the tribals (you especially)
>knowing how to use computers,
>and having a high small
>arms skill, don't you assume
>that The Vault Dweller would
>have taught his people things
>about computers? I admit it
>would be a lost art,
>but there would be pipboy
>info out there, huh? The
>guns thing I think was
>badly put in FO 2.
>Even though you only had
>the clothes on your back
>to begin with. The tribe
>as a whole still traded
>with others. They could have
>easily come about defenses, food,
>and CLOTHES for god's sake
>hehehe.

Well, I just found the PDF manual on the FO2 CD, where the Vault Dweller tells a short history. Don't ask, my manual was in Spanish so I tossed it away :-(

Yeah, I guess you could have rudimentary knowledge about firearms and computers, but I'd still like to see it lower at the beginning.

>But we all know what happens
>when we ASS U ME
>things don't we?

hehehe

Got me there ;-)
 
I like it otherwise but those "primitive" weapons wouldn't just work with the current damage system...
 
They have nuclear power plants and force fields in FO2 so why not advanced weaponry.
 
>They have nuclear power plants and
>force fields in FO2 so
>why not advanced weaponry.


THAT is strange. How the H**l could a powerplant go on for some twohundred years without maintance and repairs?
New weapons made of old one could work. Like the .223 pistol. It was probably a rifle with a smashed-up barrel so whoever who made it cut off the barrel and voila! A new gun. The vaults probably had weapons from the War but not factories to make them just workshops that could repair them. But they could also have the knowledge to produce new weapons stoored in their computers, but NOT the means to produce them.
By the way, since Fallout and Fallout 2 takes place about threehundred years from now shouldn't we talk in future tence? Example: "Will it not be strnge in fallout 2 that when you will shoot a guy in his head from a distance of two inces with a shotgun he will not die?" j/k
 
It is true that most guns and such would not last all that time. However the aspect of having guns in the game is one major factor that makes fallout so much fun. It sets it apart from all those defend your castle with an axe games. I really need guns and lots of them to enjoy myself.
 
Uh... It's not exactly as though the recipe for gunpowder is a closely kept secret. You can make some yourself out of common household products.

And, as far as I know, no one managed to obliterate the Brotherhood of Steel, whose main method of subsistence, if I'm not mistaken, is designing, manufacturing, and distributing weapons and ammunition.

In the harsh anarchic wasteland, there's an immense need for weapons. You can be damn sure that everyone's going to be armed, even if they have to make their weapons themselves. Hell, they've already lived through two attempts by psychotic madmen to enslave/forcibly mutate/kill everyone in the world. There are raiders and slavers infesting the desert. How much of an imbecile would one need to be to NOT be armed?

By the way, you ought to remember that the setting of Fallout is America. In particuler, the West and Southwest. And unlike certain Euro-weenies, Americans, especially ones in the Southwest, cherish their freedoms. That area likely has and will continue to have one of the highest concentrations of privately owned arms in the world. I bet this is why there are so many people alive there in the world of Fallout. We probably have no idea what happened in Europe during the war because there were no survivors.
 
>And, as far as I know,
>no one managed to obliterate
>the Brotherhood of Steel, whose
>main method of subsistence, if
>I'm not mistaken, is designing,
> manufacturing, and distributing weapons
>and ammunition.
You are wrong the BOS have the knowledge but not the means to produce advanced firepower. And the ones they have they don't distribute, because they don't wan't it to get in the wrong hands.

>In the harsh anarchic wasteland, there's
>an immense need for weapons.
>You can be damn sure
>that everyone's going to be
>armed, even if they have
>to make their weapons themselves.
>Hell, they've already lived through
>two attempts by psychotic madmen
>to enslave/forcibly mutate/kill everyone in
>the world. There are raiders
>and slavers infesting the desert.
>How much of an imbecile
>would one need to be
>to NOT be armed?
Allmost everyone just steal from the ordinary citizens in allmost every town in FO2 and they don't have firearms.

>By the way, you ought to
>remember that the setting of
>Fallout is America. In particuler,
>the West and Southwest. And
>unlike certain Euro-weenies, Americans, especially
>ones in the Southwest, cherish
>their freedoms. That area likely
>has and will continue to
>have one of the highest
>concentrations of privately owned arms
>in the world. I bet
>this is why there are
>so many people alive there
>in the world of Fallout.
>We probably have no idea
>what happened in Europe during
>the war because there were
>no survivors.
Uhh, if Europe had no guns then they couldn't fight and no-one would die, Smartass! Of course we "euroweenies" have weapons. I have a friend who's granddad has a SMG from WWII in his wardrobe, and my dad has two hunting rifles. There is a joke about a part of Sweden that goes: "Drive straight ahead until you get stabbed in the back, then you're in Delsbo" And the worlds strongest man AND woman come from Sweden, Magnus Samuelsson and his wife(I don't remember her name). The reason USA haven't heard anything from Europe it's probably because all cross-atlantic communications have been shut of by the EMP from all those f***ing A-Bombs. You shouldn't be proud that California has a lot of weapons just think of all the bad things they have caused. The deathshootings at the school( I don't remeber where it happened) Korea, Vietnam etc... What the fuck was USA doing in Vietnam? "Protect the world from the evil communists" I think amercan capitalism is much worse than russian or cuban or chinese communism.
Peter "Rather Red than a dead-capitalstic-scumbag" Wrede
 
WOW!!!!!

Hey chill. I dont think he was saying europeans were weak and feeble as we all know they are not. I am an American and I dont really have any sense of nationalism or anything. I view us pretty much the same you are. I am interested though why do so many europeans hate america so much?
 
DON'T SPEAK SO SOON.

>You are wrong the BOS have
>the knowledge but not the
>means to produce advanced firepower.
>And the ones they have
>they don't distribute, because they
>don't wan't it to get
>in the wrong hands.

I have to agree with you there. I believe the BOS has a lot of pre-war weapons, but not the means to produce many new ones. Read my old posts about the implausibility of a munitions factory.

>Allmost everyone just steal from the
>ordinary citizens in allmost every
>town in FO2 and they
>don't have firearms.

Actually you can base your findings on the farmer encounters in Fallout 2. Most people/families DO have weapons, but usually weak ones like a pipe rifle or hunting to scare away intruders and collect game. Serious weapons would belong to raiders and city defenses.

>Uhh, if Europe had no guns
>then they couldn't fight and
>no-one would die, Smartass!

Actually, they just wouldn't be able to retaliate. :) Remember that the USA had bad relations with Europe before the Fallout War. They probably just hit the "fire all weapons" to hit all major weapon installations around the world.

>Of
>course we "euroweenies" have weapons.
>I have a friend who's
>granddad has a SMG from
>WWII in his wardrobe, and
>my dad has two hunting
>rifles.

Oh yeah? Well here it is legal to carry a concealed semi-automatic pistol into a CHURCH or an elementary SCHOOL with the right permit.

There seem to be more weapons AVAILABLE in the United States, mostly because it is protected by the Constitution. People in Europe may have weapons in old chests and such because of their involvement in the World Wars, but as for more guns just floating around the USA has it taken.

>There is a joke
>about a part of Sweden
>that goes: "Drive straight ahead
>until you get stabbed in
>the back, then you're in
>Delsbo"

And the Swiss have the MOST elite army in the world, Israel's army is based on it.

>And the worlds strongest
>man AND woman come from
>Sweden, Magnus Samuelsson and his
>wife(I don't remember her name).

Strength can't compete against a bullet.

>The reason USA haven't heard
>anything from Europe it's probably
>because all cross-atlantic communications have
>been shut of by the
>EMP from all those f***ing
>A-Bombs.

Or rather, all the communication lines may still exist, there just isn't a reason or a method to signal them. Hell, there has to be two stations operational, one on each end.

>You shouldn't be proud
>that California has a lot
>of weapons just think of
>all the bad things they
>have caused.

No, it isn't something to be proud of, but the fact remains.

>The deathshootings at
>the school( I don't remeber
>where it happened) Korea, Vietnam
>etc... What the fuck was
>USA doing in Vietnam? "Protect
>the world from the evil
>communists" I think amercan capitalism
>is much worse than russian
>or cuban or chinese communism.

The world was a lot more different back then in the fifties. Communism WAS considered a threat and people were scared over nuclear war. We don't think much of it now, but back then, missiles were ready to fire on a moment's notice.

Oh and don't profess communism, especially Soviet communism. You don't know what you have until you've tasted such tyranny. The Soviets uprooted millions of people, bulldozed century-old beautiful cities, and executed thousands of people just to satisfy the whim of the Soviet government. How would you like it if you couldn't read any book except ones that were approved by the government? How would you like to be forced to work in a steel mill when you earned a degree as a mathmatician? How about the fact that the KGB can waltz into your house at any time (they preferred 4:00 AM for the element of surprise), take your father, and you know he's probably shipped off to a Siberian prison for crimes against the people?

What is so bad about Capitalism? Microsoft? Get real. You're not affected by Microsoft. You may feel that you're being forced into choosing their product over others, but really, how would you like it if you were in the USSR where you were forced into using one kind of SOAP? The cheapest soap because the money goes into the hands of the officials.

Communism is captialism in its WORST form. The GOVERNMENT holds the monopoly over the citizens, THEY have won the "competitive battle." The IS NO "anti-trust" suit to break up the monopoly. All the money goes to the government officials while the rest of the people starve.

Here, you can start your own business, you can read any book with no fear of the KGB storming your house. You don't have to watch what you say for fear of bugs in your house. You can denounce government policies, you can promote other forms of government, you can VOTE!

Over half the American population doesn't even vote. People in newly formed countries like South Africa walk twenty miles just to vote. Old people, seventy years old, who walk with a cane and need medical help, THEY walked that distance just to vote.

You don't realize what you have.

>Peter "Rather Red than a dead-capitalstic-scumbag"
>Wrede

"I'm proud to be an American, where I know I will be free / and I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me.."

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
I think there's a higher chance of raiders using black-powder weapons than hunting rifles. Pre-war technology wouldn't be exactly common. I don't think people were allowed to take their guns into the vault. V-13 only had like 3 or 4.

By the time it was safe to enter the wasteland, most firearms in the outside world wouldn't work. Ammo would be scarce as well.

People would be too busy trying to scrape together a life to spend time re-creating pre-war tech. So things like axes and spears would be more common.

Look at Road Warrior (Mad Max 2), guns are rare. There's 2 in the whole movie. Ammo is very uncommon, and reserved for life or death situations. It's not exactly something you'd waste on a gecko.

I think it would be great have weapons be rare. Then have ammo be hard to come by. It would make decide when you have to use a gun and when you can get by without one.

Skie
 
RE: DON'T SPEAK SO SOON.

Okey, I agree. The Soviet form of communism sucked. Infact my granddad fought against the communists in WW2 (He was russian) and spend some time in jail because of that.

>Strength can't compete against a bullet.
No but I would like to see you stand against Magnus Samuelsson in a fistfight. What I ment was that someone wrote that europeans are sissies and I don't agree. I DO realise what I have but I don't want SOME of it. I think that the world or atleast Sweden should be anarchistic. NO not that you can do what you want and get away with it. You freedom doesn't stretch further than to the next peoples freedom. I have nothing against Microsoft and I think that they would be allowed to sell their Internet Explorer how much they want to. The capitalism I'm against is the fact that rich people uses their money too extort poor countries too get richer and they don't give a fuck about the people in that poor country. I don't say that no-one should be able to be rich I say that it is wrong that the rich takes from the poor and give too themselves. I'm neither stupid nor ignorant, I just have my own point of view on life and everything. I have nothing against USA or americans but it's just the fact that lots of bad things have come from the States and USA have stuck their noses where they shouldn't. I don't think that USA should try to act as a "world-police" all the time. And I have nothing against the constitution or freedome of speech and such things. I say Power to the people!
This has absolutely nothing too do with weapons in Fallout 3 so I suggest that if we shall continue this debate we move too the general board.
Peter "don't let the rich control the world" Wrede
 
Weapons should indeed be scarce. Only Fire arms lying in bunkers and vaults could have possibly survived the war. Fire arms lying in the desert would most likely jam or rust, since most guns don't do that well in sand. About jamming weapons, that too should be a possbility in Fo3. In desert conditions maintenance of your weapons is crucial.
It just isn't very logical that after 2 weeks in the wastes you are already walking around with a SMG or Hunting rifle (wich was the case in Fallout 2). On the contrary, people should be fighting with simply home made weapons like knifes, clubs, sticks or knuckles. At the end you wouldn't be fighting with and against Turbo plasma rifle, gauss rifles or Gatling lasers, but with H&K caws, FN FAL HPFA's or perhaps a Light support weapon. Of course there could be some more advanced weaponry in the game, but very little ammo for it, so that you'd almost be forced to save it for a real opponent.

Anyone who can find a Rocket launcher in the Sahara or any other desert may contradict me.
 
Have someone ever played the pen&paper based rpg Mutant? it´s what the whole game is based on (I´m not totally shure about it BUT many of the things you can see in the computer game you can find in the pen&paper rpg that was released in the 80:s)
One thing thou that isn´t in the game is something called a psi-mutant, they look like normal people but only that they are smaller and weaker and they have psi-powers. They can for example controll other peoples minds or become invisible for some time... what I wanted to say something like that would be really cool to have in fo3
 
But when firearms become so rare and you obtain some you would be extremely powerfull since you could kill most of the enemies from a distance while they storm at you with their sledge hammers etc.
Okay crossbows and throwing weapons do have some range but i'd like to see you throw a spear as far as you can shoot with a descent sniperrifle.
 
>You are wrong the BOS have
>the knowledge but not the
>means to produce advanced firepower.
>And the ones they have
>they don't distribute, because they
>don't wan't it to get
>in the wrong hands.

So you're calling the BOS characters from Fallout 1 liars? If this is true, why do they all claim that they manufacture and distribute weapons and ammo? And what about people like the Gunrunners, who also manufacture and distribute weapons? And Smitty, who refills ammo?


>Allmost everyone just steal from the
>ordinary citizens in allmost every
>town in FO2 and they
>don't have firearms.

Of course. That explains why you can't get any decent weapons in the game. No, wait a second, that's not right. You CAN get good weapons - plenty of merchants have them. And if I recall correctly, in certain towns like New Reno EVERYONE was armed.

>Uhh, if Europe had no guns
>then they couldn't fight and
>no-one would die, Smartass!

Typically, people who can't fight back die.

>Of course we "euroweenies" have
>weapons. I have a friend who's
>granddad has a SMG from
>WWII in his wardrobe, and
>my dad has two hunting
>rifles.

And if you take them outside, I bet you'll be arrested. If you try to defend yourself against an intruder in your home, you'll be charged with a crime, right?

>There is a joke
>about a part of Sweden
>that goes: "Drive straight ahead
>until you get stabbed in
>the back, then you're in
>Delsbo"

Sounds like a nice place to visit.

>And the worlds strongest
>man AND woman come from
>Sweden, Magnus Samuelsson and his
>wife(I don't remember her name).

How is this relevant?

>The reason USA haven't heard
>anything from Europe it's probably
>because all cross-atlantic communications have
>been shut of by the
>EMP from all those f***ing
>A-Bombs.

Possibly.

>You shouldn't be proud
>that California has a lot
>of weapons just think of
>all the bad things they
>have caused.

Just think of all the bad things they'd stopped/prevented. Imagine if the rest of Europe shared the Swiss attitude toward weapons ownership around 1939.

>The deathshootings at
>the school( I don't remeber
>where it happened)

Yeah. Too bad the teachers weren't armed.

>Korea, Vietnam
>etc... What the fuck was
>USA doing in Vietnam? "Protect
>the world from the evil
>communists"

That's a good question. We ought only protect ourselves from the communists.

>I think amercan capitalism
>is much worse than russian
>or cuban or chinese communism.

Care to elaborate?
 
RE: DON'T SPEAK SO SOON.

>Okey, I agree. The Soviet form
>of communism sucked. Infact my
>granddad fought against the communists
>in WW2 (He was russian)
>and spend some time in
>jail because of that.

The Chinese form of "communism" isn't even much of communism. More of a strong backbone government that takes no crap but allows for capitalism within its borders. I don't mind that form, if you could call it communism.

>>Strength can't compete against a bullet.
>No but I would like to
>see you stand against Magnus
>Samuelsson in a fistfight.

I'm sure I would lose.

>What
>I ment was that someone
>wrote that europeans are sissies
>and I don't agree. I
>DO realise what I have
>but I don't want SOME
>of it. I think that
>the world or atleast Sweden
>should be anarchistic.

Anarchy cannot exist. There will be order always.

Even roving bands have order.

>NO not
>that you can do what
>you want and get away
>with it. You freedom doesn't
>stretch further than to the
>next peoples freedom.

Even that is not possible. Groups will always form, and freedom does not exist in that form. Humans will always cooperate with each other and band together. When that happens there are some people who are considered worth more than others. A leader will always form, and he will have more rights than the others.

There is only pure freedom if there is only one man.

>I have
>nothing against Microsoft and I
>think that they would be
>allowed to sell their Internet
>Explorer how much they want
>to.

I agree.

Personally, I *like* Internet Explorer. As much as I *hate* Windows, IE *IS* the best browser on the internet. Netscape lost. Netscape Navigator/Communicator simply cannot compare to IE in any form. Netscape is slower, has less features, looks dumpy (especially version 6.0), and the only thing that saves it is that it is the only 4.0+ browser for Unix systems. Even then I wish IE were GNU-ized.

Companies should only be considered monopolies if they control the market so much that their product is 1) Overpriced, 2) Inferior in making. If it is neither, the company is simply so good that there is no need to compete. The only purpose of competition is to bring down prices and force companies to create better products for less. That is capitalism at its finest. What I don't like is crappy products like Windows and stuff like pharmacudicals (sp?). Those are inferior and overpriced (the latter, only overpriced). That is where capitalism goes wrong.

>The capitalism I'm against
>is the fact that rich
>people uses their money too
>extort poor countries too get
>richer and they don't give
>a fuck about the people
>in that poor country.

That is the fault of the governments that allow that. The only company practices I don't agree with are child labor/real cheap labor for Nike, GAP, etc. But I don't really care about the mass production lines in China. The population needs jobs in China, and if they are willing to work there, let them.

We like to base our opinions of how bad a job is on our own situation. I suspect you will not be laboring for your job, but instead will have a desk job due to a good education.

In China, if it is not available, well, you need to get a job *somewhere*. Might as well be at a factory.

You can't destroy the cheap labor usage because where will these people go? You can educate them at a great cost, but you still need labor, and these people need jobs to support their families. Until robots replace humans for lowly tasks, cheap labor must exist.

>I
>don't say that no-one should
>be able to be rich
>I say that it is
>wrong that the rich takes
>from the poor and give
>too themselves.

I don't like overpriced health care, that's a big qualm of mine. People that are sick, of any race, gender, financial problems, etc. should not have to pay much for their health care. It should not be free, free services encourage abuse, but cheap, ALL of it, from surgery to medicines. Medical drug research should be government funded so pharmacudical companies can't jack up the prices for life-saving drugs. Drugs should be sped up on the testing so they can make it to market quickly. Also law-suits concerning bad drugs should be limited in value and also only if there was obvious neglect or intent to cause harm. People are too suit happy now.

>I'm neither stupid
>nor ignorant, I just have
>my own point of view
>on life and everything.

I haven't accused you of either. Perhaps only a little ignorant, but not much.

>I
>have nothing against USA or
>americans but it's just the
>fact that lots of bad
>things have come from the
>States and USA have stuck
>their noses where they shouldn't.

Well you have to figure that the United States right now is the most powerful country of all time. No other nation or civiliation can compare. Thank God the government is compassionate. Imagine if the US *DIDN'T* concern itself with other matters? Imagine if the government didn't care about the labor practices of other nations, notably China which doesn't have qualms over paying 1/2 center per hour for hard labor.

NATO didn't do shit when fighting the war in Serbia (no offense to Miroslav here). The USA provided the $1 million-dollar cruise missiles and the stealth bombers. What have the Europeans provided? Security forces? Big deal. France's security forces let crime-lords walk right over them.

The USA could strut its might a little harder too. Think about how diplomatic it is with everything? British Telecom wants to make good on some of its USA patents on the term "hyperlink." If I were controlling this country (with me as the sole decider) I'd tell British Telecom to screw it and that their patent was null and void just for suggesting such an outrage. How about Russia? The USA practically crawls on its belly just to appease this former nuclear "superpower." Don't they realize that a war will NEVER happen and that Russia is in NO possision to make any kinds of demands because its people aren't being paid and are unhappy over that; people are shooting one another for stealing potatos; the army is drunk, infested with STDs, and high on drugs; and finally their nuclear technology is decades old? Hell, Russia couldn't even deal with Chechnyia, a tiny province defended by paltry groups of "rebels."

>I don't think that USA
>should try to act as
>a "world-police" all the time.

And why not? It is after all the center of all commerce on the planet, has the most powerful weapons on Earth and the ability to deal it out, it *IS* the United Nations and NATO, Europe had to invent the Euro *JUST* to compete with the United State's market by standardizing trade, it because *THE* superpower after the USSR fell, it owns about 90% of all the internet (hell the internet was formed from a network donated by the USA) and to top it off, the US uses more electricity than the rest of the world combined.

What, let the United Nations handle it? No wait, the USA controls the United Nations.

>And I have nothing against
>the constitution or freedome of
>speech and such things. I
>say Power to the people!

People are idiots. People are selfish, coniving and downright annoying. Unrestrained they become a mob, and it is a proven fact that the intelligence level of a group of people is equivilent to this formula: absolute_value(1/(3-x)) * Average IQ of the group. In other words, intelligence maximizes at three people, and the more people you add, the less intelligence you achieve. That's why mobs are so effective, and so easily swayed.

Centralize the world and you have perfection. Give the people rights, but do not make them free. People naturally form herds, and herds of people are of little intelligence.

>This has absolutely nothing too do
>with weapons in Fallout 3
>so I suggest that if
>we shall continue this debate
>we move too the general
>board.

I do too, but hell, it is easier here.

>Peter "don't let the rich control
>the world" Wrede

You can be rich, you just need an everlasting purpose. Keep them busy and you have order. No room to think about yourself.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Before the bombs fell, there was a large conventional war going on (at least that's what the president tells you in FO2). There were tons of munitions and weapons produced everyday, even if a fraction of that output survived, it would be more than enough to supply a post-nuclear civilization with a variety of weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top