The Salvation War: Pantheocide. Part Eighty One Up

[Akalabeth]

You have to remember that most of the nephilim are institutionalized. Mind controlling a large number of them to do anything noteworthy would be non-trivial, especially if the Message was still broadcast in this scenario, because then the humans would be on the lookout for anything unusual, like a large fraction of the mentally ill suddenly getting better.

I think a better strategy would be to mind control the nephilim, but then don't do anything so obvious with them. Slowly have them behave normally, until they can be de-institutionalized and reintegrated into society. Invisibility stops being an advantage once humans realize they can do it, but nephilim are functionally indistinguishable from normal humans (at least, there's no way to identify them as easily), especially if you can hide their existence from humanity. Have a nephilim move somewhere isolated and enclosed (so no one can see what happens) open a portal, and send a couple dozen berserkers/harpies through. Then the nephilim leaves the area, and the baldricks follow sometime later and kill as many people as they can. Rinse and repeat.

You could also do the same with gorgons. Develop a little cult, and then have the cultists use IEDs like they were thinking in Armageddon, as well as various espionage/sabotage. Also has the benefit of making people really paranoid.

Succubi could also be used as mobile portal targets, but once one appears on camera humans start using tinfoil hats, and that advantage disappears. Given how easily Luga turned, you probably wouldn't want to use them at all, seeing how they can be used to portal back into Hell, which means humans have stable portal examples to study, weakening your advantage.

I don't see the baldricks doing too well against military installations, at least at first, but they could wreck havoc against the civilian population and infrastructure. But that still has the problem of pissing humans off, if once one demon gets captured/turned then humans will just bring out the nukes and end the war right there. It would be an extremely effective strategy, right up until the point demons become a critically endangered species.

[Saint_007]

Allow me to counter illDave's theory.

Nazi Germany is a textbook example on how NOT to wage a long-term war. Excellent troops, good weaponry... all FUBARed because of an idiot on top and the fact that they were running out of munitions and fuel halfway through. And Nazi Germany was in fact a very advanced country. If you're pointing out that Hitler had total control of a powerful, industrial country, bear in mind he assumed no godlike status; he was very charismatic and very good at propaganda and convincing the people not to think about politics. Even then, he was elected into office. In what was a very politically and socially charged time. In a more sane period, people would have tossed him out of office two months in.

1970's USSR is also another Charlie Fox in the making. The economy was borked, the average person was earning dirt, and while they did have weapons, they were badly slipping in the arms race since Brezhenev forced Khruschev to step down. Also a stellar example on how NOT to manage a country in wartime - or hell, peacetime for that matter. Hell, even when Gorbachev took over, there was the stellar performance at Chernobyl, a legacy from the mess of the 70's.

North Korea is a failed states, as far as anyone is concerned. They've been living on handouts from Moscow since the 50's and from Chinese charity since Russia broke from the USSR. The only thing they have is the nuke, and that's because they've been piggybacking on Communist Bloc nuclear research for decades now. Trust me, if they try a conventional attack, the only reason they won't get insta-stomped by better-armed US/ROK forces on the border is the numerical advantage.

Now take yet another example: A lot of third world and Arab countries. We suck. We really do. We didn't create our tech, we bought it wholesale and then adjusted the system for stagnancy. There's a reason why we're not good at moving forwards or research; no initiative because of stifling creativity. If we're going to take them as a model for the Baldricks, then bear in mind that the Baldricks won't know how to open a nuke without causing a massive radioactive spill, effectively mission-killing their own armies.

Every last one of these examples is either breaking down faster than the Berlin Wall or is living on welfare.

[Eevin]

You're 100% right on that, Stuart, except that the idea of "a few good men" has been around for millennia. The Iliad, for example, with the handpicked squad that went in on the horse, provides an early example.

You make good points, though. Honestly, I don't see how they got far enough to develop tridents.

Yes and no.

It kind of remainds my of Assimov's Foundation and Empire. Quoting the wikipedia:

"The Galactic Empire, now well into its collapse, led by skilled General Bel Riose, launches an attack against the Foundation. The Empire still retains far more resources and personnel than the Foundation and Riose is willing to use that advantage to its fullest. Devers, a native of the Foundation, intercepts a message that summarizes the General's doings, and escapes to Trantor, trying to see the emperor and show him the message. He fails and is nearly killed, but the emperor finds out anyway. In the end, the emperor decides that Riose is a threat to his status and to the balance of the Empire and has him executed."

As the book, in a static hierarchical society, a strong leader is strong because he never lets anyone stronger than him live for a long time. (Note that the visible authority figure is not necessarily the real authority)

Most "few good men" where usually great warriors, but bad politicians. Or the one in charge was better than them. If they where great warriors and good politicians, they either deposed the king, became the man behind the throne or got killed. The few that where loyal was because they won something: being loyal meant they had power, but they where a lot safer than being kings.

P.D. Stuart, I'm not sure if I hate you or I love you. What a cliffhanger! It is so magnificent, and so cruel.

[Stuart]

Allow me to respond with these counterpoints: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union (before Gorbachev), North Korea

Perfect examples of my point.

Russia/Soviet Union. If we look at the history of the Soviet Union and Russia we have a constant devolution of power downwards as the technological sophistication of society grows. We start with the near-feudal system under the Tsars and the extreme backwardness of the Russian economy and society. Then, as that society begins to industrialize we have the first downward devolution from the absolute monarchy to the Party administration. Then, post-WW2 as society goes into its next phade of development we have the liberalization of that system under Khruschev. In the late 1980s, we have the next phase of development and its matched bya further downward devolution of power in the fall of the USSR and the rise of new Russia. Now, we are seeing the next stage of that process as the new downwardly-devolved Russian society stabilizes. A perfect example of my point

Nazi Germany. An excellent example of a society that was not evolving and was stagnant. One in which the sole aim of the ruling elite was to keep themselves in power and thus divided the administration and society into a series of competing power blocks. Result was impending economic bankruptcy (with the associated collapse) and technical stagnation. By 1945, Germany was already far behind the allies in economic, social and technical development and was falling further behind every day. Another perfect example of my point.

North Korea An excellent example of a country that has a stabilized top-centered regime and is drifting rapidly backwards into a 14th century feaudal monarchy. A final excellent example of my points.

Thank you for choosing examples that illustrate my argument with such clarity.

[MysteriousDarkLordv3]

And if entropy is more powerful, the half-lives might be shorter. But the basic theory says that the bubble-verses are in their collapsing stage. If that's so, i don't think that there's any radioactive isotopes anywhere.

...

What does "the power of entropy" or the rate of expansion (or contraction) of the universe have to do with the half-life of radioisotopes? I mean, in unambiguous terms that actually mean something to scientists?

First, do things in the bubble-verses decay faster or slower or at the same rate? From the behavior of the tridents, we know that electrons behave differently. So do protons and neutrons act differently? Are the half-lives the same? Or are they shorter? Or longer?

Second, if the universe is older, then the atoms making them up are older. So more radioactive isotopes will have decayed. If the universe is older, then it's likely that all the unstable atoms have already decayed into stable isotopes.

[iidave]

...The armies of WW2 reflected an industrialized, scientific society. Such a society could not survive in the cultural and social environment that existed in Hell. Society and military machine would be so conflicted on so many levels that they simply could not co-exist. For example, take the proposed commando raids on missile installations. To undertake raids like that, one needs to have commanders who have a very high level of initiative, who can think for themselves, make their own decisions and change plans accordingly. I cannot think of a greater danger to Satan's rule than having commanders like that around....

Allow me to respond with these counterpoints: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union (before Gorbachev), North Korea

<- All countries with powerful armies, elite special forces and absolute power held by one individual

Perfect examples of my point.

I rest my case

...if the universe is older, then the atoms making them up are older...

Universe doesn't work that way
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... sion.shtml

[Stuart Mackey]

Thank you for choosing examples that illustrate my argument with such clarity.

Incidentally, the continued survival of the British Monarchy is another example: they long ago realized the truth of this, about eleven years after Charles 1 lost his head.

[Stuart]

All countries with powerful armies, elite special forces and absolute power held by one individual

Have you actually read my response?

[Stuart]

Incidentally, the continued survival of the British Monarchy is another example: they long ago realized the truth of this, about eleven years after Charles 1 lost his head in fact.

Absolutely; a classic example I think.

[iidave]

Have you actually read my response?

Yes. You went off on a tangent and tried to change the subject.

[Stuart]

Yes. You went off on a tangent and tried to change the subject.

Then I can onl;y assume you are trolling or are completely illiterate. I took each of the three cases you used and showed that they fit perfectly into the parameter I described. Therefore the argument you attempted to make stands refuted. If you have an actual argument to make, make it. Otherwise concede the point.

[GrayAnderson]

Have you actually read my response?

Yes. You went off on a tangent and tried to change the subject.

Actually, his reply was pretty spot on. Stuart knows what he's talking about, IMHO. He's pretty good at this stuff.

[iidave]

Then I can onl;y assume you are trolling or are completely illiterate. I took each of the three cases you used and showed that they fit perfectly into the parameter I described. Therefore the argument you attempted to make stands refuted. If you have an actual argument to make, make it. Otherwise concede the point.

You: Baldricks couldn't have modern industry or military because Satan wouldn't be able to maintain absolute power.
Me: These 3 countries had industry, military and leaders with pretty-much-absolute power including power to have any one of their underlings killed.
You: ...history of the Soviet Union...Germany was already far behind...North Korea is drifting rapidly backwards...
Me: That has nothing to do with my point
You: Youz trollin'
Me: <facepalm>
I believe we're done here

[MGlBlaze]

Then I can onl;y assume you are trolling or are completely illiterate. I took each of the three cases you used and showed that they fit perfectly into the parameter I described. Therefore the argument you attempted to make stands refuted. If you have an actual argument to make, make it. Otherwise concede the point.

You: Baldricks couldn't have modern industry or military because Satan wouldn't be able to maintain absolute power.
Me: These 3 countries had industry, military and leaders with pretty-much-absolute power including power to have any one of their underlings killed.
You: ...history of the Soviet Union...Germany was already far behind...North Korea is drifting rapidly backwards...
Me: That has nothing to do with my point
You: Youz trollin'
Me: <facepalm>
I believe we're done here

Has nothing to do with your point?

Allow me to respond with these counterpoints: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union (before Gorbachev), North Korea

Perfect examples of my point.

Russia/Soviet Union. If we look at the history of the Soviet Union and Russia we have a constant devolution of power downwards as the technological sophistication of society grows. We start with the near-feudal system under the Tsars and the extreme backwardness of the Russian economy and society. Then, as that society begins to industrialize we have the first downward devolution from the absolute monarchy to the Party administration. Then, post-WW2 as society goes into its next phade of development we have the liberalization of that system under Khruschev. In the late 1980s, we have the next phase of development and its matched bya further downward devolution of power in the fall of the USSR and the rise of new Russia. Now, we are seeing the next stage of that process as the new downwardly-devolved Russian society stabilizes. A perfect example of my point

Nazi Germany. An excellent example of a society that was not evolving and was stagnant. One in which the sole aim of the ruling elite was to keep themselves in power and thus divided the administration and society into a series of competing power blocks. Result was impending economic bankruptcy (with the associated collapse) and technical stagnation. By 1945, Germany was already far behind the allies in economic, social and technical development and was falling further behind every day. Another perfect example of my point.

North Korea An excellent example of a country that has a stabilized top-centered regime and is drifting rapidly backwards into a 14th century feaudal monarchy. A final excellent example of my points.

Thank you for choosing examples that illustrate my argument with such clarity.

He just explained why those countries that "had industry, military and leaders with pretty-much-absolute power including power to have any one of their underlings killed" didn't successfully remain as such with industrialisation (I think you'll find that the USSR no longer exists), stagnates (Nazi Germany. They don't seem to be around any more either.) or started regressing if they did maintain it (In the case of N. Korea) as Stuart said they would. This means that either Baldrick industrialisation would fall apart somewhere, or there would be a pretty serious changes with Baldrick society and humanity probably wouldn't have had to worry about them anyway. (Assuming I've got it right)

Did you actually read his examples, are you trying to pull a Straw Argument, Completely Missing The Point or are you, in fact, a troll?

[Jamesfirecat]

Then I can onl;y assume you are trolling or are completely illiterate. I took each of the three cases you used and showed that they fit perfectly into the parameter I described. Therefore the argument you attempted to make stands refuted. If you have an actual argument to make, make it. Otherwise concede the point.

You: Baldricks couldn't have modern industry or military because Satan wouldn't be able to maintain absolute power.
Me: These 3 countries had industry, military and leaders with pretty-much-absolute power including power to have any one of their underlings killed.
You: ...history of the Soviet Union...Germany was already far behind...North Korea is drifting rapidly backwards...
Me: That has nothing to do with my point
You: Youz trollin'
Me: <facepalm>
I believe we're done here

Stuart's point that you seem to have missed is that while there are examples like Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and North Korea, none of them are stable without outside influence to hold them up and supply their leader with more power from outside the nation.

While it might have been possible for a situation to come about where Hell had world war two tech, it wouldn't have been able to maintain it and keep Satan in power for long period of time.

In short 1984 is wrong, you can't have a highly advanced society with lots and lots of tech that remains completely and utterly repressive.

See "In the Presence of My Enemies" by Harry Turtledove for example....

[Simon_Jester]

And if entropy is more powerful, the half-lives might be shorter. But the basic theory says that the bubble-verses are in their collapsing stage. If that's so, i don't think that there's any radioactive isotopes anywhere.

... What does "the power of entropy" or the rate of expansion (or contraction) of the universe have to do with the half-life of radioisotopes? I mean, in unambiguous terms that actually mean something to scientists?

First, do things in the bubble-verses decay faster or slower or at the same rate? From the behavior of the tridents, we know that electrons behave differently. So do protons and neutrons act differently? Are the half-lives the same? Or are they shorter? Or longer?

Second, if the universe is older, then the atoms making them up are older. So more radioactive isotopes will have decayed. If the universe is older, then it's likely that all the unstable atoms have already decayed into stable isotopes.

So what does any of that have to do with "entropy being more powerful?" For that matter, what does the rate of expansion of the (a) universe have to do with its age?

All countries with powerful armies, elite special forces and absolute power held by one individual

Have you actually read my response?

I think the problem is a somewhat rosy view of what those states were capable of, or confusion about the political system. For instance, the notion that the Soviet Union post-Stalin had "absolute power held by one individual." Or that the same was true of the Nazis- Hitler was a dictator, but there were certainly power bases in society that he didn't control, not directly.

As for North Korea... I think he fails to grasp just how decayed their military and economy really are.

In short 1984 is wrong, you can't have a highly advanced society with lots and lots of tech that remains completely and utterly repressive.

Personally, I am a little unsure of this, because there may well be stable high-tech forms of oppression that aren't yet discovered- say, one based on ubiquitous surveillance. But it's certainly true that you can't just take a Bronze Age oriental dictatorship, throw modern technology at it, and expect it to be stable; you have to get clever.

See "In the Presence of My Enemies" by Harry Turtledove for example....

Turtledove just took the fall of the Soviet government in the USSR, changed the names, and filed the serial numbers off, from what I've heard.

[iidave]

He just explained why those countries that "had industry, military and leaders with pretty-much-absolute power including power to have any one of their underlings killed" didn't successfully remain as such with industrialisation (I think you'll find that the USSR no longer exists), stagnates (Nazi Germany. They don't seem to be around any more either.) or started regressing if they did maintain it (In the case of N. Korea) as Stuart said they would. This means that either Baldrick industrialisation would fall apart somewhere, or there would be a pretty serious changes with Baldrick society and humanity probably wouldn't have had to worry about them anyway. (Assuming I've got it right)

Did you actually read his examples, are you trying to pull a Straw Argument, Completely Missing The Point or are you, in fact, a troll?

Wait, THAT was his point? I guess I did miss that one on the grounds of it being completely removed from reality.
Nazi Germany lost a war, Soviet Union collapsed because Gorbachev pretty much dismantled it (though kinda unintentionally, but I digress) and North Korea didn't advance far since the 50s, but it shows no more signs of internal collapse today than it did throughout most of its existence.
EDIT: BTW in today's Russia real power is still concentrated in the hands of one man (Putin), although he is nowhere near as powerful as Stalin was. And industrialization could bring major changes to Baldrick society, but that doesn't mean is wouldn't be able to remain a very strict autocratic dictatorship even during peacetime (like Franco's Spain).

[Jamesfirecat]

See "In the Presence of My Enemies" by Harry Turtledove for example....

Turtledove just took the fall of the Soviet government in the USSR, changed the names, and filed the serial numbers off, from what I've heard.[/quote]

I've heard that also (tv tropes) but if nothing else, In the Presence of My Enemies there is no great force truly pushing against it the way that the US pushed against the USSR.

Yes there was the Japanese Empire, but clearly there were noticeable differences....

[Edward Yee]

iidave, try again.

Nazi Germany didn't just "lose a war," it failed the ultimate test and paid for it with everything.

North Korea? There's two things going for that state's survival: Artillery aimed at Seoul (moreso than the "nuclear deterrent"), and nobody wanting to be stuck with the hot potato that is "if the North Korean government collapses."

"Elite special forces" is a moot point for Nazi Germany and the USSR, but for North Korea... proof?

[MysteriousDarkLordv3]

]So what does any of that have to do with "entropy being more powerful?"

I stated it clearly and succinctly - "do things in the bubble-verses decay faster or slower or at the same rate?"
Faster decay = increased entropy = shorter half-lives for hell-atoms than for Earth-atoms.

For that matter, what does the rate of expansion of the (a) universe have to do with its age?

I mentioned the AGE of the universe. If the hell-universe is older, than it's radioactive atoms are older and more likely to have already decayed into stable isotopes.

The tone is getting increasingly hostile and repetition has set in. I will not answer any more.

[iidave]

iidave, try again.

Nazi Germany didn't just "lose a war," it failed the ultimate test and paid for it with everything.

Its political leadership died, its armies were destroyed and its cities turned to ruins. That happened because it lost the war against pretty-much-the-rest-of-the-world.

North Korea? There's two things going for that state's survival: Artillery aimed at Seoul (moreso than the "nuclear deterrent"), and nobody wanting to be stuck with the hot potato that is "if the North Korean government collapses."

Again: no closer to internally caused collapse today than it was throughout most of its existence.

"Elite special forces" is a moot point for Nazi Germany and the USSR, but for North Korea... proof?

Google is your friend - http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreig ... erview.htm


EDIT: It occured to me that we are having this argument because many people in this thread don't understand how a country like the Soviet Union and/or a leader like Stalin can inspire loyalty in their subjects. I don't really understand it either, but obviously it is possible. Maybe there's a psychologist out there who can explain it.

[starslayer]

Faster decay = increased entropy = shorter half-lives for hell-atoms than for Earth-atoms.

You clearly have no idea what the fuck entropy actually is. It has nothing to do with radioactive decay or the universe's expansion. It is a thermodynamical concept that has to do with the statistical mechanics of systems.

[darksoul]

There's another point which people have missed on this. Military machines reflect the society they come from. The armies of WW2 reflected an industrialized, scientific society. Such a society could not survive in the cultural and social environment that existed in Hell. Society and military machine would be so conflicted on so many levels that they simply could not co-exist.

PRECISELY my point on society and mindset being the main disadvantage of the baldricks.

[darksoul]

EDIT: It occured to me that we are having this argument because many people in this thread don't understand how a country like the Soviet Union and/or a leader like Stalin can inspire loyalty in their subjects. I don't really understand it either, but obviously it is possible. Maybe there's a psychologist out there who can explain it.

Not need to be a psychologist. I'll quote from my country: Fidel Castro was able to lead a popular revolution against all odds, powers, expectations and the capitalist indoctrination of the very same population that supported him. That's not remarkable enough per se, what's remarkable is that he managed to stay in power for so long, that people just take him for granted, and even more so, he is not even hated by most Cubans, even by some of those who doesn't agree with his policies. There are a lot of factors at work here: Genious manipulation of international powers, supreme political skills, a very driven personality, a very loyal staff to support his ideas, and charisma and discourse abilities. People like to follow a dream they believe in, no matter what. We all need something to believe in, don't you agree?

By the way, this might serve as a counter example to the basic assumption of not being able to have a country led entirely by one person, because it means all collaborators are weaker or flawed somehow. Cuba has enough people around the power centers with their own ideas and abilities. They stick together somehow, although I grant we are not exactly the greatest nation in the third world, hehehehe.

What I must agree with Stuart is that a country without free enterprise, or at least decentralized or legally controlled executive power can suitably develop a capable industry or at least keep it for long periods of time without special circunstances. The good part is, those special circunstances are easy to found: Loyalty, brain theft (built into Hell, actually), External pressure (in the face of a war with humans...), politically directed research and ecnomically rewarded effort... I don't know. It could be possible for low tech levels or for short time spans, and such development always carry low quality wares and high levels of administrative corruption.

[darksoul]

EDIT: in my previous post, I mean can't suitally develop, not can. sorry.