HWW Game

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

NUCLEAR is the future.

Did anyone else get a weird vibe at this part?

If you don’t underfund your facilites and build them in areas where natural disasters shit on buildings, you’ll be fine..

Carking the 6th wrote:

If you don’t underfund your facilites and build them in areas where natural disasters shit on buildings, you’ll be fine..

Donk2.0 wrote:

My take on Climate Change:

Climate change is an urgent and certainly real issue. On this, I think that current incentives and action on behalf of the government are, for the most part, sufficient, at least for now. However, I do think several changes could be made to further improve the US stance on it. Introducing more financial incentives for plug-in hybrid and conventional hybrid vehicles would be great, there's too much of a focus on EVs. Energy-wise, NUCLEAR is the future. Breakthroughs in fusion power generation should also be researched more thoroughly by the US. When it comes to emissions, I have a little bit of a different take. In my opinion, "banning" something is a thing that should be avoided when possible. The US is a free country, so people should be able to make choices for themselves. Government regulation should then work to incentivize people to not do that bad thing anyway, so the only people doing it are the ones that want to and are willing to go through extra trouble to do it. I have a similar stance on abortion, gun control, and, in this case, motor vehicle emissions. I would remove the limit on carbon emissions from any motor vehicles, and instead introduce a fee system. The more greenhouse gases your car emits, the more you pay in emissions fees. Those fees are going to then be used to offset those carbon emissions. That means that trees can be planted, or some other methods can be used. The fee should be no less than what's required to offset that vehicle's emissions. This works well in several ways. For one, it gives people the freedom to do whatever they want, and if that's putting a 12-cylinder diesel in a Toyota Prius, go for it, but you are going to pay to offset those emissions anyway. This also works as an incentive. Vehicles that have bad MPGs are naturally going to cost more in fees, and therefore people will reconsider buying that in favor of a more efficient one. EVs will of course not have an emissions fee, however, it is the job of the government to make sure that the power going in to charge them is from clean sources, such as Nuclear or several other new options. What's the point of EVs if you're just substituting a combustion engine for a coal power plant somewhere else? That's why I also think that that fee should probably be above what's needed to offset emissions, it can help pay for new, clean energy sources and further incentivize EV and hybrid vehicles. The government should also continue investing and subsidizing other climate studies, but, in that regard, we've been doing well. We also need to push China to cut emissions more. They're the only large developed country that is still investing massive amounts in dirty energy sources.

The thing is, people will always debate that if it's safe or not/

Bill Gates has made one, a nuclear reactor that's made from Uranium that's not enriched.

It's not used and unable to be used as a nuclear weapon, so it's safe.

Inventing is one thing, but for people to accept it is a whole different story.

Bill Gates tried to propose to China to create nuclear reactors with cheaper materials so that it's able to be built everywhere without the need for high costs.

It was the time when the USA had some tensions with China.

Politics got involved there a lot, resulting in them being unable to create nuclear reactors from China since the USA has restricted them from being able to use China's materials.

The thing with nuclear energy is that it's POWERFUL energy.

It's just that it's quite uncommon for some countries and many people will doubt it and it might take some time for people to accept it, even in the eyes of the international.

Every time we hear the word "Nuclear", our minds might immediately think about those big massive jaw-dropping tide-changing mushroom-like explosion that was created by nuclear explosions.... it is not your fault if you did think about that, as the fact... it did make those big explosions if we used them in the wrong way...

But, Bill Gates's invention of this new nuclear reactor which has been worked for years, is also anticipated for any natural disasters and with better cooling, and less human error(passive cooling, without the needing of water to cool it down. I forgot about more of this generator, I apologize for this inconvenience).

Now, Bill's generator got rejected by...The US itself....which shocked them a little that they didn't know that it would be their own government to reject their invention and not China.

I'm sure there's a way to be able to use a safe nuclear reactor one day...

The hybrid vehicle is also something I've talked about for some time back then with my parent.

Pure electric vehicle is quite expensive and not all people can buy them...but this hybrid technology combines gasoline and battery.

The thing is...

This kind of solution is...way too many...I'm not going to lie anymore...

But, I haven't seen any real action that has been implemented as if something is...there and holds the future of a better and cleaner environment...

No matter how much they scream, giving solutions, inventions...

If we were to keep relying on the government...I won't expect any drastic changes...

They have their own only god knows behind the back of the government's protocols...

Not enough if we were to only rely on them, they're busy with other things...

Bugatti, Ferrari, and named those luxurious cars...

It takes fuel for it...

I'm very sure that if we slept...we wouldn't wake up in a new environmentally friendly Bugatti...

Even if they take this solution...it'll not be as easy as it sounds...

But there's still hope for it.

I don't have any debate on your solution, Donk.

It's just that when it comes to nuclear...The USA will not take this matter lightly...

I guess the first battleship/carrier i sank was named 'invulnerable'.

I have a full list of ship names I'm working down. So far I have:

1. Indomitable (Battleship - 68th Battle Group)

2. Invincible (Carrier - 64th Carrier Battle Group)

3. Indisputable (Battleship - 29th Battle Group)

4. Inevitable (Battleship - 70th Battle Group)

5. Indestructible (Carrier - 77th Carier Battle Group)

6. Invulnerable (Battleship - 26th? Battle Group? Lost track of where it was, quite possibly died)

7. Indispensible (Battleship - 54th Battle Group)

8. Intrepid (Carrier - 28th now, presumably, splitting them up causes problems Carrier Battle Group)

9. Incendiary (Carrier - 54th Carrier Battle Group)

10. Incredible (Battleship - 38th Battle Group) - stacked with the Inconcievable

11. Instalment (Battleship - 68th Battle Group) Stacked with the 31st Battle Group, buggered if I know what that is

12. Inhospitable (Battleship - 66th Battle Group)

13. Ingenious (Battleship - 5th Battle Group)

14. Inconcievable (Carrier - 9th Carrier Battle Group) - stacked with the Incredible

15. Inimicable (Battleship - 80th Battle Group) And here end all the even remotely normal names.

16. Incidental (Battleship - 5th Battle Group again?!)

17. Intact (Battleship - 31st Battle Group)

18. Inclusive (Battleship - 28th Battle Group)

19. Intentional (Battleship - 38th Battle Group)

20. Invalid (Battleship- 9th Battle Group)

21. Inglorious (Battleship - 71st Battle Flotilla)

That's not even halfway down my list, either. (Also ignore the identification whatsits, since stacking them usually mucks them up.)

My railway Guns:

Thomas the Tank Engine

Percy the Tank Engine

Tobey the Tank Engine

Charlie the Tank Engine

Wait is it time for popcorn?

Great, am I gonna have to bomb Canada or something? I’ve been waiting for something like that…

Carking the 6th wrote:

Great, am I gonna have to bomb Canada or something? I’ve been waiting for something like that…

Lady Aragosta wrote:

I have a full list of ship names I'm working down. So far I have:

1. Indomitable (Battleship - 68th Battle Group)

2. Invincible (Carrier - 64th Carrier Battle Group)

3. Indisputable (Battleship - 29th Battle Group)

4. Inevitable (Battleship - 70th Battle Group)

5. Indestructible (Carrier - 77th Carier Battle Group)

6. Invulnerable (Battleship - 26th? Battle Group? Lost track of where it was, quite possibly died)

7. Indispensible (Battleship - 54th Battle Group)

8. Intrepid (Carrier - 28th now, presumably, splitting them up causes problems Carrier Battle Group)

9. Incendiary (Carrier - 54th Carrier Battle Group)

10. Incredible (Battleship - 38th Battle Group) - stacked with the Inconcievable

11. Instalment (Battleship - 68th Battle Group) Stacked with the 31st Battle Group, buggered if I know what that is

12. Inhospitable (Battleship - 66th Battle Group)

13. Ingenious (Battleship - 5th Battle Group)

14. Inconcievable (Carrier - 9th Carrier Battle Group) - stacked with the Incredible

15. Inimicable (Battleship - 80th Battle Group) And here end all the even remotely normal names.

16. Incidental (Battleship - 5th Battle Group again?!)

17. Intact (Battleship - 31st Battle Group)

18. Inclusive (Battleship - 28th Battle Group)

19. Intentional (Battleship - 38th Battle Group)

20. Invalid (Battleship- 9th Battle Group)

21. Inglorious (Battleship - 71st Battle Flotilla)

That's not even halfway down my list, either. (Also ignore the identification whatsits, since stacking them usually mucks them up.)

Karl von Krass wrote:

Lady Aragosta wrote:

I have a full list of ship names I'm working down. So far I have:

1. Indomitable (Battleship - 68th Battle Group)

2. Invincible (Carrier - 64th Carrier Battle Group)

3. Indisputable (Battleship - 29th Battle Group)

4. Inevitable (Battleship - 70th Battle Group)

5. Indestructible (Carrier - 77th Carier Battle Group)

6. Invulnerable (Battleship - 26th? Battle Group? Lost track of where it was, quite possibly died)

7. Indispensible (Battleship - 54th Battle Group)

8. Intrepid (Carrier - 28th now, presumably, splitting them up causes problems Carrier Battle Group)

9. Incendiary (Carrier - 54th Carrier Battle Group)

10. Incredible (Battleship - 38th Battle Group) - stacked with the Inconcievable

11. Instalment (Battleship - 68th Battle Group) Stacked with the 31st Battle Group, buggered if I know what that is

12. Inhospitable (Battleship - 66th Battle Group)

13. Ingenious (Battleship - 5th Battle Group)

14. Inconcievable (Carrier - 9th Carrier Battle Group) - stacked with the Incredible

15. Inimicable (Battleship - 80th Battle Group) And here end all the even remotely normal names.

16. Incidental (Battleship - 5th Battle Group again?!)

17. Intact (Battleship - 31st Battle Group)

18. Inclusive (Battleship - 28th Battle Group)

19. Intentional (Battleship - 38th Battle Group)

20. Invalid (Battleship- 9th Battle Group)

21. Inglorious (Battleship - 71st Battle Flotilla)

That's not even halfway down my list, either. (Also ignore the identification whatsits, since stacking them usually mucks them up.)

Do you just like the prefix 'in'?

Is Lady Aragosta "Br*t*sh"?

Karl von Krass wrote:

Is Lady Aragosta "Br*t*sh"?

We don't talk about them

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

You have nukes already? Cant say I ain't surprised lol

He just doesn't has nukes, trust me.

Bri’ish******

KaiserOfAnonymous wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

You have nukes already? Cant say I ain't surprised lol

he doesn't has nukes, it can't even be research now.He just doesn't has nukes, trust me.

Ofc ik Car doesn't have nukes, cause I do

KaiserOfAnonymous wrote:

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

You have nukes already? Cant say I ain't surprised lol

he doesn't has nukes, it can't even be research now.He just doesn't has nukes, trust me.

Karl von Krass wrote:

We don't talk about them

the french?