Profile image

[TFMR] Arms race, start!

4,054 JSTQ  one month ago

My surrender does not mean I am obedient

I heard that TUPL's new bomb has been successfully tested. BYD, After I announced the successful missile test, why did MDA's new weapons emerge like mushrooms after rain? This is not good.

In the surrender agreement I signed, it only stated that weapons were not allowed to be sold to MDA's enemies, not that they were not allowed to be manufactured. Seize this wave and complete the transformation of intelligent weapons!

Incendiary bomb, activate!
Smoke, activate!
Top attack landmine, activate!
Mine laying vehicle, start!
terminal sensitive projectile, activate!
Suicide drone, activate!
FPV, Start up!
Reconnaissance drone, start!
Invisible drone, start!
Top attack missile, activate!
Satellite, activate!
Communication balloon, launch!

All start!

  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheMouse @TheUltimatePlaneLover If there's no problem, I'm ready to announce it, and you remember to announce it too

    Pinned 24 days ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover

    Any public treaty involving both parties shall be jointly released by both parties, with the latest release date as the activation time. The provisional validity period is three months, and it can be renewed upon expiration.

    Non Aggression Pact Content:

    1. Both parties are prohibited from declaring war on the other party voluntarily; Under no circumstances shall the main forces of both sides engage in combat.

    2. When ETSF is in a hostile camp, it is not allowed to use any navy or air force units (excluding army aviation), and it is prohibited to use missile units and any reconnaissance equipment. ETSF is prohibited from directly stationed at airports, bases, and ports, but deployed in their rear areas.

    3. Under the premise of legality, both parties shall not interfere with each other's technological research

      When either party breaches the contract, the agreement is automatically invalidated.

    Pinned one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ @TheMouse
    Aight, I'ma announce it after the vanguard (the first person to announce it).

    +1 24 days ago
  • Profile image
    59.0k TheMouse

    @JSTQ @TheUltimatePlaneLover
    I sign, it does not look like we have anything to lose really from this, and this is essentially a fancy ceasefire.

    +1 24 days ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover I have no objections, I also have great respect for him.

    The theory of FT missile hypersonic has also been broken through

    25 days ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ I'ma see what Mouse says, he's better with politics than me lol

    +1 25 days ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover @TheMouse So will you sign this treaty or not?

    26 days ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheMouse 1. Combining the complex military alliances of the two world wars, it led to a chain reaction between countries, causing local conflicts to evolve into world wars. We will be forced to go to war in this situation, so it is not included in the treaty.
    2. During World War II, Britain also guaranteed the independence of Poland. Do you think Britain fulfilled its responsibility? In fact, tearing up treaties between countries is more about losing trust, which is what matters. And those who can sign non aggression treaties either have good relationships or just take what they need.

    +1 one month ago
  • Profile image
    59.0k TheMouse

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover
    2 things that worry me.
    First, it says neither may declare war “intentionally”
    What does that exactly mean? Can we declare war “unintentionally”?
    I think we need clarification on that.
    And, at the end, it says the contract is automatically ended if anyone breaks it.
    That means as soon as one person breaks one part of it, it is all over.
    That means I could declare war, and would have no consequences even if they were outlined in the contract.
    I think that should be changed, and there should be consequences for declaring war.

    +1 one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ Aight

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover Add a third clause stating that under the premise of legality, interference with the other party's technological research is not allowed

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ True...
    @TheMouse
    @windshifter1
    Reference treaty, thoughts?

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover If you're not sure, you can skip signing for now. Otherwise, what if I cheat you?

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover Just copy the content I posted, it's the one at the top here. We need two people to jointly release it to confirm that the other party is aware.

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ You should publish it bc idk what you mean ngl

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover It's basically like this. Um... You've seen that thing on the T-3, so there's no need to emphasize it. Should you publish first, or should I publish first?

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ Hmmm
    Looks legit. So long that I'm being told everything, I sign.

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover so do you sign it?

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ Well yes but I'm also make sure that, in no way shape or form, this could come back to bite us. Always read the fine print!

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @TheUltimatePlaneLover Is this the first time you've heard of the Non-Aggression Pact outside of history class…

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ Hmmm
    So basically just "don't attack me, and I won't attack you?"
    In that case doesn't sound too bad

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    2,346 SPsidearm

    @JSTQ
    Hmph..

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    4,054 JSTQ

    @SPsidearm no. I can produce it myself, although I don't know how to do it yet
    And it will be converted into electronic warfare aircraft, early warning aircraft, and other special aircraft when the time comes.

    one month ago
  • Profile image
    2,346 SPsidearm

    want a supply carrier?

    one month ago
  • Profile image

    @JSTQ For the treaty

    one month ago
  • Log in to see more comments