Okay, makes sense so far...

Huh?

Why?  Why should there be a strategy which is 100% undefeatable except for "do what the other guy does, but build more of it?"  Remember, an attacker doesn't need to actually use their agents to harm the defender through attrition warfare from upkeep... and since there's no way to kill wizzies, that war of attrition can keep going on forever.  How many good strategy games exist in which you can spam one unit and an opponent has absolutely no tool to stop that unit except to counter it with their own equivalent?  Besides, how many times do we hear people say that if an opper really wants to hit a banker, they'll probably end up succeeding?

That's not a defense.  In many cases, it's hardly strategy.

Modification to the idea!

Banker A wants to protect its pop from Pax A.  Banker A asks Pax B, from its own fam, to protect it.  Pax B casts "Assist Ally Defense" or whatever the hell we want to name the op.  The op doesn't outright prevent spells.  Rather, it records the amount of wizzies Pax B used in the op, and uses that as the banker's defensive number for the next wizzie op against it within the next 8 (or 5, or however many you want) ticks.

1: This solves the problem of how many wizzies are necessary to complete the op, because it makes the op's efficiency still require proportionality to the attacker's wizzies.
2: The op involves multilayered strategy.  A defender has to decide whether they want to focus on protecting their bankers or opping the opposing bankers.  Sure, the opper can protect their ally pretty easily.  But then the other side's bankers get a free ride!
3: Additionally, this creates an interesting dynamic when a defending pax has to manage multiple bankers.  If I'm protecting two pop bankers, should I protect them both evenly or favor the bigger one?  After all, protecting each with 3 ops will stop someone who decides to target one banker, then switch to the other once they realize the first is protected.  On the other hand, perhaps that attacking pax would just plow 7 ops through your defensive ops anyway... 3 fail due to your protection, but the rest break through.

Remember, though, that the National Guard can be called up by the federal government as well as the state.  So yeah, either agency theoretically could, but the federal government doesn't exercise its control over the National Guard on a regular basis, so it's more likely a state issue.

... I hope that's a joke.

...

There is something really bad going on when Render is the voice of reason in a politics forum thread.

But yeah, I'm with Render.  Even if we assume the government is run by Lex Luthor and Dr. Evil, their evil plan is to justify an invasion of some nation by... killing 3 people?  This sounds like something concocted by Pinky and the Brain.

...

Aaaaand you're definitely getting a warning, Flint.  X(

Poor Zarf. 

O RLY?

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=182550

This in response to this quote:

Which was a quote using this to support the statement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 … 13857.html

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.

And, when given a follow-up link, sworn under oath, from that same guy, explaining that attacks beyond an imminent threat scenario would be unconstitutional... the reply included:

So yes.  I have disputed your bastardization of the word "literally" before, very much on point.  At that point, it was clear that "literally" simply didn't mean to you what it means to the rest of the world, and instead simply means "I want to make this point sound REALLY important." 

I'll take your apology at any time.  Thanks!

Much better link! 

I killed him in that mafia game!