If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software! The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Here's some Nordic music to make your patriotic viking tears flow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU_vt57u_5I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ck7CGY-ag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pmk81df9jk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W94yybauJP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jCaWLBriO4
>>559320472 Uh, when Greenland thaws out it will be one of the largest mineral deposits on the planet. The waters around greenland are filled with oil. We could place military bases on Greenland to assert our authority. With Greenland, we could easily claim a lot of domestic water between Greenland and Iceland. For any Canadians wanting to supply europe with recently thawed out goods, Greenland will have vital ports. Etc...
>>559321312 It's not really that bad... Estonia is recovering pretty well from the Soviet era and all predictions point in the right direction. The real danger is that like 40% of the country is Russian. Racially, these are mostly western Russians, the "Rus'", or Swedish viking emigrants so they haven't changed/will change the appearance of Estonians, which means they blend in and can be assimilated... They really need the N.U. to avoid a second Ukraine though, and the N.U. needs them, since a second Ukraine would be very nasty for us.
>>559321807 A few reasons why that's a bad idea: 1. It's difficult to draw, Good flags should be simple. 2. Some people might find it "offensive" or racist which would make us lose a lot of votes, and Greenland would certainly not like it. 3. Most of the Nordic countries have a nordic cross flag. I think we should keep that tradition going. 4. A nordic cross flag seems more realistic. ...It would look badass though...
>>559322260 1: There is no reason simple flags are better 2: People are to sensetive today and are offended by anything. A viking longship would be a great and needed step against political correctness 3: How is a cross nordic? Its on (most of) their flasg, but the nordic countries arent religious (compared to most countries). I see no reason to keep it 4: How makes a flag more/less realistic? Look at the flag of Nepal, its looks odd but its their flag. A longship would represent nordic history and as said be badass
>>559322309 >>559322815 As for national birds, I think it would be cool if different states had different birds. Sweden could have the white-tailed eagle, Norway could have the raven, Iceland could have the northern fulmar (seriously it looks badass), etc. And then make these prominent symbols, like the bald eagle or golden eagle is for the U.S. and Germany.
>>559323306 Why change the national birds they already got one? I know norway has the White-throated dipper which i admit sounds like a suspect movie, but in norwegian the name sounds much better >>559323539 Estonia seems to want to be a part of the nordics and use their connecton with Finland and geography (further north than denmark, furter west than alot of Finland) as an argument, but they seem to be ignored
>>559323082 1: Yes there is. Simpler flags are easier to recreate, draw, tag things with, use for signaling, to recognize, and simplicity and sharp lines appeals to people and makes the flag easier to incorporate into different designs. 2: Maybe so, but I'm thinking about voter support. No one would vote for a party whose symbol is a viking long ship. We'd be seen as overly nationalist, racist, etc, and would be interpreted as some small group of neo-nazi muppets. 3: The nordic cross is the off-center sideways cross as seen on the national flags of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland etc. It used to represent christianity, yes but nowadays it represents the nordic countries which are pretty unreligious. The reason for a nordic cross is because it's seen as serious/realistic, down to earth, and representative of the nordic cultures. 4: I mean "realistic" as in, it seems like a flag that could be used for an actual nation and not a made up one...
>>559323937 Because we have such un-badass birds. Of course a white-throated dipper or blackbird won't become a serious patriotic symbol... We might want to avoid the eagles though since they bring with them certain associations...
>>559324185 With the current birth rates for ethnic Nordics, we'll have trouble filling the houses we've already built. The only people actually growing in numbers here are the Somali immigrants (average birth rates are batshit insane due to Islam forbidding condoms and traditions). You want to make lebensraum for the Somalis?
>>559324669 Scotland might actually be realistic if they gain independence and the N.U. is very decentralized and allows for a lot of self-governance. This would be beneficial strategically and economically - very beneficial, however it would shatter the ethnic connection if the N.U. suddenly gained a member that doesn't speak finno-ugric or scandinavian, and hasn't been a part of a Nordic state for over 800 years.
>>559324820 Those are some badass birds although falcons and hawks aren't species. Finland could get the Snow Owl, Sweden could get the Peregrine falcon or something, Norway could get the white tail eagle (since they're so common in Norway), Iceland could get the raven, Faroe Islands could get the northern fulmar, etc...
>>559325771 Realistically speaking, if we are really friendly with Russia, we might be able to buy back Karelia, perhaps even the other used-to-be-Finnish regions (Russia had plans for selling Karelia in the 90's), and we might gain at least partial control over the Kola peninsula through sapmi... However that's probably as far as we'll reach in the near future... If we want what's left of Karelia, filled with Russians that is.
>>559325789 Seriously look at this bird... It's so badass, like the nazi golden eagle, except it really looks that focused, firm, angry even, in real life without any alterations... I can easily see it stylized as a representative of the Atlantic N.U. states
>>559326668 A step in the right direction. Although to fully capitalize on this, a maritime union between Norway, Iceland, the Faroes and Greenland would be much better. Further, if these countries learned Standardized scandinavian instead of Danish as a second language in school, it would be less politicized and would allow for an easy to learn lingua franca of the N.U.
>>559326831 You guys are forgetting I'm staying within the borders of what is realistic and could actually happen. People won't vote for a viking flag with the words "hail odin" written in futhark, no matter how badass that would be. I'm considering actually making a real N.U. party, and do lots of commercials from rich funders (lots of millionares would fund us, if there's millionaires funding parties like the Sweden democrats now) with sister parties in all the NU countries, with the intermediate goal of a united army, currency, and standardized scandinavian in schools etc, and a final goal of a proper N.U, that would be acquired in an alliance government in several N.U. states with the N.U. party as say third or fourth largest...
>>559318713 As long as Estonia is a part i cannot support it. I've read you arguments for, and they suck. I don't give a fuck if estonians feel swedish. If we went to war with russia alone we'd lose with or without them, and they'd probably join in a war where other nations participated (IE NATO countrys), so that argument sucks as well. Also they have a huge russian population, whom i wouldn't want as a part of our glorious Nordic nation. and they're poorfags. In short, they bring nothing to the table, only liabilities.
>>559318713 Why the hell is 3rd world Estonia in there? Also Greenland? Just a bunch of unproductive natives. I'm from Finland , and although our culture and language is the most different from the other Scandinavians, I'm down to join. I feel like Sweden would be bringing everyone down though with their pro 'let all shitskins in no questions asked' attitude.
>>559328067 The military reason for estonia isn't because we intend to go to war. The military reason for Estonia is because it grants us military might, thus we can intimidate Russia more - We'd have more leverage in negotiations. We'd castrate St. Petersburg and the Russian Baltic Fleet, our air bases could easily fuck shit up for Russia, etc. Large portions of the baltic would be our "mare nostrum", preventing Russian military exercises, and Russia would either have to co-operate with us in the arctic, or face isolation in the baltic. I'm considering not including Estonia initially anyway due to the lack of popular support, but still....
If you are serious about this project I am on board (dane-fag). But then it should be a real and modern union, and shouldn't be an exclusive alternative to EU, or some right-wing wet dream. It should be a modern and secular country with human rights etc. I only see small reasons why this couldn't be done, and they are possible to overcome.
But you need some fucking colours on that flag though! Pic related, my suggestion
>>559328513 Far too similar to svenska motståndsrörelsen or svenskarnas parti (proper nazi parties). The colors I chose were intended to be militaristic (since the flag would be mostly for military purposes), and also because I tried to avoid designing an already existing nordic cross flag, and still get a decently good looking end result... If you want to design something non-cross flag, I suggest using different colors, especially avoiding black.
As a non-nordic person, I don't understand why this has not happend. Is there a lot of political/cultural differences between you guys? Not trying to bait or troll, Just genuinely curious. Also, N.U. would be awesome. I would move there.
>>559328958 Ah good point, and they have some claim in the arctic. Okok they're in. Also I take back what I said about us being the most different, Iceland is probably the most different from the Scandinavians, and they would be brought down the most, esp by Sweden.
NO!.. just.. NO!..fuck off. I'd consider letting sweden, denmark and finland in under Norwegian rule, meaning ya'll niggas fix your language to sound more like ours, we follow norwegian rules, and your royal family stops stealing tax money, it's bad enough that ours do. But other than that, nope.
>>559329058 yeah, no! If we put up 50 fighters to counter ships comming out of st. Petersburg, Russia would put up 200... And have plenty to spare. Even with this union we would not be a serious military threat to Russia.
BUT we COULD be an economic threat! Alot of Russian gas pipelines go through the Baltic sea, and they could be threatened.
>>559329058 >>559328067 Further, the "huge" russian population is only huge by estonian standards, and most of them look like estonians since they're west russians. The russkies actually make an argument FOR Estonia, since they risk causing a second Ukraine crisis if they're not in the union, something that would be very dangerous for us, and would certainly fuck up our relationship with russia royally.
But again, I'm leaning towards not including Estonia due to the popular outrage... Finland will be kind of lonely as the only finno-ugric speaking country and might not want to join (which would be very bad considering their borders), but hopefully they'll still be up without Estonia.
>>559329739 You're okay with letting Sweden and it's hoards of immigrants into your country? Alright. Well your country is already ruined and Denmark is passing more and more laws so Denmark's going to be shitskin heaven as well soon. Master race Finland still hardly let's anyone in. Also not many want to anyways because our language and way of life and exclusion of foreigners scares them away.
>>559329485 mainly historical reasons. For hundreds of years it was Denmark-Norway as one kingdom fighting Sweden-Finland as the other. Last one ended i 1815 if I recall correctly. Denmarks later trouble with the germans in the later half of the 19'th century meant that Sweden was absolutely not on board on the idea of a Union. Later a couple of world wars got in the way, and since then we have actually had pretty tight political cooporation
>>559329812 You're right, though I thought most Nordic countries were agains joining the EU. And about NATO I don't see the problem, most if not all NATO countries are pretty good allies of Nordic nations.
>>559328975 The progressives are only in Sweden. Reason being Sweden was always the first and the best and the most progressive. Thus no one else had tried their roads, and when they started messing with mass immigration and radical feminism they fucked up royally. Thankfully the rest of Scandinavia saw this and has since been more cautious and moderate. Since Swedes will be a minority of the N.U. population, and only about 2/3rds of Sweden are progressive muppets, Swedish "progressive" won't fuck shit up too badly...
>>559329089 I'm pretty serious. Got nothing better to do anyway so fucking why not try? And I fully agree with you, it's a modern union, not a right wing wet dream, not some LARP neckbeard dressup fantasy, etc. No one would vote for any of that anyway.
As for the flag, I agree mine is pretty "evil" looking and not very representative. But finding an unused nordic cross flag is hard, and yours is really ugly (no offense...)
If you want you can join our BF platoon http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/platoons/view/2297038443470875269/
>>559318713 Norwegian here, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no. Norway has a surplus of over 4 years of BNP, the rest of the nations are in debt, it's the same reason we are not in the EU, we are so far ahead economically it is not even funny. What could the other nations offer us that the EU can't?
>>559329217 Germany wanted to change the main language in Norway to German. They also wanted to make a Neu Drontheim/Nordstern German "colony" of sorts. There's good reasons why Norway resisted and even Sweden had smuggling routes and training facilities for resistance fighters along the Norwegian border.
>>559331128 No real big movement, no. I don't think it has been a big topic, since many people probably couldn't see what the advantage would be for them. To make it probable it would have to be in a way that allowed for semi-autonomous governments still taking care of most domestic politics. In particular immigration, which is a really hot topic. I'm for the idea because I think it would strengthen our foreign policy, and give us a back-up if the EU stagnates completely.
>>559329485 Not a lot of differences at all. For times some areas have been held by Germany, the USSR, and nowadays the EU and NATO, which fucks things up. There was going to be a nordic military union, until Denmark and Norway joined NATO, but Finland wasn't allowed to according to Russia, so Sweden didn't join NATO either for solidarity reasons and to be able to keep co-operating with Finland, and thus the military union was made impossible...
>>559331321 Denmark is not in debt. We do have a negative on our national budgets (last I checked), but if we did a national balance statement we would have a surplus. But I agree that Norways economy is still the strongest. But that oil and gas isn't going to last forever.
>>559329496 Like I wrote in the second picture in this thread, Iceland and any other state would be able to regulate their own external and internal immigration laws, meaning no immigration for Iceland. Further, if you read what I told you to read in the second post, you'd realize Sweden is currently fucking shit up more than if they were in the N.U. Iceland isn't that foreign though, their language is old scandinavian, they learn Danish in school, used to be part of Denmark until 1945, etc. Greenland is probably the most isolated...
>>559331826 From what I know, Nordic countries are doing pretty well economically. Some better than others but in general higher standards than most of the world. It would seem like a no brainer if unified it would be a real superpower contender(economically). I mean, it's not like you're unifying with Ireland and Greece like the EU did.
>>559329739 If you'd just include Sweden, they'd out-vote you and cause mass immigration. Scroll up to the second picture in this thread that explains the immigration, and oil issue (the N.U. wouldn't take any Norwegian oil since it would be a small part of the wealth the N.U. would gather). Norway would still exist too, only you could fly to Iceland on a domestic flight. Sounds neat huh?
>>559331756 hurrdurr monarchies are evil... like the freemason reptilian NWO aliens. the monarchies are for tradition and they represent the countries. the king of norway has landed more deals for his country and done more hours on the job the you will ever do. 200 traveling days a year. what do you want? a president that cant pronounce nuclear? nukular > bush jr.
>>559329764 I don't think you understand. Russia has more borders to guard than ours. United, we'd outnumber and outgun the Russian forces at our borders. We wouldn't "counter" ships either, we'd let them through, on our terms. Same with the pipelines. Russia co-operates, everybody happy. Russia tries to steal our arctic resource or nibble off parts of the baltic states? Well that will be trouble for Russia.
>>559332391 Thorium, we will always be a leader in the energy sector, oil or no. Also, per capita we are the fifth largest exporter of weapons in the world. If you want your shit built right (guns and ships for now), you come to us and that will always be valuable. Denmark has nice beaches and cheap beer and that is about it.
>>559332737 No, Estonia would be the weakest member from a economic point of view... Well, from any point of view, really. I still wouldn't say superpower, as the combined population would be around 26 million by my back-of -the-envelope estimate. But perhaps it would land us in the G20 countries. Would have to do some more comprehensive calculations for that, and I simply can't be bothered.
>>559330389 I'd like to live in Finland. Helsingfors is like going back to the 50's in Sweden. Everyone is white and sexy.
>>559330465 Pretty accurate except during the world wars, Sweden, Denmark and Norways all proclaimed armed neutrality and would have backed each other up if both were attacked. During WWII, a Danish force retreaded into Sweden to defend Sweden from the expected German invasion. Sweden, due to poor co-ordination, thought they were the germans and sent a force to attack them. Luckily no one was hurt before they could realize their mistake, and the German invasion never came which meant the Danes could sit out the war on a beach in Skåne...
>>559330594 Norway is generally against the EU, the rest are pretty indecisive with around 50-50 votes. Either way they are part of the EU now.
Regarding NATO, Sweden claims "armed neutrality" which is against NATO (although they're pretty much allied to NATO anyway), Finland can't join due to a treaty with Russia, and Norway and Denmark is already part. Thus, a military union is difficult to achieve.
>>559333185 >hurrdurr monarchies are evil They are fucking unnecessary! Currently we have a completely useless royal family sucking up millions each fucking year just for being born into a "royal family".
We have a crown princess ho's an ex druggie; cheated on heir boyfriends and had a son with her boyfriends mate
We have a princess who claims she can talk to angels and have developed this scheme (angel school) so that others too can learn how to communicate with angels or dead relatives.
Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean it is correct our reasonable - quite the opposite in many instances.
>>559330664 As I wrote in the second post, each nation will keep their monarchies unless that nation votes to end them. It's kind of like the German monarchies. Swedes would probably get sick of their "knug" pretty soon...
>>559330668 Actually the countries most recently ruled by another are probably the most sceptical to joining something called something as dreadful as a "union".
>>559333650 during the cold war, at least sweden and norway had " non official " agreement of joint resistence agianst the USSR if a war started. but they also though that using tactical nukes from day one was a good idea, even though they where in england ready too be airlifted over. ( norway denied nato to have nukes in norway) from the book " Landforsvarets krigsplaner under den kalde krigen " ( Land Defence's, war plans during the Cold War" by Gullow Gjeseth
>>559333308 Denmark also builds good ships. Particularly warships, I might add. You can do the submarines though. Not really our thing. I would still prefer my tanks german, and planes to be theeurofighter. A discussion for another day though. Oh, and I see your thorium, and raise you windmills! Anyway, all of the countries have their merits (possible exception being Estonia), but of course the unification should happen in a way that would not compromise current national economies, but strengthen them.
>>559330771 Uh, current predictions estimate Poland will get rich and developed, and Sweden will collapse without the N.U...
>>559331128 A lot of people would need some convincing before wanting a unified nordic area. There are some small grassroots movements starting up as we speak. In fact, what you're reading right now is probably one of them. In the future, I think a lot more people want a unification. But if we wait too long Sweden will be an Islamic caliphate, and without Sweden a union would be difficult to pull off.
>>559331142 Except the N.U. might not be too eager to join NATO given how they've treated the Norwegian and Danish armies as waste disposal for outdated garbage, and also pressured them to join their oil wars.
>>559331321 Norway would get to keep their oil, since it would be quite irrelevant compared to the minerals and natural resources we'd extract from the thawing arctic. Norway would get richer, everyone would get richer, dolla dolla bill yall.
>>559333642 I was unaware that Estonia even had Nordic roots. I know Sweden and Norway would be the biggest contributors, but in the long run it would be beneficial to all, wouldn't it? I mean free trade, combined natural resources, and greater political expand.
>>559333210 Most of what Russia has, is on the boarder with Europe. Their defencebudget is at some 3,3% of GDP (source: My memory), while the nordic countries are around 1-1.4% of GDP (same source). We could be a regional power, but we couldn't play hardball with Russia on our own. The only thing we could really hurt was their economy. But that IS power.
>>559331756 Well, the N.U. would allow for a public vote in the country with the monarchy for whether or not that monarchy should be allowed to proceed. That is a step forward, since nowadays, it is illegal to organize a democratic election as to whether or not the monarchy should still stand. Then again the only nay-sayers would be Sweden who would lose their knug, but still...
One thing though. Shouldn't Scotland also join? The Scottish National Party have proposed for Scotland to apply to the Nordic council if they gain independence from the UK. Scotland share a lot of history with us Nords, and I think it would only be logical for them to join, for a lot of the same reasons Estonia should. Scotland also has oilfields and other resources that could turn them into a major asset for a Nordic union. Norwegian here BTW.
>>559334682 Windmills is not a fucking natural resource, anyone can build one, you don't dig them out of the ground. Norway chose the JSF because it made the most sense economically and it fit the parameters of what we needed for a fighter. We have contracts to deliver the missiles for it.
>>559331826 Regarding immigration, each state would be allowed to deny or allow as many immigrants as they wish (so no immigration for iceland), however the national immigration rate would probably be dictated by national political parties, just like today. And since a large portion of the voters are Norwegians, Finns, (possibly estonians), greenlanders, Icelandics etc, there wouldn't be much immigration. Also, judging by the development in Sweden and denmark, they wouldn't push far in the more immigration-direction.
>>559335182 We already have free trade deal. I don't think Norway is up for the idea of sharing natural resources, and depending on what is found in Greenland, neither will they be, and thereby Denmark (Greenland's former/still unofficial colonial master). A monetary union could be a deal though, and give us some of the advantages of the euro, without having to be overly associated with southern Europe.
>>559334682 I agree, if the nordics manage to create a union they would probably be one of the strongest states both within military development and in the financial sector Don't really see why this hasn't been done before other then EU, NATO and Russia having a important role in this not becoming a reality
>>559335121 If you think Scandinavia will get shit in the arctic you are pretty fucking dumb, the US and Russia are fighting over that bitch and no one else is getting a crumb without getting an army shoved up their ass.
>>559332062 For Estonia (which I might not include further on), see >>559330417 For immigration, see >>559335825 and second post in thread under "insert country has too many immigrants!"
To summarize my stance on immigration in TLDR pasta; In a way you could argue that I'm trying to tell Norwegians, Finns etc. that the N.U. would not have Swedish immigration statistics per capita, and that they should not reject the N.U. on those grounds. However, I have never stated there SHOULD be more or less immigration, only that there WILL be less immigration than the per capita immigration to Sweden at the moment, regardless of whether the Union party wants more immigration or not, due to the majority of the voters being from nations that today are quite anti-immigration.
Further, Sweden is an extreme case, disproportionate and near incomprehensible to almost all other countries on earth in the number of annually granted citizenships' per capita... Clearly, a socialist welfare state with little independence and a complex, very excluding and quite harsh social hierarchy, like Sweden, doesn't really allow for effective integration or a prosperous multiculturalism. Thus, I personally believe that Sweden should accept less immigrants, put more pressure on other EU nations to accept more refugees to help out, and with the help of the N.U. have a strong and proper army branch for international humanitarian deployment, like the current force in Afghanistan, except larger and with more non-combat missions, like building houses, hospitals (2b continued)
>>559334420 >crown princess : true she aint all that good. >princess martha will never rule.
sucking up millions... they makes us more money then we spend on them. the politicians salaries are larger then the royal families. they pay no tax. they can retire after 8 years in the parlament. they decide their own wages and they live for free while in the parlament. the royal family lives at the mercy of the politicians... so tell me kind sir, if the royal family was unnessery and untwanted why does not the politicians throw them out?
>>559336275 (pt. 2) and schools in for instance refugee camps. There are currently 6 million internal refugees in Syria alone (not to mention the rest of the world). Whether Sweden grants right of asylum to 150 000 of those or not is quite irrelevant. "Like pissing in the ocean", as we say in Sweden. All it does is cost us money through the very generous, extensive, and sadly not thought through or well organized welfare we give, damages our cultural heritage, and spreads Islam and Islamism in Sweden. If we would have a strong humanitarian force, an "insatsstyrka", we could save millions and rebuild entire countries...
So I never pandered to anti-immigration people, and I personally only believe we should take less immigrants than Sweden currently does per capita (note that Sweden has a much higher immigration rate than the rest of the N.U. countries), push other countries to take more refugees, and do a lot more direct "ground zero" humanitarian work (preferably not just paying the corrupt U.N. unreasonable sums for doing nothing like we are now). I never said anything even remotely related to stopping refugee immigration.
Keep in mind this is a pasta far to politically correct for /b/tards.
>>559332391 Current oil reserves are expected to run out in less than 20 years. N.U. oil and mineral reserves outside and on Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard, etc. are batshit insane compared to the relatively speaking tiny Norwegian oil possession, especially if possessing all these territories justifies for expansion of national water borders.
>>559336390 A Republic seems to work very well for our neighbors Iceland and Finland. If they can do without that antiquated for of rule then so can we.
>if the royal family was unnessery and untwanted why does not the politicians throw them out? Have you heard of a little thing called "Grunnloven" before? No? Well, then allow me to quote the first paragraph for you:
§ 1. Kongeriket Norge er et fritt, selvstendig, udelelig og uavhendelig rike. Dets regjeringsform er innskrenket og arvelig monarkisk.
>>559332737 Indeed, and future predictions indicate a huge growth in Estonia, and with the N.U. having access to arctic minerals and oil as they thaw out, we'd be filthy rich. The most risky part is Sweden, which according to U.N. predictions will go downhill quickly if we keep our affermative, rad-fems, mass immigration and collapsed school system. The N.U. would be the salvation, and Sweden would be needed to connect our eastern russian testicular squeezers (Finland and Estonia) with the western resource locations (faroe, greenland, iceland, svalbard)
>>559336118 The EU and NATO wouldn't be a problem if all countries could agree to become members of these organisations as a part of NU. I don't see that as a big problem. And fuck what Russia thinks. Not their fucking problem.
>>559333185 Agree with most of that except freemasons, who really are some nasty fucks. Any secretive organization with lots of cult-like symbols and signs is bound to fuck shit up. Like the "the wave" experiment, except covert and bent on really weird motifs.
>>559336573 "proved"when they have never met in combat? The F-35 is a multirole aircraft while the Eurofighter is an interceptor, if you want to compare apples to oranges. If you are going to compare, compare the F-22 with the Eurofighter.
>>559333308 Uh, Sweden produces more electricity than you (the nuke plants and them being willing to fuck their eco-systems over with hydroelectric dams). They're also the second biggest weapons exporter in the world per capita, and unlike you they manufacture airplanes and tanks as well (not included in the calculation, mind you). With a N.U., SAAB could easily produce a nordic stealth fighter (Flygsystem 2020 is already being developed), Norway could supply a lot of tech, and we could get our own tanks again, like the CV90 and s-tank. Our stealth subs would be the best in the world (HMS Gotland, kockums being bought by SAAB), our weapons undefeatable with Norway and Bofors, etc.
>>559333448 Not only no but fuck no. That flag is ugly as fuck, and makes every non-dane hiss in despise when they see it. The Kalmar Union was a huge failure. It was a dictatorship, it was focused on Denmark, it was ruled by feudal lords, etc, and every region except Denmark suffered from it. My flag is as far away from the Kalmar Union flag as possible while still keeping it a cross flag for a reason.
>>559337316 Finland, yes. Their economy resembles the rest of the Scandinavian countries, and they have the best educational system in the world. Estonia is the joker, but they are small and I don't think they would be able to fuck it up for the rest. Besides they do have historical links with both Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
>>559318713 While it could seem like a logical demographic evolution, there's a lot of transitional stuff to account for. Firstly, we have very different culture. People outside the northern sphere won't give this much thought, but take one random person from each country and make them have to socialize or do some tasks, and a lot of the challenges will be apparent.
We would have to assimilate into one cultural pool. People woild have to move around across the virtual borders and shuffle around. This would probably take many generations, maybe 100-200 years. Would you really thrive this kind of chaotic environment? (norfag btw)
>>559338067 The Gripen is pretty shit compared to the other fighters out there though. Ah, yes, tanks, the s-tank DOESNT HAVE A FUCKING TURRET, this means it has to aim by turning its tracks and it can't fire on the move, you build shit weapons and your planes fall out of the sky.
>>559333642 Estonia is progressing fast and HDI/GDP-PC predictions all show they'll soon be on our level (they're already almost there). What is more of a concern is the downturn for Sweden and Denmark...
And the N.U. would be small, but the military budget, economy, wealth and resource possessions would be insanely large.
>>559338984 Because the F 35 is multi role, like I already said and not an interceptor. Norway cannot support multiple types of fighter jets so we needed one that filled all the roles the best as possible and the F 35 is it.
>>559333650 It wasn't just being bad-ass. Sweden and Finland were tightly co-operating even during WWII, and a Swedish NATO membership would make it very difficult for Sweden to keep the alliance going since the Russians would get mad. Finland was of great strategic importance to Sweden, as it was the first line of defense against the Russians. Thus, Sweden thought armed neutrality and supporting Finland would be better than submitting to NATO and leaving Finland to fend for themselves.
>>559340097 Then what's the point of merging all the nations..? To become strong and still be USA's bitch? The current nations that isn't in NATO is doing all fine staying out of war. NATO will bring war not protect you from it.
>>559335815 I don't want to derail the discussion with how the F-35 was the wrong choice. Doesn't matter now.
And yes, apart from a semi-ownership of Greenland, Denmark has no real natural ressources, which is why we have build up know how in how to produce other things, and have a lot of trade. 10% of the world shipping today is done on a Danish ship. But I still agree with you that a Union should not be an economic drain on any of the members.
>>559333674 Getting the ones who are already here out could be difficult... Immigration rates would plummet at least, that's for sure.
>>559333728 No need to get rid of the royal houses, read second post.
Finland and Estonia aren't that wealthy. If anything, Norway would shovel money on them, although a condition for joining the N.U. would probably be that norway got to keep their oil money, which would be acceptable since their oil money is nothing compared to the arctic.
>>559334121 Uh, they sent over 100 000 rifles, 2/3rds of the Swedish airforce (about five planes cause they were poor fucks), and a volunteer force of 18000 deployed or about to be deployed men (of which 12000 made it to the front before wars end) during the winter war. During the continuation war, despite their allegeded neutrality Sweden allowed german troop movement to Finland, etc. They had the same foreign policy as Finland of armed independent neutrality, and yet they still did that. My grandfather still has a scar on his right breast from a soviet bullet he received near Viborg.
>>559339768 Like the Fins can't handle the Russians on their own, ever heard of the winter war? The only reason I would have against being in a union with the Fins is that they scare the fuck out of me.
>>559336118 why the fuck would we want to develop our militaries?
If the goal is a new military super power - then I'm not in. Not a single problem has ever been solved by means of military. Sure, conflicts have been squashed numerous times - but the underlying problems? Not malleable to brute force.
I'd much rather see scandinavia create a true peaceful utopia - setting forth an example for the rest of the world, and a the method to achieve it.-
>>559334660 You should add that Sweden had a nuclear arms program, that got put on stand-by due to the public vote. However, recently released files prove Sweden had plans to convert their plutonium for their nuclear powerplants to nuclear bombs in weeks should Russia do something mean, and Swedish bombers were designed to be able to carry a nuclear payload. Essentially, during the cold war, Sweden was a nuclear weapons state on standby.
>>559334682 Pfff... Everyone knows the Swedish tanks are superior (the s-tanks were beastly, and the CV90 seems to be pretty appreciated by denmark), and with the entire NU funding it we could easily develop a nordic stealth fighter.
>>559340123 This has happened only once in NATO history, and even then each country chooses how much they wish to contribute. Iceland sent ONE GUY. And Swedish neutrality is kind of meaningless, when Sweden spends so little on their defense. You could keep spending that little, and still be safe from IVAN, in NATO. I know there has already been discussions about it in Sweden in later years.
>>559340947 To defend our assets and interests. Do you really not see oilfields or other resources as potentional military/terrorist goals? Why do you think Germany invaded Norway and Denmark? Strategic positions and iron transport routes. England tried to annex the Norwegian merchant navy.Imagine if Hitler or Churchill knew about the oil reserves in the North Sea!
>>559335454 Uh, they have borders with the U.S., with China, Ukraine, etc. With current spendings, basshhed on my calculasshhionsh, our army would match their european sector currency-wise. Of course if we got filthy rich we could spend more.
Can't wait until you traditionalist fags discover that scandinavian nations have strong traditions for christianity as a state religion, monarchies, strong labor unions and religious tolerance (despite state religion).
Basically everything you polfags typically hate more than your mothers.
>>559340947 Armed neutrality With the union you're able to put more pressure on Russia too so they don't provoke the nordics armed forces or violate thier borders like they have been doing recently to Sweden for example I'm not a fan of war, but i believe that arms is necessery to achive peace, even if it means that you may not trust the country but that's my opinion
>>559341996 Well, Stalin's regime was a big part of why Finland did so good. Stalin had recently arrested/executed a lot of Soviet officers, which was extremely demoralizing for the Red Army. I'm not saying a Nordic union couldn't halt a Russian offensive, but the Russkies would probably be a lot fiercer now than they were back then. Also remember that the Finns recieved a lot of support from other countries, mostly Scandinavia.
>>559341937 some 90% of their population is in Europe, and most of their defense aswell. I would still prefer to have the UK and Germany in my back when barking at Russia. Or else, there goes Iceland, and what the fuck do we do now? Full-scale war with a nuclear power?
>>559336105 Norway wont have to share their current resources which won't even be much compared to those on greenland and around Iceland.
Greenland could be hard to convince if they go fully independent from Denmark... But they are important given their ore rich ground. It's either N.U. state money partially spent on developing greenland and help the eskimos and protect the environment, or it's international big biz companies from the U.S. & co. sucking Greenland dry while fattening the pockets of a select few eskimos.
It did make sense. We chose what our primary ally wanted to sell. Let's say the russians invade tomorrow. We can probably resist them for all of twenty minutes.
Do we put our hopes in the "neutral" Swedes who roll over for whicever despot throws money at them, France and their legendary frenchness or the US who has a track record for being a useful ally you can actually depend on?
Im norwegian, and i would support unification if all the other countries would adapt to our language. On the plus side.. our millitary would be awesome ! <---- Norwegian special forces... just sayin...
>>559342963 I agree completely. I just think the argument of Finland being completely fine in a war against Russia was failed on so many levels.
The support Finland got was in the form of individual volunteers though. Not official help from the governments. What they really needed was supplies like ammunition and arms, and this was denied them. A shame really.
>>559337063 The N.U. would try to permit democratic rule to decide the fate of the monarchies.
>>559337316 Manpower, factories and companies, military supplies, strategic locations, tech companies (most norwegian oil drilling equipment is Swedish made), Finland has a great ground school etc... The least important member would be Denmark in my opinion...
>>559343249 If you had read anything of what I've dsicussed with most people in this thread is that yeah, I didn't know a lot, So I asked people. And I've come to that conclusion, but because you don't agree does not make it wrong. Thats just being close minded and dense.
>>559337516 EU would mean we'd have to pay shitloads to greece, get our money regulated by the european central bank, and would force us to allow free immigration. Rather all the countries leave the EU at once and perhaps co-operate with them without full membership after uniting.
NATO might not be an ally at all given the U.S.-Canadian arctic oil rush. We'd actually want an independent force to patrol our waters. Further, NATO is costly and pulls you into a lot of oil wars. Better to just do like Sweden and not be a part but still be allied to NATO in secret.
>>559338005 I don't think Russia would try to invade Finland, but it would certainly rustle their jimmies.
>>559338493 That looks like a Norwegian friend I had when I was a kid. Genetic studies show western Finland is pretty much identical to white Swedes due to the interbreeding. Just go there and look at people, they're fucking babes dude.
>>559342993 Greenland will be very easy to convince! They do not want independence. Their economy is completely reliant on financial aid from Denmark, and around 50.000 people live there. There are way to few people, too scattered to maintain sovereignty. Right now that is maintained by the danish navy and military patrols across the ice.
Even if Greenland starts making a profit, when their mining gets going, they will still need people keeping Ivan out.
>>559344189 You implied. I just said that from what I have been told and read about, it's looks more beneficial if Norde countries unified. I at least have been given reason as to why this would be in the best interest for eveyone, if you're so against this, then please, list some as to why it wouldn't be beneficial. You know like educated people would.
Can we join once we rid ourselves of England? Our population is one of the ugliest and our weather is perpetually shit but we're fun guys and most of us in the north are as much viking as anything else.
>>559338597 Estonia is predicted to develop even further, and the strategy and shit etc etc see further up in thread etc.
>>559338725 Tell that to my senile Swedish grandpa. He might not remember much, but I can assure you, if you said that to him, he'd jump out of his wheelchair, rip off his shirt and point to the bullet scar on his chest, before calling you a communist traitor and jumping your ass...
>>559338848 Biggest monetary rotation yes that's true. What the U.N. predictions suggest is mostly based on our PISA test results, and according to the U.N., by 2030 we'll have the same HDI as Libya. Sweden is changing rapidly I'm afraid... It's not going to be great for much longer unless someone does something.
>>559344709 Cultural differences, economic differences, all of the nations are in the EU or EFTA already and no real upsides unless there is significant resources under the north pole which are uncomfirmed.
>>559339120 First of all, an internal healthy multiculturalism is what the N.U. tries to maintain. Jämtland should still be Jämtland, Skåne still Skåne, Åland still Åland etc, instead of what is currently taking place; everything is blending together with a lot of cultural loss as a result.
Judging from how internally there's a lot of cultural differences in our nations today, I don't see why we'd have to mix it up like you describe it... Further, the suggested N.U. nations are suggested because they are very similar culturally.
>>559344113 >EU would mean we'd have to pay shitloads to greece, get our money regulated by the european central bank, and would force us to allow free immigration. Rather all the countries leave the EU at once and perhaps co-operate with them without full membership after uniting.
I also suggested a monetary union, which would mean goodbye Euro and Greece. I would still want to keep a fixed rate to the Euro, though. Better for exports. Norway ALREADY pays to the EU because you are a member of the European economic and free trade associations. You would have to pay a very little more. And anyway, perhaps after the NU was formed, there would be a majority wanting out of the EU. I personally don't hope so, but I want the NU more than the EU, if I can't have both.
>>559339270 Except the EU is already quite dysfunctional... We should at least not be part of the EU from the start, maybe have democratic elections for different regions later on. However, immigration over our borders should be determined by the central government (suggestibly situated in Gothenburg), which means we'd have to go against some EU basics.
>>559344113 When it comes to NATO, they have had no Oil wars. The war you are thinking about is Iraq, which was not NATO. NATO was Afghanistan though, and the only time in the history of the alliance, that it has actually been used.
The leftwing want to "save the world" so they open the borders to anyone with a sob story.
The rightwing want to fuck with the unions so they need masses of unwashed kebab to be cheap labor. They also want to tie their own hands so that they can dismantle the welfare systems and privatize pension funds etc.
What the leftwingers don't realize is that these people are scammers and the real refugees who we SHOULD let in, are still back home dying.
What the rightwingers don't understand is that these monkeys don't actually work for a living so only half their plan works. Meanwhile we all lose.
>>559339294 The Gripen did beat f22s in red flag though... Although you could argue this was the pilots and not the planes that caused that. And the point of Gripen is to be cheap, easy to maintain, and capable of landing pretty much anywhere. Originally planned for "guerilla air operations" in Sweden where they built roads big enough to serve as temporary air fields, it has also been selected to patrol remote areas in brazil, etc. It has a great turn-around time, and for its cost it performs ridiculously well. What will win in a fight between five Gripen NGs and one F35 for the same price?
As for the s-tank it has no turret to improve armament and to serve as a defensive tank hunter. It was great for defending against advancing tanks, which is what it was designed to do. What about the CV90? The AK5C? The Archer system? The AT4CS? the Gotland class subs? The Visby class corvettes? etc. Sweden produces some grade a shit dude.
>All Nordic countries out of NATO. >Become Factor Three against Russia and allies and EU and US. >Start building nukes >Only wear Viking clothing at U.N. >Threaten nations with pillaging if they don't shut their shit.
Why Norway is skeptical of unions. After the bubonic plague fucked up everyone in Scandinavia, Denmark, Sweden and Norway joined in a union. After a while Sweden fucked off and Norway ended up being Denmarks bitch for 400 years and then Swedens bitch for another 100 after that because Denmark lost Norway to Sweden as booty for the Napoleonic war. So yeah, fuck unions, fuck unions all the way.
S-tank could engage as rapidly as its contemporary M60, had a far lower silhouhette, and better armor without devoting weight to a high CD turret. Such a design could be done even better now, and would rival the worlds greatest tank-killer, the StuG.
>>559340808 The USSR employed pathetic tactics and was severely weakened during the winter war... Later on, they adapted newer doctrines (as in Stalingrad where not even Germany could defeat them), and after WWII, they were a massive superstate. Winter war USSR was something entirely different from cold war USSR.
>>559340947 We wouldn't look for war. The military power would be to pressure Russia, Canada and the U.S. to staying away from muh arctic resources, and it would bring with it lots of jobs, tech development and economic growth. In this day and age, wars can't be wage with force. Today, wars are fought by showing off your massive arsenals and fucking shit up through proxy wars like Syria.
Instead of nukes you have 500 guys who know a lot about chemistry and 500 one-way plane tickets.
6 months after we get invaded, the invading nation suddenly has shit blow up all over their country.
In all honesty, I have a hard time understanding why the muslimfags don't do this. If you're an ISISfag, would you rather fight soldiers in -your- home or would you rather blow up civilians in -his- home?
>>559346301 Upon forming the Union, there should also be an election for membership. I for still think the benefits of the EU outweigh the drawbacks, but membership should of course be a democratic decision. The NU would actually give Scandinavia way more power in the EU
>>559347605 The point of nukes IS that you don't need to use them. Also, medieval weapons didn't seem to work too well for Poland against 1940s panzer (and those Polish hussars were seriously badass), so why would they work against 21st century laser guided bombs and cruise missiles?
>>559341439 Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark had all declared armed neutrality. That is, unless they were attacked they would not attack. Sweden broke this declarations as much as they could without being fucked over by the allies or axis. Do you mean Sweden should have attacked the Soviet Union head on, which meant complete isolation and soviet clearance to fuck Swedish shipping lines over best the could? Sweden was just as much a pussy as the rest of scandinavia, they just got lucky.
>>559348097 Yeah, but you don't address problems by playing at being viking... Again, this should be a modern country. We can have strict and fair immigration, but this shouldn't be something based on racism (So the wrong fucking forum).
>>559348316 The thing is that once you are at war with a country, that country will probably start rounding up all countrymen of yours that are behind enemy lines. That happened with Japanese people living in the US during WWII.
Thread replies: 309 Thread images: 60
Thread DB ID: 6900
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.