• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I vote Aye on the Newman-Rimbly plan. With the right safety standards and know-how, any incidents that could be caused by the power plant would be completely averted. My offer to allow the federal government to employ SinTek still stands.

- Senator Elexis Sinclaire (R - MA)
 
You know what? Since you all insist on voting, even when I tell you not to, I'll just have to open the polls now. :rolleyes: :D

Here are your options:

Newman-Rimbley (or the Atlanta plan) vs. Monniset-O'Halloran (or the Nevada plan). ((It's easier to remember places than names, in my opinion, so you can just give the place name.))

Poll:

Atlanta: 3
Nevada: 0

Polls close Thursday at 10 PM (-6 GMT).
 
((We're just to eager, bud. Voting is awesome! :p))
 
Senator Newman,you clearly underestimate the danger of those nuclear reactors.There is a 0,01% chance that your plant in Atlanta will blow up killing the people,destroying the buildings,the railways and so on.What if the Germans bomb it.Ka-boom,and nuclear plans done.We must not build it in the 48 states.Istead I propose we should build it in Alaska.Isolated and a very secret location.My only worry is how we will transfer the stuff we need up there.Trusting Canadians is not an option:p

Please consider this as a third option,and co-sponsor it if he agrees to it
Senator John Sarigis(I leader-SC)
 
Senator Newman,you clearly underestimate the danger of those nuclear reactors.There is a 0,01% chance that your plant in Atlanta will blow up killing the people,destroying the buildings,the railways and so on.What if the Germans bomb it.Ka-boom,and nuclear plans done.We must not build it in the 48 states.Istead I propose we should build it in Alaska.Isolated and a very secret location.My only worry is how we will transfer the stuff we need up there.Trusting Canadians is not an option:p

Please consider this as a third option,and co-sponsor it if he agrees to it
Senator John Sarigis(I leader-SC)

Senator Sarigis
Have you thought of that, in the current situation that Alaska is in a difficult position. As of my view, the Japanese might invade Alaska, and in that context I would not feel safe to build a top secret nuclear power plant in a place where the Japanese might attack. I believe it is more safe to place the reactor on the continent in a more or less isolated place. I will therefore give my support to the Nevada plan, which I believe will provide the best location, as it is close enough to the families of the workers, and will not be of an immediate danger for the population.

Senator Charles Beckendorf, D-MA
 
Would Wallace H. White, Jr., R-Maine work?

That'll do just fine; I'll add you to the list of Senators here in a few moments!

Poll:

Atlanta: 3
Nevada: 1
 
Senator Sarigis
Have you thought of that, in the current situation that Alaska is in a difficult position. As of my view, the Japanese might invade Alaska, and in that context I would not feel safe to build a top secret nuclear power plant in a place where the Japanese might attack. I believe it is more safe to place the reactor on the continent in a more or less isolated place. I will therefore give my support to the Nevada plan, which I believe will provide the best location, as it is close enough to the families of the workers, and will not be of an immediate danger for the population.

Senator Charles Beckendorf, D-MA

You are right Senator Beckendorf but consider that this will be finished in years.We have the time to knock the Japanese away.
 
Mr President, Senators, Chiefs, good morning. I must interject myself into this debate with a slight dose of reality. Unfortunately, most of the area to the west of Denver is not suitable for such a project at this time.

1338376760-HoI3_3.png

This map shows our current logistics chain. As you can see, all our forces in the Pacific are supplied through three small corridors.

1338376759-HoI3_2.png

Here is our current supply distribution net. As you can see, even with three supply paths, some of our forces have supply issues.

Therefore, it is the opinion of the department of war that any major construction should take place closer to the east coast than the west coast. There are only so many hours and so many trains gentlemen. We cannot interrupt supply to the fleet and troops gentlemen.

Leroy Grumman
Secretary of War.
 
I was wondering if it's too late to join this, I only recently got HoI3 but I have read through this AAR and think that I a getting an okay understanding of the game.

All are welcome!
 
Thank you! In that case here is my info.

Name: Andrew Ryan, Senator from Michigan
Born: 1907 (age 35)
Party: Republican (classical liberal)

Policy ideas:
-- Foreign policy plans: Isolation

-- Budgets for IC, including total distribution and which of the four gets what for construction purposes: Only to help the people of the United States

-- Budgets for leadership, including total distribution and which of the four gets which techs: No military developments until necessary

-- Declaring war/signing peace treaties: Declare war to defend the interests of the American people

-- Which faction we align ourselves to, if any: Isolation (Allies if need be)

-- If one of the Big Four needs to be fired/replaced: Leave it to the president

-- Input on our general deployments overseas: We must defend our land and our people

-- All decisions and law changes: High education and industry early in order to have an advanced military later on.

-- Nukes!: Yes, but do not use them unless it is necessary to protect American lives.

((I realize that some of this is out of date considering we are at war, but this is what it would have been at the beginning.))

Awesome idea for an AAR, I am looking forward to being a part of this.
 
Thank you! In that case here is my info.

Name: Andrew Ryan, Senator from Michigan
Born: 1907 (age 35)
Party: Republican (classical liberal)

Policy ideas:
-- Foreign policy plans: Isolation

-- Budgets for IC, including total distribution and which of the four gets what for construction purposes: Only to help the people of the United States

-- Budgets for leadership, including total distribution and which of the four gets which techs: No military developments until necessary

-- Declaring war/signing peace treaties: Declare war to defend the interests of the American people

-- Which faction we align ourselves to, if any: Isolation (Allies if need be)

-- If one of the Big Four needs to be fired/replaced: Leave it to the president

-- Input on our general deployments overseas: We must defend our land and our people

-- All decisions and law changes: High education and industry early in order to have an advanced military later on.

-- Nukes!: Yes, but do not use them unless it is necessary to protect American lives.

((I realize that some of this is out of date considering we are at war, but this is what it would have been at the beginning.))

Awesome idea for an AAR, I am looking forward to being a part of this.

Welcome aboard, Senator! As you are no doubt aware, we are in the midst of a poll on where to place our nuclear reactor. Feel free to cast your vote! ((I've added you to the OP.))
 
It seems that the Atlanta Plan is the best choice for this project. The risk is greater than the Nevada Plan, but Nevada does not seem feasible at this time due to supply limitations.
Senator Andrew Ryan, R-MI

((I just noticed your Senator's name. You're my new friend.))
 
((Yeah, it was either going to be Andrew Ryan or Robert House, but I thought Andrew Ryan fit better.))

((Ah, you play New Vegas too. Excellent!))