Missiles, Nukes and other nasty weapons
- nick112147
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: Uranus
- Contact:
Missiles, Nukes and other nasty weapons
Are they allowed in Anunia? I know it sounds immature but If New Germany is going to be working on a missile project (even though they claim to go under ADB), then I wish to work on a weapons program of my own.
~The great and powerful Electric Wizard of Oz
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
- nick112147
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: Uranus
- Contact:
Nukes are nukes, yes, however someone is developing them. Chemical weapons I assume are okay to use. But then again all is fair in love and war (I am the same bloody fool who said the Geneva Convention can sit and spin ).
I pretty much figure that I will not be smote by the powers that be if I use nuclear/chemical weapons, just frowned upon lol.
Anyway, thanks for the hints. And those who have not looked I am currently looking for a Minister of Defence and/or generals who are familiar with the Anunia Convention.
I pretty much figure that I will not be smote by the powers that be if I use nuclear/chemical weapons, just frowned upon lol.
Anyway, thanks for the hints. And those who have not looked I am currently looking for a Minister of Defence and/or generals who are familiar with the Anunia Convention.
~The great and powerful Electric Wizard of Oz
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
- nick112147
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: Uranus
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
To answer your question, Nick (and surely the Charter explains this well enough?), yes and no.
Well, think of it this way. How do you win? There are two ways - one - you defeat all of your enemies forces. Two - you make them so disgusted they quit the war. Unfortunately, two is far, far more common these days. Under one, civilians really don't matter. You can bomb as many cities as you like, slaughter millions, and it doesn't affect the army except for maybe making them more bloodthirsty. But for two, it matters a lot. You're betting that you won't mind being viewed as Stalin/Hitler reborn, but that your opponent, who's been backstorying all this seriously, will be psychologically hurt at the idea that millions of people have died, and quit the war. There's a name for that sort of behaviour - it's "trying to win at all costs." That's actually banned, under the charter:
Now, as I said, that's just my opinion. One of my close friends, who also agrees recwar should be gentlemanly, is happy to allow missiles for the reason Chimrigules stated - to be fair, they should cost around 25 000 - if you're expecting them to take out a whole army, that is. So it balances itself out. But I really wouldn't bet on having a large nuclear arsenal and winning that way, because chances are, if things go like they have currently, you won't be allowed to use them.
So those things could be used, but only if both sides that START a conflict agree to it. Generally, they aren't allowed. Why? Well, even among the key authors of this convention there are different schools of thought, but I'd say - because this is meant to be Recwar. That is, recreational. We're not fighting to perfectly simulate real world wars - if you want that, use ADB. We're fighting to have a bit of fun. Where do nukes fit into this? Well, you go "I fire my nuke at x location," assuming all of x's army dies. Where's the strategy in that? Also, because these weapons unfortunately tend to be used against civilians a lot. Which is something that should be avoided in fun wars. Why?III.B. Declarations of war must contain the fictional parameters of the war, such as what technology level is allowed, whether or not to allow magic, whether or not to allow nuclear weapons, and any modifications to standard Convention rules. They must also contain an end date. Where the parameters for the war are not defined, it is assumed that Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons and Magic are banned, and that any technology used must be in use (or have been in use) in real world military operations, and sufficient data must be obtained about its specifications.
Well, think of it this way. How do you win? There are two ways - one - you defeat all of your enemies forces. Two - you make them so disgusted they quit the war. Unfortunately, two is far, far more common these days. Under one, civilians really don't matter. You can bomb as many cities as you like, slaughter millions, and it doesn't affect the army except for maybe making them more bloodthirsty. But for two, it matters a lot. You're betting that you won't mind being viewed as Stalin/Hitler reborn, but that your opponent, who's been backstorying all this seriously, will be psychologically hurt at the idea that millions of people have died, and quit the war. There's a name for that sort of behaviour - it's "trying to win at all costs." That's actually banned, under the charter:
So to avoid the temptation to that, "big nasties" are simply not allowed, to keep recwarring much more gentlemanly. You should win by strategy and good backstories, not because you went around firing three missiles and saying the enemy raped all their POWs from your side.A. The Convention is intended primarily to have fun, improve literary and tactical skills, and to build micronational patriotism. Anyone caught taking the wars too seriously or trying to win at all costs will be reprimanded, banned, or disliked.
Now, as I said, that's just my opinion. One of my close friends, who also agrees recwar should be gentlemanly, is happy to allow missiles for the reason Chimrigules stated - to be fair, they should cost around 25 000 - if you're expecting them to take out a whole army, that is. So it balances itself out. But I really wouldn't bet on having a large nuclear arsenal and winning that way, because chances are, if things go like they have currently, you won't be allowed to use them.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
My justification for no nukes is this:
Sure, maybe all the nations have them, but they can't use them because of Mutually Assured Destruction. We've outlawed them in Recwar because it is just a game, and people would be tempted to use nukes anyways cuz they don't care as much as RL generals would, and then the entire Micras would explode, and no more micronationalism.
Sure, maybe all the nations have them, but they can't use them because of Mutually Assured Destruction. We've outlawed them in Recwar because it is just a game, and people would be tempted to use nukes anyways cuz they don't care as much as RL generals would, and then the entire Micras would explode, and no more micronationalism.
Bayen ronToketi
http://www.toketi.org
http://www.toketi.org
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Nukes are not weapons. They are just pointless.
guy 1: "Imma nuke you"
*nuke*
guy 2: "Oh shit, Imma nuke you back so you'll die anyway"
*nuke*
guy 3: "Hey. that damaged my crops"
*nuke*
guy 4: "MI OILZ OH NOES!!!"*
*nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke*
guy 5: "well... there goes the middle east... that'll be wasteland for a few hundred years... oh well, nothing that can be helped"
*nuclear waste dumped*
guy 6: "you guys shouldn't do that."
guys 3-5: "oh well."
guys 1-2: *dead*
*may or may not be America.
Carl Sagan once said that nuclear war is 2 mortal enemies, standing waist deep in oil, one with 3 matches, one with 5.
An eye for an eye in nuclear war and it'll be 4.5 billion more years before the crust is solid again.
guy 1: "Imma nuke you"
*nuke*
guy 2: "Oh shit, Imma nuke you back so you'll die anyway"
*nuke*
guy 3: "Hey. that damaged my crops"
*nuke*
guy 4: "MI OILZ OH NOES!!!"*
*nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke* *nuke*
guy 5: "well... there goes the middle east... that'll be wasteland for a few hundred years... oh well, nothing that can be helped"
*nuclear waste dumped*
guy 6: "you guys shouldn't do that."
guys 3-5: "oh well."
guys 1-2: *dead*
*may or may not be America.
Carl Sagan once said that nuclear war is 2 mortal enemies, standing waist deep in oil, one with 3 matches, one with 5.
An eye for an eye in nuclear war and it'll be 4.5 billion more years before the crust is solid again.
- nick112147
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: Uranus
- Contact:
Okay so that is a valid point. But what about chemical weapons? They're not as destructive(they don't leave a mile wide crater and vaporize an entire city). There is no "IMMA NUKE U BIYOCH!", with that. Chemical weapons dissipate within hours to a week or two. So a SCUD with a chlorine warhead would be permissible? And of course what about conventional explosive missiles? Like the aforementioned SCUDs etc? Cosidering their yield is that of a few kilograms of TNT, not a kiloton.
A short or medium range missile is not going to spawn what spangle described I think. Neither would the conservative use of chemical weapons.
A short or medium range missile is not going to spawn what spangle described I think. Neither would the conservative use of chemical weapons.
~The great and powerful Electric Wizard of Oz
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
It's the "keeping it conservative" that's hard. In the end, it can be used, but you have to agree to before hand.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- nick112147
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: Uranus
- Contact:
True, very true. But if you use the $5,000 bullet $50 gun philosophy you can get them to be conservative. If a SCUD costs 20,000 OrBats, people would use them very sparingly. Larger nations would always have more missiles than a smaller one but that is realistic anyway.
~The great and powerful Electric Wizard of Oz
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact: