Brief SOLID Announcement, ITT: Just affirming our nuke policy Rating Options

[General Ozujsko]

SOLID, you state we will not fire nukes first ? then with your back turned you then say if you spy one of nukes we will use nukes first ?

wow your really smart

wow, your smart, too!

[FinsterBaby]

Yes, spying away nukes is fair game, but if you are caught, it is the equivalent of a nuclear attack.
It's like shoplifting. There's nothing wrong with it unless you get caught

In your opinion.

In MY opinion, its good strategy and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to prevent a nuclear attack, and do all he could to get rid of nukes.

[Gruthenia]

In your opinion.

In MY opinion, its good strategy and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to prevent a nuclear attack, and do all he could to get rid of nukes.

So what you're saying is SOLID should play into the hands of those who would do them harm by allowing their nukes to be spied away without lifting a finger?

[Authur]

So what you're saying is SOLID should play into the hands of those who would do them harm by allowing their nukes to be spied away without lifting a finger?

I think what he is saying is why would SOLID care if they are losing nukes since they are against using them.

Both sides have the ability to spy away nukes. it's not as if SOLID is at a disadvantage there. If they want to take the war nuclear fine but I think that's going to be a lot worse for them.

This post has been edited by Authur: Aug 13 2008, 05:48 PM

[Comrade Ninja]

Looks like Bill n Ted wants to start a nuclear war. It will be interesting to see if SOLID follow through with their policy or whether you can wave your willy around unharmed.

Oh we stand by our policy. Dont worry

As for nuclear strike being a good tatic. Yea, it is for a last resort. Nuclear strikes put more strain on your nation on top of war. I feel everybody would like to come out with there nation still somewhat intact.

This post has been edited by koolgecko20: Aug 13 2008, 05:50 PM

[Heracles the Gre...]

If GGA can threaten nations with ZI for entering into Peace Mode, I see no reason why SOLID can't threaten nuclear action if a nation spies away a nuke.

The world is a changing...

[KingSrqt]

Maybe it was my time in Gramlins but seriously why does everyone make such a huge deal about nukes? I have been nuked I have nuked it is just another part of war.

If you don't want to first strike nuke I respect that but if you are going to get your nukes spied away why not use them? Nukes cost a lot of cash between buying/upkeep/env effect so I don't see what the issue here is.

The stigma on nukes is something that has astounded me throughout my entire CN career.

Edit: With the amount of time I spend typing you would think I would at least have moderate typing skills >_>

This post has been edited by KingSrqt: Aug 13 2008, 05:57 PM

[Authur]

If GGA can threaten nations with ZI for entering into Peace Mode, I see no reason why SOLID can't threaten nuclear action if a nation spies away a nuke.

The world is a changing...

They can threaten and create all the policies they want. The key is can they back them up and will it be beneficial to their alliance.

In other words is losing some nukes worth getting your entire allaince nuked which is certain to occur when this policy is enforced.

This post has been edited by Authur: Aug 13 2008, 06:00 PM

[Heracles the Gre...]

They can threaten and create all the policies they want. The key is can they back them up and will it be beneficial to their alliance.

In other words is losing some nukes worth getting your entire allaince nuked which is certain to occur when this policy is enforced.

My point exactly - if an alliance sets it's terms ahead of time, and wants to follow through with their policy, then who are we to tell them what's "right or wrong"? If [insert alliance here] wants to spy away their nukes, knowing the can of worms it will open, then so be it - but I think we all can guess at what will happen when that first sanctioned nuke gets launched...

[MCRABT]

I think what he is saying is why would SOLID care if they are losing nukes since they are against using them.

Both sides have the ability to spy away nukes. it's not as if SOLID is at a disadvantage there. If they want to take the war nuclear fine but I think that's going to be a lot worse for them.

Well then creating a controversial policy which is likely to raise the odds of a war going nuclear is a little bit silly isn't it?

I find the timing of this "policy" to be quite convenient, if you guys don't want a nuclear war then don't launch nukes first, it has always been that simple. All you have done by drafting this policy at this time is raise the bar and make nuclear warfare more likely. If you want nuclear war why don't you just come out and say so instead of using this pissy policy as a means to justify it.

[lebubu]

I like the spy attack part.

[Heracles the Gre...]

Well then creating a controversial policy which is likely to raise the odds of a war going nuclear is a little bit silly isn't it?

I find the timing of this "policy" to be quite convenient, if you guys don't want a nuclear war then don't launch nukes first, it has always been that simple. All you have done by drafting this policy at this time is raise the bar and make nuclear warfare more likely. If you want nuclear war why don't you just come out and say so instead of using this pissy policy as a means to justify it.

If an Alliance came out and said "any attack on us, of any kind, will result in a nuclear strike" that's their choice and [insert alliance name] better be ready for it if they plan to attack them. Are they increasing the likleyhood of a nuclear war? Yes - but they're also going to make many nations/alliances think twice before they attack.

It's a high risk position to take, but I won't say it's wrong

[Authur]

Well then creating a controversial policy which is likely to raise the odds of a war going nuclear is a little bit silly isn't it?

I find the timing of this "policy" to be quite convenient, if you guys don't want a nuclear war then don't launch nukes first, it has always been that simple. All you have done by drafting this policy at this time is raise the bar and make nuclear warfare more likely. If you want nuclear war why don't you just come out and say so instead of using this pissy policy as a means to justify it.

Too blunt MCRABT, I was enjoying the subtly of the dance

SOILD either doesn't know their opponents very well and they think this will be a deterrent or they are just looking for an excuse to use them. I don't care either way becuase the outcome will be the same.

[MCRABT]

If an Alliance came out and said "any attack on us, of any kind, will result in a nuclear strike" that's their choice and [insert alliance name] better be ready for it if they plan to attack them.

You have a point there however it would be a highly provocative policy that likely wouldn't end well

Are they increasing the likleyhood of a nuclear war? Yes - but they're also going to make many nations/alliances think twice before they attack.

As Valhalla government has already demonstrated in this thread it takes 2 seconds to think and dismiss this policy. I can tell you that IRON regards spying away nukes as a legitimate defensive tactic and will continue to do so in war. Now lets be honest this policy was purely used to up the stakes in current on going conflicts and we all know it is completely ridiculous to claim you don't want nuclear war and then introduce policy that makes nuclear warfare more likely.

It's like saying we don't believe in shooting people but if you try and take our bullets away we will shoot you.

Too blunt MCRABT, I was enjoying the subtly of the dance

I never was a good dancer

This post has been edited by MCRABT: Aug 13 2008, 06:51 PM

[AuiNur]

It's like saying we don't believe in shooting people but if you try and take our bullets away we will shoot you.

Or, its like saying "we don't like shooting people, but if you try and take our bullets away while there is 5x the amount of firepower being aimed at us, then we will shoot you.



maybe? maybe? or am i just completely wrong?

[Pie Man]

In your opinion.

In MY opinion, its good strategy and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to prevent a nuclear attack, and do all he could to get rid of nukes.

And that is why it is our policy. Not yours.

[Heracles the Gre...]

You have a point there however it would be a highly provocative policy that likely wouldn't end well

Quite true

As Valhalla government has already demonstrated in this thread it takes 2 seconds to think and dismiss this policy. I can tell you that IRON regards spying away nukes as a legitimate defensive tactic and will continue to do so in war. Now lets be honest this policy was purely used to up the stakes in current on going conflicts and we all know it is completely ridiculous to claim you don't want nuclear war and then introduce policy that makes nuclear warfare more likely.

It's like saying we don't believe in shooting people but if you try and take our bullets away we will shoot you.

My knowledge on SOLID is limited, so it may be a possibility they thought that taking this course of action was a deterent - it's also possible that they knew it was the easiest way to find a CB for launching a "first-strike." It's likely only they know the true answer behind that. That being said, I neither condone nor condem it.

[MaGneT]

My knowledge on SOLID is limited, so it may be a possibility they thought that taking this course of action was a deterent - it's also possible that they knew it was the easiest way to find a CB for launching a "first-strike." It's likely only they know the true answer behind that. That being said, I neither condone nor condem it.

I can assure you - it's a deterrent. Not that it means much, coming from us, and. . . deterrent isn't a wrong word.

SOLID assumed that our opponents would have a similar sense of honor to us - if we won't use ours and don't touch theirs, we hope that they'd extend the same courtesy to us. If they don't, that's their prerogative and we obviously will not hold it against them.

[Bob Sanders]

tl;dr:
-SOLID will never launch a first strike nuke.
-Any SOLID nation who launches a first strike nuke is considered an enemy of SOLID.
-If a nation nukes a SOLID nation, that nation will be nuked back.
-Any known spy attempts on a SOLID nation's nuclear arsenal is considered a nuclear attack.
-If a SOLID members gets nukes destroyed by spies, investigations and preventative measures will be invoked in order for justice to be served.

o/ SOLID

Valhalla's official policy is that all nations are encouraged to use any form of spy attack they deem necessary as long as the target is at war with Valhalla and our allies.


tl;dr enjoy your glass parking lot because I will make damn sure you don't have infra left to play with after this ridiculous political announcement.

o/ Natural Selection

This post has been edited by Bob Sanders: Aug 13 2008, 09:21 PM

[Archimedes]

Well, in a state of war it is safe to assume that the people you are at war are the people that would be spying on me.

I think many agree that would be an incorrect assumption and a policy that could easily be exploited. Considering your statements I think its safe to assume the people you are fighting would not be the ones launching spy attacks but instead others trying to goad you into launching a first strike nuclear attack. If you get your nuke destroyed in a spy attack just buy another.