I did actually spy the nuke away prior to this announcement. Im just waiting for SOLID to fall on their sword and nuke me, choke on their words in public or take the classy way out and say that "it doesnt matter because you did it before we announced this". If this does go nuclear Valhallan nukes will only fall as far as SOLIDs shores.

Either way SOLID will be loosing some more nukes after update courtesy of me, whether they know it or not.... Though I really hope they do find the scallywag out

Hey Bob, in case you didn't notice, that spied nuke was before this announcement

kthxbai

I wonder what awesome alliance was the first to think of the Spying nukes = nuclear attacks policy?

They were probably pretty SOLID thinkers.

Throw the tomato now...

Ah, I didn't notice that, my mistake

Bigwoody: Spying away nukes is a perfectly good course of tactical action. Baiting an alliance that has a nuclear policy in an attempt to claim the victim when they strike as they said they would is classless.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...st&p=820823

It appears Hyperion only read half this thread. There goes my Environment

We didn't spy away any nukes...I'm just observant.

But nonetheless, we reserve the right to spy away nukes, and will continue to do so across all our engagements regardless of how anyone wants to respond. And if we get nuked in a sanctioned attack, we will respond spectacularly.

Have I ever told you how much I want you, smallwoody?

Oh, good times...


It's magic.

It's a mystery.

I see MK is planning on taking the neutral route

My OP still stands, our policy is SOLID's policy, as I can not ammend my post due to the thread being locked I will say this here, Hyperion's policy is the same as SOLIDs.

Gee SOLID, last time I checked, all weapons are in play in War, not the ones you'd like to be used.

Good show then. I'd rather not see outsiders turn this war nuclear.

Stupid internet

please ignore

Brilliant political move!


(It had to be said. )

Haha.

But seriously, the policy is ridiculous.

So, are you advocating first strike nukes?

First strike nukes are always in the toolbox.

But we don't intend to nuke first, by choice.

I thought you guys had no nukes, then i remembered the nuke icon had moved sides o/ admin he works in mysterious ways.

o/ SOLID!

I agree with Sharpe.


And with this amendment I agree with this policy.

Luckily for everyone, BnT did his spy op before this policy was announced, as Pansy so rightly said, so we'll ignore that one.


Wow. Props. I miss that phrase.

I did not say that, however, I will not discount it out of hand.

I know IRON's policy on first strike nukes.

However, spying away nukes is fair game IMO

So you would like your allies to get nuked because of you? Way to show your colors.

You should read the rest of this thread before judging my words... and if you have, I am sorry for you.

Spying could well be the first step in a nuke first strike.

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

Mhmm...that makes tonight like the LA Riots, then.

(The LA Riots was a tech raid of mine where some agents decided to shoplift nukes from a nation firing them.)

I'll remember to lock the doors and board up the windows, then.

Good luck with that

Cos your defcon went really easy

As far as i am concerned spying away nukes is a perfectly legal means of warfare as are nuclear weapons if sanctioned by an alliances leadership. They are the most extreme type of weaponry and as such should only be used in extreme situations, using them to retaliate to spying is one of the most ridiculous policies i have heard during my time here in CN. IRON will continue to spy away nukes as conventional means of warfare, any sanctioned nuclear attack on IRON by any alliance will be met with full and immediate retaliation. Test this at your peril.

wow, your smart, too!

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?

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.

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.

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...

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 >_>

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...

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.

I like the spy attack part.

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

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.

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



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.



I never was a good dancer

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?

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

Quite true



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.

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

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.