Sturm Soldat

[quote name='EEjack' timestamp='1282482052' post='2426578'] I used to feel this way, that nukes were to be saved for a rainy day Now I am of the opinion that nuking early and often is the only way to fight. All the other mechanisms are warmup or icing on the nuke attack. [/quote] It's sickening. I agree with that sentiment but I believe that things should change. The reckless nuclear policy of today was not always as such, there used to be a sense of honor when it came to using them. What confuses me though is the fact that the consequences of nuclear attacks have been relatively unchanged since the reckless policies of nuking have taken a hold of so many alliances, global radiation has been capped at 5.00 since Nov. 11th 2007, and in some respects nuclear weapons cause more damage now than they did before the convention. (Especially with the WRC). I understand their significance in small alliance warfare, but large alliances using them in cakewalk wars is just unacceptable. For a new nation, that 5 environmental damage is -5 happiness and -$10 to citizen income. Right now the radiation is at 5.48. Why? Why are there bombs going off right now in a period of relative peace? Wars consist of nukes going off for 5 minutes, ruining the game for new nations for weeks on end, and then picking up the pieces for 6 months or more.

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1282259180' post='2423573'] I promise to not use nukes. [/quote] I'll take your word on that

::Sigh:: I guess it was a fool's hope. I suppose that's why the original convention failed.

The bottom line is that wars that go nuclear are not only devastating to the parties in exchange, but also the rest of the cyberverse. Nuclear exchanges used to be a big deal, now they are treated as commonplace. The big red button has been jammed in the 'on' position, and no one seems to care at all. I think that we owe it to the younger nations to limit our nuclear exchanges to the point where it doesn't cripple their economies and prohibit their growth. I don't care about the squabbles of aging, well developed nations, the younger nations are the ones who suffer, and they are our future.

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1282162690' post='2421927'] Except that some alliances have a much higher rate of MPs/nukes than others do. [/quote] Yes, but either way, the weak cannot contend with the strong, nor the small with the massive. Do you think that a nuclear first strike against a larger alliance would spark the larger alliance to consider surrender? No. What it would spark is a nuclear exchange, where predictably the smaller alliance will experience complete and utter destruction. Not only that, but the world radiation level will rise, harming both the nations not in conflict, and the nations in conflict.

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1282162154' post='2421912'] OOOOOOOH....in that case, not a snowball's chance in hell. [/quote] So, under that definition, you mean to tell me that if your nation were to attack another nation, and you were nuked first, would you not be able to nuke back? I guess I fail to see the difference. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke. This just holds back and limits the scale of that kind of a war. There's no such thing as a surprise nuclear war, Nippy. If a nation can use nuclear weapons 24 hours after a DoW, then they can wait to use them until an enemy uses them, if that enemy chooses to. Either way the better man wins, right?

This is not a non-proliferation treaty, it's merely a treaty stating that all co-signers will not engage in nuclear war unless first attacked by nuclear weaponry. In no way does it infringe upon the sovereignty of nations or alliances, it is simply a security measure to prevent the global radiation level from rising to the point where it damages the economies of non-involved parties, like smaller nations. All in all, it benefits all of Planet Bob because it promotes growth in smaller nations. However I fully understand what you mean about The League, and I'm sure that certain amendments could be made to the Convention. The whole thing is really up for discussion, in no way am I implying that the Charter needs to be brought back in the exact form it was instituted, but I am trying to get some discussion back on the topic. And yes, it is true nuclear weapons are not as devastating as they used to be. However, global radiation is still an issue when it comes to national development, particularly in smaller nations.

[center][size="6"][b]Bring The Convention Back[/b][/size][/center] It has been two and a half years since the aforementioned Convention was dissolved and declared null and void. As a smaller nation all those years ago, the nation of Oersberd was able to enjoy some of its benefits, if only for a short period of time. Now, the people of Oersberd and a great number of newer nations have noticed a disturbing trend. Since the defeat of NPO in Karma, almost every single war declared with or without a Casus Belli has been a straight up, no questions asked, nuclear conflict. Nuclear weaponry is not a weapon to be used so rashly on entire alliances, for quarrels as petty and minuscule as aiding a rogue nation, or a nation tech-raiding another alliance. No. Nuclear weapons are meant to be a deterrent [i]for [/i]war, not the primary weapon [i]of [/i]war. [center][img]http://hellgatereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/nuclear-explosion.jpg[/img][/center] This morning, ten thousand Oersberdian citizens flooded the infirmaries of our great nation, not due to natural causes like a plague or flu outbreak, but due to radiation sickness. Many thousands perished in a writhing, terrible manner, in a pile of their own bodily excretions. The survivors will not be able to function normally for a good period of time. Scientists have measured the radiation on the outskirts of our nation, some villages are experiencing 7-8 Grays of exposure, one farming community had almost 30 Grays, no one in that area survived. On average, the radiation in the cities and towns across the country are around 4 Grays, leaving many very, very ill. I have received reports in my office of children in my nation being born with crippling genetic diseases and cancer, like leukemia. Their only crime? Being a citizen of Planet Bob. [center][img]http://www.penelopeironstone.com/400influenzaepidemic.jpg[/img][/center] Yet, this morning over my irradiated coffee and pancakes I told myself that we didn't have it the worst. No, we have hospitals and we have clinics, we have the money to purchase clean-up crews to clear out the radioactive fallout that spills over into my nation from other peoples' wars. We have cancer treatment centers. We have the infrastructure, like community busing and subways, to get people to the proper infirmaries. No, we did not have it bad at all. What concerned me the most were the smaller, less developed nations that border Oersberd and the nations currently at war with each other, pointlessly slaughtering one another with nuclear exchanges that benefit neither party. Those smaller nations are the future of Planet Bob, or rather they WERE the future. The less developed nations, the children if you will, do not choose when the next nuclear exchange is, they do not trouble themselves with the petty disputes of the larger alliances with itchy trigger fingers, and they do not fully understand the implications of such conflicts. This is why we need to re-institute a form of the "For the Love of God, Think of the Children!" Convention. [center][img]http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Children.jpg[/img][/center] The old Convention made perfect sense, I do not quite understand what went wrong as I was just a young and inexperienced lad then. I call for all nations to reconsider the Convention, if not for decency's sake then for the sake of the children. Please, whoever may read this plea, consider this convention once more. [b] Preamble.[/b] The undersigned alliances, wishing to prevent the escalation of conflicts into nuclear warfare, and the horrifying devastation it brings to direct participants and innocent third parties, proudly commit to the For The Love of God, Think of the Children! Convention. [b]Article I.[/b] Each signatory joins this Convention individually, as a unilateral solemn commitment to its principles and intentions. This document does not constitute an alliance or pact between the signatories. All alliances are encouraged to add their support to this document, irrespectively of the status of their diplomatic relations with other signatories. [b]Article II.[/b] The signatory alliances pledge never to initiate nuclear aggression against any enemy, unless said enemy engages in nuclear aggression against them. [b]Article III. [/b] A. Any nuclear attack against a member of a signatory alliance is regarded as nuclear aggression against the whole alliance. If demanded by a mutual defense treaty, said attacks may be considered as nuclear aggression against other signatory alliances as well. B. If the nuclear aggressor is a member of an alliance, and said alliance does not promptly expel said member from their ranks, the whole alliance shall be considered the nuclear aggressor. [b] Article IV.[/b] A. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as limiting the right of signatory alliances to build or hold nuclear weaponry. B. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as limiting the use of conventional weaponry against any enemies. C. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as limiting the scale or form of rightful nuclear retaliation, from the moment the enemy launches the first nuclear weapon until the formal cessation of hostilities. [b]Article V.[/b] Should a signatory alliance violate Article II, their membership of this Convention is automatically revoked. Other signatories are encouraged to abandon diplomatic ties with the aggressor.