"For the Love of God, Think of the Children!"

[Sturm Soldat]

[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.

[legion-x]

nukes dont do as much devastation as they used too so its not really needed

[KagetheSecond]

I lied.

Edited August 19, 2010 by KagetheSecond

[D34th]

For the sake of role-playing I'd like to agree with that, but strategically talking this convention left a bad taste in my mouth since one of the reasons of "The League" had no chance in GW II and GW III was because they couldn't use nukes.

[Sturm Soldat]

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.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Sturm Soldat

[New Frontier]

This does nothing but hold back its signatories. Gondor refuses to sign such a foolish compact.

OOC: Take it to the CNRP area.

[nippy]

[quote name='Sturm Soldat' timestamp='1282161713' post='2421905']
it's merely a treaty stating that all co-signers will not engage in nuclear war unless first attacked by nuclear weaponry.
[/quote]

OOOOOOOH....in that case, not a snowball's chance in hell.

[Sturm Soldat]

[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?

[New Frontier]

[quote name='Sturm Soldat' timestamp='1282162490' post='2421923']
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?
[/quote]
Except that some alliances have a much higher rate of MPs/nukes than others do.

[Sturm Soldat]

[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.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Sturm Soldat' timestamp='1282163088' post='2421933']
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]
But as a smaller alliance, your nations are more likely to be outnumbered, facing 3v1 odds. By nuking all three and only eating one nuke, you're dealing way more damage than you're taking.

[nippy]

[quote name='Sturm Soldat' timestamp='1282162490' post='2421923']
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?
[/quote]

Not the point. You're basically expecting alliances to sign a pointless document that could be used against them should they happen to violate the terms. It's pointless for the same reasons you described.

[bart416]

There is absolutely no reason not to use nukes...

[Big Z]

Why would anyone sign such a document? Nuclear first strikes are a staple of wars nowadays. Intentionally limiting yourself on what type of warfare you can wage would be extremely foolhardy.

[Sturm Soldat]

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.

[lonewolfe2015]

Sturm, you know as well as I do that we love our nukes

There is no way around nuclear strikes, while the principle is true (not to use them on raiding, and in some cases limited wars without their use for fun) but they are simply a staple of military exchanges now.

There is not harsh enough penalties to warrant being non-nuclear in conflicts, and there is no reason to impose artificial tariffs on nuclear strikes because it will put you at a disadvantage.

[Sturm Soldat]

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

[Louisa]

[quote name='Sturm Soldat' timestamp='1282163839' post='2421951']
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.
[/quote]

Yes, but apart from the actual nuclear impact (which no treaty could really prevent) the GRL effects every one the same. Very fair and proper. Of course, incomes drop for a while, but just think how happy your Exchequer will be when the wars are over and the GRL slowly descends into calmer seas -- suddenly you will have so much cash that you almost cannot understand how rich you are. It will be like Christmas when you was a child!

[Heft]

Oh, well this makes my post in that other thread a lot more obvious.

But anyway, what "went wrong" was that the League forces lost GWII/III partly because of their adherence to the convention, and afterwards it didn't provide the Initiative with any strategic benefit, so it was rather unceremoniously discarded by most alliances and forgotten about.

[bart416]

That convention was an even bigger failure than putting GATO members in charge of the league military leadership...

[potato]

No. Simply no. You're meant to break things when you go to war. Otherwise, you're doing something wrong.

I've been nuked 40+ times and not once has my nation been nuclear. For most nations, nukes are nothing more than stingy CMs nowadays. If I go to war, I'll use every single weapons in my arsenal. And that includes nukes if I have them.

[Il Impero Romano]

I can promise you that every single thing that is attacked by VE, rogue, general warfare, or otherwise, will be nuked into the ground if possible. It has been a standing order since I was SecDef that all nations must use nukes in a fight if they have them, without question.

Why? Because its a weapon at our disposal. Signing something like this is like saying you will not buy WRC's because they do to much damage, it makes zero sense.

[Bob Janova]

Ironically enough, abandoning the Convention was a great leveller, because alliances which nuke in a defensive outnumbered situation do far more damage than those which do not. Take a look at the strength profiles of the major Hegemony alliances during such non-nuclear beatdowns as GPA or NADC, and compare it with the winning alliances in nuclear ones like the current war or even the TPF war. It would actually be in the interests of SG (the current psuedo-hegemony) to push a new version, but as a large number of those alliances have grown up with a pro-nuke culture and have strong MP and SDI coverage and like to press the shiny button, it's very unlikely that they will do so.

[Grumpdogg]

Nuke early, nuke often.

[NationRuler]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1282173702' post='2422179']
but as a large number of those alliances have grown up with a pro-nuke culture and have strong MP and SDI coverage and like to press the shiny button, it's very unlikely that they will do so.
[/quote]

This man knows what he's talking about.

/me lovingly caresses his shiny red button.