Jump to content

WMD, Space Weapons, and Kinetic Strike


Kankou
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. WMD: We could perhaps discussion the definition of a WMD in the context of CNRP, and also perhaps change the 50 IG CM replenishing system that we have right now. The ambiguity of the boundaries of WMD, including yield, and the way the daily replenishing system can potentially contribute to lengthening of war seems to be contrary against the standards of RP.

2. Space weapons: Basically, aside from the formerly GM-imposed "no space weapon", there has been no real concrete definition of space warfare, with conflicting interpretations and the ground-to-space bias. I believe with the players now having the power to choose, it is time to do some frank discussions on defining space warfare and regulating space war RPs, including ground-to-space, space-to-ground, and space-to-space.

3. Kinetic strike: Short and simple. What is kinetic strike, and how should we use this in CNRP? As part of CM or nuke stats? Furthermore, given the occasionally physically impossible damages people portray with kinetic strikes, shall we even allow it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Well, as it stands now, WMD's are limited to IG nukes and potential CM's. With Stronger nuclear weapons being limited to the actual nukes you have IG, and all else combined, including biological, chemical, EMP's, and tactical nukes, are limited to the potential 50 CM count. However, I am not familiar with the precise rules of regenerating such weapons.

2. Personally, I believe that the rule regarding space warfare is outdated...we allow sat-killers, but we don't allow a space-based weapons platform to shoot the other direction. At least the last time I checked. Space to space battles are a grey area that are not fully defined, I believe.

3. Kinetic strike, short and simple, is one of those things that I thought were banned...basically super-accelerating a rod of some size at a specific target and using the kinetic energy of the impact on the target area to produce results similar to bombs of various outputs. Depending on the size, should either be relegated to the CM count, or if they are large enough, the nuke count.

Edited by Subtleknifewielder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346298507' post='3026552']
1. WMD: We could perhaps discussion the definition of a WMD in the context of CNRP, and also perhaps change the 50 IG CM replenishing system that we have right now. The ambiguity of the boundaries of WMD, including yield, and the way the daily replenishing system can potentially contribute to lengthening of war seems to be contrary against the standards of RP.

2. Space weapons: Basically, aside from the formerly GM-imposed "no space weapon", there has been no real concrete definition of space warfare, with conflicting interpretations and the ground-to-space bias. I believe with the players now having the power to choose, it is time to do some frank discussions on defining space warfare and regulating space war RPs, including ground-to-space, space-to-ground, and space-to-space.

3. Kinetic strike: Short and simple. What is kinetic strike, and how should we use this in CNRP? As part of CM or nuke stats? Furthermore, given the occasionally physically impossible damages people portray with kinetic strikes, shall we even allow it?
[/quote]

1 - I think the system is fine, chemical and large fuel air bombs have regular replenishment, but large biological weapons now require WRC possession.

2 - I think we SHOULD be able to bring down space stations and bombard the moon. I am also in favour of space assets having the ability to defend themselves from attack whilst in space. Attacks on satellites would be a 25% chance to intercept PER missile fired at it, and larger structures like stations or moon bases should get 60% interception chance to defend themselves per missile fired at them.

This is based on IG missile defences and SDI percentages of 25% and 60% respectivly.

3 - Kinetic warheads on missiles I don't have a problem with, but tungston rods being fired into space like a missile and back down is just a cheeky method of getting around the "no rods from god" rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: I don't think anyone actually tried to have their full 50 the next day, at least not in any war I fought.

2: Anything in orbit and used as part of war is a legitimate target, flavor stuff is not. I do not believe satellites or space stations should have the ability to defend themselves due to the immense power needs for proper defenses and the fact the use of weapons in space is mostly theoretical due to the various real life treaties banning weaponization. Space-to-ground ia a definite no and space-to-space is non-canon.

3: An ICBM with a kinetic package is not even comparable to a rod from god, there are more stages where the former can be intercepted and due to the fact the missile needs to be put in the air the packages are a lot less heavy than the theoretical rods would be, finally their deployment also happens at a much later stage in orbit thus a lot of kinetic power gets lost. Their destructive power as such is limited while they can be more easily stopped. They are also already considered part of the non-nuclear WMD count.

Edited by Centurius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain firmly against space warfare except through voluntary mutual agreement. Anyone who knows much about space warfare knows that the technology in place to defend space from space is nothing compared to the ease of which it is to acquire a ASAT with a saturation capability. The cost of building and placing a single defensive satellite into orbit is the cost of more than enough ASATs to overwhelm it. The cost of fuel for a directed energy weapon means that you can probably only intercept a few missiles before having to refuel your satellite ([u]and yes it is beyond the means of most including large nations to put a 30-40 size satellite constellation into LEO with large nuclear reactors[/u]). Further the number of targets that can be engaged are relatively small. In regards to using a kinetic base weapon the physics are more tricky. First you have to deal with the fact that when firing a kinetic based weapon the weapon will change the orbit of the satellite, therefore every time its used you need to expend sufficient thrust to counteract the force from the firing of the kinetic weapon. Secondly unlike with a energy based weapon you need to have the projectile account for the vector motion of both projectiles, so the physics there are equally as hard. Even the most hardent space warfare theorists think that developing either type of constellation basically requires a massive resource commitment from a military super power to do. People like to lol and say economies don't matter in CN RP, but for christ sake there needs to be a line of common sense for military weaponry not quantified by the Cyber Nations gaming system itself.

In regards to the rod from god = ICBM argument, I agree with him the argument has largely been debunked as a red herring. Such weapons as have been repeatedly said, just like all weapons such as when we allowed Lyn to fire Icarus in substitute for nukes, are still subject to the same defensive restrictions that the weapon they are replacing. Whether Lyn wants to go into the future and have a nuke be a space laser, or Sarah wants a retro steam punk doomsday device, if they count as a nuke, people should RP damage equal to a nuke, and they can be stopped by SDI like a nuke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1346326676' post='3026606']3 - Kinetic warheads on missiles I don't have a problem with, but tungston rods being fired into space like a missile and back down is just a cheeky method of getting around the "no rods from god" rule.
[/quote]
With the change of the GM regime (as in the system), technically the "no rods from god" rule can also be shot down if the community wishes so. I'm basically bringing up the issue.

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1346334316' post='3026619']
1: I don't think anyone actually tried to have their full 50 the next day, at least not in any war I fought.[/quote]
There was a war like that an year ago, when all sides were guilty.

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1346334316' post='3026619']2: Anything in orbit and used as part of war is a legitimate target, flavor stuff is not. I do not believe satellites or space stations should have the ability to defend themselves due to the immense power needs for proper defenses and the fact the use of weapons in space is mostly theoretical due to the various real life treaties banning weaponization. Space-to-ground ia a definite know and space-to-space is non-canon.[/quote]
My point is simple: Instead of this "flavor" nonsense, we should make all forms of space warfare canon and also restrict the ability of people to put into space whatever (satellites, space stations, shapeships). What you're saying is basically the same thing as the ground-to-space bias which I am against.

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1346334316' post='3026619']Their destructive power as such is limited while they can be more easily stopped. They are also already considered part of the non-nuclear WMD count.[/quote]
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105517&view=findpost&p=2961235"]We had someone who RPed damages beyond what was possible with the specifications.[/url]

PS: The example is to show that most people do not know how powerful or weak a kinetic strike would be. We should take this into consideration when discussing kinetic strikes.

Edited by Kankou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346338217' post='3026632']
With the change of the GM regime (as in the system), technically the "no rods from god" rule can also be shot down if the community wishes so. I'm basically bringing up the issue.[/quote]
Why should we eliminate the "no rods from god" rule? Give me some actual, legitimate reason why.

[quote]
There was a war like that an year ago, when all sides were guilty.
[/quote]
Link?

[quote]
My point is simple: Instead of this "flavor" nonsense, we should make all forms of space warfare canon and also restrict the ability of people to put into space whatever (satellites, space stations, shapeships). What you're saying is basically the same thing as the ground-to-space bias which I am against.
[/quote]
Again, why should we make this canon? Again, give some actual, legitimate reasons why.

[quote]
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105517&view=findpost&p=2961235"]We had someone who RPed damages beyond what was possible with the specifications.[/url]

PS: The example is to show that most people do not know how powerful or weak a kinetic strike would be. We should take this into consideration when discussing kinetic strikes.
[/quote]
I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1, WMDs: Meh, current rules are relatively sufficient. It's sort of silly for anyone to have more than 50 MOABs, not to mention replenishing their number so quickly, but I haven't seen where it brought a big problem into an RP.

#2, space weapons: While possible, weaponry in space requires a -massive- investment in platforms to actually be capable of using them, and in that, Triyun and Cent got it pretty much right that it's ridiculously expensive even with appropriate infrastructure, and even then much of it is theoretical.
Basically, Triyun and Cent said what needs to be said already.

#3, kinetic strikes: People completely [i]overestimate[/i] the power even the [b]biggest[/b] practical rod from god could have. These weapons are, unlike nuclear bombs and missiles, precision weaponry and bunker busters. They devastate, in the worst cases, an area perhaps 70, 80 meters in diameter, and that's 5 ton tungsten rods with rocket engines strapped to the back. This is at best light MOAB power and nowhere near the force even the Hiroshima bomb delivered.
They just run and cry that these rods are unstoppable - but the same rules that apply to nukes or CM-class WMDs can be used to bring mechanical failure, mistargeting and so many other errors into the system that the 60% chance of interception is instead a 60% chance of failure to even launch the rod, or misfiring is so it burns up in the atmosphere. There's plenty of opportunities to make these weapons possible, yet give them the same failure rates as -any- other nuke or CM type weapon.
And being in space - depending on how far out - they're just as easy to destroy utterly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1346338813' post='3026637']
As I recall the point of that attack was not the initial blast area but shake up the ground to weaken the structural integrity of tunnels in an area you were RPing as deluged with rain since the Ford Administration.
[/quote]
Obviously you have a problematic memory. The attack in question was to wipe out troops, not destroy tunnels. It says so right in the post:

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335304765' post='2958631']
[b]This was rapidly followed on by bombing the complex areas with Twelve B-11 bombers using small diameter bombs enmasse to saturate the exposed target areas[/b]. The Tianxia Launch Loop was used to launch up a two stage fractional orbital rod bombardment bundle. Using the Launch Loop to put up the massive weapon a second stage booster would put it into a polar orbit for part of the way before deorbiting a bundle of three tungsten rods down straight onto the enemy force. [b]The result would be that they'd melt upon impact creating a massive area effect triple blast on the targets.[/b][/quote]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346338960' post='3026639']Why should we eliminate the "no rods from god" rule? Give me some actual, legitimate reason why.[/quote]
Putting it up for discussion, since I don't know the sentiments of the players.

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346338960' post='3026639']Link?[/quote]
Korean war.

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346338960' post='3026639']Again, why should we make this canon? Again, give some actual, legitimate reasons why.[/quote]
Why should we make it non-canon? The sole reason why we made space warfare non-canon was because of the "no space warfare" "rule" set up by the mods. The problem here is that the underlining reason for space warfare being non-canon is no longer in affect unless the players want it to be in effect.

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346338960' post='3026639']I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Care to elaborate?[/quote]
Exaggerated damages that would be physically impossible based on the weapon in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346353734' post='3026690']
Putting it up for discussion, since I don't know the sentiments of the players.[/quote]
That doesn't answer my question. If you made the topic, obviously you have some sentiments on the subject at hand.

[quote]
Korean war.
[/quote]
That doesn't look like a link to me.

[quote]
Why should we make it non-canon? The sole reason why we made space warfare non-canon was because of the "no space warfare" "rule" set up by the mods. The problem here is that the underlining reason for space warfare being non-canon is no longer in affect unless the players want it to be in effect.[/quote]
Answer me this: How many players can reasonably project power into space? How many of those are actually advanced enough to make space warfare practical?

Edited by Markus Wilding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346356521' post='3026708']That doesn't answer my question. If you made the topic, obviously you have some sentiments on the subject at hand.[/quote]
Wouldn't mind there being such weapons, provided that they use realistic stats.


[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346356521' post='3026708']That doesn't look like a link to me.[/quote]
You can search for it easily. It's not something obscure.


[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346356521' post='3026708']Answer me this: How many players can reasonably project power into space? How many of those are actually advanced enough to make space warfare practical?[/quote]
1. At least 1/2 of CNRP if they wish to.
2. At least 1/3 of CNRP

3. Main problem is the asymmetrical situation in CNRP where one can spam all the ground-to-space weapons they wish without the space assets having countermeasures. Should we regulate space warfare, we can also regulate ground-to-space weapons.

Edited by Kankou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346357096' post='3026711']
Wouldn't mind there being such weapons, provided that they use realistic stats.[/quote]
Alright. Anything else that can go into why we should allow them?

[quote]
You can search for it easily. It's not something obscure.
[/quote]
Generally when I ask for a link, [i]I want a link.[/i] I don't care if it's something easily found, give me the link when I ask for it.

[quote]
1. At least 1/2 of CNRP if they wish to.
2. At least 1/3 of CNRP

3. Main problem is the asymmetrical situation in CNRP where one can spam all the ground-to-space weapons they wish without the space assets having countermeasures. Should we regulate space warfare, we can also regulate ground-to-space weapons.
[/quote]
Where are you getting these numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346359657' post='3026723']
Alright. Anything else that can go into why we should allow them?[/quote]
Given that the sole problem is economical, orbital bombardment is possible while not having some megaton-class damage, for it's more akin to a tactical nuclear strike. Furthermore, we can always use the 60% possibility for all uses to take into account malfunctioning.

How about you give a reason so as to why we shouldn't?

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346359657' post='3026723']Generally when I ask for a link, [i]I want a link.[/i] I don't care if it's something easily found, give me the link when I ask for it.[/quote]
Here you go, your laziness: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102852

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346359657' post='3026723']Where are you getting these numbers?[/quote]
Simple IG stats. Any nation above 2000 tech has the technology, and any nation above 7,000 infra should have the theoretical economy to have such capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about putting weapons into space for the sole reason of bombarding enemies. I don't think I need to recant what others have said on the economic and physics-side of it, but good Lord come on. Why do we need rods from god? Why do we need a massive weapon system that makes no logical sense? What motivation does ANYONE have for weaponizing space?

Simply put, the logic behind it is faulty (We should because we can).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To avoid all the problems associated with firing an ICBM against an enemy from far off. Why face the potential of getting your missile shot down by various allies of that enemy when you can just shoot something from space? For that matter, how is this different from using a space bomber, as in launching a bomber into space which does its mission and lands back on earth? The end result is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who actually uses space bombers? Who is seriously going to consider rods from god, even if they were allowed? Honestly, give me a list of players who you [i]know[/i] would consider this. I'm having a hard time buying the fact that we have enough players who want to use these that they want this rule overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a list of people who would oppose? Supposing this is put to a vote, there might be a lot of people who don't care either way, leaving a minority of people saying yes or no. Unlike other issues, this is relatively minor and thus wouldn't be highly contested in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I've read this wrong, and I may have but Kankou, are you seriously proposing that we solve problems inspired by long-range ICBM's by weaponizing space? Sure, those pose problems and often enough they're hard to get to their target (allies and such, as you said) but it'll be solved by allowing serious weaponry in [i]space[/i]?

Hm, I can't seem to reach the itch on my back, good thing there's a satellite than can shoot a laser from space to scratch it for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346367427' post='3026754']
How about a list of people who would oppose? Supposing this is put to a vote, there might be a lot of people who don't care either way, leaving a minority of people saying yes or no. Unlike other issues, this is relatively minor and thus wouldn't be highly contested in the first place.
[/quote]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1346367615' post='3026756']
To get the restriction removed, one step in freeing up and regulating space warfare.

I thought it was pretty obvious.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I must be missing the logic here. So you're saying we should put it to a vote because only a minority cares anyway? This isn't making any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...