The GM's Hall

[Hereno]

Wow, you must be some paragon of virtue to not reroll after ragenuking. Please, tell us more about some of the wondrous deeds you've done - we'd love to know.

I regularly "ragenuke" people who couldn't care less about their nation and don't actually have interest in taking the RP seriously. :rolleyes:
 

I respect that you want your nukes to be treated fairly.   That is all I am trying to do too.  I actually put a bit of research into nukes as best as I could (given that there's only been two nuclear explosions in history and they were 70 years ago).  No more than 5 miles of damage per nuke, is what I was able to find.   
 
My best guess is that the Alvonia-Hungary border is at least 300 miles long, probably more.  So  I am unable to see how realistically 5 nukes would kill  500,000 to 600,000 worth of troops, stretched out over 300+ miles, would all be wiped out.
 
I RPed what I thought was a fair-to-both-sides  estimate of 50,000 troops deaths, and I RPed that Budapest has billions of dollars worth of devastaion, meaning a good deal has been completely destroyed by your nukes.  That is what seemed like a fair estimate to me, based on the information I was able to find.

Damage to infrastructure stops long before damage to flesh does, and 50,000 deaths would have a lot more injured people who would, functionally, not be able to fight anymore. Considering you moved the entire rest of your troops towards Alvonia, I'm assuming you calculated zero wounded or vehicles damaged/destroyed.

[Triyun]

Zoot, you are not a GM you cannot void my claim. I know how satellites work.. and I have mine in LEO at 0 eccentricity in evenly spaced orbital rings scanning over 21,200 km2 of the earth's surface every  5 seconds with radar and imaging systems. You may be missed in a couple passes, but your ships WOULD be located and imaged.. and eventually once imaged, they would be identified. Saying fleets are a needle in a haystack on the world's ocean is a myth. The earth's circumference is only 40,075 km. That should give you an idea how much ground I'm covering.
 
I can cover 366,336,000 km2 in a 24 hour period. Surface area of earth: surface area of earth 510.1 million km². Number of passes needed for total coverage: 1.5

This is verges on disbelief. If people are complaining about the number of stealth fighters the number of imagers and cost of analysis far outweighs that for affordability I'm calling horse shit.

[Hereno]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/123344-polish-problems/page-2#entry3293338

need 11 sdi rolls... one nuke per city, after the highest pop one gets next, keep rolling till the second is nuked, repeat until all are done Edited August 7, 2014 by Hereno

[Mr Director]

While it's not really my buissiness, you did state that Miland was holding TEN ICBMs in reserve. Where did the eleventh one come from?

[Hereno]

While it's not really my buissiness, you did state that Miland was holding TEN ICBMs in reserve. Where did the eleventh one come from?

We can make one new nuke per day, just like in-game (or two per day with a WRC but I don't have one).

[Mr Director]

Bleh, forgot the construction of new nukes.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Mr Director

[Zoot Zoot]

Seems hereno already requested nuke rolls for me.

 

Might as well return the favour. Roll him 25 SDI rolls please.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

This is verges on disbelief. If people are complaining about the number of stealth fighters the number of imagers and cost of analysis far outweighs that for affordability I'm calling horse !@#$.

 

 

It would only require (at minimum) a crew of 36 to man those radar and imaging stations.. on 3 hour shifts, total of 108 people. And I assure you that the United States owns and operates at the very least.. 36 satellites.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/solutions/space-weapons/ucs-satellite-database.html

 

In fact, it has 502. Therefore, no, it's not, I'm actually doing it on the cheap so far. There are government agencies in reality that far exceed thousands in size. Trust me, i'm within theoretical budgetary constraints.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Euphaia]

As you've correctly pointed out though, I do  care about both my nation and my RP, though. 

[Triyun]

Many of which have completely different capability.  It is not that many people to staff it AND do analysis.  NRO has 3000 employees.  According to the latest IISS 2013 Military Balance (its behind a paywall, and I'm not going to post copy righted material but most with a university account can go on an access to to verify, and is considered the single best open source information for military analysts on this sort of stuff and what's actually operational:

 

China: 20 IMINT 11 ELINT/SIGINT  

US:  11 IMINT  21 ELINT/SIGINT

 

That's the tippy top high end.  Neither independently track a carrier, you need both, you might get lucky and see a carrier in a 600 kilometer diameter picture but it takes a while to find it and if you want higher resolution you have to zoom in.  

Edited August 7, 2014 by Triyun

[Rudolph]

@Hereno:

1-60 Failure, 61-100, Success.



5 hits, 6 misses.

[hr]
 
@Zoot:

1-60 Failure, 61-100, Success



11 hits, 14 misses

Source: http://www.random.org/

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Many of which have completely different capability.  It is not that many people to staff it AND do analysis.  NRO has 3000 employees.  According to the latest IISS 2013 Military Balance (its behind a paywall, and I'm not going to post copy righted material but most with a university account can go on an access to to verify, and is considered the single best open source information for military analysts on this sort of stuff and what's actually operational:

 

China: 20 IMINT 11 ELINT/SIGINT  

US:  11 IMINT  21 ELINT/SIGINT

 

That's the tippy top high end.  Neither independently track a carrier, you need both, you might get lucky and see a carrier in a 600 kilometer diameter picture but it takes a while to find it and if you want higher resolution you have to zoom in.  

 

Yes, and I have 36, not 21.. and I have fewer total satellites.. The resolution problem is why I've paired the imaging systems with radar.. so that the computers can detect the carriers and target the camera with some human guidance. Given that carriers also use their own radar.. very likely if at any point a carrier turns on its radar, I'd detect it on the passive instruments as well making it an even more precise fix.

 

I was giving personnel for the immediate task of operating the satellites. I'd have more that helped assemble the data and distrbute it. My version of the NRO. But that's hardly budget busting. I seeeee youuuu.... You're on a boat!

Edited August 7, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

 

Yes, and I have 36, not 21.. and I have fewer total satellites.. The resolution problem is why I've paired the imaging systems with radar.. so that the computers can detect the carriers and target the camera with some human guidance. Given that carriers also use their own radar.. very likely if at any point a carrier turns on its radar, I'd detect it on the passive instruments as well making it an even more precise fix.

 

I was giving personnel for the immediate task of operating the satellites. I'd have more that helped assemble the data and distrbute it. My version of the NRO. But that's hardly budget busting. I seeeee youuuu.... You're on a boat!

 

No.  Because you're limited by current IRL technology for military units which that is.  There isn't a satellite at least that I know of that includes both radar and imagery on the same platform.  They are different.  You need to orbit two at a time, not one at a time.  Beyond that radar sats don't really have radar always turned on as it burns power, and in space because it costs so much to get stuff up into orbit, you want to conserve as much as possible.  So know [b]when[/b] to turn the radar on for a moving object with no strategic intelligence about intent would be got modding.  

 

On top of it 500 number you side includes commercial and civilian, its 115 military, with most of them not reconnaissance, it'd be like you counting the number of pick up trucks the General Services Administration uses in how mechanized the U.S. Army is.  

 

21 has been achieved through space launches over years, CN RP 2 has not been going on that long.

 

Carriers do take measures to hide their electronic emissions especially when adversaries or potential adversaries are passing by.  Satellites move in orbit and everyone pretty much knows whose are whose.  By contrast, satellites while again and no one hasn't said it may see a carrier once in a while, do not have the capability to really say 'Oh this is so and sos and this is the direction its traveling in real time.'  Now that can work pretty easily in the real world when only America has carrier groups, but you're no really going to be able to tag his carriers vs mine vs Voodoos vs really anyone who plausibly could be somewhere doing maneuvers.  

 

And again why you would know to pay attention to one carrier vs another to track it (remember you have to tun those radar sats on for it not to be needle in a hay stack) and assume he wouldn't go radio silent when you pass over which would nullify any passive collection, are huge unanswered questions as to how you would do any of this.  

[Maelstrom Vortex]

No.  Because you're limited by current IRL technology for military units which that is.  There isn't a satellite at least that I know of that includes both radar and imagery on the same platform.

You mean none like this that happens to be fielded by the NRO you know so much about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse_(satellite)

Or this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_(satellite)

Or this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR_Lupe
 

They are different.  You need to orbit two at a time, not one at a time.  Beyond that radar sats don't really have radar always turned on as it burns power, and in space because it costs so much to get stuff up into orbit, you want to conserve as much as possible.  So know when to turn the radar on for a moving object with no strategic intelligence about intent would be got modding.

Your assertions are your own making here. There's no reasons satellites cannot be launched one at a time into different orbits unless you're intending a specific task. You seem to think my satellites need to move or maneuver. They don't. There are so many they fulfill their role withoutneeding repositioning just sitting in their orbits. I mean, you've already demonstrated that you don't know much about orbiting things when you stated a 0 eccentricity orbit is impossible and that all orbits MUST be eliptical. I really have no reason to look at you as any sort of authority on orbital mechanics.. at all!
 

On top of it 500 number you side includes commercial and civilian, its 115 military, with most of them not reconnaissance, it'd be like you counting the number of pick up trucks the General Services Administration uses in how mechanized the U.S. Army is.  
 
21 has been achieved through space launches over years, CN RP 2 has not been going on that long.

Correct, but if we asked you to build your entire navy from scratch.. how long would that take you?
 

Carriers do take measures to hide their electronic emissions especially when adversaries or potential adversaries are passing by.  Satellites move in orbit and everyone pretty much knows whose are whose.  By contrast, satellites while again and no one hasn't said it may see a carrier once in a while, do not have the capability to really say 'Oh this is so and sos and this is the direction its traveling in real time.'  Now that can work pretty easily in the real world when only America has carrier groups, but you're no really going to be able to tag his carriers vs mine vs Voodoos vs really anyone who plausibly could be somewhere doing maneuvers.

The most a carrier can do is jam a radar signal.. and by jamming it they will give their own position away anyhow. Not the exact position, but close enough to matter for imaging and monitoring.
 

And again why you would know to pay attention to one carrier vs another to track it (remember you have to tun those radar sats on for it not to be needle in a hay stack) and assume he wouldn't go radio silent when you pass over which would nullify any passive collection, are huge unanswered questions as to how you would do any of this.

Because I want to track all global fleet movements and keep them on a war room chart. That is why I would know to pay attention to them. Your assertions on there not being such a satellite are wrong. Your assertions on orbital mechanics are wrong. Your assertions on a carrier.. a several hundred feet tall and several hundred feet long.. several dozen yards wide hunk of metal traveling on a flat plane of h20 as being able to completely hide itself in the presence of a task force.. or even alone.. are hillarious. Edited August 7, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Radar imaging is not radar and imagery. It is using radar to produce an image.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

*Gives Evangeline the science award for stating the obvious.* You are correct, but both can be done on the same satellite. It's just a matter of the suite you put on your payload.

[Triyun]

Mael just like I have to go by what can be put on carriers not hypothetically put on carriers the same applies to satellites and you.  They're not different.  SAR imaging is not the same as a radar that produces an active ping.  The things you referred to are radar imagery ones, one of which didn't work hence why its being replaced.  

 

In regards to your point about tracking fleets, again even if you had a radar (which you notice you only linked imagery ones still), you'd have to turn it on and off to conserve power with no data for that.  So trackings infeasible.  

 

Beyond that the reason my fleet is so big is because CN stats say I can.  You have no corresponding capability to go well beyond any current space power for ISR capabilities.  

 

Now as for completely hide, no.  You're putting words in my mouth and its in fact been stated to the contrary otherwise, I said had.  The idea of having a database to find them all easily is what is hilarious.  

 

As a general rule finding stuff in the fog of war is very hard.  If it was easy nations would be doing it and surprise would happen a lot less.  Land, air, sea, space, cyber, the domain doesn't matter.  My point is having huge global tracking is ridiculous, people should RP out some detection or try to individually and explain why they know where too look there.  Generally there is not a whole lot of reason.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Mael just like I have to go by what can be put on carriers not hypothetically put on carriers the same applies to satellites and you.  They're not different.  SAR imaging is not the same as a radar that produces an active ping.  The things you referred to are radar imagery ones, one of which didn't work hence why its being replaced.

They're being replaced with upgrades using newer SAR systems. 
 

In regards to your point about tracking fleets, again even if you had a radar (which you notice you only linked imagery ones still), you'd have to turn it on and off to conserve power with no data for that.  So trackings infeasible.

You never heard of the sun and solar panels? How about these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
 

Beyond that the reason my fleet is so big is because CN stats say I can.  You have no corresponding capability to go well beyond any current space power for ISR capabilities.

IG we know exactly how many ships we each have.. and where they're located as location is irrelevent in the IG area. Scanning and Identification is something we must take of in character for CNRP2.
 

Now as for completely hide, no.  You're putting words in my mouth and its in fact been stated to the contrary otherwise, I said had.  The idea of having a database to find them all easily is what is hilarious.

Not really. US tracked soviet fleet movements all the time during the cold war. SAR is in fact 1960s tech.
 

As a general rule finding stuff in the fog of war is very hard.  If it was easy nations would be doing it and surprise would happen a lot less.  Land, air, sea, space, cyber, the domain doesn't matter.  My point is having huge global tracking is ridiculous, people should RP out some detection or try to individually and explain why they know where too look there.  Generally there is not a whole lot of reason.

I can tell you right now Iran isn't very suprised when a US carrier group shows up in the Gulf and it doesn't even have a space program.. usually its arrival is even announced. Can you give me an instance in reality where the appearance of a carrier group.. anywhere.. has been a suprise.. to any nation after ww2? Lets make it even more challenging.. how about after 1990? I am rping out my detection. What do you think rping my space program is? This is my method of intelligence gathering. I am working on the ability, actively, to look everywhere for large key threats via the space command center.

There is plenty of reason to do this.. the primary.. domestic national security. Edited August 7, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[The Zigur]

Maelstrom is correct there. Considering the nature of international commerce, anytime something as significant as a carrier leaves port, comes across shipping, is visible from populated land or air routes, etc there's a good chance word will get around. Not to mention the probability of detection by deployed attack submarines. Heck, information is often even released by sailors themselves or their families.

 

Carrier groups involve lots of manpower and resources, it would be difficult if not impossible for them to operate in such a status that they could disappear from port and reappear elsewhere. The appearance of a carrier group would be of interest to any nation between port and destination as well. Doesn't mean it can't hide its specific location out in the open ocean though.

[Triyun]

Knowing where generally a carrier group is for signaling in order to convey a credible threat and knowing exactly where a carrier group to attack it is very different.  The U.S. routinely uses carriers to signal that its political rhetoric counseling a geopolitical rival against a course of action is packed up by a willigness to use force, and thus achieve a deterrent effect is common yes.  But in none of these instances does the U.S. say exactly where its carrier is and in most the adversary has difficulty tracking.  Inside a very small body of water like the Persian Gulf there are some instances of success.  But more often in open ocean it is incredibly hard.

 

Onto your space stuff.  The simple fact is if its mandated by common sense, everyone wants to see everywhere, it just costs a buttload of money.  Space is really really expensive.  You can say its your intel gathering method, but that's not justification for spending beyond common sense.  U.S. DOD spending can't get to your levels and they spend a lot of money (and no its not because of pork belly politics like you've said in the past).  Its because space launch and operation is expensive.  Beyond that you don't know where to look, you simply don't.

 

No solar panels don't provide all the power either.  There are times you're behind the earth, and the imagery you'd be taking in the resolutions you suggest 24/7 while also broadcasting it back to Earth takes a lot of processing power, which means a lot of energy.  

 

The U.S. tracked Soviet Fleets not with S.A.R. or any space based system, because the U.S. did not give war fighters much of any satellite imagery till Gulf War I.  Prior to that space fell under Strategic Command (still does but they talk more) and was used for primarily to support the national mission, i.e. strategic thermonuclear war.  The U.S. tracked the Soviet fleet with a lot of other things including electronic intelligence, sonar, radar, etc.  It also helped that the Soviet fleet was contained by many choke points we could monitor due to Russia's lack of ports.  If you can show me evidence satellites were the primary way we tracked it please do.  But I'm quite certain the fact they had to pass through NATO members territory or in the Pacific two narrow island chains was the main way.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Triyun

[Hereno]

Onto your space stuff.  The simple fact is if its mandated by common sense, everyone wants to see everywhere, it just costs a buttload of money.  Space is really really expensive.  You can say its your intel gathering method, but that's not justification for spending beyond common sense.  U.S. DOD spending can't get to your levels and they spend a lot of money (and no its not because of pork belly politics like you've said in the past).  Its because space launch and operation is expensive.  Beyond that you don't know where to look, you simply don't.

This really isn't true at all. The budget for NASA at its height was less than 5% of US government spending in the 60s, and right now it's at a paltry half of a single percent. Not only that, but all of the technology developed for space use can be re-applied in other industries. A country that actually really has a desire to be in outer space could more than do so, especially considering where that money actually went... primarily towards development. A country with the technology could easily and cheaply do what Mael is trying to do.

NASA's budget peaked in the period 1964-1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Apollo program which involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly 4% of the total federal budget was being devoted to the space program.

In March 1966, NASA officials briefing Congressional members stated the "run-out cost" of the Apollo program, aimed at achieving a manned lunar landing, would be an estimated $22.718 billion for the 13-year program, which had begun in 1959. According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (approximately $136 billion in 2007 dollars).[14] The costs associated with the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets amounted to about $83 billion in 2005 dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $28 billion (Command/Service Module $17 billion; Lunar Module $11 billion), Saturn I, Saturn IB, Saturn V costs about $46 billion in 2005 dollars)

Edited August 7, 2014 by Hereno

[Triyun]

This is the DOD space budge that does this, not NASA.  They get plenty.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Knowing where generally a carrier group is for signaling in order to convey a credible threat and knowing exactly where a carrier group to attack it is very different. The U.S. routinely uses carriers to signal that its political rhetoric counseling a geopolitical rival against a course of action is packed up by a willigness to use force, and thus achieve a deterrent effect is common yes. But in none of these instances does the U.S. say exactly where its carrier is and in most the adversary has difficulty tracking. Inside a very small body of water like the Persian Gulf there are some instances of success. But more often in open ocean it is incredibly hard.

I simply disagree for the reasons already stated that you have a huge ship easily recognizable to any radar.. even ones in space.
  

Onto your space stuff. The simple fact is if its mandated by common sense, everyone wants to see everywhere, it just costs a buttload of money. Space is really really expensive.

Really? And so that's why there are students now sending rockets into space. :P

A more serious reply: It's expensive if you're using a shuttle every launch, but a titan 4 costs half a billion per launch and many parts are recoverable and reusable. I'm using rockets to deliver my payloads, not multibillion dollar shuttles. I could probably even deliver some of my satellites by artillery if I really wanted.

You can say its your intel gathering method, but that's not justification for spending beyond common sense. U.S. DOD spending can't get to your levels and they spend a lot of money (and no its not because of pork belly politics like you've said in the past). Its because space launch and operation is expensive. Beyond that you don't know where to look, you simply don't.

Your costs assertions are based on a fantasy world where everything is more expensive for Maelstrom than it actually is in reality. Edited August 8, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Maelstrom Vortex]

No solar panels don't provide all the power either. There are times you're behind the earth, and the imagery you'd be taking in the resolutions you suggest 24/7 while also broadcasting it back to Earth takes a lot of processing power, which means a lot of energy.

Thus.. the use of an on board reactor.

The U.S. tracked Soviet Fleets not with S.A.R. or any space based system, because the U.S. did not give war fighters much of any satellite imagery till Gulf War I. Prior to that space fell under Strategic Command (still does but they talk more) and was used for primarily to support the national mission, i.e. strategic thermonuclear war. The U.S. tracked the Soviet fleet with a lot of other things including electronic intelligence, sonar, radar, etc. It also helped that the Soviet fleet was contained by many choke points we could monitor due to Russia's lack of ports. If you can show me evidence satellites were the primary way we tracked it please do. But I'm quite certain the fact they had to pass through NATO members territory or in the Pacific two narrow island chains was the main way.

Here ya go:

http://www.chinabuzz.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/china-aircraft-carrier-captured-by-satellite-3-560x353.jpg

And here's the story:
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=7546

And might I introduce: Rapier.. copyright 2011:
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacific/TechTransfer/ProductsServices/Pages/RAPIER%28RAPidImageExploitationResource%29ShipDetectionSystem.aspx

A navy military patented software program that does exactly what I'm doing.

[Triyun]

"DigitalGlobe said the aircraft carrier showed up on a cloud-filled picture snapped on [b]Dec. 8[/b] by its polar-orbiting QuickBird satellite from a height of 280 miles (450 kilometers). An analyst spotted the ship while checking the image on Tuesday, said Stephen Wood, the director of the company’s analysis center."

 

"NTEB News Desk | December 14, 2011"

 

Again stop hitting strawmen Mael.  Our point has never ever been carriers are invisible, its that you can't track moving objects in real time to fire on them.  Finding a carrier on December 8, and knowing where it is several days later are two very different things.  Which is what everyone on my side of the argument has said.

 

As for the software, notice how its not said to be ready in that article you linked.  Hence its not.  And even if it was as was established you don't have global coveraged and thus would not know where too look all the time without godmodding.

 

You need to stop making up other people's arguments.  The argument is the difficulty in achieving that detection reliably, not that you can't see it at all, its you can't see and act on it very reliably.