Jump to content

SDI, how it works.


Maelstrom Vortex

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You only addressed half my post to say that fleets can't have protection.. notably the mention of the SM-3 block missile. What about that?

Sorry, I thought they were the same thing.

 

From the SM-3 article: "The RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) is a ship-based missile system used by the US Navy to intercept short-to intermediate-range ballistic missiles as a part of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System."

 

Short to intermediate range. Sounds like the AEGIS system I already described. Good at defending against missiles launched from ships, not going to work against ICBMs launched from silos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would advocate that only those who own an SDI are able to obtain rolls to counter/block nukes, and only then they are given a 60% chance to do so. No protection for troops outside your borders. Foreign friendly troops inside borders of an SDI owner is a bit trickier, will think on that more. Fleet protection should extend only to fleets that are within territorial waters or in port, if your fleet it outside that range, it's free game.

 

Again, these are only my personal thoughts, not a GM ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're all focused on the wrong idea here. The SDI is a fictional concept that never actually was put into use, and so technically should be against the rules of the RP because the technology has never been proven in service. Making arguments based on realism for this surreal concept can only end in a headache. We have to craft the SDI mechanic so that it functions well in the context of the RP.
 

So far, this post of mine is the only one I think accurately takes into account the long-term considerations of such a game-altering wonder. Personally, I think the best way to handle things to keep them as realistic as possible would be to simply scrap the entire concept and let nukes be as devastating and accurate as they are IRL. Barring that, since you guys want to alter reality with the SDI in order to benefit the RP (see: the people who have the SDI wonder want to have benefits over those who don't), how about we give consideration to what benefits or drawbacks come from each system? In doing so, I think you'll come to the same conclusion I did... that my suggestion here is the best workable system for the RP.

 

I'd be against this. We can easily hand wave the SDI wonder as a large, clunky, but awesome ground based system (like the GMD that was discussed earlier). It's much harder to pretend that Aegis got a magical upgrade. There's plenty of precedent for missile systems that are simply too large to be put on a ship, and that's what the SDI should be considered. No defense to fleets unless they're under the umbrella of a normal SDI. No defense to troops unless they're in territory with an SDI. You want to expand the range of your SDI? Get more territory and build some facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would advocate that only those who own an SDI are able to obtain rolls to counter/block nukes, and only then they are given a 60% chance to do so. No protection for troops outside your borders. Foreign friendly troops inside borders of an SDI owner is a bit trickier, will think on that more. Fleet protection should extend only to fleets that are within territorial waters or in port, if your fleet it outside that range, it's free game.

 

Again, these are only my personal thoughts, not a GM ruling.

I'd say that the host nation, if it has an SDI, should have the option of shooting down nukes that are coming for friendly foreign troops in its territory. At that point its preserving its own territory, in addition to the troops, by taking out the nukes before they hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're all focused on the wrong idea here. The SDI is a fictional concept that never actually was put into use, and so technically should be against the rules of the RP because the technology has never been proven in service. Making arguments based on realism for this surreal concept can only end in a headache. We have to craft the SDI mechanic so that it functions well in the context of the RP.


This. The bolded part especially.

We should either scrap the entire system or just accept an (I don't know, what's the opposite of an anachronism?) and assume the functional SDIs exist. In which case we should keep the system the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. The bolded part especially.

We should either scrap the entire system or just accept an (I don't know, what's the opposite of an anachronism?) and assume the functional SDIs exist. In which case we should keep the system the same.

I don't think anyone is arguing against SDI's being a thing in the game. I, personally, am arguing against the claims that Aegis defense systems constitute an SDI. These claims seem to be coming from people's mistaken belief that ballistic missiles are ballistic missiles, when in fact Aegis defends against short range (tactical) ballistic missiles. Whereas the SDI defends against strategic, long range, ballistic missiles (such as ICBMs). The idea that there's only one time of ballistic missile is leading folks to think that their ships should be protected, when they shouldn't.

 

But it is reasonable to protect one's home territory and territorial waters (and any fleets that fall under those umbrellas).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. The bolded part especially.

We should either scrap the entire system or just accept an (I don't know, what's the opposite of an anachronism?) and assume the functional SDIs exist. In which case we should keep the system the same.

 

An anachronism is an object that fits not into the circumstances, due to being atypical for the timesetting. For example, phasers in a setting of the Roman Empire or a flintlock musket in a sci-fi setting.

 

The antonym I do not know (chronism?), but it would be an object that befits the timesetting. For example, a T-34 in a setting of the Eastern Front 1944.

 

I mostly explain this, as I do not see what the matter of anachronism (or its opposite) has to do with a SDI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

An anachronism is an object that fits not into the circumstances, due to being atypical for the timesetting. For example, phasers in a setting of the Roman Empire or a flintlock musket in a sci-fi setting.

 

The antonym I do not know (chronism?), but it would be an object that befits the timesetting. For example, a T-34 in a setting of the Eastern Front 1944.

 

I mostly explain this, as I do not see what the matter of anachronism (or its opposite) has to do with a SDI.

 

I was always under the impression that an anachronism was only used for something from the past. Basically I'm saying that we should accept that a piece of possible future technology exists in the tech range of this RP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lol S-300 (hint it doesn't)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29#Sea-based_S-300FM_.28SA-N-20.29

 

"The new missiles also introduced the ultimate track-via-missile guidance method and brought with it the ability to intercept short-range ballistic missiles." No citation, but there it is.

 

It's not going to shoot down nukes with any reliable success - not by itself - which is why fleets should be having a much lesser splash rate with the SDI if they're not covered by the one that covers one's borders. But they should at least have a little protection to keep things I guess balanced or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd be against this. We can easily hand wave the SDI wonder as a large, clunky, but awesome ground based system (like the GMD that was discussed earlier). It's much harder to pretend that Aegis got a magical upgrade. There's plenty of precedent for missile systems that are simply too large to be put on a ship, and that's what the SDI should be considered. No defense to fleets unless they're under the umbrella of a normal SDI. No defense to troops unless they're in territory with an SDI. You want to expand the range of your SDI? Get more territory and build some facilities.

I honestly think the last thing you want to do is add a mechanism that further promotes land hogging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29#Sea-based_S-300FM_.28SA-N-20.29

 

"The new missiles also introduced the ultimate track-via-missile guidance method and brought with it the ability to intercept short-range ballistic missiles." No citation, but there it is.

 

It's not going to shoot down nukes with any reliable success - not by itself - which is why fleets should be having a much lesser splash rate with the SDI if they're not covered by the one that covers one's borders. But they should at least have a little protection to keep things I guess balanced or something.

Again, short range ballistic missiles are the types of missiles that are being launched by ships and subs. They are not ICBMs. ICBMs are NOT short range ballistic missiles. They are not defended against by this particular type of tech. So while ships will have some defense against normal missile attacks (as opposed to just sinking whenever a missile ship, or aircraft with missiles, even looks at them), they will not have defense against ICBM type nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29#Sea-based_S-300FM_.28SA-N-20.29

 

"The new missiles also introduced the ultimate track-via-missile guidance method and brought with it the ability to intercept short-range ballistic missiles." No citation, but there it is.

 

It's not going to shoot down nukes with any reliable success - not by itself - which is why fleets should be having a much lesser splash rate with the SDI if they're not covered by the one that covers one's borders. But they should at least have a little protection to keep things I guess balanced or something.

First, an uncited wiki source is a poor source. We know not whether this is based on conservative estimates, on the account of the producer, due to independent testing or whether some idiot messed with wiki to make a point in a pointless online debate.

 

Second, your short-range ballistic missile is vastly different from a ICBM. If you can catch a SRBM, you'll at best catch the ICBM when it takes off, but in terminal phase, forget it.

 

For the record, S-300 and S-400 both were designed to stay within limits imposed by the ABM treaty. I really doubt they would be able to shoot down an ICBM...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, short range ballistic missiles are the types of missiles that are being launched by ships and subs. They are not ICBMs. ICBMs are NOT short range ballistic missiles. They are not defended against by this particular type of tech. So while ships will have some defense against normal missile attacks (as opposed to just sinking whenever a missile ship, or aircraft with missiles, even looks at them), they will not have defense against ICBM type nukes.

SRBMs are not launched by ships and subs. Most are launched by ground-based TELs. For example, the Russian Iskander missile.

 

SLBMs are launched by submarines, and they are far more like ICBMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AEGIS system with the SM block 3 has been successful at multiple ballistic missile interceptions.. far more successful than the GMD system has been in its tests.

Dude. We have already discussed this. Different types of ballistic missiles. That's like saying that a bullet proof vest that can stop small caliber pistols can also stop a .50 cal rifle. Because it stops bullets, therefore it should stop all bullets.

 

No one has argued that Aegis doesn't stop missiles. We have simply pointed out that the missiles that Aegis stops are not the types that people load nukes onto. ICBMs are not what Aegis is used against. Aegis is the body armour rated for pistols, ICBMs are the anti-material rounds that are going to go straight through it. That doesn't make Aegis useless, it means that Aegis has its purpose, which is to stop other missiles from hitting your ships.

 

I repeat, Aegis does not defend against ICBMs, the missiles that are launched by one nation to hit another on another continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude. We have already discussed this. Different types of ballistic missiles. That's like saying that a bullet proof vest that can stop small caliber pistols can also stop a .50 cal rifle. Because it stops bullets, therefore it should stop all bullets.

 

No one has argued that Aegis doesn't stop missiles. We have simply pointed out that the missiles that Aegis stops are not the types that people load nukes onto. ICBMs are not what Aegis is used against. Aegis is the body armour rated for pistols, ICBMs are the anti-material rounds that are going to go straight through it. That doesn't make Aegis useless, it means that Aegis has its purpose, which is to stop other missiles from hitting your ships.

 

I repeat, Aegis does not defend against ICBMs, the missiles that are launched by one nation to hit another on another continent.

 

To be fair though, when it comes to methods of delivering a nuke to a naval force an ICBM is one of the worst systems possible and nuclear warheads can be loaded onto other missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be fair though, when it comes to methods of delivering a nuke to a naval force an ICBM is one of the worst systems possible and nuclear warheads can be loaded onto other missiles.

Well, I guess my weapon of choice would be the ASMP, or some other cruise missile, if it weren't for the fact I'd be wasting away megatons of potential damage.

 

Why can't we just scrap nukes altogether and the SDI with it? Noone is going to build even minimum deterrence with just 25 5 Mt nukes and it is hard to use them in a counter-force manner. Whoever gets hit will cry for three or so posts about the martyrs in nuclear fire, then go on as if nothing had happened. What's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess my weapon of choice would be the ASMP, or some other cruise missile, if it weren't for the fact I'd be wasting away megatons of potential damage.

 

Why can't we just scrap nukes altogether and the SDI with it? Noone is going to build even minimum deterrence with just 25 5 Mt nukes and it is hard to use them in a counter-force manner. Whoever gets hit will cry for three or so posts about the martyrs in nuclear fire, then go on as if nothing had happened. What's the point?

I pretty much put my entire RP based in Japan on hold for a RL month due to being nuked, just because most people dont want to deal with the consequences of their actions does not mean everyone will do so.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...