SDI, how it works.

[Markus Wilding]

Trying to compare RL to RP is rather useless, in my eyes. There isn't much that we do that mirrors real life in any way.

[Mogar]

It would have been closer to three years using my time scale, and I am still currently reconstructing cities, the most notable city that was rushed to be rebuilt was Yokohama due to it's location, the rest were progressively slower. It's up to the RPer I realize markus, but there should be some factor of realism when dealing with interpersonal actions, which getting nuked would definitely count for.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Mogar

[Triyun]

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.

 

I have to say, I've been reading your stuff and while I understand why you are making a distinction your arguments make no sense and are incomplete.

 

Few things straight:  

 

1) Strategic Defense Initiative is the name of an organizational program.  Its not and never has been a specific missile defense system.  Today that agency has been renamed the Missile Defense Agency.  One of the MDA's programs is the Aegis.  Saying they are different things, yes its true, but SDIs not a weapon system, it was an organization.  So its unhelpful to make that comparison.

2) The ability to shoot down and difficulty to shoot down an ICBM greatly depends on what [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency#Categories]phase[/url] it is in.  Boost phase which is the hardest phase to be in position to take a shot at, but if you can its relatively easy to kill a missile because the missile is working against gravity.  Terminal phase when its moving Mach 20 is the hardest.  The latest Aegis BMD systems are designed to intercept in the midcourse phase.  These units are theoritically capable of destroying any mid course ballistic missile or satellite, however, the aegis weapon has not been tested on units with countermeasures.  The aegis ship is not designed with terminal phase interception in mind.  This is where it is hardest to do a shoot down.  

 

IRL yes, depending on what phase they are in aegis ships have varying degrees of success.  But aegis ships also will mainly be carrying the missile, offshore x-band radar is what does a lot of the 'big stuff' you can't carry.

 

All of that said, again if you're using IRL as a frame of reference, there exists not system capable of reliably shooting down a modern ICBM even at a 60% accuracy rate.  The aegis is among the best systems, but in all these systems the DOD has fudged tests by feeding defenders offensive missile data in flight, do not have fog of war, and haven't included decoys, all of which is very hard.  

 

If you want to use a SDI system based on what's possible IRL, there should be no SDI.  If you want to have some fudging, you have to include the aegis system in there as part of it as it is in fact part of the MDA (formerly known as the SDI).  You need to stick to one argument or another though.

[Yerushalayim]

 

I have to say, I've been reading your stuff and while I understand why you are making a distinction your arguments make no sense and are incomplete.

 

Few things straight:  

 

1) Strategic Defense Initiative is the name of an organizational program.  Its not and never has been a specific missile defense system.  Today that agency has been renamed the Missile Defense Agency.  One of the MDA's programs is the Aegis.  Saying they are different things, yes its true, but SDIs not a weapon system, it was an organization.  So its unhelpful to make that comparison.

 

2) The ability to shoot down and difficulty to shoot down an ICBM greatly depends on what phase it is in.  Boost phase which is the hardest phase to be in position to take a shot at, but if you can its relatively easy to kill a missile because the missile is working against gravity.  Terminal phase when its moving Mach 20 is the hardest.  The latest Aegis BMD systems are designed to intercept in the midcourse phase.  These units are theoritically capable of destroying any mid course ballistic missile or satellite, however, the aegis weapon has not been tested on units with countermeasures.  The aegis ship is not designed with terminal phase interception in mind.  This is where it is hardest to do a shoot down.  

 

IRL yes, depending on what phase they are in aegis ships have varying degrees of success.  But aegis ships also will mainly be carrying the missile, offshore x-band radar is what does a lot of the 'big stuff' you can't carry.

 

All of that said, again if you're using IRL as a frame of reference, there exists not system capable of reliably shooting down a modern ICBM even at a 60% accuracy rate.  The aegis is among the best systems, but in all these systems the DOD has fudged tests by feeding defenders offensive missile data in flight, do not have fog of war, and haven't included decoys, all of which is very hard.  

 

If you want to use a SDI system based on what's possible IRL, there should be no SDI.  If you want to have some fudging, you have to include the aegis system in there as part of it as it is in fact part of the MDA (formerly known as the SDI).  You need to stick to one argument or another though.

As for 1.) I've been treating the RP SDI as a fictional defense system, rather than an organization, because for mechanical purposes the organization itself doesn't matter. What matters is the tech that lets you shoot down ICBMs. Therefore, I compare SDI (as tech) to Aegis (as tech).

 

And as for 2.) you're wrong here. It is well within the realm of possibility to do exactly what I said: treat the SDI wonder as a piece of sci fi tech that we're willing to allow into the game because it's a wonder. This in no way shape or form indicates that Aegis is anything but Aegis. That is, nations without SDI wonders can use Aegis capable ships, and just like nations with SDI's, those Aegis capable ships cannot shoot down ICBMs because that's not what Aegis technology is capable of.

 

Again, organizations have no importance to this discussion, only tech. Aegis tech cannot do it, therefore Aegis tech in RP cannot do it. If people want to remove the fictional SDI tech from the RP, then they should go through the normal channels that we have established for changing the rules.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Yerushalayim

[Triyun]

When was the SDI declared a fictional magic anti-nuke device?   And not all Aegis ships are BMD ships.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

If I may make a suggestion. Keep the odds at 60% and have the SDI protect only your nation and its territory and your own fleet. This keeps things usable and simple without over complicating anything. 

 

This sounds quite reasonable.

[Triyun]

What about properly protected expeditionary forces? However a missile defense appropriate should be RPed out. By the same token navies without missile defense capable escorts probably shouldn't be included.

[Kevin Kingswell]

What about properly protected expeditionary forces? However a missile defense appropriate should be RPed out. By the same token navies without missile defense capable escorts probably shouldn't be included.

 

My suggestion was one of simplicity otherwise this discussion will go on and on forever as neither side will likely ever truly agree on the issue as we have seen. We can keep things nice and simple and continue our RP or we can continue to go round in circles. 

[Triyun]

Simplicity though doesn't always make sense when it can lead to gameyness.  It just means delaying an issue down the road.  As far as I know there are no nukes flying right now so a decision for the sake of continuing RP isn't really pressing.  

[Mogar]

I support kevin's idea, the entire purpose of developing this RP was to move away from the gameyness of RP1, and apparently we're trying to go back down that road?

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I still support getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether, making the SDI discussion moot in turn.

[Mogar]

getting rid of nukes just provides bigger nations with more of an advantage, and further weakens smaller nations.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

Get rid of nukes and give everyone more stuff to build their army with.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

getting rid of nukes just provides bigger nations with more of an advantage, and further weakens smaller nations.

How so? From all uses up to now, we empirically can conclude:

• Nuclear weaponry have not been in any way decisive weapons, having mostly just enshrined already existing trends. The Sino-Japanese War has not been decided by nukes, which contributed exactly nothing to the war, apart from drama. Hereno's use of nuclear missiles merely sealed the fate of Milan and the world bailed on a nuclear rogue alliance. Nuclear weapons have not saved any country yet.
• In a nuclear exchange, the larger WRC nation, by virtue of replenishing two nukes per day and by having 25 instead of 20 nukes is favoured.

Nuclear weaponry is no great equaliser, as long as it is not a deterrent. And it absolutely is not. Up to now, they are used in the most absurd manner and in a world where people nuke for the lulz, people start to just ignore what little deterrence a 25 nuke arsenal could have anyway, especially if statistically 60% of these nukes will be thwarted. If you take nukes out of the game, it will only prevent people going insane with them. Though, at that point, you might want to work on curbing abuse of free chemical and biological weapon usage.

[Hereno]

What if we limited nuke counts to 10 nukes and got rid of the SDI? Everything can be hit, but you get at best 50% of the previous nuclear power, and smaller nations are no longer forced to eat 20-25 nukes from one nation because they don't have an SDI. Moreover, the SDI argumentative issue is solved via removal, without a substantial increase in nukes being eaten by previously SDI-protected nations.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Hereno

[Yerushalayim]

When was the SDI declared a fictional magic anti-nuke device?   And not all Aegis ships are BMD ships.

Lol.

 

Do we have a piece of tech in RL that blocks nuclear ICBMs? No.

Do we have a piece of tech in RP that blocks nuclear ICBMs? Yes.

 

Logic. It brings us to the conclusion that the SDI in RP is a piece of technology that is not present in real life, ergo science fiction.

[Yerushalayim]

What if we limited nuke counts to 10 nukes and got rid of the SDI? Everything can be hit, but you get at best 50% of the previous nuclear power, and smaller nations are no longer forced to eat 20-25 nukes from one nation because they don't have an SDI. Moreover, the SDI argumentative issue is solved via removal, without a substantial increase in nukes being eaten by previously SDI-protected nations.

 

What's the point? I mean, the nukes we have aren't city killers. Unless a nation is absolutely tiny, eating a full 20-25 nukes isn't going to take you out of play.

 

Honestly, I don't see why people are kvetching so g'damn hard. There's two ways to do this:

 

1.) We go with how we have been, and wonders have in game effect. The SDI is present.

2.) We stop pretending that wonders matter, and cut the SDI and possibly nukes (or else open them to everyone).

 

If we go with option one, there's a few further sub options.

1a.) The SDI is a wonder attached to national territory, and does not defend fleets or troops outside your territory/territorial waters.

1b.) The SDI is a piece of tech that can be RPed attached to fleets and armies, meaning that all your assets are always protected.

1b1.) The mobile SDI is at full strength.

1b2.) The mobile SDI is at weaker strength.

[Mogar]

How so? From all uses up to now, we empirically can conclude:

• Nuclear weaponry have not been in any way decisive weapons, having mostly just enshrined already existing trends. The Sino-Japanese War has not been decided by nukes, which contributed exactly nothing to the war, apart from drama. Hereno's use of nuclear missiles merely sealed the fate of Milan and the world bailed on a nuclear rogue alliance. Nuclear weapons have not saved any country yet.
• In a nuclear exchange, the larger WRC nation, by virtue of replenishing two nukes per day and by having 25 instead of 20 nukes is favoured.

Nuclear weaponry is no great equaliser, as long as it is not a deterrent. And it absolutely is not. Up to now, they are used in the most absurd manner and in a world where people nuke for the lulz, people start to just ignore what little deterrence a 25 nuke arsenal could have anyway, especially if statistically 60% of these nukes will be thwarted. If you take nukes out of the game, it will only prevent people going insane with them. Though, at that point, you might want to work on curbing abuse of free chemical and biological weapon usage.

The point is being able to impact consequences upon those who attack you, if you wish to play CN Risk, that's fine, we have RP1 for that, if you wish to actually RP a nation and if your actions have the consequence of you being nuked and ruining your RP for months because of it, perhaps you should have to live with the consequences of your actions and not simply OOCly get rid of the only method a weaker nation would have of actually incurring damage upon an invading force.

[Voodoo Nova]

Getting rid of nuclear weaponry isn't the answer. 

 

The answer is quite simple:

 

• All overseas forces are protected by the SDI, should they be targeted. This includes ground and naval assets. They cannot protect any territory or forces not owned by a nation without a SDI.
• All territory, including protectorates, are covered by the SDI. Should the nation be targeted, or the nuclear weapon goes through or over the nation with a SDI, it can be activated.

 

The SDI can protect against nuclear warheads, nuclear bombs, dirty bombs, snukes, a suicide bomber with a nuclear device attached to his body, or anything that can be called a nuclear weapon/device.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Voodoo Nova

[Maelstrom Vortex]

What's the point? I mean, the nukes we have aren't city killers. Unless a nation is absolutely tiny, eating a full 20-25 nukes isn't going to take you out of play.
 
Honestly, I don't see why people are kvetching so g'damn hard. There's two ways to do this:
 
1.) We go with how we have been, and wonders have in game effect. The SDI is present.
2.) We stop pretending that wonders matter, and cut the SDI and possibly nukes (or else open them to everyone).
 
If we go with option one, there's a few further sub options.
1a.) The SDI is a wonder attached to national territory, and does not defend fleets or troops outside your territory/territorial waters.
1b.) The SDI is a piece of tech that can be RPed attached to fleets and armies, meaning that all your assets are always protected.
1b1.) The mobile SDI is at full strength.
1b2.) The mobile SDI is at weaker strength.

A 5 megaton nuke isn't a city killer? You just invalidated anything after that comment. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those cities were temporariily obliterated and that wasn't even a megaton yield. It was like.. half a megaton tops.. if even a quarter of one. You obviously don't understand nukes and therefore wouldn't be rping them correctly to understand why they should be deterrence.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
39,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 129,000–246,000+ killed

Yields:

Hiroshima: The exact measurement of the yield was problematic, since the weapon had never been tested. President Harry S Truman officially announced that the yield was 20 kilotons of TNT (84 TJ)

Nagasaki: The resulting explosion had a blast yield equivalent to 21 kt (88 TJ), ± 2 kt.[126] The explosion generated heat estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F) and winds that were estimated at 1,005 km/h (624 mph).[186]

Pre blast populations:

Population of Hiroshima at time of Blast: The population before the bombing was around 340,000 to 350,000. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and another 7% severely damaged.

Population of Nagasaki at time of Blast: On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 were in Nagasaki, including 240,000 Japanese residents, 10,000 Korean residents, 2,500 conscripted Korean workers, 9,000 Japanese soldiers, 600 conscripted Chinese workers, and 400 Allied prisoners of war.[12] Edited August 20, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Yerushalayim]

A 5 megaton nuke isn't a city killer? You just invalidated anything after that comment. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those cities were temporariily obliterated and that wasn't even a megaton yield. It was like.. half a megaton tops.. if even a quarter of one. You obviously don't understand nukes and therefore wouldn't be rping them correctly to understand why they should be deterrence.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
39,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 129,000–246,000+ killed

Yields:

Hiroshima: The exact measurement of the yield was problematic, since the weapon had never been tested. President Harry S Truman officially announced that the yield was 20 kilotons of TNT (84 TJ)

Nagasaki: The resulting explosion had a blast yield equivalent to 21 kt (88 TJ), ± 2 kt.[126] The explosion generated heat estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F) and winds that were estimated at 1,005 km/h (624 mph).[186]

Pre blast populations:

Population of Hiroshima at time of Blast: The population before the bombing was around 340,000 to 350,000. Approximately 69% of the city's buildings were completely destroyed, and another 7% severely damaged.

Population of Nagasaki at time of Blast: On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 were in Nagasaki, including 240,000 Japanese residents, 10,000 Korean residents, 2,500 conscripted Korean workers, 9,000 Japanese soldiers, 600 conscripted Chinese workers, and 400 Allied prisoners of war.[12]

Lol. Right. I invalidated everything I said about rules because two cities in Japan got hit by  nukes, and you think the cities died.

 

Address the SDI stuff or quit your yapping, if you're even capable. :P ;)

[Triyun]

Dr. Strangelove CN RP Edition

 

To start before people yell at me, all nukes are weapons of indiscriminate death, thats why I'd like to see a nuclear free world in CN RP and IRL.  But if you live in a world of nukes you have to think about them and the cold hard calculus of what they mean and how to win if you get into a nuclear situation.  

 

Nuclear deterrence requires several factors:

 

1)  Player seeking to deter must articulate a red line for another to cross, and then articulate a threat that would be the consequence of crossing the red line.

2)  Player being deterred must believe that threat to be credible, both in terms of the opponents will power to carry out the threat, and their material capability to do so

3)  Player being deterred must believe that the costs incurred by the deterrent threat once found both credible and materially plausible must see the costs imposed by the deterrer to outweigh the benefits accrued by the action undertaken.  

 

Anything else is not nuclear deterrence.  I do not believe nuclear deterrence has ever existed in CN RP for two reasons:

1)  Aside from this past year in CN RP 1, nuclear weapons were limited to 25 top.  Among these a player has to spread them among two types of targets 1) counter value targets: cities & political leadership [i.e. yes character killing but I'll get to why that has to be considered] 2) counter force: the opponent's own arsenal and conventional forces.   If your opponent has an SDI cut this number to around a dozen to divide between the three.

2)  Rerolls and perfect loyalty:  IRL its really hard to kill a nation state.  They rarely go out of existence.  In CN RP they do, which means the day after someone who has used nuclear weapons either themselves can reroll with little consequence (something in CN RP 1 was wisely changed to prevent lolnuketurrets or if the opponent sees their nation destroyed they may reroll.  If one does eat a nuclear assault, and RP on, there is no consequence to losing control of a nation.  An individual policy maker IRL can lose their job.  A player even if they switch characters gets to keep their land and unquestioning loyalty.  Either way nuclear weapons do not impose long term costs beyond individual choice to RP.

 

Nuclear deterrence is principally a cost imposition exercise.  The more you maximize cost while retaining credibility the more likely to be effective your deterrent threat is.  Most people don't give that much crap about their cities.  They are not tied to this imaginary population.  Some may say they are, but I frankly doubt it.  I've fought a lot of RP nukers, rarely have I seen it.  On counter value then you need another target most probably.  This was not dissimilar to the situation the US found itself with the Soviet leadership where it made the deliberate choice to target the Soviet leadership itself and the survival of the communist state rather than the survival of the population of Russia.  However, in CNRP this is both highly controversial and high risk as it has the lowest probability of success.

 

Counter force is a attack on the war making ability of an adversary.  My view of counter force is that any war is going to be decided by conventional forces.  Ultimately nukes are a form of cost imposing bombardment just like bombers and naval guns but the only way to achieve anything short of the status quo is to commit conventional ground forces to take and hold territory.  Therefore I'm going to believe that if an adversary is using nuclear weapons to deter an attack from a stronger opponent it makes sense to hit conventional forces.  If you don't hit conventional forces, its ultimately a losing game on your end cause it sucks to be a country occupied and you'll probably reroll or sue for some favorable terms.  It also makes sense to hit their nuclear forces lest you eat equal to more damage.  The effect of this is that relatively few nukes can be allocated for each mission.

 

All this considered a nuclear weapon is no a deterrent, its a weapon of terror as part of the war fighting mission.  The one exception in my view is that a nuclear weapon deters a nuclear weapon.  But that is it.  It does not impose sufficient cost to deter a conventional force armed with nuclear weapons.  A better policy for cost imposing deterrence are convetional forces that are difficult to overcome. 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Unless you hit a navy with it.. then it does incredibly well at disabling conventional forces. You may say it doesn't do well to nuke a navy, but if delivered by a torpedo and not a missile, the outcome would be catastrophic for the target fleet. Example.. a 5 mt nuke is known to create a very sizable crater. Detonate that under water beneath a fleet in relative shallows and if the ships are not light enough to be blown into the air with the water and steam.. or atomized.. they wil fall into the vacated space created by the nuke and potentially land with significant force busting their keels open and causing significant structural damage.

The problem is a combination of not rping nukes correctly.. and not using them correctly.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

Using nukes, and using nukes when you're limited to 25 warheads are different.  You can sink at most one carrier group at sea if you get in range o fire a torpedo.  At which point again the torpedo is used up without for most outcomes achieving a decisive blow.  If its launched from a submarine where the blast is only 1 megaton not 5, which shrinks the range you can fire from.  Anything that's not a submarine isn't going to get close enough to the carrier probably without committing significant forces to breaking it through the escort group.  At that point you'e risking a lot on the one nuke which is now out of play, but probably not a huge deal, they can either nuke your navy back, or use that nuke on something else like a major air base where you get more bang for yu buck than against a carrier.

[Centurius]

Seeing as in all fields military we are restricted to rl weapons and the only real example of a nuclear torpedo was the Mark 45 which needed to be wired constantly and didn't have a yield even close to 1 mt, let alone 5 mt I'm fairly sure that's not something that should be considered at all.