SDI, how it works.

[Centurius]

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.

See I don't get why people consider nukes to be a weapon the small guy can use to fight back. Nuclear weapons by their very mechanics are not weapons for smaller nations. Let's take a look at 6 lower NS players; you, Hereno, Jed, Markus, Kevin and Uber.

 

You and Hereno have nukes, none of the others do.

 

Now let's pick 6 higher ns nations; me, Triyun, Voodoo, Mael, Lyn and Eva.

 

Every single one is nuclear.

 

The longterm effect is that yes this gives certain nations a chance to retaliate against attack. Those nations however are restricted to higher ns, nuke turrets or recent victims of ig losing wars, If Jed, Markus, Kevin or Uber were to rally a coalition to take down Carthage I would have the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons and they'd have no counterforce capability which would increase my chances in that war.

 

Nukes aren't weapons of protection for the little man, they are weapons of oppression for the big ones.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Centurius

[Mogar]

you guys made this same argument in RP1, and once you were able to enforce it, killed that world, did you ever think that might have been one of the contributing factors? If a larger nation aggressively attacks me and I don't have nukes, that's the end of it, there's no way for me to actually make them bleed too. In other words, nukes are the ultimate counter stagnation tool, you can't attack a nation with nukes without the question of "do I really want to ruin my own storyline for months simply to remove their nation for the same amount of time."

Edited August 21, 2014 by Mogar

[Centurius]

you guys made this same argument in RP1, and once you were able to enforce it, killed that world, did you ever think that might have been one of the contributing factors? If a larger nation aggressively attacks me and I don't have nukes, that's the end of it, there's no way for me to actually make them bleed too. In other words, nukes are the ultimate counter stagnation tool, you can't attack a nation with nukes without the question of "do I really want to ruin my own storyline for months simply to remove their nation for the same amount of time."

The measure in CNRP1 was ICly and not at all using that argument. Sure you can retalliate with nuclear weapons.

 

If I were to attack Alvonia however that would be the end of it. He has no nukes. If Alvonia managed to get a coalition together with a lot of other smaller nations who wanted me taken down. I could nuke them and they couldn't do anything meaningful in response. Nukes are the ultimate stagnation tool with the exception of some pretty damn rare situations.

[Mogar]

except by nuking non nuclear nations you'd be damning yourself to nuke rogue status, which as Milan showed, is not something well tolerated by the community.

[Centurius]

except by nuking non nuclear nations you'd be damning yourself to nuke rogue status, which as Milan showed, is not something well tolerated by the community.

Actually, everyone nuking in a first strike capacity is condemning themselves to nuke rogue status and that still doesn't change that ICly I would have crippled my opponents.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

except by nuking non nuclear nations you'd be damning yourself to nuke rogue status, which as Milan showed, is not something well tolerated by the community.

Just like if you'd use nukes first to deter an opponent, you'll be a nuke rogue and people might join in, outnumbering you post-nuking more than pre-nuking. Not to mention that normally, the surrender options only get worse as part of the political cost. Nukes do not contribute much to your security, they contribute to your downfall.

[Triyun]

The act of using a nuclear weapon is an inherently escalatory act beyond normal war.  There are stages of conflict, not all are the same.  War at its ultimate level is the committing of all a nations resources to the imposition of its will on another nation.  Two nations may chose to not take this to this extreme.  I personally have maintained a policy at least in recent years as I've tried to RP my nation more as a realistic military force, as one which seeks to avoid civilian casualties and cares about doing the same.  In my mind there are separations in justice between the casus belli used for war and the means of which warfare are conducted and the two have to be weighed against each other.  For example, while the U.S. certainly lacked legitimacy in its 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the conduct of the war by sunni insurgents which heavily targeted Shia civilians (eventually producing a backlash back) was also unjustifiable, where the U.S. conducted itself relatively well (though of course there are things to criticize there).  

 

How I would continue to conduct foreign policy, especially as Britain, with its Christian just war tradition, liberal ideals, or even Sparta which would view a nuclear first strike, especially a countervalue on city one as a dangerous norm, would mean my nation would act to create consequence for anyone who used a nuclear weapon first regardless if the other side had nuclear weapons or not.  A nuclear rogue is a nuclear actor with a low thresh-hold of use for a nuclear weapon to my mind IC (I have a few more additional factors OOC such as safeguards, proliferation), the mere possession of nukes by an adversary is not one of them.  

[Maelstrom Vortex]

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.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. There are ways of detonating a bomb that are much more destructive than what has been done in most modern tests. I'd say how, but I'd rather someone invading me find out the hard way. You could theoretically sink all ships in 500 meter radius with a 5 mt torpedo. Edited August 21, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Centurius]

Which again is technology without any basis in reality.

[Triyun]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. There are ways of detonating a bomb that are much more destructive than what has been done in most modern tests. I'd say how, but I'd rather someone invading me find out the hard way. You could theoretically sink all ships in 500 meter radius with a 5 mt torpedo.

 

And 1)  Cent's right  2) torpedo is a close range weapon and therefore to be survivable plausibly needs to be launched from a submarine, and all submarine launched nukes according to th rules are capped at 1 megaton.  3)  Who has ships that clustered

[Maelstrom Vortex]

No, Cent's not right just because you said he is and when he doesn't support his denial.. The 1mt cap would only reduce the radius of impact. Here is your basis in reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo

Warhead type:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W34_(nuclear_warhead)

Warhead Family:

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

Variable yield sizes between 11kt and 2 MT

There is also the:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B57_nuclear_bomb

Which can be used as a depth charge with a hydrostatic fuse and could in theory be delivered by any aircraft that can lift the payload weight. Given it is an iron free-fall bomb and does not use powder-explsoives or rocket fuel, not likely most missile defenses will be effective against it. Depending on how we work SDI, you'd still get a roll against these anyway.

Given most carrier groups have the main body and screen within 19 KM of the flag in order to provide proper missile defense shielding from conventional weapons there's quite a bit to destroy in that grouping from a 1 mt nuke including anything on the flight decks and unarmored supply or troop vessels.

There's also the nuclear mine, which was successfully tested at BAKER but never put into production and the ones North Korea is allegedly developing.. and I'm not sure if I should be laughing at that or not.

Go play the Harpoon series for a bit Cent, you'll learn the large derth of available real naval nuclear delivery systems.

But this one is by far my favorite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22

So... space your battlegroup apart.. I'll pick the ships off without an effective missile shield. Space it together.. and I'll drop a depth charge, torpedo, or mine it. There is no such thing as a flawless strategy.

My plan's lessor concern is how the weapon is delivered.. but where and when that makes it effective. However, this is largely irrelevent to the most important part. If I have a method of delivery available among which many are at my disposal how will SDI handle it in CNRP2.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

 

No, Cent's not right just because you said he is and when he doesn't support his denial.. The 1mt cap would only reduce the radius of impact. Here is your basis in reality:

http://en.wikipedia....Mark_45_torpedo

Warhead type:

http://en.wikipedia....uclear_warhead)

Warhead Family:

http://en.wikipedia..../Python_primary

Variable yield sizes between 11kt and 2 MT

11 kilotons. If you look at the warheads, you'd see, only up to 11 kt is equipped, as the others are part of the family, but much larger and not used for the torpedo. Nice try though.

 

 

There is also the:

http://en.wikipedia....57_nuclear_bomb

Which can be used as a depth charge with a hydrostatic fuse and could in theory be delivered by any aircraft that can lift the payload weight. Given it is an iron free-fall bomb and does not use powder-explsoives or rocket fuel, not likely most missile defenses will be effective against it. Depending on how we work SDI, you'd still get a roll against these anyway.

Emphasis by me.

 

Yeah, no... Most missile defenses will be more than enough to take out the bomber delivering the gravity bomb... It's much easier to cripple a huge B-1, flying at Mach 1-2 maybe, than trying to hit a small cruise missile at Mach 3-4. You see it far easier, it is larger a target and evasive maneuvering isn't much of a thing there.

 

 

Given most carrier groups have the main body and screen within 19 KM of the flag in order to provide proper missile defense shielding from conventional weapons there's quite a bit to destroy in that grouping from a 1 mt nuke including anything on the flight decks and unarmored supply or troop vessels.

Well, apart from that you'd be using about 1% of a megaton, which is not even close.

 

 

There's also the nuclear mine, which was successfully tested at BAKER but never put into production and the ones North Korea is allegedly developing.. and I'm not sure if I should be laughing at that or not.

Which is still far from a megaton and development is development. Not that I'd trust the DPRK anyway.

 

 

Go play the Harpoon series for a bit Cent, you'll learn the large derth of available real naval nuclear delivery systems.

How about a proper source?

 

 

But this one is by far my favorite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-22

So... space your battlegroup apart.. I'll pick the ships off without an effective missile shield. Space it together.. and I'll drop a depth charge, torpedo, or mine it. There is no such thing as a flawless strategy.

Now, that may pack a megaton, but well, IRL missile defenses or IG SDI, whatever GMs find more applicable might pick it off still. And you trying to drop gravity bombs on a fleet that most likely has over a hundred surface-to air missiles and a combat air patrol is just lulzy.

 

Indeed, your strategy is far from flawless.

 

 

My plan's lessor concern is how the weapon is delivered.. but where and when that makes it effective.

your plan is completely neglecting the main issue at hand. That is, you are wasting nukes on fleets, while retaliatory strikes might actual hit something of equal or greater value. you got 25 nukes which you fire at the enemy navy? Well, most other big nations got that many nukes too and might use it to good effect, negating your nuclear attack, or, in worst case, if they use theirbnukes on more critical targets, they might be better off post-exchange. So, the maxime stands, nuclear missiles do not change the game balance towards the small guy and are not going to save someone.

 

Weapons of mass destruction at this scale are weapons of terror, but they are not going to replace actual skill in leading conventional forces, which at the end of the day will be the decisive factor. Not nukes.

[Hereno]

Sweet. Another nerd battle. The loser has to type in l33tsp34k for 24 hours.

....

..and,

go!

[Maelstrom Vortex]

11 kilotons. If you look at the warheads, you'd see, only up to 11 kt is equipped, as the others are part of the family, but much larger and not used for the torpedo. Nice try though.

 

Emphasis by me.

 

Yeah, no... Most missile defenses will be more than enough to take out the bomber delivering the gravity bomb... It's much easier to cripple a huge B-1, flying at Mach 1-2 maybe, than trying to hit a small cruise missile at Mach 3-4. You see it far easier, it is larger a target and evasive maneuvering isn't much of a thing there.

 

Well, apart from that you'd be using about 1% of a megaton, which is not even close.

 

Which is still far from a megaton and development is development. Not that I'd trust the DPRK anyway.

 

How about a proper source?

 

Now, that may pack a megaton, but well, IRL missile defenses or IG SDI, whatever GMs find more applicable might pick it off still. And you trying to drop gravity bombs on a fleet that most likely has over a hundred surface-to air missiles and a combat air patrol is just lulzy.

 

Indeed, your strategy is far from flawless.

 

your plan is completely neglecting the main issue at hand. That is, you are wasting nukes on fleets, while retaliatory strikes might actual hit something of equal or greater value. you got 25 nukes which you fire at the enemy navy? Well, most other big nations got that many nukes too and might use it to good effect, negating your nuclear attack, or, in worst case, if they use theirbnukes on more critical targets, they might be better off post-exchange. So, the maxime stands, nuclear missiles do not change the game balance towards the small guy and are not going to save someone.

 

Weapons of mass destruction at this scale are weapons of terror, but they are not going to replace actual skill in leading conventional forces, which at the end of the day will be the decisive factor. Not nukes.

 

if they're not that important. then just leave them! That simple really. *Toothy grin.*

 

I agree to Hereno's terms.. who's the judge though?

Edited August 22, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Centurius]

 

if they're not that important. then just leave them! That simple really. *Toothy grin.*

 

I agree to Hereno's terms.. who's the judge though?

Leaving aside that is a ridiculous ad hominem, many have argued in this very thread and others to get rid of nukes.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Leaving aside that is a ridiculous ad hominem, many have argued in this very thread and others to get rid of nukes.

And what part of what I said was an attack against your character and not your argument? Seriously. I think you need to re-read my prior statements and consider the exact wording a little more carefully. You did deny there was a delivery system. I'm not saying you are in a psychological denial, I was stating your argument was in denial of there being a nuclear delivery system effective against fleets, a statement which is accurate. You denied that technology had no basis in reality. I simply countered with facts and pointed out that if you play the game series Harpoon, which is a simulator based on naval engagements in modern times and on real existing weapons platforms, you'd know there is quite a derth of available delivery systems. Of which, the KH22 Nuclear Kitchen is my favorite because I've used it several dozen times in Harboon to take out US carrier battlegroups approaching Norway. Seriously, try it out.. awesome game if you like naval battles. Can I quote Harpoon as a definitive source? While it is better than many probably... no.

Or are you referring to Hereno's assertion we're all nerds? Hard to tell who you're talking to given that you're quoting me and yet.. the only person who has adhominemed any of us for entertainment value is Hereno. Edited August 22, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Evangeline Anovilis]

If you ever played World of Tanks, you'd surely know that you can take out most tanks by shooting often enough at some cupola on top and it'll blow up.

 

you know, games try to rebalance things for playability at times, so stop dragging video games into arguments. Thanks.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Not all games take those shortcuts either. I am not touting it as a source of the accuracy of the function of the weapons eva.. so you can stop dogging me for that. I'm citing it as a source of a listing for known existing weapons platforms and a way to get a general idea how they function. Your petty picking at me when most games have some form of educational value is both incredulous and trite.

World of Tanks would also teach you that terrain makes great armor better than taking a hit directly, that it's best to work as a team and not a lone wolf, the value of communicating effectively, and that historically most tanks had weak rear armor. But I'm glad you only cite examples that support your own discussion it shows how absolutely biased your arguments are in favor of your own perspective. That or it illustrates your arguments are grossly uninformed and unreliable. Pick your own poison. I will continue to make references to games that provide information and amusement at the same time at my own discretion. (So long as they're aren't cn's competitors.. of course.)

Now that I have footnoted my own arguments with the "May not be entirely accurate" *which should be obvious clause... will you stop your incessant whining about it?

Edited August 22, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Centurius]

And what part of what I said was an attack against your character and not your argument? Seriously. I think you need to re-read my prior statements and consider the exact wording a little more carefully. You did deny there was a delivery system. I'm not saying you are in a psychological denial, I was stating your argument was in denial of there being a nuclear delivery system effective against fleets, a statement which is accurate. You denied that technology had no basis in reality. I simply countered with facts and pointed out that if you play the game series Harpoon, which is a simulator based on naval engagements in modern times and on real existing weapons platforms, you'd know there is quite a derth of available delivery systems. Of which, the KH22 Nuclear Kitchen is my favorite because I've used it several dozen times in Harboon to take out US carrier battlegroups approaching Norway. Seriously, try it out.. awesome game if you like naval battles. Can I quote Harpoon as a definitive source? While it is better than many probably... no.

Or are you referring to Hereno's assertion we're all nerds? Hard to tell who you're talking to given that you're quoting me and yet.. the only person who has adhominemed any of us for entertainment value is Hereno.

I said it has no basis in reality and I stand by that statement, what you linked was a torpedo, specifically intended for anti-submarine use, that was only capable of an 11kt detonation. If you want to use that torpedo feel free. What has no basis in reality is a torpedo with modern guidance and a 5 mt warhead. 

 

As for the ad hominem, you attacked our continued ownership of nuclear weapons and not our argument against nuclear torpedoes.

 

Edit: As for Harpoon, I take it you will also support the use of magic spells from Skyrim?

Edited August 22, 2014 by Centurius

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Centurius: Your last statements demonstrates you are not discussing this in good faith. That said, I regret opening this can of worms.

Also. I never attacked anyone's continued ownership of nuclear weapons. I'm totally in favor of it. Are you sure you're not misreading and attributing this to me instead of someone else? I think Triyun was saying we need to get rid of nukes.

Also, even if I did attack your continued ownership of nuclear weapons.. that would not be attacking you personally which is the very definition of an ad-hominem. I think you're trying to say I'm creating a "straw man" or "tangent".

Edited August 22, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Markus Wilding]

We've far lost track of the original discussion. Let's try to get it back on track.

 

That being said, I do see some decent voting ideas. Tentative ones that I see:

 

1. Should nuclear weapons be allowed in the RP?

- Yes

- No

 

2. If yes, what should be done with the SDI?

- Available

- Not available

 

3. If available, how should it work?

- It should cover ONLY one's own troops and fleets WITHIN one's borders or ports

- It should cover ALL troops and fleets WITHIN one's borders or ports

- It should cover ALL troops and fleets WITHIN one's borders or ports, as well as providing protection to fleets at sea

- It should cover ONLY one's own troops and fleets WITHIN one's borders or ports, as well as providing protection to fleets at sea

 

Again, these are only tentative and I may have misunderstood some. If I have grossly misrepresented your idea or position, please let me know or alternatively give me what you would like to see represented as your poll option.

[Centurius]

I'd divide 3 into 3 questions.

 

3. If available, how should it work?

-It should cover only the forces stationed within one's own borders or ports.

-It should cover forces stationed within one's own borders and beyond under the circumstances of question 4.

 

4. If forces beyond one's borders or ports are protected which should these be?

-Fleets

-Fleets and ground forces

 

5. Should forces belonging to another nation within one's own borders or ports be protected?

-Yes

-No

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I like both of your ideas on how to handle the polling and am glad we're back on track.

I'd also suggest a couple of other related poll items.:

What should the nuke multiplier be from IG count?
No mutliplier (Standard)
x10
x100 (Realistic, allows nukes to serve as an actual deterrant. Nations should behave more rationally/realistically.)

Should fallout be forced to be roleplayed?
Y
N

What duration should fallout last?
1 ic week / 1 rl day
1 ic month / 4 rl days
1 ic year / 48 rl days
10 ic years / 480 rl days

Although if we do the above option we may want to actually first poll for what time frame a rl day generally constitutes in ic.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Lynneth]

I'm against anything that defines what an RL day translates into ICly. Just set an RL time and do away with any IC-references, if at all.

[Markus Wilding]

I like both of your ideas on how to handle the polling and am glad we're back on track.

I'd also suggest a couple of other related poll items.:

What should the nuke multiplier be from IG count?
No mutliplier (Standard)
x10
x100 (Realistic, allows nukes to serve as an actual deterrant. Nations should behave more rationally/realistically.)

Should fallout be forced to be roleplayed?
Y
N

What duration should fallout last?
1 ic week / 1 rl day
1 ic month / 4 rl days
1 ic year / 48 rl days
10 ic years / 480 rl days

Although if we do the above option we may want to actually first poll for what time frame a rl day generally constitutes in ic.

 

Everything you just posted in this post needs to be discussed before we can talk about voting options.