71,199

[jerdge]

As I write, there are 71,199 nukes in CN. I honestly don't know if we have ever been this high in count before, but I image that every day is actually a new record.

The first ten alliances (in terms of score) have a grand total of 20k+ nukes. There are 19 alliances with more than 1k nukes each, and other 21 with more than 500 nukes each. The much larger part of all of these are deeply entangled in the MDP web.

The War of the Coalition showed (IMHO) that the weaker party, if decently nuclear armed and if the sides are significantly uneven, has all to gain in escalating the war to nuclear as quickly as possible: this to exploit the deterrent that huge nuclear losses represent even for immense alliances, therefore leading to quicker Peace talks.

On the other hand, should we see big wars with even sides, the "temptation" to mass nuke first to get the upper hand would be almost impossible to resist to. In fact, it may even prove stupid not to nuke first in said circumstances, especially for a side that was being diplomatically outmanoeuvered (or was fearing it).

If we are to have another global war, bottom line, my take is that we will see an enormous, unprecedented number of nukes flying.

1. Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,
   
2. do you think that something should be done to prevent it,
   
3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?
   

[Vilien]

1. Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,
   
2. do you think that something should be done to prevent it,
   
3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?
   

1. Absolutely

2. Who is selfless enough to tread that path?

3. Nothing can be done really. The next big war is going to be hell.

[Captain Flinders]

The next global war will almost certainly be nuclear right away and rightfully so. Why would you want to avoid/contain it?

[Earogema]

1. Absolutely

2. Who is selfless enough to tread that path?

3. Nothing can be done really. The next big war is going to be hell.

Exact same responses I would have.

I also say to use every single nuke.

[Owned-You]

1. Yes, Pending If The Old Ways Die Out Completely.

2. No, The Strong Will Survive.

3. Nothing Really.

[Shodemofi-NPO]

1.Yes, very much so.

2. No, I think that if the Great Wars (2 and 3) taught us anything, it's USE YOUR NUKES.

3.I don't think anything can or should be done to avoid it.

[Adrian LaCroix]

Having nukes as the weaker side in a curbstomp isn't deterring anyone so long as they can make you pay 80k+ technology afterward.

[Choader]

1. Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,
   
2. do you think that something should be done to prevent it,
   
3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?
   

1. Sure.

2. Absolutely not, taking this game back to the stone age would be the greatest thing to happen to it.

3. Nothing, and there's no point in trying.

[Finch]

Nukes will become as common as CMs are. Wars will be fought with them, Nuclear Doctrines will change. The Current ones were written on the basis that there were never that many nukes, so only a few thousand would be flying, but as we see that number turn into 10s of thousands, and eventually 100s of thousands, things will be changed in regards of Nuclear Tactics.

[President Obama]

This is as it should be. It is going to be a very good thing for the game when those nukes get launched.

[Deuterium Dawn]

.

1. Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,
   
2. do you think that something should be done to prevent it,
   
3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?
   

1. Yes.

2. Absolutely not.

3. Only the mythicäl reset.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Deuterium Dawn

[Homura]

I say that the GRL should be uncapped. Then people will think twice about using their nukes.

Ah who am I kidding? It will leave the world in a horrible atomic hell for at least a month because nobody had the foresight to not use their nukes. Which I have to say I support.

Edit: although if someone wanted to contain it, we could always bring back "Think of the Children"

Edited March 17, 2009 by Katsumi

[LJ Scott]

Nukes are immoral, if your down put it in your sig.

[ChairmanHal]

1. Yes

2. No

3. Faster, !@#$%cat! Kill! Kill!

Edited March 17, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Moridin]

1. Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,
   
2. do you think that something should be done to prevent it,
   
3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?

1. Certainly. No matter what happens, one side is going to see advantage in using them, whether it's the losing side, or a side which enjoys high levels of technology and WRCs. Furthermore, in the era of the billion dollar (or more) warchest, without nuclear weapons it will be nearly impossible to do any lasting damage to an opponent, so any global war will necessitate their use if anyone actually wants to win.

2. Absolutely not. They're just another tool of warfare, and the "For the Love of God Think of the Children" type of thinking is outdated and obsolete, as the League discovered to their woe in the second Great War.

3. Nothing really, the game has gone too far to suddenly revert to a 2006 mindset.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Moridin

[Kryievla]

1. Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,

2. do you think that something should be done to prevent it,

3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Even if the containment requests were engraved onto plates of beaten gold and blessed by the Almighty Admin himself, I think those nukes are still gonna fly

Edited March 17, 2009 by Kryievla

[Haflinger]

The next global war will almost certainly be nuclear right away and rightfully so. Why would you want to avoid/contain it?

What if every single SDI works every time?

OK it's mathematically unlikely. BUT IT COULD HAPPEN!

lol

[Gork]

[*]Do you think that I am right in foreseeing this scenario,

[*]do you think that something should be done to prevent it,

[*]and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?

*Yes

*No way...

*...but think of the children!

[Mirreille]

3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it?

You can't contain it; the Manhatten Project has let the Genie out of the bottle. This single, indestructible wonder will bring nuclear war to the lands of even the tiniest nations. Especially in the aftermath of any large scale conflict, there will be nations with the bare minimum infrastructure, a pile of military wonders, and probably a decent warchest to boot. It will be like keeping a killer whale in a garden pond.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Nukes are immoral, if your down put it in your sig.

This man has the right idea. Decommission all nukes worldwide.

[Delta1212]

Having nukes as the weaker side in a curbstomp isn't deterring anyone so long as they can make you pay 80k+ technology afterward.

It's a deterrent against protracted war. If you don't go to the table for peace talks until you've thoroughly crushed someone, you are going to take more and more damage and leave your opponent less and less able to repair any portion of it for you.

[Aurion]

I think you have a talent for seeing the sun at noon.

The course of nuclear use in large-scale alliance warfare was determined quite a while ago.

You are correct on the first, but any attempt to limit nuke use will invariably fail. Far too much time and treasure has been expended for anyone to allow their nukes to remain unused in their silos. It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back, or going into battle with only one boot on.

[Calixo]

to reply to the OP,

i do agree that nuclear weapons have been more mass produced, as its easily a thought that the more nukes you have the less likely a target you would become due to your nuclear arsenal.

i do beleive an nuclear regulation treaty, or something of the sort could be made, but i doubt it could be readily enforced. and i agree with choader, taking this world back to the stone age, might do it some good.

and as for the second question, no.

[Sunstar]

I'm of the opinion that no IC actions could avert this. As said in replies above, mass nuking shall be the norm.

However, I find this idea intriguing:

I say that the GRL should be uncapped. Then people will think twice about using their nukes.

Ah who am I kidding? It will leave the world in a horrible atomic hell for at least a month because nobody had the foresight to not use their nukes. Which I have to say I support.

Edit: although if someone wanted to contain it, we could always bring back "Think of the Children"

Much more realistic if Admin were to want Bob to imitate the reality of a true planet. However, that would obviously be a futile effort as game mechanics demand that there is always perpetual land to buy and resources to use.

Still, the thought of a semi-realistic nuclear fallout felt around the globe would be interesting.

[Jake Erics]

Nukes are not a deterrent because alliances who shoot them then get on their knees and take it from the alliance they just nuked. See: Pulling an Archon.

If Citadel is ever rolled I expect them to cause hundreds of billions in damages then promptly pay a million units in tech as reps.