71,199

[Alpha One]

nvm

Edited March 17, 2009 by Alpha One

[In Spades]

1. I think you'd be horribly brain dead not to foresee it.
   
2. Hell no.
   
3. We could all take shrooms and forget that CN existed somehow? Given there are eleven nuke symbols on the front page alone, I'd say nuclear war has become an intricate part of the game.
   

[Mogar]

doesnt matter if you nuke first or second, all that matters is if you have more than your enemy.

[Hyperion321]

Nukes are just another part of the game. Use 'em if you got 'em.

[LJ Scott]

doesnt matter if you nuke first or second, all that matters is if you have more than your enemy.

Not necessarily.

Side / Alliance A have 12,000 nukes.

Side / Alliance B have 8,000 nukes.

By your logic Side / Alliance A are in a better position due to having more nukes than their enemy?

[Doitzel]

They're there for a reason. If anyone tries to scare you out of using yours it's all the more incentive to use them, because you know their tail is actually between their legs.

[Sithis]

We should get Ozymandias to fake a widespread nuclear attack and then blame it on Dr. Manhattan so that world peace can be achieved.

[Cairna]

I hope to god the next big war brings everyone down a peg.

[Hyperion321]

I hope to god the next big war brings everyone down a peg.

I just hope to god it's long, fun and uninterrupted by OOC drama.

[Mogar]

Not necessarily.

Side / Alliance A have 12,000 nukes.

Side / Alliance B have 8,000 nukes.

By your logic Side / Alliance A are in a better position due to having more nukes than their enemy?

if both sides are going nuclear? yes, since side B will run out of nukes quicker. and this is including wonders and such, since any prolonged nuclear conflict will leave your silos empty after a few rounds of warfare, and the side with 8k nukes probably has less nations, so gangbang time.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Mogar

[Sithis]

I just hope to god it's long, fun and uninterrupted by OOC drama.

That's what she said.

[mrcalkin]

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.

LOL

You have got to be joking me. I highly encourage anyone to test this theory out.

Edited March 17, 2009 by mrcalkin

[Unko Kalaikz]

The strategy of nuclear and other forms of civil restraint have been attempted by weaker parties in the past, and more often than not they are not very effective.

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.

Surrender is not a given. It is normally utilized if it is the most efficient conclusion to a bad situation. This applies to both sides btw.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Azaghul]

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.

The tech reps made up only a small fraction of the tens of billions worth that we destroyed.

[Mogar]

The tech reps made up only a small fraction of the tens of billions worth that we destroyed.

not to mention the nations that deleted due to your constant nuclear assault.

[gantanX]

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.

If they Lost

[jackyseto123]

The longer time is between wars, the more nuclear weapons there shall be produced, so, yes.

[JCFalkenberg]

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

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

3. and what do you think could be done (if anything) to avoid/contain it? ... Nothing, I hope. :jihad:

[Caliph]

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. Oh sure, people will try to say that if you nuke you won't be getting peace terms, but by nuking you will be causing massive damage to your opponents.

3) The stigma against nuclear weapons is the closest thing that can be done to contain it. I doubt any treaty on the usage of nuclear weapons would require anyone to decom their nuclear weapons, so the only way the number would go down is via warfare and potentially surrender terms.

A proper nuclear campaign will cause massive damage to an enemy. FAN did it, MK did it. The alliances that are here to win will be the ones to initiate nuclear strikes on anyone attempting to tech raid them, or war with them (tech raiding being what I call these beatdown wars where one side has 4 times the NS as the other and charges tens of thousands of tech to not continue destroying them in a war of agression on the more powerful side).

[jerdge]

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

Funny that you think that it's moot to discuss an issue that, AFAIK, has never been discussed on this forum in these terms, despite being "obvious". Even more funny your attempt to mark as worthless a discussion you're posting into. Well played.

As for some other commentaries, I am not saying that nukes should not be used, I am asking what you think of it, and what you think can be done if you think they shouldn't be used.

[Blacky]

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?

1. Yes

2. No, but even if I did it would be impossible.

3. Preventing the war from happening?

[Steelrat]

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.

Wise man

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.

Wise woman

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.

Not a wise man

if both sides are going nuclear? yes, since side B will run out of nukes quicker. and this is including wonders and such, since any prolonged nuclear conflict will leave your silos empty after a few rounds of warfare, and the side with 8k nukes probably has less nations, so gangbang time.

Nope, sure the party with more nukes at the begining will have an advantage but this will be even out soon. It´s not about HAVING more nukes it´s about the ability to nuke longer. Once the nations reached zero nukes all is depending on the ability who can longer rebuy and fire. Btw that´s the reason why HNS is pretty useless in a long term war, once you reached zero nukes the HNS has no use anymore.

Sidenote:

20 nukes vs a SDI nation

Everday nuking and wanting everyday a hit, the 20 nukes will last at average 8days (12nukes will be eaten up by the SDI, 8 will hit)

25nukes vs a SDI nation

Everday nuking and wanting everyday a hit, the 25 nukes will last at average 10days (15nukes will be eaten up by the SDI, 10 will hit)

^^ without calcing in rebought and spied away ones

Edited March 17, 2009 by Steelrat

[GOONS]

Not necessarily.

Side / Alliance A have 12,000 nukes.

Side / Alliance B have 8,000 nukes.

By your logic Side / Alliance A are in a better position due to having more nukes than their enemy?

Side A are complete idiots.

Side B are all geniuses.

What then? Team A nuke them selfs to death? *Head explodes*

Also nukes will always be a deterrent regardless of numbers.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Darth Maul

[Blacky]

Btw that´s the reason why HNS is pretty useless in a long term war, once you reached zero nukes the HNS has no use anymore.

Firing a nuke everyday in a long and drawn out battle where warchests are slowly but surely being depleted, and so to are reserves and banks in alliances which still use them is not such a good idea.

Infact, firing a nuke twice or even once for the duration of that war (depending on the number of targets) in turn forcing an opponent out of war for several days might be a better option. However buying a nuke or two every day if possible is still required. What this means is the HNMS becomes useful in storing upto 5 nukes at a time which your opponents can not spy away. Ofcourse due to the fact that spy ops favour defenders and that larger nations have massive amounts of land and tech I can see how that could be overlooked.

[uaciaut]

Btw that´s the reason why HNS is pretty useless in a long term war, once you reached zero nukes the HNS has no use anymore.

That's not true. Once you hit 5 nukes (i.e. the protected ones) you just nuke every 3 days or so (since odds are you will be nuking SDI nations). That way you can pretty much nuke forever if you have an MP and enough cash.

I will agree on one thing though - the longer a nuclear war gets the more useful a CIA becomes in comparison to a silo.