Jump to content

71,199


jerdge

Recommended Posts

That depends on your war philosophy and circumstances and of course how many target nations you have. Usually you have to fight at least 2 attacking nations most times 3.

However your war philosophy is and circumstances are, with 3 nations needed to be nuked your nuke arsenal will be depleted faster. That´s why i said at average in a 1on1 just to compare the nations with HNS and without against each other. If you want to compare the usefulness and efficiency of a HNS you have to rule out the other variables from war that´s what i did in my calc.

Fact is the HNS let you nuke 2days longer, after you reached zero nukes at all the HNS has no more use.

Edited by Steelrat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  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 It cannot be done

By the way. Did anyone noticed when the current nuke buying hype started?

The day after the Gremlins left The Continuum. :jihad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Yes

2 No

3 It cannot be done

By the way. Did anyone noticed when the current nuke buying hype started?

The day after the Gremlins left The Continuum. :jihad:

:lol:

I believe it started after the NoCB war. First war on a large scale to actually go nuclear in the way it did. It effectively removed the stigma from nuclear war, at the same time as proving being nuclear capable is a neccesity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  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. No disrespect, But its kind of a duh! thing, Alot of people already knew this :P

2. No, Lets have fun.

3. Alot of things i would say, But i cant :-(.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is the HNS let you nuke 2days longer, after you reached zero nukes at all the HNS has no more use.

Most wars last for about 2 weeks and each day tends to destroy about 2 weeks worth of effort for a mid-sized nation. I'll take it! (2 days more of nuking) :awesome:

Nevermind the bonuses of allowing a nation to store 5 nukes which can not be spied away it's still worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

1. I hope so

2. I hope not

3. Nothing, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]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. Quite.

2. Nothing at all.

3. It can't be avoided, but it can be "contained" to a certain extent by having your nations well equipped for such a scenario. In the end, nuclear war will start because it will be in somebody's advantage, and your level of preparedness is what will dictate where you'll find yourself.

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.

We entered the war not expecting to get any terms at all, but reaching peace eventually became in the best interest of BOTH sides - something that almost never happens in the case of a beat down. Were we forced to pay a huge amount of reps? Sure, but we were still alive, and the damage we inflicted greatly exceeded them.

So that particular beat down just wasn't profitable for the winning side - which is were the deterrent lies. I assume the huge amount of reps we were made to pay were meant as a deterrent as well, but don't kid yourself thinking alliances will pay "any amount* just because they lost. We were ready to go down fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think taking the cap off of GRL is a great idea. World leaders would be more inclined to come to an agreement (or, if we are taking this full-thunderdome, they wouldn't) if the radiation levels had drastic consquences after, oh, a couple thousand nukes were released. In a 1v1 or a 5v1 scenario, whatever is more likely today, that might bring outside alliances in to intervene in a "curbstomp" if they economies were suffering as a result.

That being said, I'm less impressed with a massive stockpile of nukes than with an alliance that knows how to fully utilize what they do have.

In my opinion, while massive alliances sit at the top of the rankings here, it is the medium small and small alliances with talented personnel that will decide the next global nuclear war. There are something like 80 alliances over 1 million NS. 95% of them are nuclear armed. Some of them are ridiculously nuclear capable and would form a first-strike task force that could bring an alliance many times their size down very quickly.

I think that's why the mass-cancellations have not occured, but i eagerly await the day diplomacy fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

I believe it started after the NoCB war. First war on a large scale to actually go nuclear in the way it did. It effectively removed the stigma from nuclear war, at the same time as proving being nuclear capable is a neccesity.

Everyone realized that they should start buying tons of nukes after they saw what MK did to NPO in their war.

I guess you are right and the war did removed the stigma from nuclear war. But the actual nuke-purchases started months later in mid-december.

I remember following it daily in the Unspeakable Evil stats (the best topic ever :wub: ) Of the larger alliances FOK was the first. IRON, MHA and Valhalla followed suit, starting almost on the same day somewhere around the 15th of december. You could see a distinct upwards curve from all 3 alliances starting on the same day.

All others alliances are just following our good example )): wannabe imitators )):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the next great war will be nuclear almost immediately and I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Nukes are a tool of war and I would not flinch about ordering a nuclear strike on all opponents if one of them nuked a Zenith member.

I don't think anything can be done about it. It's to be expected with the creation of the MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been calling for the divine removal of nuclear stockpiles since February 2006. They eventually make war mutually destructive to such an extent that it becomes foolish to engage in it without either overwhelming odds or the involvement of the majority of your competitors (ie. a great war). Obviously the disincentive they've created has grown over time, and is one of the primary reasons that so few wars occur today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been calling for the divine removal of nuclear stockpiles since February 2006. They eventually make war mutually destructive to such an extent that it becomes foolish to engage in it without either overwhelming odds or the involvement of the majority of your competitors (ie. a great war). Obviously the disincentive they've created has grown over time, and one of the primary reasons that so few wars occur today.

No it's not nuclear stockpiles that are causing fewer wars. Nuclear war does not act as a detterent it never has really. It might however force those who would otherwise seek to benefit from war to think twice before making a declaration of war but otherwise it has little to no effect. A trump card is ineffective when both sides have it in their arsenal, in fact it's not really a trump card at all in those cases. The use of nuclear weapons in GW1 was a source of a huge stigma to be placed on them which caused the League/Aegis sides to lose their respective wars in the future.

What is the cause of fewer wars are the following: lack of an effective opposition to the hegemony, diplomatic entanglement, and a lack of creativity on the part of alliance leaders.

Infact what has made nuclear weapons appealing again is the situation you described. When faced with overwhelming odds the use of nuclear weapons by the lesser party creates an astronomical advantage that can not be gained any other way. This might have worked as a detterent but again the mechanics of this world intervene with the introduction of Spies and SDI's.

Basically, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

What Choader said.

For me the really interesting question is how the global stockpile of nukes combines with the huge warchests so many of the larger nations have been amassing since the last big war. Nukes + lots of cash = potential for a long and deadly confrontation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not nuclear stockpiles that are causing fewer wars. Nuclear war does not act as a detterent it never has really. It might however force those who would otherwise seek to benefit from war to think twice before making a declaration of war but otherwise it has little to no effect. A trump card is ineffective when both sides have it in their arsenal, in fact it's not really a trump card at all in those cases. The use of nuclear weapons in GW1 was a source of a huge stigma to be placed on them which caused the League/Aegis sides to lose their respective wars in the future.

What is the cause of fewer wars are the following: lack of an effective opposition to the hegemony, diplomatic entanglement, and a lack of creativity on the part of alliance leaders.

Infact what has made nuclear weapons appealing again is the situation you described. When faced with overwhelming odds the use of nuclear weapons by the lesser party creates an astronomical advantage that can not be gained any other way. This might have worked as a detterent but again the mechanics of this world intervene with the introduction of Spies and SDI's.

Basically, no.

You miss the point: mutually destructive. If both sides have nuclear weapons then off course it is a deterrent, because both sides will lose much more strength as a result, thus moving them down the ranks and reducing their power. Thus military warfare, insofar as it can be seen as a move designed to benefit the attacking side (whether by some sort of 'imperialism' or simply a defence against something (eg. espionage)), becomes too destructive and the cons outweigh the pros. This isn't some random hypothesis, it has been operational fact for a long time, demonstrated openly in the constant push for alliances to keep up their nuclear stockpiles even when they have no desire to use them -- to act as a deterrent to would-be attackers.

It is this mutual destruction, and the policy of total destruction of anyone daring to use them (as a result of the destruction the nuke caused in the first place), that created the stigma in the first place, not some irrational fluffy moralism. When alliances have decided that they were going to be destroyed anyway and might as well go down guns blazing (MK, FAN), it is then that you have seen them used.

The causes of peace that you listed are all symptoms of the material causes -- causes that demand altered strategies from leaders and thus result in an altered world. Or in other words: men make their own history, but not as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been calling for the divine removal of nuclear stockpiles since February 2006. They eventually make war mutually destructive to such an extent that it becomes foolish to engage in it without either overwhelming odds or the involvement of the majority of your competitors (ie. a great war). Obviously the disincentive they've created has grown over time, and is one of the primary reasons that so few wars occur today.

I have to disagree that Nukes are the reason why lesser war on great scales happened, my best guess would be the treaty web.

Nukes are the great "equalizer" in CN, numbers are less important with them and without them i fear we would have seen much more curbstombs than we actually had.

What does an alliance let think twice before attacking another for lets say entertainment, the number of nukes. Nukes are an insurancepolicy.

In a crued way you are right without nukes we may have seen more wars but those wars wouldn´t have been more fair. I say the opposite would happened, we would have seen even more curbstombs with even less consequences for the attacking party.

Sidenote:

Main problem in CN is the time factor and if you want the rebuilding time.

Edited by Steelrat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You miss the point: mutually destructive. If both sides have nuclear weapons then off course it is a deterrent, because both sides will lose much more strength as a result, thus moving them down the ranks and reducing their power.

How is this different to any other form of warfare? If both sides are of equal or similar strength then ofcourse the damage sustained will be severe, one needs only to take a look at the outcome of GW3 to see this fact (a war which for the most part did not go nuclear). What this means is the last time your argument could have held any weight it was disproved by the fact that they weren't used and also that even though the Aegis side of the treaty web had more nuclear weapons it did not act as a detterent.

When alliances have decided that they were going to be destroyed anyway and might as well go down guns blazing (MK, FAN), it is then that you have seen them used.

Exactly, so rather than being a detterent to more global war as you implied earlier it's the complete opposite.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidenote:

Main problem in CN is the time factor and if you want the rebuilding time.

You are a very intelligent man. This is completely correct. CNflation (a term coined by Kosher I think) and rebuilding time are a major problem in preventing more even sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRON, MHA and Valhalla followed suit, starting almost on the same day somewhere around the 15th of december.

By the 15th, we were already in full swing for a little bit of a while, working on our Christmas Glow drive. Might be our early efforts weren't as noticeable though, didn't have near the MPs we have now, and most of our nuclear capable nations were already flying at max capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about 'fairness' in war, Steelrat. I simply said that nukes act as a disincentive, and as such we'd likely have more war without them. In this we both agree. However, I would point out, that pre-GPW when nukes were still a relatively rare commodity, there was far less need for massive blocs and overwhelming odds to protect oneself against relative strength-loss vis-a-vis competitors. That said, blocs and overwhelming odds developed for a number of reasons, nukes just being one of them, and so I wouldn't expect them to disappear, just lessen in importance. But I don't want to go down that road too far, as I doubt there's enough empirical evidence to lead either of us to change our position.

How is this different to any other form of warfare? If both sides are of equal or similar strength then ofcourse the damage sustained will be severe, one needs only to take a look at the outcome of GW3 to see this fact (a war which for the most part did not go nuclear). What this means is the last time your argument could have held any weight it was disproved by the fact that they weren't used and also that even though the Aegis side of the treaty web had more nuclear weapons it did not act as a detterent.

As I recall it the Aegis side had far less nuclear weapons. In fact I well recall the propaganda images made by the Initiative side that contrasted the relatively equal nuclear numbers from 'GW2' to the numbers in 'GW3', and this was used as a disincentive for Aegis to go nuclear -- the Initiative had no cause to go nuclear because it was winning the conventional war and a nuclear conflict would have made it far more damaging.

Regardless, I'm not sure what you disproved even were your example true. I never argued that warfare wasn't damaging, or even that it wasn't inherently mutually destructive -- due to the way the system is set up it is. I never argued that people wouldn't get into a war that had the potential to go nuclear (in fact I outlined two situations where it was probable, 'great wars' and 'those of overwhelming odds', and further only said that it acted as a disincentive to other wars, not that it made them impossible). I never argued that nukes would always be used in a great war situation. That's everything I can think that maybe you were trying to get at.

What I did argue, quite simply, was that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to warfare (given my experience in war talks, and the self-evident nature of it, I can label this a fact), that this deterrent becomes greater the more nuclear weapons there are (follows pretty logically, so if the original premise is a fact, then so is this), and that the removal of nuclear weapons would make war more likely (again, if the original premise is a fact then so is this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if every single SDI works every time?

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

lol

The war is still nuclear then. There ARE nations in nuclear range without SDIs. It's just a little less nuclear.

In replying to the OP:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Well, admin COULD just unleash admin bombs on everyone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nukes work as deterance because they shorten war as the damage output per time is higher than without them and they work as poor men´s weapon because the current conventional warsystem is unbalanced simple and exaggerated because a 5k Infra nation never can beat a 10k Infra one in ground attacks.

The psychological factor of more damage in shorter time is huge, even if the damage is the same lets say 1k Infra, it feels different if you suffer 500Infra per day for 2days or 100Infra per day for 10days. Much like the windchill.

So in principle nukes aren´t the cause for less war, they are the cause for less curbstombs. More war will only appear if the rebuilding or building time at all will be reduced, eliminating the time factor as prime factor for building your nation is the key for more war.

Edited by Steelrat
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...