71,199

[Blacky]

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.

Just went over the stats again, it was 1500 League to about 1200 Initiative during the 'GW2' and something like 1800 Aegis to 3600 Initiative during 'GW3', but regardless that difference did not dissuade various alliances coming to the defence of GATO, the fact remains that it has not (historically) acted as an effective detterent or in any way worked to inhibit more global wars from occuring.

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'...)

Aye, that you did and therein lies the contradiction which you made. All wars wind up either being 'great wars' or 'those of overwhelming odds', and for the most part that has always been the case. The fact that nuclear stockpiles exist (particularly in the modern age, or from when you supposedly began preaching on the destructiveness of nuclear weapons) has in no way swayed the decision of entities from entering such wars. Rather as I stated it stems mostly from several factors which I listed previously.

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)

I do not know of the nature of the war talks which you've participated in but I can speak for myself when I say that my opponents having a few firecrackers would not dissuade me from entering a war. Perhaps that reflects on those with which you keep company, but that will definitely not from my experience be a reality shared by the majority of the leaders on here.

[Delta1212]

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.

It's the proliferation of treaties that make war near impossible without a large force to back you up. That's a fact that is so patently obvious that I don't think anyone one the boards has missed. Intelligent man that you are, I don't think you've missed it either. Of course, that begs the question of why you'd champion the cause under a heading that seems more or less likely to enjoy popular support, namely ending stagnation in the game, especially considering the hundreds of times you have adamently downplayed any and all claims of stagnation in the past.

Now, look at your reasoning, you are correct in saying that nuclear weapons make war more mutually destructive. Thinking about that, though, what is the result when this isn't the case? If a war isn't mutually destructive, it means that it is largely destructive in one direction. Since it's very unlikely that the winner is going to be taking the most damage in any war, at least in comparison to what each side has as the start, that means that nuclear weapons are a major threat to someone who is going to win a war, moreso than someone who is going to lose. Nuclear weapons act as an equalizer. In an evenly matched war, they don't actually make a war more damaging, they just make it go faster. In a greatly uneven war, they can provide the losing side with a way to do more damage to the winning side.

Overall, this means that nuclear weapons aren't actually a deterrent to evenly-matched wars. They would just last longer as damage takes longer to pile up. It's the uncertainty and fear of losing that deters evenly matched wars. Nukes are a deterrent to any protected wars, and that includes continually beating on a weaker enemy. Nukes give a smaller alliance the power to hurt a larger one, and that gives them bargaining power at the peace table.

Now, who would possibly benefit from a decrease in the damage done to the victor in uneven wars to such a degree that it would make it necessary for Vladimir to contradict his own stated position and use patently faulty logic in order to push for popular support to a change to game mechanics that would remove the ability to stockpile nukes?

You're slipping, Vladimir. Really, you can do better.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Delta1212

[DustyCloud]

1. I think most of us have had it in the back of our minds. We all know it, but are too lazy to point it out.

2. Not really. I believe we should let the game take its course. If we feel like blowing ourselves back to the stone age, fine by me.

3. I don't want anything to be done. If we all get trashed, it becomes a race to see who can become the most powerful, fastest. It'd be fun.

[Jake Erics]

Vladimir is dead wrong, it's not that nukes are a deterrent is that they aren't. Countless alliances have unloaded their arsenals and the targets took it in stride. The NPO has been a victim of the two best coordinated nuclear wars (MK, FAN) yet here they are, all nukes do is slow down the winner a bit.

If nukes were a true deterrent then all sides would have to play politics, since even an outnumbered opponent could take you down with him.

[Vladimir]

Is what I'm saying so controversial? That maybe, just maybe, the more relatively destructive a war is the less likely it is for an alliance to enter that war? I don't really see anyone disagreeing with this except Blacky, and I think he'd disagree if I said the sky was blue.

Just went over the stats again, it was 1500 League to about 1200 Initiative during the 'GW2' and something like 1800 Aegis to 3600 Initiative during 'GW3', but regardless that difference did not dissuade various alliances coming to the defence of GATO, the fact remains that it has not (historically) acted as an effective detterent or in any way worked to inhibit more global wars from occuring.

Aye, that you did and therein lies the contradiction which you made. All wars wind up either being 'great wars' or 'those of overwhelming odds', and for the most part that has always been the case. The fact that nuclear stockpiles exist (particularly in the modern age, or from when you supposedly began preaching on the destructiveness of nuclear weapons) has in no way swayed the decision of entities from entering such wars. Rather as I stated it stems mostly from several factors which I listed previously.

I do not know of the nature of the war talks which you've participated in but I can speak for myself when I say that my opponents having a few firecrackers would not dissuade me from entering a war. Perhaps that reflects on those with which you keep company, but that will definitely not from my experience be a reality shared by the majority of the leaders on here.

'There was a war once where a relatively high number of nukes were involved, therefore nukes are not a deterrent'?

Sorry, doesn't compute, things are a bit more complex than that. In deciding whether to go to war an alliance has to calculate the gains it will make versus the potential losses. The losses only matter relative to other alliances. So if every alliance loses 50% of their strength that isn't as big a loss as if only they lose 50% of their strength (and in fact might actually be a gain, depending on your position and strategy). Thus, if there are more nukes, that is a greater potential loss (and as I explain in reply to Delta, a potentially painful one where it hurts at the top ranks); if every alliance is involved then the potential for loss is smaller (though it may be less or more depending on the exact situation). This is all fairly simple military strategy.

So let us look at history. Would you deny that wars are less likely to happen when the damage inflicted on the attacking group likely to be significant? I would hope not -- not to say that the war won't still happen, but it is self-evidently less likely. We can see, for example, how cagey the start of 'GW2' was compared to the start of 'GW3', which happened a lot quicker and with a lot more confidence. We can also see how quickly 'GW2' ended despite the conventional war going in only one direction (the Initiative's), and we can see how immediately after the war ended the Initiative began to build up their nuclear stockpile to such a degree that it was double Aegis's only a few months later, even when Aegis had incorporated a number of large alliances into its group. Maybe they were just doing it for kicks? Or perhaps to improve their military position and make the use of Aegis's nukes less likely.

Now, if we want to be more specific about why GW3 happened against this disincentive, then it is simply because the disincentives were negated below the incentives. So, as I outlined in my very first post in this thread [you really need to start reading what you respond to] a great war lessens the disincentive because all of the competitors are involved, and thus the threat to relative strength is no longer a threat. You may lose strength relative to your allies, or you may gain it, while you gain massive amounts of strength relative to your enemies, and as such increase your overall position. So in a great war situation where two sides are set on a collision course for political reasons the nukes -- where they are evenly matched or greater on the side of the aggressor -- will be less of a deterrent.

Of course, this is all based on the premise that you don't start wars if you know you are going to lose them, that you don't just go 'I fancy a war, how about *throw a dart at the map of global powers*', and that you actually plan things out before the attack, instead of just throwing forth human waves after the fact and crossing your fingers. This isn't a character flaw, but another simple fact of politics that has existed from the day the NPO was founded, throughout the early wars, through the Great Patriotic War, throughout the Initiative, and so forth. I don't know what war rooms you've been in, but if you haven't been considering these basic facts then perhaps that is why these war rooms don't belong to the most powerful alliance in existence. Those who consider military strategy will be those at the top (and thus those dealing with nukes), while those who neglect it will end up as those to whom it doesn't matter anyway.

And the fact that you had to point to a war that occurred two years ago and then had to invent inverted nuclear statistics to prove your point is probably telling in and of itself.

It's the proliferation of treaties that make war near impossible without a large force to back you up.

I've noticed it, and explained it last year (see link). Treaties, cultures, personalities, etc. These don't appear out of nowhere. As I've already stated in this thread, alliances react to the situation around them: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Outwards_Spiral

Much of what I said above applies to you as well, especially the points on relative strength, where you seem to be dealing only in absolute strength without considering the political nature of war.

Nukes don't "just make war go faster." Nukes are a means by which to do more damage to your opponent faster, yes, so instead of 100 damage in a 7 day war you can do 200 (for example). But after that 7 day war you are weakened and fighting a lower rank (assuming you're on the losing side), and as such doing less damage. So overall the amount of damage you will do is less, even if the war goes on a great deal longer, particularly in the top ranks. We could go on to discuss this from different perspectives, but hopefully that isn't needed.

Now, your assertion is that removing nukes would be in favour of the winning alliance, and in cases where the winning alliance is clear this is true -- thus the Order could operate quite freely against alliances pre-GPW due to its slight strength and organisational advantage. However, my point is that removing nukes would change the nature of gameplay, removing disincentives towards higher level wars and risk-taking by removing the heavy mutual destruction that occurs as soon as you come into contact with an armed opponent. Why take a risk on a more evenly matched war, or on making a political manoeuvre, if you are going to lose relative strength regardless of whether you win or lose. On the other hand, if this loss isn't predetermined, then perhaps you can take on your more powerful enemies, or if they don't exist, risk creating them to increase your relative strength (again, we could go on here, but it shouldn't be necessary to get the point).

Jake Erics, I didn't say that nukes were magic, I said they were a disincentive. It doesn't make war impossible and it doesn't act as a 'win now' button, it just makes it more damaging to go to war, and thus, all things being equal, less likely.

Note: to make debate possible I am discussing nukes almost as if in a vacuum (and as a by-product in a Machiavellian way), obviously in real situations there is much more to consider.

[Aurion]

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.

If you didn't want opinions on the subject that you don't like or don't want opinions that are phrased with the utmost frankness, you probably shouldn't have made the thread.

Just in case my analogy confused you, I noted that you have a talent for stating the blindingly obvious.

That doesn't necessarily make this discussion moot, and I will thank you to not attempt to place words in my mouth. You simply aren't that good at it.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Aurion

[Blacky]

Is what I'm saying so controversial? That maybe, just maybe, the more relatively destructive a war is the less likely it is for an alliance to enter that war? I don't really see anyone disagreeing with this except Blacky, and I think he'd disagree if I said the sky was blue.

That's not what you said though. What you said was that nuclear stockpiles were the "primary reason so few wars occur today". Anybody who knows anything about the current political structure which exists in this world knows that is completely wrong.

Sorry, doesn't compute, things are a bit more complex than that. In deciding whether to go to war an alliance has to calculate the gains it will make versus the potential losses.

Your calculator doesn't have a button which represents honour, respect or admiration which is earned from not calculating these trivial things and fighting for what you believe is right.

This is all fairly simple military strategy.

Mhm. We should have a discussion on military strategy some time.

So let us look at history. Would you deny that wars are less likely to happen when the damage inflicted on the attacking group likely to be significant?

Well it depends on what you mean exactly. Would they be attacking in defence? or attacking for gain (political or otherwise)?

Those who consider military strategy will be those at the top (and thus those dealing with nukes), while those who neglect it will end up as those to whom it doesn't matter anyway.

Military strategy should never run an alliances foreign affairs.

[Vladimir]

The handful of minor points you held onto above have already been addressed.

That's not what you said though. What you said was that nuclear stockpiles were the "primary reason so few wars occur today". Anybody who knows anything about the current political structure which exists in this world knows that is completely wrong

No, that's not what I said. I said it is "is one of the primary reasons that so few wars occur today" [emphasis added]. And I think I've made that point pretty well.

Your calculator doesn't have a button which represents honour, respect or admiration which is earned from not calculating these trivial things and fighting for what you believe is right.

See my previous post (this applies for your final two points as well): "Note: to make debate possible I am discussing nukes almost as if in a vacuum (and as a by-product in a Machiavellian way), obviously in real situations there is much more to consider." Likewise I noted in a number of places that results and incentives would vary slightly depending on the politics and strategy of the alliance(s) involved.

If we were to try and look at the exact impact of nukes in every single situation, with every single political, military and cultural variable, we'd be here for the rest of our lives. Thus what I did was look at the situation in a vacuum and demonstrate how nukes affected things. You can then take these results and apply them to various situations with various results, but the fundamental point remains the same.

[Ejayrazz]

This game wasn't meant for equality or 'fairness'. End of discussion.

[Blacky]

See my previous post (this applies for your final two points as well): "Note: to make debate possible I am discussing nukes almost as if in a vacuum (and as a by-product in a Machiavellian way), obviously in real situations there is much more to consider." Likewise I noted in a number of places that results and incentives would vary slightly depending on the politics and strategy of the alliance(s) involved.

Indeed and in taking that into account I see where the fundamental error in your claim that nukes "are one of the primary reasons so few wars occur today" comes from. It's the fact that you have not taken into account the variables which can be just an important. As this game is not in a vacuum, its impossible to discuss it based off of that line of reasoning.

If we were to try and look at the exact impact of nukes in every single situation, with every single political, military and cultural variable, we'd be here for the rest of our lives. Thus what I did was look at the situation in a vacuum and demonstrate how nukes affected things. You can then take these results and apply them to various situations with various results, but the fundamental point remains the same.

As stated above that is impossible. It's almost like claiming that since your gas lighter wont work in a vacuum it is useless here on earth. Quite the contrary, a gas lighter being used here on earth produces fire due to the atmosphere being rich with oxygen to complete the basic combustion reaction. What you have done is taken things out of context to reach and unreachable conclusion when a more simple one exists and is already accepted.

The cause for so few wars is the current political structure which exists in the game.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Blacky

[JayOvfEnnay]

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"

This. An uncapped GRL would be the best addition to this game since the creation of nukes themselves.

[Vladimir]

No, Blacky. Unless you are going to try and argue that alliances want to damage themselves (ie. change the most fundamental premises of international relations), then the basic mechanism I outlined exists regardless (excluding extreme (and rare) situations such as I already noted, and even then nukes help to prevent some of these situations from arising in the first place).

You can't just say 'you didn't consider every possible variable [an impossibility -- we all have to die eventually, and when I do I'd still be in the process of writing down all the possibilities for you], therefore I don't have to listen to anything you said', you have to actively demonstrate what variables would negate the disincentive of nukes.

[Blacky]

No, Blacky. Unless you are going to try and argue that alliances want to damage themselves (ie. change the most fundamental premises of international relations), then the basic mechanism I outlined exists regardless (excluding extreme (and rare) situations such as I already noted, and even then nukes help to prevent some of these situations from arising in the first place).

Vladimir let me ask you this then, using the basic mechanism you outlined how do you explain the fact that every summer a new set of alliances are set to throw down? It's not a coincidence. The best evidence you use of the apparent apprehension which comes from declaring on a nuclear enemy is in GW2, without taking into account as I have continually pointed out that there is a more obvious explanation eg;(ODN and Legion's involvement or lack thereof which had to be established). The fact that League had more nukes than Initiative played no part in that and the fact that you can not see that is quite disturbing.

Nuclear stockpiles do not, I repeat, DO NOT decide whether a fight will occur or whether one is more or less likely. It is the political and diplomatic structure which exists which does.

You can't just say 'you didn't consider every possible variable [an impossibility -- we all have to die eventually, and when I do I'd still be in the process of writing down all the possibilities for you], therefore I don't have to listen to anything you said', you have to actively demonstrate what variables would negate the disincentive of nukes.

I believe I answered that question from the very start and several times thereafter. However, your inability to absorb basic and irrefutable points which I have made abundantly clear has led you to ask that question again.

Having nukes negate the disincentive of fighting a nuclear opponent.

Having an SDI or spies capable of destroying enemy nuclear stockpiles.

Having a motive for the war such as defending your alliances principles or defending a treaty partner.

The fact that this is a game.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Blacky

[Lennox]

Let all the nukes fly. Nations are getting too big anyway.

[Vladimir]

Vladimir let me ask you this then, using the basic mechanism you outlined how do you explain that fact that every summer a new set of alliances are set to throw down? It's not a coincidence. The best evidence you use of the apparent apprehension which comes from declaring on a nuclear enemy is in GW2, without taking into account as I have continually pointed out that there is a more obvious explanation eg;(ODN and Legion's involvement or lack thereof which had to be established). The fact that one side had more nukes than the other played very no part in that and the fact that you can not see that is quite disturbing.

I only discussed GW2 because you brought up GW3 and it was an easy contrast. Admittedly it'd difficult to prove why something didn't happen because... well, it didn't happen, so we don't know about it. Moreover, my point with GW2 was that the forces were relatively evenly matched, including the nukes (which are an important aspect of force, as were the potential alliances coming in on each side (though I don't remember a great deal of concern on our side about ODN/Legion entering)), and this made things more cagey -- and of course that the nukes played an important part in the quick peace

However, I also brought up the pre-GPW period where more equal wars were fought without allied assistance relatively frequently, in contrast to the modern day, along, with the longer and longer peace as nuclear stockpiles have increased

Nuclear stockpiles do not, I repeat, DO NOT decide whether a fight will occur or whether one is more or less likely. It is the political and diplomatic structure which exists which does.

Saying that nuclear stockpiles don't make a war more or less likely is just asinine. It's effectively arguing either that alliances are stupid and don't consider who they're fighting, or that war is divine and man has no control over it. That is to say, of course it makes war more or less likely, for the same reason that GATO didn't attack the NPO prior to the great war, that LUE didn't attack the Initiative prior to 'GW2', and that the NpO didn't attack Goons prior to the Unjust War -- if they had attacked before the forces on their side had been gathered they would have been destroyed, and alliances are fairly universally destruction-adverse.

I believe I answered that question from the very start and several times thereafter. However, your inability to absorb basic and irrefutable points which I have made abundantly clear has led you to ask that question again.

Having nukes negate the disincentive of fighting a nuclear opponent.

Having an SDI or spies capable of destroying enemy nuclear stockpiles.

Having a motive for the war such as defending your alliances principles or defending a treaty partner.

Lulz.

You answered, I refutted, you ignored, I questioned, you repeated your original and already-refuted answer. So not entirely down to my inability to absorb basic points. I'll refresh your memory:

"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."

You once again forgot that it's all about relative strength compared to competitors, not simply strength vis-a-vis your direct opponent.

As for the other points, yes, SDI and spies lessen the threat posed by nukes and thus lessen the disincentive they pose, but only numerically, not on principle. By removing 60% of the enemy stockpile you remove 60% of the damage they will cause, but the 40% is still in play, and if the hypothetical enemy were to increase their stockpiles sufficiently they would be back up to the threat they were at prior to SDI/spies. So ultimately it's a non-point in this debate.

Defence. Yes, this is a fair point. But I was discussing nuclear weapons as a disincentive for starting a war, not for honouring a treaty or principles (historically it may well have acted as a disincentive to many alliances, but it often comes down to the already set culture of the alliance than anything else).

Lulz. That depends. You can say 'nukes don't act as a disincentive if the alliance is set on its own destruction and attacks you anyway', but that isn't really saying anything at all -- 'if we ignore all the laws of international relations then the laws of international relations won't apply'. Only extremely rarely will this occur, and really isn't worth thinking about in terms of general theoretical discussion (otherwise no point would ever be valid because an alliance potentially could if they really wanted to disregard it). If we look at the famous 'lulz' alliances such as the Unjust Pact, they were not like this and acted very strategically until the end. They didn't attack alliances that would do a lot of damage to their relative position until the end when they were backed into a corner and had little choice. As a side note, I would further point out that the lulz alliances didn't usually become openly lulz alliances until they had gained enough power to defend their position as such.

[Bob]

<giant wall of text that doesn't prove much of anything>

Deceptive.

This is funny (Also blacky went to sleep the aussie that he is).

Edited March 17, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris

[Republic of Roma]

With my guide, nuclear warfare can be devastating again if an alliance coordinates its attacks on another alliance's smaller nations, constantly. Eventually the casualties mount up and with 2-3 months of bashing nations around the 10-20k NS range, an alliance will definitely suffer especially when the bloated-over sized nations are incapable of both aiding and saving their lower ranks because aid is limited to $3 mil each, and with the new reforms in war, less nations can declare war on each other so a determined alliance that is doomed can have a free-for-all killing range of the lower ranks of larger alliances. In the FAN-NPO war, it was only around 30-40 nations (maybe more I'm not sure the exact number) out of the 400+ nations that did the majority of the damage to NPO because only they could launch nukes and buy more at will, now alliances with the same amount of nations can send 100-200 nations to wage nuclear war, and continue doing so for over a month. Unlike the FAN war, more nations below 5%, up to 30% by my calculations can wage all-out war on lower-ranked nations and launch 60+ nukes if they wanted to, alone or in a group. I can just imagine a group doing what I did on a mass-scale, the damage would be worse than what FAN did to NPO, especially, as I said, if nations in the 30% range can launch nukes and continue doing so over and over again even in a tag team. That was my greatest challenge, was being outnumbered, but I still lasted for over a month, with only 75 mil, without getting any aid, and with no help against my any of my attackers.

[Delta1212]

Much of what I said above applies to you as well, especially the points on relative strength, where you seem to be dealing only in absolute strength without considering the political nature of war.

Nukes don't "just make war go faster." Nukes are a means by which to do more damage to your opponent faster, yes, so instead of 100 damage in a 7 day war you can do 200 (for example). But after that 7 day war you are weakened and fighting a lower rank (assuming you're on the losing side), and as such doing less damage. So overall the amount of damage you will do is less, even if the war goes on a great deal longer, particularly in the top ranks. We could go on to discuss this from different perspectives, but hopefully that isn't needed.

Now, your assertion is that removing nukes would be in favour of the winning alliance, and in cases where the winning alliance is clear this is true -- thus the Order could operate quite freely against alliances pre-GPW due to its slight strength and organisational advantage. However, my point is that removing nukes would change the nature of gameplay, removing disincentives towards higher level wars and risk-taking by removing the heavy mutual destruction that occurs as soon as you come into contact with an armed opponent. Why take a risk on a more evenly matched war, or on making a political manoeuvre, if you are going to lose relative strength regardless of whether you win or lose. On the other hand, if this loss isn't predetermined, then perhaps you can take on your more powerful enemies, or if they don't exist, risk creating them to increase your relative strength (again, we could go on here, but it shouldn't be necessary to get the point).

I'm not even sure how to untangle the logical knot you've created by contradicting yourself that many times, but I'll take a stab at it.

First, and fairly obviously, every alliance must weigh the cost of war against the benefit before taking the plunge. This is not in dispute. My argument is that nuclear weapons act as an equalizer, making their effects more negligible in terms of fighting an evenly matched war and much more pronounced when a war is very uneven with regard to the relative damage inflicted by each side on the other. Your claim is that nuclear weapons create such a higher cost that they prevent anything but widespread wars with overwhelming odds in order to offset the damage, thereby leading to game stagnation through a decrease in the number of wars.

Now, for my own argument, the logic behind it is thus: Nuclear weapons are capable of inflicting, to a degree, proportional damage on any side of a war because of the fact that you can only be hit by one a day. An alliance outnumbering its opponent three to one is capable of absorbing three times the damage of its opponent. Conventionally, they can do approximately equal absolute damage to each other assuming roughly equal skill an organization. In a nuclear war, the outnumbered alliance is capable of dishing out three times as much damage, which means that both sides will take proportionately equal nuclear damage, thereby negating a very large amount of the advantage to be had by superior numbers, though not entirely as conventional damage still takes place and it is always possible to have such overwhelming numbers that it can offset even the nuclear equalizer. This means that a large alliance is capable of sustaining more damage in a nuclear war, as opposed to being capable of inflicting more damage as is the case with a conventional war. This provides an incentive for attackers with overwhelming numbers to end a war more quickly against an opponent with a large nuclear stockpile and the will to use it than against a non-nuclear foe that they can, realistically, beat into the ground and keep their indefinitely with little comparable damage to themselves. Or simply to avoid conflict with a nuclear enemy more often as the cost becomes more likely to outweigh the benefit.

Of course, your initial premise that nuclear weapons decrease the number of total wars is in full agreement with my own. Unfortunately, I'm disagreeing with you on various details, so it seems you are compelled to refute me, even when it undermines the very basis of your own argument. You claim that a full nuclear war would mean that " after that 7 day war you are weakened and fighting a lower rank (assuming you're on the losing side), and as such doing less damage. So overall the amount of damage you will do is less, even if the war goes on a great deal longer, particularly in the top ranks." Ignoring for a moment that this is fundamentally wrong, were it true, it would mean that when attempting to balance the pros and cons of going to war, full use of a nuclear stockpile by both sides would deacrease the damage taken by an attacker and thereby make wars more common with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Obviously, using nukes don't mean you do less damage to your enemy, although I must admit, had you thought that out a bit better and spread it around it would have made for a nice "don't build or use nuclear weapons" propaganda bit to use against any political rivals.

But no, in war, you will always be knocked down in ranks as they progress. If you are massively outnumbered, you will almost certainly be knocked out of the top ranks in the first or very least second round of war with or without nukes. Using them simply means you do far more damag to the very top ranks during the opening stages. Not using them means you still get ground into dust, but the top ranks are much better off by the end. And this is assuming the smaller force isn't amazingly competent with nuclear deployment. If they really know what they're doing, they can make war at the top last a very long time. You accuse me of ignoring political considerations where I very clearly did not, and in the same post make positive claims about war that ignore all knowledge of the effects and doctrines of nuclear conflict.

In the final paragraph you claim that nuclear weapons deter taking a risk on an evenly matched conflict because you will lose relative strength and thus position. Of course, that's rather silly since a truly evenly matched conflict would hold the potential for either side to win or hold at a stalemate until they were beat into the ground, thereby losing that relative strength anyway. It is in an even conflict that nuclear weapons simply speed up the destruction because they do not provide any inherent advantage or disadvantage to sides which are otherwise perfectly equal. It is only a side with an unanswered non-nuclear advantage (whether numerically, politically, or in terms of resolve) that the use of nuclear weapons begins to harm by increasing the damage taken by the side that will eventually win, while marginally affecting, if at all, the eventual loser.

Of course, evenly matched wars are not prevented by nuclear weapons. They are deterred by the political landscape and current treaty web as you yourself put forth in the essay you linked at the beginning of your post and the general unwillingness of anyone to commit to something they believe has a fair likelihood of their failure. That is the thing which forces large scale conflicts over smaller one-on-one duels. If the treaty web did not exist, you might have been able to make a case for the relative damage of a small scale conflict outweighing the benefits, but such conflicts are a political impossibilty with or without nuclear stockpiles. The only wars in the current climate that nuclear stockpiles factor in as a deterring factor for are the curbstomps in which they allow a smaller defender to do significantly more damage to a larger aggressor than they would otherwise.

To top it, off, and in quite an ironic manner, you claim the lack of wars (almost all of which would be massively lop-sided) created by widespread nuclear proliferation is what is causing the game to stagnate. Now, why is this ironic? Well, first, in any topic in which the point is raised that the game is stagnating, you are the first to jump up and beat them down claiming that no such thing is going on because everyone has been saying that forever. In fact, Francoism and lack of stagnation are probably the two points that you are most commonly associated with. The fact that the game is now suddenly in a state of stagnation when you can pin it on a game mechanic which has caused considerable damage to your alliance in the past where, was the mechanic removed, it would have suffered significantly less means that either you've had a sudden change of heart, and I look forward to hearing you agree with those complaining of stagnation in the future, or you are being disingenuous in order to associate a popular idea with an idea that, should it be implemented, give you a major adavantage in the hopes that by building popular support you can see it happen.

It doubles up on irony because of the fact that a disincentive, as you call it, for such curbstomps to take place does the opposite of contributing to stagnation by making it harder to smack down anyone with the potential of being a future threat because of the potential for incurred damage with little guaranteed payoff, and instead allows them to grow and potentially become enough of a force to at least make the game interesting for a little while. You took a shot at nuclear proliferation, and lord knows I understand why you'd want to after the trouble they've caused, but really, this is not your best work.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Delta1212

[Vladimir]

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond in full, so I will just put down some preliminary notes.

Before I begin, I should point out that there really is no self-interest in me attacking nukes -- both because they won't be removed and because it isn't a move favourable to the NPO (given our position and number of nukes). Thought I'd add that since some political opponents seem to have it in their head that if I say something then it is immediately a propaganda lie and the opposite must be believed. Of course, someone will jump in to disagree and give a reason or two that the Order might benefit as Delta did, but that's neither here nor there. In my opinion (all that matters in regards to my writing) it would be of detriment to the Order's power, but would be of benefit to the wider political world. This is well proven by the fact that I have been arguing it non-stop for 3 years, through every epoch, whether the Order was on top, bottom or indifferent.

On the first point. Yes you will always be knocked down, but the point is that the attacker takes more damage because more damage is aimed at the top ranks prior to the first week being over. This does more damage because the nations are harder to rebuild, because they are the nations expected to rebuild everyone else, and because high ranking nations are essential to maintaining alliance power.

On the second point. I could nitpick a number of things here, but the salient point is that nukes act as a disincentive. This doesn't mean that there aren't other disincentives, only that nukes are another one. So of course alliances won't enter wars where they might lose a lot of relative strength, the point is that nukes make this loss of strength great and assured, and thus you either need overwhelming odds or your competitors involved. It removes the risk of warfare with a mutually destructive negative-sum game.

To this end I wasn't suggesting that alliances would suddenly start picking fights with alliances that would leave them badly off -- the same premises that apply to nukes apply here. Only that it removes this assured mutual destruction on a grand scale and replaces it again with risk. As I pointed out already, we can see pre-nuke warfare in action prior to the GPW. Other things have changed, but we can still see that alliances were far more willing to engage on more (though not perfectly) equal terms, along with maintaining a greater degree of treaty independence. Obviously this point needs a lot of bulking up to properly explain it, but I'll have to leave that for later.

On the third point. You are still seeing the treaty web as some mystical force above the community. The web was created by the community out of the conditions we find ourselves in. As I outlined in the essay, the primary reason for this is the deconcentration of strength, but as I have outlined here, an important part of this is the proliferation of nukes. I'd develop this point more if I had the time, but if you have read the essay I hope you can see yourself where such a point fits in.

On the fourth point. I attack the constant calls that we have reached the 'end of history'. I don't disagree with the basic fact that we have had a prolonged period of peace -- in fact, that's what my entire essay was about. If you look back at recent discussions on 'stagnation' you will see that I have been making exactly the same points, always attacking the idea that we are in some new paradigm as a result of culture/personalities/treaties/whatever, and instead pointing out that change remains constant, and that the new elements of our current epoch are inevitable products of its material condition. Try not to confuse materialism with inconsistency as the anti-Francoists do.

[Luis Quezada]

nukes ftw my friend

and maybe you two should just write a book with your humongous answers

[Bob]

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond in full, so I will just put down some preliminary notes.

Has anyone ever noticed that whenever Vlad is losing a debate this line always comes up?

[Bob Janova]

Nukes are a deterrent to needless war, and to alliance scale tech raids. The GPA would not have been attacked had they had a credible deterrent, for example (although in their case no number of nukes would have made it credible). But those wars are not fun anyway. Nukes are not a deterrent to 'real' war because they simply speed up the rate of attrition on both sides and therefore how quickly peace (or at least effective victory) can be reached. You can see this by the willingness to start the Unjust War and the Polar/Hyperion war, particularly NPO's wish to engage the MK in the latter, both of which were expected to go nuclear.

Before I begin, I should point out that there really is no self-interest in me attacking nukes

Oh come on, you can't expect anyone to believe that. The NPO has always looked to limit the use of nukes in war because you know that you have numerical supremacy on your side and nukes are a good leveller against that. And we all saw the strength graphs after the MK engagement.

[Archon]

This is well proven by the fact that I have been arguing it non-stop for 3 years, through every epoch, whether the Order was on top, bottom or indifferent.

Perhaps I'm misreading this, but that may be the first time you've ever acknowledged that the Order has been anything but the top.

[Sephiroth]

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"

I say we uncap GRL as well, but I don't think it will deter nuke usage, if anything people might try pushing it as high as possible adding more fun to nuclear warfare.

[jerdge]

Now, your assertion is that removing nukes would be in favour of the winning alliance, and in cases where the winning alliance is clear this is true -- thus the Order could operate quite freely against alliances pre-GPW due to its slight strength and organisational advantage. However, my point is that removing nukes would change the nature of gameplay, removing disincentives towards higher level wars and risk-taking by removing the heavy mutual destruction that occurs as soon as you come into contact with an armed opponent. Why take a risk on a more evenly matched war, or on making a political manoeuvre, if you are going to lose relative strength regardless of whether you win or lose. On the other hand, if this loss isn't predetermined, then perhaps you can take on your more powerful enemies, or if they don't exist, risk creating them to increase your relative strength (again, we could go on here, but it shouldn't be necessary to get the point).

I agree with you, and for the exact same reason I'd like that the nukes remained powerful as they are (I'm one of the "few" players that dislike wars).

If you didn't want opinions on the subject that you don't like or don't want opinions that are phrased with the utmost frankness, you probably shouldn't have made the thread.

Just in case my analogy confused you, I noted that you have a talent for stating the blindingly obvious.

That doesn't necessarily make this discussion moot, and I will thank you to not attempt to place words in my mouth. You simply aren't that good at it.

Your post isn't without wisdom but I also obviously don't completely agree with you. The thread is anyway too interesting at this point, for us to indulge in a sterile flame war: I drop the issue.