CM's as WMD's

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='iamthey' date='05 April 2010 - 03:27 AM' timestamp='1270452453' post='2248854']
When I suggested it I was just thinking...

Third World Tech: Can't use CM's as any sort of WMD (EMP/ or Bio/Chemical/radiological weapon with any wide scale of effect)
Modern Tech + First world Tech: Can utilize CM's as WMD's.


Or no NRL = no non-nuclear WMD's

Or no WRC = no non-nuclear WMD's

Something fairly simple which preserves the open nature of the present system without too many confusing formulas or rules. And of course the design of the weapons themselves would be tied to tech so you couldn't use a modern thermobaric weapon with third world tech.
[/quote]

I'm against having any requirements for CM WMD's, especially when third world countries can create them in missile form. Best example for bioweaponry is Iraq's Al Hakum & Salman Pak facility. Chemical and bio warheads have existed since the cold war, manufactured by third world countries. Radiological weapons are produced by terrorists with correct access to any radiological material. Couldn't find much about these weapons other than military's don't use them and they're primarily dirty bombs.

That being said, we should avoid over-regulating something so simple. Common sense can reign here just fine.

[Markus Wilding]

I think for Third World, bio and chemical weapons should be like 1 Bio/Chemical missile equals 2 missiles, so if I bought two CMs IG and converted them to, say, carry smallpox, then those two missiles should be down to one missile. Also for 3rd world, I think EMPs should be out of the question totally unless all parties agree on their use.

But that's just me.

[Zoot Zoot]

I think the CM scale is perfectly fine how it is. It keeps the already severley imbalanced scale, to a degree of equal footing when a smaller nation who is gonna lose anyway, against a much bigger nation.

If i warred Tahoe, I would lose anyway, so I can fire my 10 warheads and i know at least 4 of them are gonna get past his SDI, cos not all of them will be shot down. Meaning I can still hit back and cause alot of damage with my bio/chem warheads. Instead of it just being 5 missiles, having them all shot, and having no real chance to defend myself at all.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

EDIT: Don't care anymore.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sarah Tintagyl

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' date='05 April 2010 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1270486220' post='2249237']
Just putting it out there...I will NOT recognize a CM as a WMD. You have nukes IG for a reason. Also...all this talk of bio warfare, correct me if I'm wrong, but say a city gets hit with smallpox and someone happens to leave the city and land in another country as a refugee? Again, Bio/Chem weapons should have extensive background, not just..."We produced Bio weapons, fear us." Sorry to say but that more than anything is abusing the system.
[/quote]
Indeed.

Though I do agree that they need some sort of limits other than just that. If not the limits suggested by IAT, then the kind suggested by Markus. A third world nation can still produce these weapons...just not in numbers as great as a Modern or First World nation.

[Centurius]

I like the scale of iamthey with it requiring a WRC, while it is true this might be unfair for small nations. Well tough luck, it isn't fair for rl small nations either.

[Zoot Zoot]

RL small nations have them though.
that is the problem.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

Its perfectly fine how it is now.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Zoot Zoot

[Executive Minister]

The way I see it.

IG nukes == Strategic Level nuclear weapons/ EMP's

IG CMs == Tactical Level thermobaric/daisy cutter, Chem or Bio weapons, tactical EMP, etc etc

Again, while a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82"]BLU-82[/url] has an effective blast radius of 100- 300m, it isn't comparable to a nuke.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Executive Minister

[Zoot Zoot]

EM, thats pretty much what it is now, and I think its a working system.
So long as sarah said, there is RP behind development, it shouldnt be a problem.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='05 April 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1270488586' post='2249278']
RL small nations have them though.
that is the problem.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

Its perfectly fine how it is now.
[/quote]
Yes...but do you really think they are [i]capable[/i] of making these weapons in such numbers as, say, the US, China, or Russia?

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='05 April 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1270489581' post='2249303']
Yes...but do you really think they are [i]capable[/i] of making these weapons in such numbers as, say, the US, China, or Russia?
[/quote]
No, they are not. We should limit the amount of Bio and Chem weapons to nations, maybe:

3rd: 1

2nd: 15

1st: ???

[Michael McBride]

Saying you need a WRC to produce non-nuclear WMDs is retarded. RL nations that don't have nukes have chemical and biological weapons, sometimes in greater quantities than first world nations who are restricted by international treaties prohibiting such types of weapons.

[Markus Wilding]

I think Modern should be able to have more than 15, and 3rd definitely needs more than 1. Maybe like 5 or 10 at the most for 3rd, possibly 30 or 35 0r Modern and 1st gets 50, though with most in the 1ss word tech tier having nukes I'm not sure if we should even attempt to limit them, since they have something WAY deadlier than smallpox and anthrax.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' date='05 April 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1270489084' post='2249295']
EM, thats pretty much what it is now, and I think [b]its a working system.[/b]
So long as sarah said, there is RP behind development, it shouldnt be a problem.
[/quote]

I know it is, and I think it works too. The only problem I have is that people on the recieving end tend to not take these things seriously.

I propose that, like nukes and SDI's, IG missile defence systems are factored when one launches tactical weapons IC (IG CM's). The reason being that while it is difficult to intercept a single bomb (a daisy cutter) in the middle of an enormous war, the thing floats down via a parachute, which could get shot down by even mobile tactical missile defences. Similarly, there are many systems that are designed to shoot down cruise missiles.

Looking at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Classified_by_type.2Frange_of_missile_intercepted"]this[/url]:

Strategic and Theatre Ballistic defence seem to fall under SDI's, since there's a bit of overlap, KISS nothing to change there.

Tactical Ballistic defence would be what I am talking about.

So, I fire a special IC CM's weapon at nation A's city. Nation A has 5 IG missile defences. He has a 50% chance to destroy that special weapon. If I shoot it at a city, he can say that one of his stationary missile defences got it (Like the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot"]Patriot[/url] system- also, regular [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-23_Hawk"]SAM'[/url]s would work too), or an interceptor plane [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCADE"]shot it down[/url].

Equally so, If Nation A was invading me, and I decided to fire a special weapon like a heavy cruise missile barrage (would require multiple 'rolls') or dropped a daisy cutter on his front line to break the attack, if he had those 5 MD's, bingo, he has a 50% chance IC to also intercept that, even if he was in my borders. This would be attributed to something like [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K22_Tunguska"]this[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1"]this[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Missile_System"]this[/url] or even [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system"]this[/url] being present in the area at the time, and shot it/them down. The details are in the RP.

This way, these things become more serious- people MUST reflect those damages properly, while also giving it a counter, the same way we deal with nukes.

If not, keep the old system.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Executive Minister

[Zoot Zoot]

Keep the old system.

Of course they wont have the same ammounts as super powers, rising super powers or past surper powers.
Your point is moot.


Saddams stockpile was large enough to inflict massive damage on the kurds, massive enough to sustain an eight year war against iran.
North Korea has plenty of Long range ballistic missiles, NO DONG missiles are an example, Taepodong-X/Nodong-B Mobile Ballistic Missiles are another.
the NK is also estimated between 6 and 9 nuclear weapons.

They are a small nation.

Now relating back to IG CNRP, nukes are a no no unless you have them IG, but cruise missiles should be whatever the bloody hell you want them to be with the right RP behind them to back it up.

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' date='05 April 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1270490348' post='2249316']
Saying you need a WRC to produce non-nuclear WMDs is retarded. RL nations that don't have nukes have chemical and biological weapons, sometimes in greater quantities than first world nations who are restricted by international treaties prohibiting such types of weapons.
[/quote]
I hate to say this (I mean really, really hate), but I agree completely with Pravus.

Third world nations can easily create chemical and biological weapons in reality, and are obviously going to capitalize on that if they are at even the slightest threat of being nuked, or invaded by a superior army. Anyone with a bit of knowledge and some simple equipment can produce massive amounts of these weapons, and producing a dangerous pathogen is as easy as finding a sick person and cultivating their disease into a more fatal variety, or just build up large amounts of the already deadly strain.

The only logical issue I can see with letting anyone use Bio and Chemical Weapons is the missiles they're put on. Some sort of ICBM is out of the reach of most Third World Nations, but even that has an easy explanation; With how many nations come and go in CNRP, they could easily access a derelict missile silo from a former owner of the land, and get missiles like that.

Anywho, I say it (Like everything) should be RPed out before any sort of conflict, but otherwise, the rules are fine as they are.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I got an easy solution for this one, if you are 3rd world you're limited to the number of CMs as bio/cm weapons. Once you get an MP, your # of chemical and biological weapons becomes unrestricted because quite frankly, they become so easy to make and your average person so well educated due to the requirements to be a modern state.. that people even make them in the garage to threaten your local politicians occasionally.. lol.

[Silhouette]

This is, unfortunately, true. I could buy the chemicals for a nasty chemical weapon from my hardware store, as well as the necessary protective gear.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='05 April 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1270488949' post='2249291']
The way I see it.

IG nukes == Strategic Level nuclear weapons/ EMP's

IG CMs == Tactical Level thermobaric/daisy cutter, Chem or Bio weapons, tactical EMP, etc etc

Again, while a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82"]BLU-82[/url] has an effective blast radius of 100- 300m, it isn't comparable to a nuke.
[/quote]

I personally would prefer IG nukes remain strategic nukes in RP, and CM's allow for the potential to be strategic level non-nuclear WMD's. Tactical level stuff is unregulated (it doesn't have enough of an impact to require limiting it to 50). I don't really have a problem with the existing system as it seems to work fine, the only issue with it is that it is inconsistent with the larger paradigm of max vs IG when it comes to determining its cap. The point of starting this discussion was to find a way to resolve balance issues (ie limit the scope of who can actually have strategic weapons) while bumping the cap to be based upon potential max CM's.

If the community cares about being consistent, then it is important to make sure whatever change there is, is done fairly without disqualifying too many people.

EDIT: Mael's idea was interesting.

The only issue is a strategic weapon is a strategic weapon, it can have global implications. In the real world most nuclear nations have more than 25 nukes, (certainly when it comes to superpowers) but realism in that case would create an insane balance issue. In the same way the US certainly has more than 50 weapons systems designed to deploy VX nerve gas, and an educated chem student could create a rudimentary chemical weapon, but the balance issue remains the same: to make strategic level chemical weapons and bio weapons unregulated could be problematic.

Edited April 7, 2010 by iamthey

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='iamthey' date='07 April 2010 - 03:30 AM' timestamp='1270625416' post='2251440']
I personally would prefer IG nukes remain strategic nukes in RP, and CM's allow for the potential to be strategic level non-nuclear WMD's. Tactical level stuff is unregulated (it doesn't have enough of an impact to require limiting it to 50). I don't really have a problem with the existing system as it seems to work fine, the only issue with it is that it is inconsistent with the larger paradigm of max vs IG when it comes to determining its cap. The point of starting this discussion was to find a way to resolve balance issues (ie limit the scope of who can actually have strategic weapons) while bumping the cap to be based upon potential max CM's.

If the community cares about being consistent, then it is important to make sure whatever change there is, is done fairly without disqualifying too many people.

EDIT: Mael's idea was interesting.

The only issue is a strategic weapon is a strategic weapon, it can have global implications. In the real world most nuclear nations have more than 25 nukes, (certainly when it comes to superpowers) but realism in that case would create an insane balance issue. In the same way the US certainly has more than 50 weapons systems designed to deploy VX nerve gas, and an educated chem student could create a rudimentary chemical weapon, but the balance issue remains the same: to make strategic level chemical weapons and bio weapons unregulated could be problematic.
[/quote]

It's one of the problems that real world nations face and are concerned about as well.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='iamthey' date='07 April 2010 - 03:30 AM' timestamp='1270625416' post='2251440']
I personally would prefer IG nukes remain strategic nukes in RP, and CM's allow for the potential to be strategic level non-nuclear WMD's. [b]Tactical level stuff is unregulated (it doesn't have enough of an impact[/b] to require limiting it to 50). I don't really have a problem with the existing system as it seems to work fine, the only issue with it is that it is inconsistent with the larger paradigm of max vs IG when it comes to determining its cap. The point of starting this discussion was to find a way to resolve balance issues (ie limit the scope of who can actually have strategic weapons) while bumping the cap to be based upon potential max CM's.

If the community cares about being consistent, then it is important to make sure whatever change there is, is done fairly without disqualifying too many people.

EDIT: Mael's idea was interesting.

The only issue is a strategic weapon is a strategic weapon, it can have global implications. In the real world most nuclear nations have more than 25 nukes, (certainly when it comes to superpowers) but realism in that case would create an insane balance issue. In the same way the US certainly has more than 50 weapons systems designed to deploy VX nerve gas, and an educated chem student could create a rudimentary chemical weapon, but the balance issue remains the same: to make strategic level chemical weapons and bio weapons unregulated could be problematic.
[/quote]

Im pretty sure a well placed daisy cutter or thermobaric bomb could be used to stop an armoured spearhead in its tracks. Anyhow, I already proposed a system that would make CM's be just as important as IG nukes, if not the same, then at least enough to be taken seriously from now on.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='07 April 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1270651493' post='2251635']
Im pretty sure a well placed daisy cutter or thermobaric bomb could be used to stop an armoured spearhead in its tracks. Anyhow, I already proposed a system that would make CM's be just as important as IG nukes, if not the same, then at least enough to be taken seriously from now on.
[/quote]


But a bio weapon, or a large chemical weapon could cripple an industrial center and kill millions.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='iamthey' date='08 April 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1270778564' post='2253704']
But a bio weapon, or a large chemical weapon could cripple an industrial center and kill millions.
[/quote]

So can terrorists and truck bombs. The thing is, I don't see an issue with CM's being max possible, as long as if people were reasonable with their growth after usage. The development of bio/chem warheads do take some time, however anyone with cold war technology can easily build them.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Here's my idea, make cruise missiles... CRUISE MISSILES!!!!

For every cruise missile you have, you can have 1 ship with cruise missiles, or 1 missile silo or 1 of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System"]these bad boys[/url].

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' date='10 April 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1270909895' post='2255484']
Here's my idea, make cruise missiles... CRUISE MISSILES!!!!

For every cruise missile you have, you can have 1 ship with cruise missiles, or 1 missile silo or 1 of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System"]these bad boys[/url].
[/quote]

A good number countries have had thousands of cruise missiles since the cold war era. IG CM is supposed to = chem/bio warhead cruise missiles.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Voodoo Nova