Jump to content

Open Invitation to the Asian Oceanic Community


Triyun

Recommended Posts

[quote name='JimBob' date='09 May 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1273435422' post='2292710']
OOC:



I think you'll find i dont need to ask for some land or whatever if you take a look at the FAQ section of the Open World Forum:

"Q: Do I have to RP in CNRP to Rp in the Fantasy forum?

A: No. And do not be put off by those who post in your threads saying various things like, "are you on the map?" or "No way is possible." These are simply CNRP'ers wondering if you are joining CNRP.

Q: In CNRP do I have to have my nation on the map RP?

A: Not necessarily. CNRP includes not only role-playing between nations, but role-playing on a small scale, or even with individual characters. A number of players have RP'd without bothering establishing a nation on the map."

So - thanks, but, no thanks - im not buying land and im not budging :)
[/quote]

OoC: The first answer just means that you don't have to be part of CNRP to RP in the Fantasy RP forum. You can still RP by yourself or with other people who want to RP with you, but you can't interact with CNRP-related threads (like this one).

The second one just means that you don't have to RP as a nation (like RPing officials, state news reporters, etc.), but you can still RP as a character as long as you have permission from the owner of where you're RPing.

Edited by Pikachurin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' date='09 May 2010 - 06:25 AM' timestamp='1273382712' post='2292216']
"I do see your point, and a quite meritorious it is indeed, however rather too utopian in our opinion. It is the mandate of a nation to defend its people in any way possible, and nuclear weapons are means of last resort towards that end. If there is no war, there is no question of nuclear weapons being used, and in such a scenario, we have no conflict of opinion at all. So of course we are in principle against first strike of nuclear weapons in any conflict, and the only way to assure that is to prevent conflict in the first place. Now our region is safe, stable and peaceful. And it should remain so. However stability and peace are always under threat from disruption, which can only be prevented by vigilance. If we make a conscious effort to work against war, work against conflict, there is no reason why the threat of nuclear weapons cannot be removed entirely."

"As a career soldier, I know the horrors of war, and I know the horrors that would be unleashed by nuclear weapons. I think it is best we try to avoid war in the entirety," Gen. Mahesh Varma said.
[/quote]


"General I cannot really see your point. You keep talking about avoiding war, but I do not see a better way to avoid war than to foster a system of mutual disarmament and making nuclear war a completely unpalatable option. This is the first step we can all take on this path. The world today has shown that nuclear weapons are not deterrence for war. Many participants in this conference are engaged in a war with Tahoe, a nuclear power. Let us try a no first use doctrine. At the moment, I know of few warlike Asian powers, it is time for us to take advantage of the situation that currently exists and put this system into place making it the new international norm."

[quote name='Minilla Island' date='09 May 2010 - 08:10 AM' timestamp='1273388983' post='2292274']
Former Prime Minister, and Air Force Air Marshal, General Barrett rises to address the conference.

"Though we do sympathize with the aims and goals of this conference, we must remind you that things can get very crazy in wartime. Though we are not fans of a nuclear first strike, and frankly do not know if their are any fans of it amongst world leaders, the option is there in order to save lives rather than wanton destruction. If you are in a protracted war, tens of thousands of lives would be saved if you launched. It is not the greatest thing to do, but for the knockout blow that can end war.

Furthermore, if it is a blanket call, we doubt that it would pass our Government. We believe that the best defense is a good offense. Hence, why we see problems with a blanket prohibition of nuclear first strike."
[/quote]

"The problem is is that the only nations that your nation most likely would have trouble against would also have nuclear weapons. As we have seen in times past, nuclear weapons do not prevent war, they only increase the destructiveness of the conflict. Nor can nuclear weapons decisively end a conflict in any other way than too leave the entire neighborhood in ruins. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JimBob' date='09 May 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1273435422' post='2292710']
OOC:



I think you'll find i dont need to ask for some land or whatever if you take a look at the FAQ section of the Open World Forum:

"Q: Do I have to RP in CNRP to Rp in the Fantasy forum?

A: No. And do not be put off by those who post in your threads saying various things like, "are you on the map?" or "No way is possible." These are simply CNRP'ers wondering if you are joining CNRP.

Q: In CNRP do I have to have my nation on the map RP?

A: Not necessarily. CNRP includes not only role-playing between nations, but role-playing on a small scale, or even with individual characters. A number of players have RP'd without bothering establishing a nation on the map."

So - thanks, but, no thanks - im not buying land and im not budging :)
[/quote]

OOC: Problem is you are RPing with a 'minister of defense', a national leader, and you don't have a nation in CNRP. While you don't need to HAVE a nation to participate in CNRP, you do need some sort of mouth piece such as a corporation, a group of people, or an individual character in another person's nation, both of which necessitate that you have their permission. While the latter three do not require that you have land on the map, there does need to be some sort of logical basis for your presence for you to participate. A minister of defense for a nation that doesn't exist clearly doesn't fulfill that criteria.

As for the first point, yes you can RP in this forum. If you want to go off and start an entirely separate role play universe you are welcome to do that as well, but you still have to follow the rules the CNRP community sets in order to interact or participate with the CNRP universe. Above I just explained why what you are doing now is illegitimate, and how you could maintain a presence in CNRP without actually being a nation or having land. I hope that answers your questions.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='10 May 2010 - 02:54 AM' timestamp='1273440277' post='2292796']
"General I cannot really see your point. You keep talking about avoiding war, but I do not see a better way to avoid war than to foster a system of mutual disarmament and making nuclear war a completely unpalatable option. This is the first step we can all take on this path. The world today has shown that nuclear weapons are not deterrence for war. Many participants in this conference are engaged in a war with Tahoe, a nuclear power. Let us try a no first use doctrine. At the moment, I know of few warlike Asian powers, it is time for us to take advantage of the situation that currently exists and put this system into place making it the new international norm."
[/quote]

"Mutual disarmament and no first strike policies are all rather good, but impractical and unrealistic, in our opinion. It is a product of an over optimistic time, a brilliant dream, but essentially maintaining its illusory nature. In a world beset by wars and conflicts it is simply impossible to guarantee that certain events may not get escalated to merit the usage of nuclear weapons by either of the protagonists."

"In the recent Tahoe War, you have all seen how a rebel navy broke away from a nation and conducted a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation. Was there any way to predict it? If the said target nation had a nuclear weapon of its own, does not it not have the right to retaliate in due measure?"

"I agree about the abhorrent after effects of a nuclear detonation, but at times, sacrifices of that order need to be made by a government. Ultimately, a government is a reflection of the will of the people, or a mandate to govern the people."

"As we said earlier, the Kingdom of Cochin maintains a No first strike policy in offensive role, and First strike policy , within our established territory, defensively. It is a policy of strategic deterrence. It is a policy that states we shall resort to the direst of measures, if war is brought against us. How then to make sure that we do not use nuclear weapons, do not attack us. This is the basis of our policy. Now, at the present time, the Kingdom of Cochin may not feel the presence of a tangible threat to its sovereignty, but we cannot be blind to the fact that such a possibility always exists, especially since we are prosperous and strong nation with a vocal strategic policy and have far ranging influence in our own strategic domains, influence and assets which may be seen covetously by others. It is unrealistic to expect any nation to lower its defenses or alertness during a time of transitory peace. Peace is only maintained through vigilance and diligence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the back of the room, Shimon Shalam sighed. He knew full well how much this conference meant to Rebel Army, especially considering the city where the meeting was taking place. He stood up and banged the desk, hopefully getting the attention of those present.

"I'll be blunt and to the point. Rebel Army has truly seen the horrors of the weapons on the table before us today, and as such, I do believe that there are few who know the true terrors of these weapons on the world then ourselves. Thus, Rebel Army formally declares it's full support for this treaty slash pact. Now, onto the concerns put forwards by the Cochin delegation... First, on the subjsct of the rogue American military units, attacking them with nuclear weapons would not be covered under this pact, as such an attack would be retaliatory in nature. Second, on the defensive nuclear strikes, while these assaults may hamper the enemy's advance, they will do irreversible damage to your own country, countries around you, kill thousands of innocent civilians from the resulting radiation and environmental damage and/or the blast itself. While wishing to be able to defend one's self to the greatest extent possible is indeed admirable, is it worth killing innocents, poisoning the land, and ensuring the suffering of those not even involved in the conflict?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If a government's purpose is to serve its people, then why should it sacrifice every other life form, even its citizens in the interest of perpetuating its own abstract existence? In the case of a war the best way a government could serve its people isn't to fire a nuclear weapon, but to sacrifice itself to ensure their survival. There is nothing idealistic or optimistic about that, its a pragmatic reality." - Ariea Vern

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='09 May 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1273440277' post='2292796']
"The problem is is that the only nations that your nation most likely would have trouble against would also have nuclear weapons. As we have seen in times past, nuclear weapons do not prevent war, they only increase the destructiveness of the conflict. Nor can nuclear weapons decisively end a conflict in any other way than too leave the entire neighborhood in ruins. "
[/quote]
General Barrett rises to address the comment: "As someone who seems to be a rarity at this conference, someone who was Head of Government and Head of a Military Branch, I can see both areas and say that you are correct that two nations with nukes will not prevent war. However, if both sides have nukes, it will be far less likely that they will be used. To order their disarming would be asking for trouble. Especially if they got into the wrong hands."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Empress" as she is called among Tasmanians, arrived quietly and had been sitting at her appointed seat, seemingly unmoved. Her arrival was greeted with and exaggerated by no great fain fare. Her pure white, relatively simple dress swept the ground as the media followed her at a close distance as she took her seat and to just outside the perimeters established for the media at the conference.

As the others spoke, she rose quietly and with her dress she seemed to glide over to the memorial. She read of the dates and times of impact through the gilded Dragon Mask she wore. With the dates and times, she read a few of the many names on the list list before speaking quietly into the wireless mic she had been given, "The people of Tasmania have been witness to nuclear calamity, even though not of an attack from one of the great powers at the time. We have a very similar memorial to this one. Though we are learning the technology to make such weapons, we have already started on a step beyond to find weapons capable of achieving the same objectives without the same amount of tragedy and lingering effects as these horrific weapons. While part of the Queendom, our local government is empowered to perform some tasks upon its own that's not traditional for duchies or states in other parts of the world."

"It should be recognized, these kinds of weapons can never be replaced. They will be used. The best path is to co-operate to minimize their use.. and to find more precise weapons with less devastating effect to both environment and civilian but which grant the same level of strategic effectiveness. Weapons that focus on destroying war fighting capability, but not the people behind it." She sighs. "There are to many names of dreams broken.. to be listed with just one bomb."

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Prime Minister addressed the represenative from the Minalla Islands.

"I apologize sir if you did not understand my proposals. I am proposing that we as a first step eliminate first strikes in our hemisphere. I believe that total nuclear disarmament is something that is a good idea, but I do not see if happening overnight. What I would like to do is eliminate nuclear first strikes. If the question is, does having nuclear weapons when another nation doesn't give you an advantage over them, than yes you are right. At the moment having nuclear weapons is a good idea. But my point is that there is little evidence we've seen that when one nuclear state attacks another, that there really is a major advantage in using nuclear weapons first rather than second."

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='09 May 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1273460834' post='2293119']
The Prime Minister addressed the represenative from the Minalla Islands.

"I apologize sir if you did not understand my proposals. I am proposing that we as a first step eliminate first strikes in our hemisphere. I believe that total nuclear disarmament is something that is a good idea, but I do not see if happening overnight. What I would like to do is eliminate nuclear first strikes. If the question is, does having nuclear weapons when another nation doesn't give you an advantage over them, than yes you are right. At the moment having nuclear weapons is a good idea. But my point is that there is little evidence we've seen that when one nuclear state attacks another, that there really is a major advantage in using nuclear weapons first rather than second."
[/quote]
"You want to list an advantage? How about the demoralizing effect of finding out your home, your family, have been wiped out because of a war you are participating in?"

Marshal Hammond had remained silent as the discussions progressed, wishing to get a feel for what others felt and to hear what they had to say.

"Honorable sir," he nodded toward Shimon Shalam. "With all due respect--I realize having one's entire nation devastated by such strikes is hardly the same as having merely a single city attacked, I wish to point out you are hardly the only nation here to have experienced the effects of these weapons. Might I remind you, the City of Brisbane has been hit, not once, but twice, by Weapons of Mass Destruction, the first being biological weapons from the madman Visari, and the second time with a nuclear missile by the terrorist organization known as 'Green Flag.' You see, we too, know the effects such weapons can have on the environment. However, I wish to also point out that such weapons can be designed to leave minimal radiation behind--in fact, one could say that was desirable for more than one reason. not only for the lingering environmental effects...but for the purely strategic reason that leaving less radioactive material behind means that the weapon was that much more potent and effecient in its purpose."

"In fact, such a device was once detonated in the middle of one of our uninhabited regions, mere weeks before the unification, and already the environmental effects are gone, the indiginous flora and fauna thriving to the same level they did before."

"This said, yes, Australia, like Cochin, according to its policy, does not support the use of such weapons in any offensive manner, but it does reserve the right to use them should the integrity of our sovereignty come under question."

Edited by Subtleknifewielder
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...