The Third Court

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1294425746' post='2567472']
No, it is a catch-be-all category. You'd be limited to 500 artillery/IFVs/APCs/etc.
[/quote]

But that is just retarded. I always have and will rp more apc's than tanks in my military forces and nothing will change that. After all I usually RP a large number of mechanised infantry and they all need transports. The same goes with artillery there will always be more artillery weapons than tanks.

[Markus Wilding]

Might be stupid but rules are rules mate. We've had this one for quite some time.

[Executive Minister]

I thought we were close to Kankou's suggestion of a multiplier for armored vehicles?

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1294426245' post='2567479']
I thought we were close to Kankou's suggestion of a multiplier for armored vehicles?
[/quote]

"Close" does not mean "already accepted and codified"

[Kevin Kingswell]

Well lets look at some of today's nations. The British Army has just over seven hundred tanks and its IFVs equal that alone then you have the rest of the army's vehicles. The American army has over 5000 tanks mostly active and yet it has far more artillery and apcs.

For a military force to function then it will always need more non-tanks than tanks in its force. So there is no reason for their numbers to be kept reduced.

[Markus Wilding]

The problem is are that tanks (which are commonly known as armor) and IFV/APCs (which are also armored, which would fall under the "armor" category) tend to fall under the same category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle

IFVs, APCs, and tanks all fall under this category. Therefore the separation of tank and APC is irrelevant.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1294428033' post='2567519']
The problem is are that tanks (which are commonly known as armor) and IFV/APCs (which are also armored, which would fall under the "armor" category) tend to fall under the same category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle

IFVs, APCs, and tanks all fall under this category. Therefore the separation of tank and APC is irrelevant.
[/quote]

You are wrong. The separation of tank and APC is relevant unless you are telling me that I can transport infantry in my tanks now?

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1294428315' post='2567522']
You are wrong. The separation of tank and APC is relevant unless you are telling me that I can transport infantry in my tanks now?
[/quote]
You can have your troops sit on the tanks as they drive. It's not that hard unless they're in a combat zone. If they are, then the infantry should be doing everything to defend the tank. Troops do it all the time in real life.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1294428412' post='2567525']
You can have your troops sit on the tanks as they drive. It's not that hard unless they're in a combat zone. If they are, then the infantry should be doing everything to defend the tank. Troops do it all the time in real life.
[/quote]

Troops do not ride on tanks into combat all the time in real life. Maybe in world war two sure but these days they either go in on foot or on those APCs they have.

[SpacingOutMan]

You do realize, though, that mechanized infantry can use other means of transportation (for instance trucks) which doesn't count into that actual APC/IFV/artillery number. It's similar to how soldiers can be transported via civilian ships without having the IG ship count required for it; the ships being used simply have no means of offensive or defensive capabilities (I could be wrong on this point, but that's how I remember it).

[Markus Wilding]

Then what's the problem? I RP my army using half-tracks and trucks to transport soldiers into combat. This method of transportation is [i][b]still used today.[/b][/i] Why you feel compelled to use only APCs is beyond me since you can easily have them on foot or on trucks/half-tracks. Last I checked half-tracks and trucks don't count against your tank count.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1294428736' post='2567533']
You do realize, though, that mechanized infantry can use other means of transportation (for instance trucks) which doesn't count into that actual APC/IFV/artillery number. It's similar to how soldiers can be transported via civilian ships without having the IG ship count required for it; the ships being used simply have no means of offensive or defensive capabilities (I could be wrong on this point, but that's how I remember it).
[/quote]

This is correct.

[Keelah]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1294339735' post='2566057']
I'll say this very slowly for you.

MY. WORK. COMPUTER. DOESN'T. HAVE. THE. MEANS. TO. PROVIDE. PICTURES.

Also, it's a slow work day, so I'll stay on, thanks.

And if you want to stop being treated like an idiot, stop acting like one.
[/quote]

The name calling and rhetoric needs to be brought down a notch please.

This is a verbal for all participants in this thread to discuss this as level headed people without resulting to insults and name calling. Failure to comply will result in warns being handed out.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1294397600' post='2567160']
Forgive me if it sounds naive/uninformed, how does an ICBM's warhead detonate [b]underground[/b]? Is there not an optimum blast altitude for efficient blast effect? After all even a ground burst only has so much effect! Then why would any warhead detonate underground? Or did Kankou mean it detonated underwater in the sea? Even if detonation happened underwater why would it not detonate at the optimum blast altitude? ICBM warheads are pretty brittle, especially after reentry, it would never be able to tunnel much far into the ground, especially if the ground is rocky as argued.

Sure 12 million dead is RPd. But what is all that about underground detonation? Please clarify.
[/quote]

There is a reason I have engaged in sincere mockery of that thread in the OOC post area. It is completely off the mark in terms of how ICBM's function.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Californian]

I would like to lodge a complaint against Kankou's posts in the following thread: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=96761

Here are some of the various problems I have:

1) Kankou claims that her SDI put "stress" on my nukes which caused them to detonate underground, resulting in almost no casualties. I believe an SDI either completely destroys the nuke or misses. Therefore the six nukes which got past the SDI would cause complete devastation.

2) Kankou claims that only 15,000 died from the three nukes which hit her capital city. In fact she states my nukes hit the corners of the Capital region, resulting in minimal to no damage. I think it's fairly obvious that when I say capital, they were aimed at the middle of her city. And with a 30MT detonation in a city with millions of people, I find it hard to believe that almost nobody died.

She attempts to manipulate the figures by saying 12 million Japs died in another strike, and as lulzy as using my nuking as an excuse for ethnic genocide is, she completely understates the amount of damage that would have happened to Korea proper.

3)The Emperor and the ENTIRE federal government was evacuated. The nuclear devices probably took 5-10 minutes to reach Korea, which I find would be an absurd amount of time to have the entire government evacuated.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Californian

[Maelstrom Vortex]

*signs Californians Complaint as well*

[Lynneth]

I third the complaint, this attempt to minimize actual casualties by Kankou is ridiculous.

[AironthFlamewing]

I presented this same issue in another thread.

*signs also*

[Sargun II]

I am inclined to agree, but I will wait for Kankou's response.

[Kankou]

Currently writing some essays for law school, so please give me time to edit my posts. However, for your information:
1. While I’m still aghast at the ignorance of people when it comes to nuclear mechanism, I’ll just listen to Sargun and have them airburst.

2-1. The 15,000 killed were when a single nuke hit the center of Daehwa, my state which happens to be the second most mountainous region within Korea. The sheer amount of granite, combined with the low population density of the very large “city” (which still has 15 million in total) confines the damages to less than 15,000. Although I’ll probably make that around 100,000, I’m actually giving you more than it’s worth.

2-2. My Gaegyeong capital region (which would be RL Kaesung) has around 300,000 people, and even then a 10 mt nuke wouldn’t be able to cover the entire area. Add in the mountainous geography, and you have really don’t have much of a chance. Don’t whine about how your ignorance of Korea.

Also, basic nuclear strategy calls for attacking the corners of your target when using multi-warheads. Your “it’s obvious that I am for the center” is not so obvious for any nuclear weapon strategist. Therefore, I’ll be maintaining the corner thing (which would actually heighten my casualties).

I think I had put the deaths at 250,000. I’ll most likely expand that a bit to fit the airbursts, but it would be around 350,000 at most I believe.

2-3. As seen about, I haven’t understated anything. And as for the Japanese: Two of the most populous cities in Korea happen to be in my pure Japanese region of Hanka (Khanka Lake, north of Vladivostok). 12 million is an understatement.


3. The federal government has at most about 100 people. Most of the actual administration is done by the states, and the federal government is mostly just coordination. This has been stressed many times.

An impression I’m getting here: most people think I would put my capital where millions live. I didn’t, and I wouldn’t. Don’t go jumping to conclusions without actually reading my RPs, especially if you’re going to do some lulz nuking. I know Korea, Japan, and Manchuria the most around here, so don't think of going against me in a debate.


Anyway, give me a few days to get things done.

[Manetheren]

Airbursts efficiently negate hills and Kaesong is in mountainous terrain but the city itself is relatively flat with hills but not mountains. The damage radius increases with the power of the nuclear bomb, approximately in proportion to its cube root. If exploded at the optimum height (which they do), therefore, a 10-megaton weapon, which is 1,000 times as powerful as a 10-kiloton weapon, will increase the distance tenfold, that is, out to 17.7 km (11 mi) for severe damage and 24 km (15 mi) for moderate damage of a frame house. That encompases the whole city. Thats AT LEAST 250,000 dead right there. I didn't even bother to look at the rest of your targets.

NOTE: The entire city is VAPORIZED by a 10 megaton weapon. It is gone. Gone. Gone.


EDIT: I just did look around. Any city in the world has a majority of it completely destroyed by a 10 megaton weapon. Seoul has its downtown vaporized, and the entire metropolitan area destroyed. Are your cities larger than that? Mountains negate some blast damage but not fallout and not really blast damage either. Come on.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Emperor Mudd

[king of cochin]

@Kankou

1. First of all if you claim to know something, prove it. Also I would really suggest you to tone down your arrogant rhetoric of calling everyone other than you ignorant. Waiting to hear you prove how a BM warhead would tunnel into the ground rather than do air burst or ground burst.

2-1. As seen from these terrain [url="http://www2.demis.nl/home/pages/wms/demiswms.htm"]maps[/url] and Google earth the terrain around [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daehwa_Station"]Daehwa Station[/url] does not seem to offer you any significant natural defense against a 10 MT nuclear detonation. Also please explain how you have a city with a large population of 15 Million, but with low population density causing only 15000 deaths in the blast field of a 10 MT warhead? Your city is in Korea right? I hope it is not a city as large as Sahara desert?

2-2. Point conceded about Kaesung having low population and blast effect limited by the mountainous terrain. But there would still be lots of casualties. Granite does not absorb blast affect, just channel it.

Also yeah, thanks for that information about the corners. If someone ever launched a couple of nukes at Kashgar ( my Capital) I could claim that the warheads hit the mountains which corner the city rather than the city itself. And if you ever aim at Dieg Garcia, please feel free to boil the waters of the ocean, which form part of these "corners".

Edited January 8, 2011 by king of cochin

[Centurius]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1294469389' post='2568375']
2-1. The 15,000 killed were when a single nuke hit the center of Daehwa, my state which happens to be the second most mountainous region within Korea. The sheer amount of granite, combined with the low population density of the very large "city" (which still has 15 million in total) confines the damages to less than 15,000. Although I'll probably make that around 100,000, I'm actually giving you more than it's worth.
[/quote]

No just no you either have a city with low density and a low population or high density and 15 million.

For comparison the Netherlands has 16.64 million citizens on an area of 42 thousand km[sup] 2[/sup] . With those numbers our density is already high, let alone 15 million on the area the size of a large city.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1294469389' post='2568375']
Also, basic nuclear strategy calls for attacking the corners of your target when using multi-warheads. Your “it’s obvious that I am for the center” is not so obvious for any nuclear weapon strategist. Therefore, I’ll be maintaining the corner thing (which would actually heighten my casualties).
[/quote]

I'm not going to address the other flaws in your argument as others have already pressed upon them. Likewise, "basic nuclear strategy" does not call for that at all. In fact, there is no such thing as implemented nuclear strategy, so where you are getting this corner stuff is quite amusing. Having read a few contemporary nuclear strategy textbooks for a few classes I've had to take, the optimal strategy are a series of "decapitation strikes", which destroy the target's ability to retaliate. The likelihood of a completely successful decapitation strike, however, (especially in modern times) is exceptionally low due to a wide variety of firing capabilities (numerous silos, submarines, etc.). Thus it leaves open the second-strike doctrine, which then head dives into the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine.

[s]Your argument of "corners" only apply, geometrically, to when multiple warheads are fired at a single city, which isn't even necessarily always the case with the recent innovation of Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOP), which are nuclear-cased bunker busters for all intents and purposes. Nevertheless, corners are only applied when multiple warheads are targeting the relatively same location, assuming that there is radial overlap (logically why would you ever ignore the center of the city where, in all likelihood, it holds the most important infrastructure?) over the center. I could be wrong, but I do not believe multiple warheads hit your cities (if they did, then this point will be conceded).[/s]

EDIT: Point conceded as per Sargun's post after mine.

Edited January 8, 2011 by SpacingOutMan

[Sargun II]

Three warheads hit her capital, one warhead hit three other cities.

edit:

In the meantime, while we get this debate finished, I would appreciate it, Kankou, if you held off on progressing that RP any further.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Sargun