The GM's Court

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1303427081' post='2695934']
What about satellite based anti missile weaponry?
Like, t can't hit anything on the ground but has the abilityto hit ICBM's, conventional and nuclear?
[/quote]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1303404192' post='2695613']
2. No space-based weapons [b]unless they are used for a missile defense system with ig backing.[/b]
[/quote]

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1303434070' post='2696046']

[/quote]

My bad.
Derp, missed that.

[Kankou]

Question on puppet states: If a puppet state's foreign affairs are completely controlled by the master state, then can such a puppet state be RPed?

Been thinking of establishing several puppet states, using parts of my stats

[Fizzydog]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1303445609' post='2696247']
Question on puppet states: If a puppet state's foreign affairs are completely controlled by the master state, then can such a puppet state be RPed?

Been thinking of establishing several puppet states, using parts of my stats
[/quote]
Aren't you a puppet state yourself? A puppet of a puppet?

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1303445731' post='2696251']
Aren't you a puppet state yourself? A puppet of a puppet?
[/quote]

A puppet of a puppet within a puppet.

CNRP is not inception.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1303445731' post='2696251']
Aren't you a puppet state yourself? A puppet of a puppet?
[/quote]
No, I'm a protectorate who's going to be independent and needs to do some puppeting.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1303404192' post='2695613']
Very well, my ruling based on community discussions:

1. Lasers in limited capacity are allowed within rp, no handheld rifles zapping people or stuff but you can have the weapon systems in rl use.
2. No space-based weapons unless they are used for a missile defense system with ig backing.
3. Walkers are allowed, no Gundam mech's or anything like that.
4. Artillery and non-tank armored vehicles will be defined by common sense however should be based around your ig capacity.
[/quote]
I agree with most of this.
Except the "no handheld lasers" bit. I've done loads and loads of research seen [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100500&view=findpost&p=2681138"]here[/url] in the actual discussion thread.
The main problem with lasers themselves is powering them.
The main problem with people is that they think lasers are like Star Wars blasters, or Phasers from Star trek or somesuch idiocy.

[size="6"]Powering:[/size]
A problem that is in the process of being solved, by virtue of so-called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_capacitor"]'super-capacitors'[/url], capacitors that can not only provide their stored power incredibly fast, but also store incredible amounts.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Supercapacitors_chart.svg/500px-Supercapacitors_chart.svg.png[/img]

[b]Power density[/b] is how fast they can provide power (ie in what spans of time they can utterly empty themselves). [b]Energy density[/b] is how much they can store, in simple words.
Ultra/supercapacitors aim to bring the advantages of both batteries and regular capacitors into the field.
Current lithium-polymer cells are rechargeable, and have an energy density of 1.08 kJ/ccm. For a laser weapon that's not too bulky, we'd ideally want an energy density of 2.5 kilojoules per cubic centimeter or better.

From wiki:
[code]Experimental electric double-layer capacitors have demonstrated densities of 30 W·h/kg and have been shown to be scalable to at least 136 W·h/kg,[24][25] while others expect to offer energy densities of about 400 W·h/kg.[/code]
136 Wh/kg is almost 500 kJ/kg density. Let's assume 136 watt-hours/kgram, hence 489,600 J/kgram, or ~490 KJoule/Kgram.
Let's say 2.5 KJoule per ccm are possible, and we want that. We get 196 ccm as volume of the capacitor. This is about at big as a Kalashnikov mag.

Now, the beam energy of the laser would be around 10 kJ per shot, made up of 50 pulses of 200 J each, spaced 10 microsecond apart. This puts each pulse in the range of a big firecracker.
A full 'magazine' would need 50 full pulses (ie 50 times ~50 pulses), so 50 cubic cm, hence weighting around 250 grams.
BNow, assuming the weapon is 50% efficient at turning the electric energy into beam energy (which is a little worse than IRL lasers, I believe), we'd simply need to double the capacitor's size, hence weight. Thus a full magazine would have a weight of around 500 grams.

30 AK47 bullets have a weight of 8-10 grams (depending on type). The mag's casing is another ~150 grams. Thus an AK's magazine probably weighs around 390-440 grams.
A handheld battle laser/laser "rifle" possibly wouldn't be all that much heavier than a conventional firearm. Bulkier, yes. More expensive to make, yes. Feasible? Yes.
I wouldn't be advocating lasers if I hadn't done sufficient research to convince me of them being absolutely possible to build.

[size="6"]People: [/size]
This is a bigger problem.
Thanks to Star Wars, Star Trek and a dozen other sci fi movies and -series, we believe several things about lasers.
1. Lasers are visible.
2. Lasers travel in 1-10 meter long segmented beams, at speeds slower than that of light.
3. Lasers utterly annihilate whatever they touch.
And probably a few other things.

2. and 3. are untrue. Period. 1. is possibly true, if you use a beam of visible light (blue, red, green). However, if you use infrared light, you wouldn't be able to see the laser. Only its effects, and then only in heavily dusty/foggy/etc areas, where you might see some sort of glow.
That's something I wrote about in some posts, actually. Please read the rudimentary 'Q&A' sections of these posts: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2667657"]One[/url], [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2671663"]Two[/url]
Essentially, lasers don't go "pew pew". Lasers are not visible unless you use visible-light frequencies in it. Lasers do not have infinite range. Lasers do not usually instakill armoured troops (unless a powerful enough pulse laser is used, and that would have several dozen kilograms and more in weight, more fit to be on a tank than anything else).

There also the potential problem of disadvantaging nations with less "loltech". This is a non-problem. A laser would perform little different in actual combat than any modern assault rifle. The big difference?
You can't see where you're being attacked from. Lasers are in this effect a weapon that works better against an enemy's morale than actually killing the people.
And because we all know nobody actually RPs morale all that much, lasers perform exactly as well as any other modern assault rifle.

They're just fancier. And more expensive. And harder to make. And, and, and.
I'm probably biased, but I see no reason not to allow handheld lasers. And I will continue to argue as much.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Lynneth

[Aggressivenutmeg]

the best part is that they will blow limbs off

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303461365' post='2696406']
-snip-
[/quote]
Just a question, what are the ultra-capacitors' charge leak rate?

[quote name='Chernarussia' timestamp='1303464602' post='2696421']
the best part is that they will blow limbs off
[/quote]
Or at least give the victims burns so bad that it should be classified as a fifth degree burn. Mmmm, charred bones...

Edited April 22, 2011 by HHAYD

[Lynneth]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1303473122' post='2696457']
Just a question, what are the ultra-capacitors' charge leak rate?


Or at least give the victims burns so bad that it should be classified as a fifth degree burn. Mmmm, charred bones...
[/quote]
Leak rate, no idea. I suppose it's similar to what batteries leak usually, perhaps a bit worse.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303475837' post='2696465']
Leak rate, no idea. I suppose it's similar to what batteries leak usually, perhaps a bit worse.
[/quote]
While I think lasers for tanks might be possible, I'm not sure if we can keep the leak rate down enough to fit it onto handheld weapons.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1303476439' post='2696469']
While I think lasers for tanks might be possible, I'm not sure if we can keep the leak rate down enough to fit it onto handheld weapons.
[/quote]
The thing is, lasers on tanks won't be as useful, because they're heavily piercing, but without much of an explosion behind it. Perhaps APCs or the like could benefit, with anti-infantry weapons and whatnot.
Though shooting the driver in the enemy tank or the ammo - which is probably possible with a little luck and skill - might work to disable it permanently.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303477280' post='2696479']
The thing is, lasers on tanks won't be as useful, because they're heavily piercing, but without much of an explosion behind it. Perhaps APCs or the like could benefit, with anti-infantry weapons and whatnot.
Though shooting the driver in the enemy tank or the ammo - which is probably possible with a little luck and skill - might work to disable it permanently.
[/quote]
I doubt lasers could penetrate modern tanks' armoring. You could fry their optical and other external sensors, therefore blinding it.

Edited April 22, 2011 by HHAYD

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1303477280' post='2696479']
The thing is, lasers on tanks won't be as useful, because they're heavily piercing, but without much of an explosion behind it. Perhaps APCs or the like could benefit, with anti-infantry weapons and whatnot.
Though shooting the driver in the enemy tank or the ammo - which is probably possible with a little luck and skill - might work to disable it permanently.
[/quote]

They have already retrofitted some Humvees in Iraq, for instance, with the ZEUS laser system which targets (and neutralizes) IEDs. Indeed, putting it on a tank would be rather useless, especially given how many people use their tanks currently.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1303484981' post='2696587']
They have already retrofitted some Humvees in Iraq, for instance, with the ZEUS laser system which targets (and neutralizes) IEDs. Indeed, putting it on a tank would be rather useless, especially given how many people use their tanks currently.
[/quote]

The ZUES is also useless as a combat weapon. It needs to be held in place over a target for an extended period of time. Exceptionally difficult to do in a combat situation.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1303488196' post='2696655']
The ZUES is also useless as a combat weapon. It needs to be held in place over a target for an extended period of time. Exceptionally difficult to do in a combat situation.
[/quote]
I could imagine someone using ZUES against mobile enemy units:

[i]"Hey, um, as much as we want to murder each other, could you stay still for like, um, 20 minutes? It's not like we're going to fry your rear end."[/i]

Edited April 22, 2011 by HHAYD

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1303492240' post='2696732']
I could imagine someone using ZUES against mobile enemy units:

[i]"Hey, um, as much as we want to murder each other, could you stay still for like, um, 20 minutes? It's not like we're going to fry your rear end."[/i]
[/quote]

ZUES: The 21st Century Weapon for WWI.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1303488196' post='2696655']
The ZUES is also useless as a combat weapon. It needs to be held in place over a target for an extended period of time. Exceptionally difficult to do in a combat situation.
[/quote]
It's also a continuous beam weapon.

An actual, weaponised laser would be pulsed, thus requiring the supercapacitors I was talking about. Chemical reactions cannot supply energy in such spiked manner.
The pulsed laser, or 'Pulselaser' if you wish, would work very much like a drill. A very powerful drill with quite some range, depending on weather conditions.

[Triyun]

I would like to propose that protectorates be included within Strategic Defense Initiatives. Its been proven that a theatre ballistic missile defense shield can be portably deployed, especially on protectorates that have sea coasts. Otherwise for the occupying power it makes the most sense to simply annex the territory to prevent a single hydrogen bomb from killing their people. And while they may be willing to give out the territory, it is less clear than if it would be marked white and they could enjoy proper protection.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Triyun

[Centurius]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1303496027' post='2696782']
I would like to propose that protectorates be included within Strategic Defense Initiatives. Its been proven that a theatre ballistic missile defense shield can be portably deployed, especially on protectorates that have sea coasts. Otherwise for the occupying power it makes the most sense to simply annex the territory to prevent a single hydrogen bomb from killing their people. And while they may be willing to give out the territory, it is less clear than if it would be marked white and they could enjoy proper protection.
[/quote]

I do agree with this proposal.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1303496027' post='2696782']
I would like to propose that protectorates be included within Strategic Defense Initiatives. Its been proven that a theatre ballistic missile defense shield can be portably deployed, especially on protectorates that have sea coasts. Otherwise for the occupying power it makes the most sense to simply annex the territory to prevent a single hydrogen bomb from killing their people. And while they may be willing to give out the territory, it is less clear than if it would be marked white and they could enjoy proper protection.
[/quote]
I agree with this.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1303496027' post='2696782']
I would like to propose that protectorates be included within Strategic Defense Initiatives. Its been proven that a theatre ballistic missile defense shield can be portably deployed, especially on protectorates that have sea coasts. Otherwise for the occupying power it makes the most sense to simply annex the territory to prevent a single hydrogen bomb from killing their people. And while they may be willing to give out the territory, it is less clear than if it would be marked white and they could enjoy proper protection.
[/quote]

Yep.

Edited April 22, 2011 by iKrolm

[Zoot Zoot]

Yes.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1303496027' post='2696782']
I would like to propose that protectorates be included within Strategic Defense Initiatives. Its been proven that a theatre ballistic missile defense shield can be portably deployed, especially on protectorates that have sea coasts. Otherwise for the occupying power it makes the most sense to simply annex the territory to prevent a single hydrogen bomb from killing their people. And while they may be willing to give out the territory, it is less clear than if it would be marked white and they could enjoy proper protection.
[/quote]

I am okay with this.

[Centurius]

I don't see a poll needed for this with the amount of support.

As of now you can cover protectorates with ig defense systems just like you can with your own territory.