NationStates Jolt Archive

If someone gave me WMDs would I be able to have them?.

How many would you like?

If someone gave me WMDs would I be able to have them?.

There would have to be a well-RPed reason.

out of curiousity, why would there have to be a well-RPed reason?

If I did give him...say...10 20 megaton warheads with a delivery system to use, why would that be considered invalid?

I see people complain about this and never could understand why. Anyone can have WMD as long as it can be validated through another thread and not pulled out of the @$$.

jmo

I think its mostly because WMDs are UTTERLY BORING.

I mean look at it. A carefully coordinated war, from the inidividual soldier to whole battalions manouevering, air support, special forces, Naval warfare... and then someone takes out a nuke and bang the whole things gone, just dust in the wind. All that effort, all that careful planning and brilliant roleplaying just vanishes.

I think WMDs should only be used in these circumstances:

1. A 'story' roleplay; one that's telling a set story instead of an actual roleplay. For example, at the end of the Chimaean-Clock Hill war, a nation called (don't laugh too hard) Buttfaces :P got annihilated by Rastonia. And that was cool because it was something all the players agreed on before hand and used as a

2. Plot device. This would be the most frequent use; a stolen nuclear missile, a rogue nation threatening to use a nuclear warhead... They up the ante, raise the stakes and allows for more brilliant roleplaying. Just don't use the damn things.

3. I'm not sure how to explain the third function... It's like... well you know how the USA has lots of nukes? And we all know it has nukes right... and all the other nations know... and they use it as extra oomph, extra leaverage in diplomacy and so on. It goes with having a technologically advanced and up-to-date armed forces. It also works backwards; there are nations, Chimaea included, who don't have nukes and use that as a moral standpoint...

See what I'm getting at? Having them is one thing, using them is just plain stupid.

Oh, and in answer to your question, nations don't just fling nukes around. There'd have to be at least an acceptable reason for it. It's a nuclear missile! It's not like shipping a crate of M16s somewhere.

out of curiousity, why would there have to be a well-RPed reason?


Because no real nation would ever give or sell a nuke or other WMD without a good reason.

OOC:

Steel is right. I mean, everyone seems to send tanks, planes, ships to others without a second thought but one would, logically wonder why WMDs are being bought and sold like milk and eggs. After all, why would I sell a WMD (and a "WMD" could be defined as "Orbital lazer of Doom!") to someone I don't know about? Heck, when I even sell battleships I try to sneak in a non-agression pact.

For Chimaea, I basically agree with you, but if you would allow me to shamelessly plug of what I think is a good story involving nukes, look here. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93916&highlight=) I really do feel that story has fairly realistic diplomatic, miltary, and political maneuvering done by all the participants.

This is not exactly real either because I can detonate 6 to 6 million nukes right now and no one would feel a thing, but that is irrelevent, but a point. There are crazier things out there in NS than nukes, actually, nukes are stone age compared to the junk people come up with in here.

Yes, RP goes down hill real quick when 'the button is pushed', but RP with DT sometime or Melkor claiming you have technology that can harm their technology and an arguement ensues, so to sum it up short and ask again, why would it matter if it can be validated?

Is a 1 day old nation having a nuke that is a real life concept any more unrealistic than a 1 year old nation having something that is total bull and not realistic?

I understand and agree about the story line, but who is to say that it is not creating their own story line?

But im never going to use them. So if im givin them will it be excepted?. Its just something I would like to have. And Nukes dont really need maintaining that much you know.

And when you have a grenade you dont need to maintain it.

But im never going to use them. So if im givin them will it be excepted?. Its just something I would like to have. And Nukes dont really need maintaining that much you know.

And when you have a grenade you dont need to maintain it.

OOC: Nukes and grenades are vastly different animals. Just because horses and bears have teeth doesn't mean they are the same.

Nukes are easy to maintain. All you need to do is replace the Uranium or Plutonium after a while, thats all you need to do.

Would I be able to have them now?.

Basically, it boils down to this:

*Ahem*

If thou hast Nuclear Weapons, but lack an EXCEPTIONALLY good RP reason, then thou shalt findeth that other nations will regardest thou as a n00b, and yea, thou shalt be roundly ignored by all and sundry.

Furthermore, thou might findeth themselves upon the receiving end of a righteous smackdown by other nations that hath grown weary of those who display n00bish qualities, including the most gratuitous displays of Ye Olde Atomic Weapones and the inevitable cries of "i n00k ur b1tch 4$$ n send my l4s3r d34th squad to kil u all 1 pwn ur nation!!!11!!" that invariably issue forth from n00bs with WMDs.

To put it another way: It's the way things work around here. New nations can't have Nukes.

However, Yatonsa, since Roycelandia is running your defence forces, we can provide you with some deactivated Nuclear Missiles, which of course lack the Nuclear Exploding Bit. We'll keep that bit stored elsewhere.

Besides, your nation has no economy- someone would just steal your A-bomb anyway...

Nukes are easy to maintain. All you need to do is replace the Uranium or Plutonium after a while, thats all you need to do.

OOC: Well, the first question was "can I have nukes" not "can I maintain them."