NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Just asking, cause it seems that no matter what the circumstances, anyone who uses nukes gets their attack ignored.

So is there any way that nukes COULD be used and not be ignored?

Axis Nova

In theory,you could use tactical nukes against ships or troop positions- I don't see why that's unacceptable.

OOC: Only if it was discussed with the other party beforehand.

OOC: But how would they be used in one of these spontaneous war RPs that keep popping up?

Axis Nova

If you RP'd it well, and not just OMGZ I nOOk YOU NOWZ!!1111!1!!111!!!SHIFT+2-1!@@OOPSIPRESSED2OMGLOLROFLMFAO... and so on.

And also if you are informed ahead of time...... and if I plan to nuke you back ;)

OOC: Only if it was discussed with the other party beforehand.


Taliban!

Hey its Bush here, can I drop a nuke on Afghanistan?

Im not sure, will this be good for the war?

Yeah!

Ok! See you soon!

..................

I always accept nukes, theyre a legit attack. The only people who dont accept them cant take losing. The only circumstance I wont accept nukes is if some random n00b nukes me for no reason.

Taliban!

Hey its Bush here, can I drop a nuke on Afghanistan?

Im not sure, will this be good for the war?

Yeah!

Ok! See you soon!

..................


OOC: NationStates is not real life, therefore that 'statement' is moot. This is a 'roleplaying' site, not a real life site. If I wanted real life I'd turn off my computer and go outside.

OOC: NationStates is not real life, therefore that 'statement' is moot. This is a 'roleplaying' site, not a real life site. If I wanted real life I'd turn off my computer and go outside.

OOC: Ignoring nukes is ignoring reality and playing foolish.

OOC: Ignoring nukes is ignoring reality and playing foolish.


OOC: Not exactly. Alot of RPers I know ignore nukes because they are the cheap and noobish way out of a situation. It takes no writing skill or creative thinking to say 'I launch nukes at you and you die.' Alot of us are here for the sake of stories, folks.

And besides, are nukes used in real life anymore? No, there is no need to.

I ignore nuclear missiles, basically. By that, I mean that if a nation decided to try to use low-scale bombing or artillery-ing my forces with nuclear ordinance, I can accept that, because there is usually both good defense and quick strike-back for that. Also, nuking their own nation is bad for them too(well, unless the war is happening in chellis, but thats unlikely). If a nation wants to try to suitcase nuke my occupying forces, or plant their major cities with nukes as a final defense, whatever, sure. All these would require some RP at least, and some tactical knowledge.

I'd accept nukes if the launch was RPed somewhat decently, and if there was an estimated (or guessed) time 'till the missile arrives at the target.

I won't accept any use of nukes in RP's I participate in. If anyone nukes me, I will simply ignore that attack and consider it never happened.

I far prefer to have no WMD at all. I might be willing to tolerate biological and chemical weapons.

The only chance I might accept nuking and not ignoring them is when and if I develop a technology that destroys ALL nuclear radiation. No 24,000 year radiation decay crap. Do it in 1 NS day or something. Then I'd be able to rebuild my nation without radiation poisoning.


Just my 2 cents.

It seems to me that no one has any good reason for ignoring nuclear attacks other than they do not want to accept the destruction that results. Of course it takes little effort, but if a nation that traditionally RPs well decides to initiate a nuclear attack, why would they be labeled n00bish and have their attack ignored? It seems like it shows little respect for a legitimate strategy. The RP can still carry on in a perfectly interesting manner after a nuclear attack, and if you pride yourself on your RPing skills, then you would be able to make the aftermath an interesting addition to the story. Ignoring nuclear missiles just seems like a cowardly, uncreative, and hypocritical approach. That’s just my opinion.

I'd ignore nukes if a ludicrous amount were fired. No nation is going to launch 10,000 nukes at anyone, no matter what. It'd be the end of the entire world. Regardless of how bad you want to win the war, you're not going to doom mankind to extinction. I'd accept up to about 500, then you're getting into nuclear winter territiory, and I don't think any nation in the world would so callously cause the end of humanity.

OOC: Ignoring nukes is ignoring reality and playing foolish.


Well when the person doing the nuking does it in a poor manner, the other person has every right to ignore it. For example, Allanea, and more recently, Unified Sith, suddenly teleported planes and aircraft above AMF territory without recognizing the fact that AMF obviously has defenses against these aircraft. Now that is a poor RP and it deserves to be ignored.

There is a huge difference between RL and NS. Obviously, in RL, people don't ask other if they can nuke them. That's different. President Bush wasn't roleplaying with the Taliban. This obviously is a GAME. Now tactical nukes...they can be used, like Sevaris mentioned before, but again, if it isn't RP'ed correctly, and a little thought isn't even put into it, then the other person has every right to ignore it.

All people have to do is put a small amount of thought into their RP's, and maybe we wouldn't have to go over this so many times. Planes don't appear out of nowhere.

I'd ignore nukes if a ludicrous amount were fired. No nation is going to launch 10,000 nukes at anyone, no matter what. It'd be the end of the entire world. Regardless of how bad you want to win the war, you're not going to doom mankind to extinction. I'd accept up to about 500, then you're getting into nuclear winter territiory, and I don't think any nation in the world would so callously cause the end of humanity.

If a dictator is faced with imminent destruction of his nation via conventional means, and is about to lose his power, he would make sure that the conqueror goes down. Everything be damned.

Whenever fanatical or stubborn leaders don't want to be captured alive, answer for their actions, be placed in prison, be executed, etc. they would probably be willing to go as far to destroy the world.

Humans are fully capable of such acts.

OOC: I don't ignore nukes...But if they're on ICBMs or SLBMs, have fun getting them past my ABM system. I do intensely dislike carpet-nuking nations.

Depends entirely on the situation, and how well it is RPed, and the nation that it is used against. I mean, if the war is progressing smoothly, and someone unleashes "teh n00ks", then, unless they have a fantastically great reason for it, then it's likely I'd ignore it. If they were being crushed back into their homeland, and it was a veangence attack, like Hitlers V-weapons, then I see that as being more acceptable. If it is truly poorly RPed, with damage posting, OMG numbers, all that jazz, then, obviously, ignored. Again, on the other hand, if it's a big giant post that covers it all, reason, motive, realistically small number, well RPed, then, again, it's likely I'd accept it.

As to the nation, well, this is the most variable. My modern tech variant would be difficult to tactically strike at as army (land forces only) and nuclear silos are hidden in dense Jungle, which covers pretty much all of my nation. Obviously, in this case, nuclear attack on my deployment and retalliation capability would be silly, as a blockade to starve me out would be much more efficient. A nuclear attack, as a first strike, against a nation with both lots of WMD, and the previous knowledge that they use them, would strike me as a sage move, since, in a war, you want to remove the enemies ability to counter you. Again, on the other hand, a nation that has few/rarely used nuclear missiles, really shouldn't be nuked as a first strike. There's no sense in that. But, again, if you were launching a nuclear strike against a player with many nuclear missiles, then I can't see how you would be using any against a civilian sector. I'm sure there's a lot I've missed.

Generally, it's all depending on the circumstance whether I'd accept it or not.

OOC: NationStates is not real life, therefore that 'statement' is moot. This is a 'roleplaying' site, not a real life site. If I wanted real life I'd turn off my computer and go outside.

Nope, informing beforehand is the worst way of playing NS - Its not a War, its just a story. If you have 2 or more good Rpers you can have a good War without 'informing' beforehand. Its ridiculous and stupid and makes the game look stupid you moron.

Nope, informing beforehand is the worst way of playing NS - Its not a War, its just a story. If you have 2 or more good Rpers you can have a good War without 'informing' beforehand. Its ridiculous and stupid and makes the game look stupid you moron.


OOC: So now you're going to start flaming? How cute.

No, this is where you are wrong. NVW

Nationstates IS a story. The entire point of a war, in my eyes, is to act as a catalyst for change in two nations, and as a baseline plot to guide a story that would stem from this. As with every story based around a war, it has battles, but the real point is the writing. I mean, without a strong plot, we may as well have a war like this.

I send 1200 naval fighters towards your largest docks. When they get within 300km of the docks they use their full load of anti-shipping missiles, and then promptly return back to their carriers.

It would go back and forth like that. Not quite as enjoyable.

(bets that someone already said this in response.)

Nope, informing beforehand is the worst way of playing NS - Its not a War, its just a story. If you have 2 or more good Rpers you can have a good War without 'informing' beforehand. Its ridiculous and stupid and makes the game look stupid you moron.

(1) Don't flame.
(2) Your post is -very- hard to read.
(3) I expect to be contacted OOC-ly and informed that someone is going to attack me. IC-ly, it can be a surprise attack, but it is bad form to simply declare war on someone IC and not tell them about it.

Now, back on topic. I permit any attacks on Weyr, as long as they're thought out and properly RP'd. If someone springs an attack on me without telling me beforehand in OOC, then I have the full right to paste an IGNORE across their entire thread.

Nuking is acceptable for me, but you gotta remember that no sane nation employs its entire nuclear arsenal against a single entity. Especially, not in a first-time attack...

[Generally, I don't ignore nukes. Hell, I lost forces to nuclear weapons two wars in a row. However, I demand that certain criteria be met:

1) No important characters be put in harms way unless I'm consulted and I agree to it
2) That there be a very good reason for that nuking, or at least that nuking be understandable on some level
3) That the launching of nuclear weapons be kept to a reasonable yield per warhead and that the number of warheads used is in line with the tactical or strategic situation
4) That, above all, basic physics be obeyed. That is, not stuffing strategic-level warheads into cruise missiles, no detonation upon interception (I could write a 5,000 word paper on why this is not possible), and basically that all aspects of basic nuclear weapons design be taken into account (such as the extensive and restrictive safety measures.)

I think my criteria is pretty fair and lax, but that's just me.

I think I see here. Nukes are OK as long as you remember they arn't an instakill weapon-- they can be shot down or otherwise intercepted, and even a lot of them won't completely wipe out the enemy.

Edit: I know this is a longshot... but is there any chance this thread could be stickied? It occurs to me that it might be useful for newbies to be able to know how to properly use nukes.

Axis Nova

The chief trouble I find is that everybody is willing to resort to thermonuclear weapons far far too quickly. The slightest sign of escalation and it's "OMG I ready my nooks you commie/fascist/liberal/witch!!!!!!!1111 U will die!!111" - which is just silly. You don't just play about with nuclear weapons and you certainly don't use them as a first-resort weapon, because it doesn't make sense to.

I think I see here. Nukes are OK as long as you remember they arn't an instakill weapon-- they can be shot down or otherwise intercepted, and even a lot of them won't completely wipe out the enemy.


Axis Nova

I will accept nukes being launched aganist me ONLY if:

1. I've developed the technology to wipe my lands clean of nuclear radiation and fallout. Such as counter-radiation, radiation scrubbers, radiation "eaters", etc. This way, I can bypass the 24,000 year wait time and get right on rebuilding my nation.

2. I ignore the whole radiation and fallout crap.

IMHO, nuclear poisoning, fallout, and radiation rendering a nation uninhabitable for 24,000 years should not be used in NationStates. After all, how the hell would you RP again if your nation was wiped out? Your nation would still exist in the NationStates game.

So basically I'll ignore or throw out the nuclear radiation and fallout thing in NS games and NS RP's.

Alright guys, c'mon! Nukes, as all us older nations know, have always been a part of RPing... yes, there's good usage of nukes, and there's bad... if it's badly RP'd ("I launch a nuke, your capital is destroyed and all your people die!" or what not), then that's not legit, and you can ignore it...

But, if it's RP'd out well, and you don't godmod by launching a gazillion nukes at someone, than it's legit, and the person ignoring a legit attack is simply godmodding.

That's how it always has been, so why should it change now? If some n00b tries to godmod a nuclear attack on you, why change the rules because of them?

the person ignoring a legit attack is simply godmodding.


OOC: Not true. In free form RP you can ignore or accept anything you want, you're not forced to do anything. It's just considered bad form to ignore legit attacks.

I think I see here. Nukes are OK as long as you remember they arn't an instakill weapon-- they can be shot down or otherwise intercepted, and even a lot of them won't completely wipe out the enemy.


Well...yes.

Calculator for nuclear weapons:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

Good resource for nuclear-users:
http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html

OOC: If I used nukes, I wouldn't go with the gigantic city-destroyers in any case. They're not really effective, military wise.

Thanks for the links; they're very informative.

Axis Nova

OOC: Not true. In free form RP you can ignore or accept anything you want, you're not forced to do anything. It's just considered bad form to ignore legit attacks.
Yes, that's true... but, like you said, bad form to ignore a legit attack.. many would consider that godmod, and would not play with that person because of that... If it's legit, accept it is that I say... because, even if you don't mean it to come across this way, many ppl would take it as you just not wanting to accept the fact that you're being attacked, and likely loosing a bunch of people, rather it be civilian, military, or both.

Hell yeah ViZy.....tell 'em like it is! *jigs, then ropes a calf*

As it would take just a handful of modern nuclear weapons to serious damage the entire planet, and a few dozen more to completely destroy it, I would ignore any nuclear attack and simply conclude that the person using them has a secret desire to commit suicide. But that's moot really, as I would ignore any attack, nuclear or otherwise, for the simple reason that I have no interest in war, full-stop. Unless I said otherwise, that is.

As it would take just a handful of modern nuclear weapons to serious damage the entire planet, and a few dozen more to completely destroy it, I would ignore any nuclear attack and simply conclude that the person using them has a secret desire to commit suicide. But that's moot really, as I would ignore any attack, nuclear or otherwise, for the simple reason that I have no interest in war, full-stop. Unless I said otherwise, that is.

FYI, NS Earth is much, much, MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than R/L earth. I believe it was stated to have something around the area of Jupiter.

As such, an entire country could be nuked to glass and it wouldn't neccesarily affect anyone outside of the region it's in.

Axis Nova

The number of nukes some people launch could probably destroy half of Jupiter... and then there's the fact that these nuclear wars don't all happen in the same place, but planet-wide. Anyway, the size of Jupiter? We'd all be crushed into a messy red pulp!

The number of nukes some people launch could probably destroy half of Jupiter... and then there's the fact that these nuclear wars don't all happen in the same place, but planet-wide. Anyway, the size of Jupiter? We'd all be crushed into a messy red pulp!

Size of Jupiter, gravity of Earth. The laws of physics on NS-Earth are stretched to allow all the different countries and regions to exist and get varying weather from region to region and so forth =P

Though some people have the theory that NS-Earth is either a Dyson Sphere or a Ringworld.

Axis Nova

Dyson Sphere? Hmm... I was about to ridicule that notion, but it could provide some interesting 'War for the Door' RPs :D

The laws of physics on NS-Earth are stretched to allow all the different countries and regions to exist and get varying weather from region to region and so forth

There should be a sticky with this sort of information in. I'll just go and check to see if there is one and whether I just made a fool of myself or not... :D

Well I can't find one. So, yeah, what I just said ^^^

Size of Jupiter, gravity of Earth. The laws of physics on NS-Earth are stretched to allow all the different countries and regions to exist and get varying weather from region to region and so forth =P

Though some people have the theory that NS-Earth is either a Dyson Sphere or a Ringworld.

Axis Nova
Actually, it depends... a common thought is that there are multiple Earth's in all different dimensions, so that it allows multiple nations to claim the same piece of land. And considering that there are over 120,000 different nations on NS, there is alotta land that is claimed multiple times. There are also fake locations ("Bamboski Island" and various places made up by ppl). So, considering all that, that would be the most sensible thing.

I couldn't care less if people ignored me because they wanted to attack me rather than RP with me. Anyone who thinks that NS is a competition that has winners and losers can forget trying to nuke me. I'd only accept a nuking if it was the result of a lot of tension and build up, and served some storytelling purpose. A thread that begins with a nuking out of the blue, no matter how 'legit' and well written, is ignore fodder, because it is just cheap destruction and no fun at all. I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of people here would be better off playing C&C online, rather than roleplaying.

I think I might be more likely to accept a nuke from a LETI/LOTI nation. They know how to spin a good yarn in the great lakes...

OOC: I don't ignore nukes...But if they're on ICBMs or SLBMs, have fun getting them past my ABM system. I do intensely dislike carpet-nuking nations.

"MaRVs". It wasn't particularly fun coming up with the idea, but the Russians did most of the work for me. After all, they've had something like 20 years or so to come up with a counter-counter measure to missile defence.
Luckily most people here don't seem to have heard of them yet, which gives me a distinct advantage.

The reason why the majority of nuclear attacks are ignored is becuase these attacks are by noob nations who have little to no grasp on roleplaying seldom do you see a good rp'er resorting to nukes, or even owning nukes. Nuclear attack is always acceptable as long as the reasoning for it and how it was pulled off is not godmodding.

OOC:"MaRVs".My ABM system starts shooting during the ICBM's launch stage.

Chardonay actually has quite a comprehensive stratigic and tactical nuclear doctrine, with ICBM numbers approaching 2000 missiles, MIRVed. Tactically, we approve of nuclear weapons. COme on people, large troop concentrations and enormous air fleets and massive superdreadnaught fleets are simply asking for a neutron bomb. It's unrealistic and a little godmodding to ignore the threat of nuclear retaliation... I know that many nations respond to any use of tactical nuclear weapons with a full stratigic release... and that's really too bad. Tactical nuclear weapons are ligitimate stratigic weapons, and they often work rather well.

For example, when doujin opened fire on IDF's fleet at the naval conference, IDF responded (quite naturally, I thought) with nuclear weapons. Doujin managed to negociate a retraction of that attack, and traded away his superdreadnaughts. Nukes therefore eliminate superdreadnaughts. If I were IDF, frankly, I would have continued with the nuclear attack and refused to negociate. Consider the situation. Your leader is missing, presumed dead (he wasn't dead, but IDF wouldn't have known that), one of your fleets is under massive attack, and a whole bunch of cruise missiles which may or may not have nuclear warheads are headed towards your nation... if that's not cause for nuclear retaliation, I don't know what is.

If I do ever get glassed, I'll take my lumps, RP the death of my nation, and do my best to take the other nation with me.

[Please, IDF's attack was so unrealistic it made me gag. You can't fit a one megaton nuke into a Tomahawk, nor can fission be sustained once the warhead is destroyed. Plus, on cruise missiles there's something like a 25 miles safe zone before a missile is even armed. Even ignoring all that, he pretty much launched his entire arsenal just because one of his fleets was under conventional attack. Anyway, if someone can't figure out how to deal with a superdreadnaught they don't deserve a navy.]

OOC:My ABM system starts shooting during the ICBM's launch stage.

They're submarine launched. Good luck finding them.

OOC:My ABM system starts shooting during the ICBM's launch stage.

[Erm, that only really works if you have global coverage and are expecting a nuclear attack. Shooting down some random Joe's ballistic missiles just because they might be headed towards your nation is a very good way to piss someone off. Besides which, no single-tier system is going to be 100% effective, and I'd question 80% effectiveness past a certain amount of missiles.]

I'm too young for nukes, but battlefield (tactical) nukes should be OK, but only in an emergency where you are losing and need to take as many down, but I wouldn't use them myself. I'd just take the loss in the war and rebuild.

Nukes tend to be ignored as it ruins the RP. It ruins the point of RPing a war if you just say, well your 10,000 word strategy move was good but I nuke JOo so I win.

OOC:They're submarine launched. Good luck finding them.I have global coverage...I'll see them wherever they come from.
and are expecting a nuclear attack.I don't have to expect an attack...Just shoot down any missiles that I wasn't notified of the launch of in advance.
Shooting down some random Joe's ballistic missiles just because they might be headed towards your nation is a very good way to piss someone off.Yea, but I'd rather have random Joe angry at me than be dead.
Besides which, no single-tier system is going to be 100% effective, and I'd question 80% effectiveness past a certain amount of missiles.]It's not single-tier...The first tier starts shooting in the missile's launch phase, and yes, if you launch enough missiles you will overwhelm the system.

[Please, IDF's attack was so unrealistic it made me gag. You can't fit a one megaton nuke into a Tomahawk, nor can fission be sustained once the warhead is destroyed. Plus, on cruise missiles there's something like a 25 miles safe zone before a missile is even armed. Even ignoring all that, he pretty much launched his entire arsenal just because one of his fleets was under conventional attack. Anyway, if someone can't figure out how to deal with a superdreadnaught they don't deserve a navy.]

The way in which IDF carried out the attack may not have been perfect, but his reasons for doing so were valid.

Axis Nova

[Getting your navy's ass beat is not a valid reason for launching a thousand strategic-level nukes. Ever. We would have been content with just destroying his navy, although given his average RP I don't think we could have managed that without having to wade through stupid-ass demands and all kinds of godmodding.]

I agree with the technical problems with the retaliation... 1 megatons is rediculous, as was the 'detonate on distruction'. But given the situation, a limited nuclear retaliation isn't a bad responce to a situation as fubared as the one you put him in. A RL nation very well might have responded the same way. Leader missing, fleet under attack, cruise missiles inbound. nukes were justified. Though OOC he may have known you would settle for the distruction of his navy, he had no way of knowing that IC.

I have several ways to deal with SDs ranging from massed missile bombardment to knock out sensors and communications to a closer range engagement with smaller DNs, to the regional naval defence net The New Commonwealth is designing... but by far the most economical way is with a single tactical nuke. Anyone who puts that much money and effort into a single ship is asking for a nuke. But this isn't really the place for that discussion, we can carry it on by TG if you wish.

Maybe if they were used as a last resort and werent in huge numbers... that said both my active RP nations have good missile defence (my other nation notquiteaplace has over 2 million SAM misiles for intercepting such things and 10000 SDI sattelite mounted missiles so id probably intercept them all anyway in a small flurry)

If the nation had no choice or was trying to exterminate me id allow nukes, but not just as a lazy way of winning. As no one takes it that lightly... (for my earth nation, the modern one))

As orange state, perhaps id be a little different though as maybe ins space id allow them as they dont have the same consequences out there do they? THey are just big misiles One of my battleships has nukes fitted for ship to ship combat because frankly, when you arent the most advanced space nation, you have to choose between efficiency and effect and orange state will always go for effect!

My stance on nukes is quite simple: I accept them but only when people talked to me about it. I ignore all carpet nukes, there's nothing more stupid than that.

I'll accept nukes as it means the person attacking me has accepted my technology & abilities of my people. Of course this means that nuclear missiles will be deactivated/ destroyed before they enter my nation and so the point is moot.

The only way to effectively use a nuclear device upon my nation is to carry it in by foot & detonate it before being discovered. And I expect a well writen RP explaining how they lugged it over my mountains undetected & avoiding falling foul of natural hazards. Then how they traveled inland avoiding police patrols and sensors to place it near the target.

This is possible if we are not at war, if we are on a war alert then it is very unlikely to happen as we would be doing constent searches for intruders.

so thye d have to beat down your military so you cant stop it. Effectively meaning that nukes canonly be used as a desparate measure or to finish you.

As it should be.

Though if you are that high tech, you might want to join a future tech Rp and so they probably have ways round this, and much more fearsome weapons than nukes anyway (I actually only have two lasers with more destructive power, and they are for destroying space stations, other super capital class ships and cities with)

My other nation doesnt have nukes (the people would be up in arms and it is a little "weaker" (read less evil) than this one ... it does have H bombs though...

OOC:
Well for me personally I’d have to talk about it with my allies. Being in the Directorate has certain IC and OOC agreements.

If it passed the above filter it’d then have to pass others.

Is this justified? Is it reasonable for a nation to be nuking me? Circumstances were it would be no.
-Is he an elected leader? No elected politician will ever use nukes unless we are facing WWIII.
- Have I had previous IC relations with him? No one spins a globe and fires a nuke, this isn’t a Saturday morning cartoon RP.
- Have we talked about it OOC? I realize this gets some flak but for me talking to people OOCly is part of the fun for the game, I don’t like to thing of these people as faceless I want to have fun with friends, even if that fun is competition. I mean if you want to compare it to a war game even CnC has the no super weapons checkbox.
- Is there appoint? Maybe not necessarily for the story but is there a tactical point? If these is a war of conquest he’s not going to despoil his prize. If it is a war of defense, well anytime someone was that desperate I’d have already sent teams in to deal with his offensive capabilities.

Now with this all out on the table it’d be interesting to see non the less because Kstan’s MADAE system is ever watching out for me. So unless you’re willing to RP out getting past my conventional defenses and taking out some of the ground bases installations involved with MADAE then really,…

A RL nation very well might have responded the same way. Leader missing, fleet under attack, cruise missiles inbound. nukes were justified. Though OOC he may have known you would settle for the distruction of his navy, he had no way of knowing that IC.

I highly doubt that a real life nation would use nuclear weapons on someone because a few of their boats were under attack, or their leader was missing. In fact, I'd highly doubt they'd EVER use nukes, because at least someone is aware of just how destructive they really are. You don't just sit in your chair and do this:

"Sir, one of our soldiers was just shot."
"Meh, nuke the bastards."

Crazynessish.

Nuclear war isn't the casual affair some of you seem to think it is.

Actually, I think they would even hesitate to use them if THEY were about to be nuked, although their enemies would probably be just as reluctant so it will probably never happen. It almost has once though...

OOC: I love the fact no-one here mentions 'dentente', pity, especially since its what's shaped nuclear strategy and global relations over the past fifty years - though perhaps maybe its not as relevant now..

Personally, I would never see myself using nukes, despite owning them that is... I keep them as the ace card up my sleeve... someone says.. I'm gonna carpet bomb you to bits.. I say.. well, you better watch, I have a typhoon with 24 MIRVed SLBM's out in the sea with your name on them... anyone not backing down to that is a bit silly... plus it ain't godmoding, just realistic use of force... However, given that personally, I don't see much point in having a ridiculously sized army (in fact I'm going to keep my at the same size ad infinitum..), I suppose nukes will just have to act as a deterrent...


(But honestly.. why is it people use army's like dick extensions around here... )

OOC: Not true. In free form RP you can ignore or accept anything you want, you're not forced to do anything. It's just considered bad form to ignore legit attacks.
OOC: Isn't 'bad form' godmodding. I mean you could use your argument to say that nothing is godmodding, only bad form. And for the record, I dont class bad spelling and grammar on it's own as godmodding.

(But honestly.. why is it people use army's like dick extensions around here... )

I sure as hell hope that's not true -- only 0.01% of the population join the military of Mattikistan, and 45% of those are medics etc :(

OOC: Hee hee... nah, just I find it so funny sometimes when people suddenly pounce on you with like 200 ships or a million troops when you've only just managed to put like 20 planes in the sky!!

OOC: I don't think people have actually sat down and thought about it at times... you put like so many troops into such a small area per se.. a) how you gonna control them and b) how they gonna fit!! I know people will detract by saying "but there was a million men in Stalingrad' or stuff like that.. but that was over the course of a battle, not in the opening exchanges...

Yes. Some of the troop movements around these 'ere parts are unreal too...

ooc:

I think that alot of the time its because no one corrects them the first few times they do it. SO they continue citing precendce as they go.

Conversly I think the reason ppl don't correct them is because the older ppl who got away with it jump all over them and cite precendnce with even older ppl to back them up.

Basiclly someone needed to be a loud jerk when this all started and no one stepped up to the plate. It's left us with two (possibly three) tiers of RPers

Why nukes are really really illogistical

okay, this is why the use of nukes is completely stupid.
1. Consider this, you have just spent several billion launching a nuke, it hits target. Now what. You havent done anything except kill a few people, you sure cant use the land for the next few millenia, and unless your enemy is really stupid and has all of their forces in one arewa, you arent going to damage the enemy much
2. Now you have nuked the enemys capital. Whhopdedoo, any country which did that would:
a) Dissolve into civil anarchy by the residents of the nuking country because of all the inncoents kiled
b) Be inillegible for most world wide pacts
c) have about 100 countrys against you for killing innocenty civilian
d) have the blood of maby millions of civilians on their hadns, somthing which could haunt them for a long time
3. Anti mssile defences have already been said
4. No country that has any inteligence and consideration for mankind would do a thing which was so horrible and make and entire area void of any possibility.
5. Nukes arent that effective anyway. All you will destryo are a few people, for what gain?

Okay, the main reason i will ignore people who use nukes, is that the only people who use nukes are the young nations who cant afford them. All experienced and more knowledgable player have realised the problems associated with nukes, and prefer more targeted weapons which do not have as many negative side effects. I believe that the the age that a nation is alowwed to build nukes is the age when the nation realises how impracticle nukes are.

OOC: Hence, the stupid numbers is one of the reasons I invented the People's Defence Force

People's Defence Force


Ten percent of the Lasatanian population of adult age is trained for the defence of their building/factory/local area. Command of PDF units is undertaken by local Party Komissars. Equipment available to units is generally defensive and includes sub-machine guns, rifles, machine gun emplacements, molotov cocktails, grenades and anti-tank missiles. Full mobilisation rarely takes place and the PDF is only activated if a state of war is declared. PDF command in each town is responsible for the formation of defensive structures and minefields during a time of war. City air defences also fall under the remit of the PDF.


It effectively stops any number wanker trying it on... and its realistic, simply following the Soviet model of WWII, where whole cities would fight back...

Why nukes are really really illogistical

"Illogistical"?

1. Consider this, you have just spent several billion launching a nuke, it hits target.

Several billion? They aren't that expensive.

Okay, the main reason i will ignore people who use nukes, is that the only people who use nukes are the young nations who cant afford them.

You don't get out much, do you? Nukes can, and have, been used properly on NationStates. Both Iraqstan and Eurusea, for example, have made use of them and it has enhanced the story, not detracted. The problem isn't the nukes, it's the players. Mature, talented role-players can make effective use of nuclear weapons.

To blanket-ignore a real, existing weapon is the height of arrogance and stubborness. A blanket-ignore on, say, grav-ships is one thing, but for any nation with 1950's tech or more modern to claim to always ignore nukes is absurd. What's next? Ignoring tanks because n00bs field too many of them with no support? Ignoring fighters and bombers because n00bs use to many in single missions?

Nukes should be ignored just like every other piece of military hardware, real or imaginary. If used poorly, ignore it. If used properly, deal with it. Of course nobody wants to be nuked, but then again, nobody really wants to lose a war, either.

I believe that the the age that a nation is alowwed to build nukes is the age when the nation realises how impracticle nukes are.

Hm. I must have missed it where there's a rule about nation age and nukes. Someone better tell Israel they're godmodding. They've got nukes and only have 6 million people. Or North Korea; they've only got 22 million. Saying a nation can't have nuclear weapons based on size is just as silly.

hey wow I was mentioned in here. Also I'd like to add a question here. Where are these rules people list? I dont recall ever agreeing to abide by roleplay rules when I signed up. (Not aimed at you hacky :P)

In all honesty we are free to RP what ever we want on here. It is the other players choice to decide if they want to play with us or not. I nor any of you have to conform to any pre-stated rules or systems that were set up by anyone in the aspect of our roleplaying.

This is a free-form site so one man's godmodding is another's roleplay is quite effective. If you dont like it, simply ignore it. No point whinging about rules and breakages of them since they dont exist to begin with!

I wont ignore nukes, cause simply I luvz them and Iraqstan is the type of nation most willing to end the world if it means a final victory for the pure and master race........

Of course nobody wants to be nuked, but then again, nobody really wants to lose a war, either.

Of course not, but from what I've seen on here, it's very hard to avoid being nuked. There are exceptions of course, but this is what I frequently see:

Nation A: I declare war on Nation B!
Nation B: I prepare to launch my entire nuclear arsenal at Nation A in response.

:confused:

As you pointed out it is a real world weapon and should be treated as such. So why then is a nuclear attack the first thought on the mind of many nations? A real world nation wouldn't even consider it unless totally necessary...

Nation A: I declare war on Nation B!
Nation B: I prepare to launch my entire nuclear arsenal at Nation A in response.

To be perfectly honest I dont think Ive ever seen that. It's a stereotype, just like the one about n00bs typ1nzorz in1337 an n00kin j0022!1!11!!! It's nice to have a joke about, but in all honesty it doesnt really happen.

OOC: PRae... Well said, I personally think the converse holds true and that some 'older' (in the sense of length of time on here') people on here need lessons in orginality.. I would like to fight a war but given the numberwank that goes I don't really have too much hope for it, esp given that I would want to use current tech and possibly consider using squad sized units for some of it...

Its way too easy to say, My 50000 tanks destroy your 5000.... bollox to that... 5000 tanks used properly can tear a hole in a bigger force... Anyway thats my gripe.. as for nukes, I think MAD holds sway anyhow, anybody silly enough to point them should know their gonna get one back... my nuclear contingency plan: Operation KICKINDENUTS :)

Of course not, but from what I've seen on here, it's very hard to avoid being nuked.
Eh. I've never been nuked. Hell, I've never had war declared on me.

Why nukes are really really illogistical

okay, this is why the use of nukes is completely stupid.
1. Consider this, you have just spent several billion launching a nuke, it hits target. Now what. You havent done anything except kill a few people, you sure cant use the land for the next few millenia, and unless your enemy is really stupid and has all of their forces in one arewa, you arent going to damage the enemy much
2. Now you have nuked the enemys capital. Whhopdedoo, any country which did that would:
a) Dissolve into civil anarchy by the residents of the nuking country because of all the inncoents kiled
b) Be inillegible for most world wide pacts
c) have about 100 countrys against you for killing innocenty civilian
d) have the blood of maby millions of civilians on their hadns, somthing which could haunt them for a long time
3. Anti mssile defences have already been said
4. No country that has any inteligence and consideration for mankind would do a thing which was so horrible and make and entire area void of any possibility.
5. Nukes arent that effective anyway. All you will destryo are a few people, for what gain?

Okay, the main reason i will ignore people who use nukes, is that the only people who use nukes are the young nations who cant afford them. All experienced and more knowledgable player have realised the problems associated with nukes, and prefer more targeted weapons which do not have as many negative side effects. I believe that the the age that a nation is alowwed to build nukes is the age when the nation realises how impracticle nukes are.

ok i shall pick apart every piece of this argument presented.

1. I don't know what your definition of a few people is but the only two uses of nuclear weapons have caused massive casualites. in Hiroshima 30-50% of people in that city died from the blast(depending on whether you count people dieing 4 months later as part of blast casulities.) and another 20-30 percent were injured. Over 60 percent of people in the city were either killed or wounded. Nagasaki also had 40-50 percent casualities the only reason the casulities. Also a nuclear device is no where near billions of dollars. A fully loaded ICBM is 80-120 million. A cheap POS nuke would only be 20 grand, 10 grand of that being the plutonium. Also you can use the land afterwards there will be higher rates of cancer and such people still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2.
a. No no they wouldnt. The U.S. nuked Japan twice and the American people didn't revolt they were happy the war was ending and that Japan was losing.
b. so?
c. in NS no one will care.
d. lots of countries killed lots of people
3. They arent completely effective
4. Its a great weapon for demoralizing the enemy. So it also has its uses for destroying industry.
5. Of course it is possible to use carpet bombing to cause the same amount of damage but it takes more resources and more manpower to cause the same amount of damage.

I have several ways to deal with SDs ranging from massed missile bombardment to knock out sensors and communications to a closer range engagement with smaller DNs, to the regional naval defence net The New Commonwealth is designing... but by far the most economical way is with a single tactical nuke. Anyone who puts that much money and effort into a single ship is asking for a nuke.The first tier is satellite-mounted lasers. ;)
c. in NS no one will care.I do. I've only been in a few wars, all because I felt someone was being treated unjustly, and most recently the mistreated were civilians.
d. lots of countries killed lots of peopleIt's a good way to get on my bad side, but maybe only every other person who's managed to do that cared.

EDIT: Actually, that last war was the only one I was nuked in. Because I had no capability of nuclear retaliation, Dark Terror felt free to nuke my navy.

Nianacio, Your love for civillians angers me.

*kills a random Artitsan Civillian*

Lets do this thing.



Anyways, Nuclear arms are generally used when you don't want the land... like in Nationstates. And generally if an older nation n00kz0rz you, its a) during the RP, and will not make it worse or b) they just plain don't like you ooc and want you dead. ....ie what I did to Feazanthia. ;)

[Quote=Chardonay]
I have several ways to deal with SDs ranging from massed missile bombardment to knock out sensors and communications to a closer range engagement with smaller DNs, to the regional naval defence net The New Commonwealth is designing... but by far the most economical way is with a single tactical nuke. Anyone who puts that much money and effort into a single ship is asking for a nuke.


The first tier is satellite-mounted lasers. ;)
[QUOTE]

I was actually refering to SSMs there, but now that you bring it up, satilite mounted defences aren't perfect... horribly inaccurate and dreadfully expencive. And there are certainly ways to defeat them. CHardonayan stratigic nuclear doctrine calls for an opening salvo of EMP weapons to knock out satalite based weapons (don't say 'EMP SHEILDED'... it doesn't work very well, and no matter how well it's sheilded, you'll lose all comunications and sensors from atmospheric effects) followed by the main launch, where 1 in every 10 missiles is a decoy with powerful ECM systems, and 1 in every 10 warheads is also an ECM warhead. I would be impressed if you could knock them all down.

I wouldn't ignore a nuclear strike, so long as they accepted my retaliation. Which would be far more devastating. Though I think my reigion is protected by the NAFTA system, which negates Nukes, so I'd HAVE to be told beforehand to make checks.

North atlantic free trade agreement? What? And how does it negate nukes... this sounds futuretech.

Heh, guess I'm behind the times. Its somthing Iuthia has gotten off Tau or somthing similar. Like I said, It would require me checking things like "Can my paper deflect that missile?" and "I hope my Free Trade Agreements make that nuke change its mind about hitting my industrial sectors..."

After asking, here it is, I'm sure i could hire it to cover my nation for an attack...

National Atmospheric and Frequency Defence Array (NAFDA)
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=321134

It's nicely thought out, but definately futuretech.

Weeel, My nation is a GM nation with a gigantic railgun hidden inside a mountain. Its hard to be anything else now...

And my nation has a space station, Guass Weapons and Hover Tanks... so yeah, future tech is a pretty close idea...

ok i shall pick apart every piece of this argument presented.

1. I don't know what your definition of a few people is but the only two uses of nuclear weapons have caused massive casualites. in Hiroshima 30-50% of people in that city died from the blast(depending on whether you count people dieing 4 months later as part of blast casulities.) and another 20-30 percent were injured. Over 60 percent of people in the city were either killed or wounded. Nagasaki also had 40-50 percent casualities the only reason the casulities. Also a nuclear device is no where near billions of dollars. A fully loaded ICBM is 80-120 million. A cheap POS nuke would only be 20 grand, 10 grand of that being the plutonium. Also you can use the land afterwards there will be higher rates of cancer and such people still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2.
a. No no they wouldnt. The U.S. nuked Japan twice and the American people didn't revolt they were happy the war was ending and that Japan was losing.
b. so?
c. in NS no one will care.
d. lots of countries killed lots of people
3. They arent completely effective
4. Its a great weapon for demoralizing the enemy. So it also has its uses for destroying industry.
5. Of course it is possible to use carpet bombing to cause the same amount of damage but it takes more resources and more manpower to cause the same amount of damage.
1. You completely missed the point of that argument.
2.
a) Welcome to the modern era. If America killed that many civilians in Iraq, I think even its greatest allies would turn against it.
b) I’ll let you work that one out for yourself if you ever need allies
c) Except the world organizations, a lot of alliances. Not to mention many of the individual older nations.
d) Sure lots of countries kill people, but does that make it right? If lots of countries jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?
3. Sure they aren’t 100% effective, but as I said, this argument has already been said.
4. It will demoralize the enemy, but at the same time bring the rest of the world up in arms against you.
5. You will get a larger return if you use conventional weapons. Like land.

Okay, hacky, I’ll get to you know

Illogistical, do you have a better word for not logistical. If so please tell me.

Cost: They will be that expensive when you add in research and everything else. Sure they may only be a one off, but that wasn’t the main point of my argument. I don’t really go looking on eBay for nuclear missiles :P

The thing you said about my saying that nukes were only used by the nations who couldn’t afford them:
Okay, granted that point. Although if you do look at it, 98% of nations who do use nukes will be players who can not afford them. I will agree that there are some players that use them and are not n00bs, but the majority are.
And as far as getting out much, no I do not as I realized a while ago that there were too many godmoders in the role-playing section. I don’t know what the situations been like for the last month as I have been off the game, but I couldn’t see any improvement imminent when I left6 (I am just back briefly for a war with my long time nemesis)


Where did I mention size???

1. No you just stated it would only kill a few people for a price tag in the billions. I disproved that claim.
2 a. First off theres a difference from Nuking Iraq and nuking a country your in total war from. I wont argue with you that if the U.S. nuked Iraq the countries in Europe would have a fit and a half over it. But I would argue that the average American wouldnt give a shit. The average american doesnt care how many Iraqis die they care if 1 American die but if the news reported today that 5 thousand Iraqis died in an american bombing or something only 10-25% of people would go and protest that. But If the news reported 5 americans died most Americans would get pissed and start cursing the militants like theres no tommorow.
b. theres plenty of nations on NS who support the good ole nuking the guy doctrine. I nuked 5 nations and a region and I still have allies.
c. see my last sentence above and I got away with it all. As long as your big you wont get bothered if your some 100 million nation and you nuke someone you'll get steam rolled.
d. Theres a difference between killing and suicide. Suicide is just stupid. Killing be justified and in some cases extremely neccessary.
3. i was just puting up a counter to all the points you put up.
4. pointed out in 2 b and 2 c
5. If I didnt want the land or that particular land was not usefull for my purposes or just too heavily defended. Its almost must easier, cheaper to send a single nuclear device into the area then sending a massive flight of B-52s to firebomb the enter area. Just recently in a war I tactnuked an enemy paradrop in order to destroy the heavy equipment they dropped for the paratroopers. I didnt want the land they dropping in on and I didnt want to risk my fighters and bombers in the region in an air engagement.

Illogistical, do you have a better word for not logistical. If so please tell me.

I would use "not logistical" or "show a poor grasp of logistics". Much like "funner" isn't a word...

Cost: They will be that expensive when you add in research and everything else. Sure they may only be a one off, but that wasn’t the main point of my argument. I don’t really go looking on eBay for nuclear missiles

But a single launch doesn't cost billions. Your statement was that the nation had just spent "several billion launching a nuke". While there is a great deal of research to create nuclear fission, it has lateral applications (power generation) which mitigates cost. Also, nuclear bombs are far cheaper than ICBMs. Actually, I believe the rocketry devolopment is the pricey stuff, not creating a nuclear device.

Okay, granted that point. Although if you do look at it, 98% of nations who do use nukes will be players who can not afford them.

Well... if we're basing off of real life here, a 5 million pop nation with a "Good" economy can have them (ie: Israel), or a 22 million nation with a "Basket Case" economy can (N. Korea). I'd say that's a pretty low hurdle. Indeed, that would imply that almost any nation regardless of size or economy can have nukes (except, maybe, a 5M with Imploded), provided they have the desire.

I will agree that there are some players that use them and are not n00bs, but the majority are.

So you're telling the good players to shove off?

And as far as getting out much, no I do not as I realized a while ago that there were too many godmoders in the role-playing section. I don’t know what the situations been like for the last month as I have been off the game, but I couldn’t see any improvement imminent when I left6 (I am just back briefly for a war with my long time nemesis)

My point is that people can wank and godmode with any for of tech. To blanket ignore one particular piece of it is absurd. But, really, it's your loss, not mine.

Where did I mention size???

Right here:

I believe that the the age that a nation is alowwed to build nukes is the age when the nation realises how impracticle nukes are.

Basically the only reason the first Atomic bomb development cost was in the billions was because that.

1. There was nothing at that time to compare or base the weapon on you are building something from scratch and theory.

2. You have to start from step 1 and just figure out how nuclear fission and fusion works. This part is largely negated now you could pick of a college physicts textbook and get the basic understanding of these principles.

3. Lack of modern technology. It took hundreds of mathamiticans and engineers sitting over tables everyday doing calculations with pen and paper. If they had 1 even semi modern computer that could of done the work of all the mathamiticans in probably a few days.

4. The project was generally rushed they just kept pumping more funding into it to get it out quicker because they believed the germans were extremely close to the bomb

5. They developed multiple forms of bombs, triggers, and attempted delivery devices to see what would be best.

And most of the research later on went into how to deliver the nuke without a bomber and how to make a nuke small enough to fit into different missiles and weapons systems.

----------

Im trying to find a link to a 60 minutes article from a few years ago to show how sickingly easy it is to make a nuclear bomb if you know how. There was a guy who actually built an atomic bomb in his backyard. If you dont care about radiation poisoning you could build a makeshift nuke in a vacuum cleaner. Its not hard to get the basic materials its hard to get plutonium or uranium. Its not something you get by walking into your local hardware store. Even if you basic Uranium or Plutionium you would need to Enrich it. And since you dont have have heavy machinery you have to do is the dirty way by just pouring bleech on the thing and creating a nice toxic cloud over your house and block.

bump

I'd accept use of nukes against my forces or nation in an RP as long if, at a bare minimum, it was well RPed, realistically done, and done in such a way that it contributed positively to the RP. As for roleplaying an actual nuclear hit on my mainland, it's unlikely that such a thing will ever happen. My country's been researching and improving on anti-ballistic technology since the 1950s, using all the money it wasn't spending on developing and expanding a nuclear arsenal. The practical result? I can't nuke you, but you most likely won't be able to nuke me either.

As future tech I certainly don't need to ignore nukes to not be turned into glass plate. No more than any other missile attack.

Actually, as future tech I think nukes would be commonplace, doing more damage for less, at least when compared to mass drivers and lasers.

[I imagine future tech fusion bombs would be fairly clean as well, which removes the whole radiation stigma. Of course, that doesn't stop a nuclear winter, but at least the clouds wouldn't glow green.]

I'm future tech as well, but my view on nukes, planet-killers, and other such WMDs is this: as long as it's realistic that you'd have them, and as long as it hs been clearly stated either IC or OOC in the past by you that you have them (OOC overrides IC, obviously), it is unfair for a nation being attacked to simply deny the existence of the attack. If the will and ability is there and the enemy carries it out, you can't just ignore that it happened. I believe it to be good roleplaying etiquette (and just plain smart) to check with your opponent before the fight starts whether they'd like such weapons to be acceptable to use, though. It's harsh to have your nation ripped out from under you and to have to start from scratch. Nobody likes that.

I would use "not logistical" or "show a poor grasp of logistics". Much like "funner" isn't a word...
it isnt :| but it is so much funner when it is :P


But a single launch doesn't cost billions. Your statement was that the nation had just spent "several billion launching a nuke". While there is a great deal of research to create nuclear fission, it has lateral applications (power generation) which mitigates cost. Also, nuclear bombs are far cheaper than ICBMs. Actually, I believe the rocketry devolopment is the pricey stuff, not creating a nuclear device.
ok, i dont really look at the prices...



Well... if we're basing off of real life here, a 5 million pop nation with a "Good" economy can have them (ie: Israel), or a 22 million nation with a "Basket Case" economy can (N. Korea). I'd say that's a pretty low hurdle. Indeed, that would imply that almost any nation regardless of size or economy can have nukes (except, maybe, a 5M with Imploded), provided they have the desire.

and you want the world over come with n00bs?
So if i make a puppet now and post somthing like "OMG OMG OMGT I N00K J00 WITH teH n00ks. Of MY NaTiON. I pwned j00. MUAHAHAHA!!!!" (bute better role played) would you accept that and roleplay along with them?
would you really trust nukes in the hands of noobs who acted like that?


So you're telling the good players to shove off?
No, I am saying that the majority of people who use nukes are n00bs. I am just giving an opinion here. I will not ingnore the use of nuclear weapons if they are used provided the nation launching them is able to have them By NS standards


My point is that people can wank and godmode with any for of tech. To blanket ignore one particular piece of it is absurd. But, really, it's your loss, not mine.
It is the most overated and commonly abused weapon. I wont ignore a good player with nukes, ie, if you nuked me i would not ignore it. Id just use my uber deth ray against you [jk, but i would retaliate]



Right here:

If you can see the word 'size' in that please tell me. Eitehr I am very blind, or you misread it. I mention age, but not size.

Look, Hackl, i was stating a few points about how overated nukes were. What i was saying was taht most people wh used nukes are n00bs. But not all.

I will not ingnore the use of nuclear weapons if they are used provided the nation launching them is able to have them By NS standards
That was all I was arguing, really. Your first post stated that you'd ignore all use of nukes. I just don't want people to blanket ignore something.

So... yeah, argument over, I guess.

That was all I was arguing, really. Your first post stated that you'd ignore all use of nukes. I just don't want people to blanket ignore something.

So... yeah, argument over, I guess.
*shakes hackys had*

I'm future tech as well, but my view on nukes, planet-killers, and other such WMDs is this: as long as it's realistic that you'd have them, and as long as it hs been clearly stated either IC or OOC in the past by you that you have them (OOC overrides IC, obviously), it is unfair for a nation being attacked to simply deny the existence of the attack. If the will and ability is there and the enemy carries it out, you can't just ignore that it happened. I believe it to be good roleplaying etiquette (and just plain smart) to check with your opponent before the fight starts whether they'd like such weapons to be acceptable to use, though. It's harsh to have your nation ripped out from under you and to have to start from scratch. Nobody likes that.
I ignored a planet killer, because it 89000km long and indestructible.

That said they arent about to be fast agile or difficult to destroy if you anything that can move at a fair pace and carrys a few good weapons and a load of ammo. As the power gird needed to destroy a plant or fire a slug fast enough would make such a device either vulnerable or ludicrously expensive, they are fair cop though, if RP'd getting into position, destroying the enemy navy, or resisting it for a prolongued period and so on.

Otherwise, Id agree.

and you want the world over come with n00bs?
So if i make a puppet now and post somthing like "OMG OMG OMGT I N00K J00 WITH teH n00ks. Of MY NaTiON. I pwned j00. MUAHAHAHA!!!!" (bute better role played) would you accept that and roleplay along with them?
would you really trust nukes in the hands of noobs who acted like that?

The age or size of a nation has precisely nothing to do with how n00bish the player is. Someone who says "OMG OMG OMGT I N00K J00 WITH teH n00ks. Of MY NaTiON. I pwned j00. MUAHAHAHA!!!!" will likely never be a decent RPer, whether he's been around for one day or one year.

The way to avoid n00bs doing that isn't to impose arbitrary age limits on who can have nukes (as the n00bs pay no heed to those anyway), but to ignore the idiots who abuse them.

Orange state: True. It is difficult to make a "realistic" planet-killer. Since the amount of technology necessary to create the weapon is usually big, planet killers tend to be big as well. The fact that they must stand up to incredible assault power makes them even bigger, as armor and shielding is incorporated. Our super weapon is no longer in service, but when it was operational it was comparable in size to a small moon. That said, it wasn't indestructable, though it was certainly hard to destroy. It's all about finding a balance. Every ship, no matter how big, small, weak, or powerful has strengths and weaknesses.

Orange state: True. It is difficult to make a "realistic" planet-killer. Since the amount of technology necessary to create the weapon is usually big, planet killers tend to be big as well. The fact that they must stand up to incredible assault power makes them even bigger, as armor and shielding is incorporated. Our super weapon is no longer in service, but when it was operational it was comparable in size to a small moon. That said, it wasn't indestructable, though it was certainly hard to destroy. It's all about finding a balance. Every ship, no matter how big, small, weak, or powerful has strengths and weaknesses.

Not difficult to design. Only difficult to construct, power, transport, and guard. Bloody huge railgun lobbing massive lump of ceramic-coated iron will serve to at the very least ruin target planet's surface and ecosystem. Careful plotting of course, launch from edge of system, boom! One shot, no need for more, hard time catching recoiling railgun anyway. Simple, effective, only need to guard until fire...what not to like?

Having not really RPd much, I may not be qualified much to talk about this, but here's my two cents. I frequently read RPs and have on two occasions seen people accept nuclear attacks because of the quality of the RPing.
Whether to accept a nuclear attack depends on several factors:
1. The size of the attack.
2. How said attack is launched (ICBMs aren't launched from subs)
3. The quality of the RPing. I'd like to see some good moralising on the part of the attacker.
4. The consequences.

As for lobbing rocks at planets, here's a great piece on this (it's not NS, but still relevant and funny):

http://uk.games-workshop.com/40kuniverse/warhammer40k/chapter_approved/assets/archive/wd297_chap_approve.pdf
(Go to the last page)

2. How said attack is launched (ICBMs aren't launched from subs)
Er... yes they are. That's kinda the point of SSBNs, after all.

SLBMs have a far shorter range than ICBMs. Plus you can't really launch a Minuteman from your normal size sub- the missile's too big.

What I meant was a realistically launched attack i.e. not dropping a huge missile from a bi-plane.

When you're reaching 6000nm with 1990's tech, it's no stretch to assume that even slightly more advanced nations could reach even further, especially with a little effort. And, really, when you're hucking a TRIDENT II 6000 nautical miles, it's close enough. It's only slightly more than semantics at that level.

Neralli: It's decidedly less cool.

Neralli: It's decidedly less cool.

it could be expensive, and true it would be well armoured and so on, but it would be a sitting duck and a huge target, plus i doubt it would mpove fast... unless you made it even bigger and increased its engine to size ratio etc....

But something the size of a moon?

I mean there were two on star wars... but that was made by an empiure with loads of planets with populations in billions.


THe cost must be huge... the size must be say 1000km so, say almost 4billion metres cubed.. the materials alone must cost loads....

it could be expensive, and true it would be well armoured and so on, but it would be a sitting duck and a huge target, plus i doubt it would mpove fast... unless you made it even bigger and increased its engine to size ratio etc....

But something the size of a moon?

I mean there were two on star wars... but that was made by an empiure with loads of planets with populations in billions.


THe cost must be huge... the size must be say 1000km so, say almost 4billion metres cubed.. the materials alone must cost loads....

Actually try millions of planets and thousands of trillions of people. Coruscant itself would hold approx. 600 trillion people from the density.
The Imperial Navy(the attacking force) had over 25 thousand Imperial Star Destroyers plus hundreds of thousands of other smaller ships.
The Imperial Starfleet(encompssing ships for plantery defense) would of had over 3 million warships. With 3-7 warships for even the smallest planets look at Bakura. That was a little backwards colony and had 7 ships assigned to guarding it.

Orange state: Oh, hell yes. The Apocalypse class took fifty years of money and resources to build. The Xanthalians tore the Garron system apart getting all the materials. I think its top speed was about 0.05c., but inertia was a big issue. Of course it was a big target, but it did have several layers of powerful shields. It never left stardock without a huge escort for protection, though. It was a very poor ship-to-ship combatant. The design was all about destroying a large target and living long enough to get away.

Actually try millions of planets and thousands of trillions of people. Coruscant itself would hold approx. 600 trillion people from the density.
The Imperial Navy(the attacking force) had over 25 thousand Imperial Star Destroyers plus hundreds of thousands of other smaller ships.
The Imperial Starfleet(encompssing ships for plantery defense) would of had over 3 million warships. With 3-7 warships for even the smallest planets look at Bakura. That was a little backwards colony and had 7 ships assigned to guarding it.

I dont know star wars that well, but there we go, so its several million times bigger and has 3 million warships, that means their spending is less per head than us. BUt they still only made 2 death stars.

Xanthal, Id respond to a planet killer like that, I wouldnt ignore it, as id probably throw most of may navy at it though. Or just point a couple of armageddon class at it (the closest i have to a planet destroyer, a 6 million tonne battleship with the weaponry of a moderately sized cruiser.. and a single gun that can level a moderately sized city in one hit... )its designed for large slow targets like super capital ships, stations and planet killers though, as it charges quicker at a rate that makes it feasible for ship to ship combat, but, is best with a few escorts to blast sheilds off the target first..

Id rather have a fleet that will stop anything and then be able to capture land.

Xanthalian weaponry in general tends to fall into a mid-ranked category alongside other space nations. Their specialty is defense, and most Xanthalian ships and facilities can take a lot of punishment. In that area, they rank as one of the best. It's given them some creative ways to go on the ofensive too, and some Xanthalian battle techniques are quite unique.

OOC: Just asking, cause it seems that no matter what the circumstances, anyone who uses nukes gets their attack ignored.

So is there any way that nukes COULD be used and not be ignored?

Axis Nova

[OOC: I'd ignore a carpet bombing attack like the one Artitsa launched against Feazanthia or I'd have my defense systems (which would be on high alert anyway) knock down most or all of the missiles. I accepted a nuclear attack that destroyed a state capital and lost 1.8 million lives, but since I subsequently ignored the nation in question for being a Godmodding a*hole, I probably could have rescinded it.

A LIMITED strike used with the kind of reluctance that any reasonable country would have to launch a destructive attack I would accept. I would also accept it as an action undertaken by a country that's about to lose and fires a limited nuclear strike in desperation (especially if they ask me in advance which city I would accept a strike on). One that's not aimed toward killing my principal characters might be accepted. Sorry, if you think you're going to randomly kill my main characters without my telling you OOC that's what I'm planning for the RP, you have another thing coming. I have spent a lot of time trying to develop these characters and I'm not going to have them snuffed out because some whiny bitch of a n00b wants them dead.]

I ignore bad RP'ers and godmoders. But hey, I really don't need to worry about people nuke-wanking, I don't post in II.

Ok, I read this thread, and in two places posters said they would not be willing to accept a 24,000 year period of time where they could not use the land. Another poster said that this time period was a 'millenia.'

How was this number decided? Is this a customary NS value which has been decided on? Because the Japanese began to rebuild Hiroshima after 6 months, the radiation had already returned to safe levels, it does so very quickly. Does this discrepenancy come from a misunderstanding of nuclear weapons on these posters parts, or do these weapons have attributes other than those used at Hiroshima that I am not aware of?

Ok, I read this thread, and in two places posters said they would not be willing to accept a 24,000 year period of time where they could not use the land. Another poster said that this time period was a 'millenia.'

How was this number decided? Is this a customary NS value which has been decided on? Because the Japanese began to rebuild Hiroshima after 6 months, the radiation had already returned to safe levels, it does so very quickly. Does this discrepenancy come from a misunderstanding of nuclear weapons on these posters parts, or do these weapons have attributes other than those used at Hiroshima that I am not aware of?

The thing is...

The 2 bombs over Hiroshima and Nagaski were very weak compared to today's nukes.

An analogy would be like this:

The Hiroshima / Nagaski nuclear bomb = marble

Today's nukes = bowling ball

The bowling ball would do far more damage and cause much larger ripples than a marble.

The thing is...

The 2 bombs over Hiroshima and Nagaski were very weak compared to today's nukes.

An analogy would be like this:

The Hiroshima / Nagaski nuclear bomb = marble

Today's nukes = bowling ball

The bowling ball would do far more damage and cause much larger ripples than a marble.

We can also make more efficient and thus cleaner bombs now than we could then, so you get the false analogy award for today. The gigantic 'Tsar Bomba' detonation was one of the cleanest nuclear tests ever even though it was also the largest.

I have no problem with an enemy using nukes in a war against me, as long as he's willing to take what he dishes out. Simple and fair approach, no?

If it was very well RPed and descriptive, and done in the normal style of battle (i.e. nuke is launched, then they wait for my response if, for example, I have missile defence systems of something.) But not "I n00k J00!" or variations upon that theme.

OOC: So far, the only nation I've seen take a nuke hit well is the Drakonian Imperium. There may be others, but this is from my own experience.

The Hiroshima / Nagaski nuclear bomb = marble

Today's nukes = bowling ball

The bowling ball would do far more damage and cause much larger ripples than a marble.

Even if this were true, I would imagine that the radiation levels would last maybe a year and a half, but going into and far beyond triple digits doesn't seem realistic to me in the slightest.

Also, many modern nuclear weapons are relatively strong, larger than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Hiroshima was .017 Mt, Nagasaki was larger) , but smaller than they could be, because tactically smaller warheads are more effective than larger ones. (Currently most countries nuclear weapons are in the .1-.5 Mt range)

Also, as GMC said modern nuclear warheads are more effecient. 'Little Boy' had 60kg of Uranium, but only 1kg of this went through nuclear fission, the rest of it was scattered around after the explosion.

Possibly the most seriously contaminated area ever was the testing ground at Bikini Atoll, which was still contaminated to unsafe levels 30 years after testing stopped, then it was cleaned up at a cost of more than 90 million dollars.

This is hardly a common scenario though, as this was the testing site of more than 20 atomic and hydrogen bombs, including very large ones such as 15Mt. (The largest yield of nuclear bomb which makes up a significant portion of a countries stockpile is the 30% of China's in the 3.3+Mt range)

Unless your country has the bad luck to be nuked on a very regular basis you should be fine.

Exception: The closer to the ground the weapon is used the more residual radiation there is, this is not an issue with tiny suitcase bombs, but with larger ones it would be. However this is not likely unless they are attacking a hardened underground facility, as the closer to the ground it is the smaller the blast radius is, even at ground level you wouldn't be too badly off, and, keep in mind that the range was much smaller.

Larger exception: There are weapons (none publicly built or tested in Real Life) which are designed to to increase the fallout by saturating heavy metals with radiation and spreading those (not dirty bombs, those have limited fallout, and not Neutron bombs, those have greater initial radiation but not a different fallout) these bombs are "salted" bombs, but unless your opponent specifically says that he uses them don't assume that he means those. Different types of metals prolong the radiation for different lengths, from days, months, to a period of around 5 years (Cobalt)

Normal weapons however do not have very large amounts of long-lasting fallout. So the damage in this way to your country would be low, especially if a relativelly small amount of warheads are involved.

I'd accept a nuclear attack if it was RP-ed well. There are those who sat BOOM you are dead. That is completely riduclous. There are several good sci-fi books where one nation nukes another, and the other retaliates, and they both die. Yet some people still live. And, no matter how badly my country was plastered, there will always be Corporal George-the-Squirrel and his bunker that was not flattened, albiet he is the only survivor.

NEXT:

What about nuclear defenses? "oooh! I gots those bunker doohickieys that completely protect my troops from getting n00ked!"

That is completely riduclous. Maybe not in Future Tech, but then it's lazer beams and meson disintegrators instead of nukes. There is no bunker, unless it is built waaay before the war, (like the Maginot Line in WWII, built in 1921) that could survive a direct nuclear strike. That goes for tanks too, although there are some tanks that have radiation scrubbers...but that doesn't help them against thermal pulses or shockwaves...

In my opinion, like it matters, the only way nukes should not be ignores is if they are a LAST resort, something similar to WW2, but even that wasn't a last resort.

Take for example:
Party 1 attacks Party 2
Party 2 defends and pushes back at Party 1
Party 1 is on the losing side of defending and is pushed back VERY far into Party 1's nation, like the capital city
Party 1 nukes Party 2, tactically to disrupt their offense, in GOOD RP
Party 1 then goes back on the offensive and wins or something, or somebody wins.

Last resort as in they are at the capital city of your own, until then, I wouldn't accept it, because in real life, if you nuke without good cause, UN would kick your ass.

There are those who sat BOOM you are dead. That is completely riduclous.Yea. In the time it takes for an ICBM to reach your nation, you could launch your own, and there'll probably be some survivors.
Maybe not in Future Tech, but then it's lazer beamsTen years is future, but I don't think it's generally considered "future tech".
There is no bunker, unless it is built waaay before the war, (like the Maginot Line in WWII, built in 1921) that could survive a direct nuclear strike.I don't think bunkers that old would have the proper shock absorbing properties even if they could survive the actual blast. There are more recent structures that could survive such an attack, however.
That goes for tanks too, although there are some tanks that have radiation scrubbers...but that doesn't help them against thermal pulses or shockwaves...The hull of the tank was covered by a thin elliptical shield. That shield protected the tank against HEAT ammunition and to prevent it from overturning during a nuclear explosion.It's not WOW TEH UBER ARMORZ, but it is something.

To get back to the original point of the thread...

OOC: Just asking, cause it seems that no matter what the circumstances, anyone who uses nukes gets their attack ignored.

So is there any way that nukes COULD be used and not be ignored?

Axis Nova Under circumstances identical to the circumstances under which I'm accepting any other kind of attack, be it conventional, spacedy, surface, Country Music at high volume, whatever.

Has anyone ever, in the history of NS or RL, considered using a low-yield nuclear weapon as flak defense against truly insane numbers of small to medium missiles, bunched together? The calculator I used (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html) says that even a 10-kiloton weapon has a ionizing radiation radius of 1.3 KM, and can cause third-degree burns at 1.8 KM. Plus the flash ought to confuse or blind most, if not all, guidance systems for a substantually larger radius. Heatseekers especially would have a serious distraction.

Plus the weapon can be used for ground nuking if the guidance system is versatile enough.

I believe the Soviets had something like that to take down American recon planes. S-2 maybe? It was desiegned to compensate for their inability to track the plane properly.

But as flak defence? Perhaps a good idea considering the initial confrontation in every war seems to turn into a missile fest.

Has anyone ever, in the history of NS or RL, considered using a low-yield nuclear weapon as flak defense against truly insane numbers of small to medium missiles, bunched together? The calculator I used (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html) says that even a 10-kiloton weapon has a ionizing radiation radius of 1.3 KM, and can cause third-degree burns at 1.8 KM. Plus the flash ought to confuse or blind most, if not all, guidance systems for a substantually larger radius. Heatseekers especially would have a serious distraction.

Plus the weapon can be used for ground nuking if the guidance system is versatile enough.Eurusea has it as available tactic (So far, unused, and thus unknown). But they throw nukes at *everything*, so...

For that matter, seeing as I'm featuring nuclear *handgrenades* I would certainly consider such to be a possibility.

Eurusea has it as available tactic (So far, unused, and thus unknown).

Nyet, two Defence Bombs were fired from the Floating Fortress Alternate near St Peter Island at that missilespam attack. Been used in combat and worked just fine, most missiles aren't so good at managing blast, EMP and then trying to fly through a condensation dome.

Bah, so my memory confused ooc posts regarding the tactic being unknown before the thingies were fired with the actual events.

Should upgrade to memory 2.0 then.

From what I've read of this thread (the first few pages), most people seem to be happy with the use of nukes IF they can have an excuse for getting around the side effects and fallout from a nuclear war.

Though I believe this borders a bit on 'god modding' a little bit.

It'll make a a fairly decent RP if somebody does the aftermath of a nuke fight, ie the slow rebuilding (if any) and the collapse of law and order, etc.

Hey I'm considering doing a possible trail RP along these lines!

It's a shame all told that the aftermath of a nuclear war has been massively exaggerated by the disarmament lobby and postapocalyptic Westerns like Mad Max.

More to the point, GRRARRR I DESTROY YOUR WHOLE NATION exchanges are bad RP, simply because they destroy the whole story and background of a nation in a few posts. Utter rubbish, RP-wise.

Further, clean nuclear weapons aren't a godmode.

Holy crap, this thread is still around? :eek:

Belatedly noticed this was included in a sticky. Bump to prevent purge :)

Bump since this was in the old sticky and may merit inclusion in the new one, or at least the incorporation of some of the material from the thread into a more well written and condensed "How to RP the use of nuclear weapons properly" post.

edit: I didn't notice this thread got moved to NS, I mean it should be in the new II sticky. This should probably go there too. >_>

OOC: Not exactly. Alot of RPers I know ignore nukes because they are the cheap and noobish way out of a situation. It takes no writing skill or creative thinking to say 'I launch nukes at you and you die.' Alot of us are here for the sake of stories, folks.

And besides, are nukes used in real life anymore? No, there is no need to.

The chief trouble I find is that everybody is willing to resort to thermonuclear weapons far far too quickly. The slightest sign of escalation and it's "OMG I ready my nooks you commie/fascist/liberal/witch!!!!!!!1111 U will die!!111" - which is just silly. You don't just play about with nuclear weapons and you certainly don't use them as a first-resort weapon, because it doesn't make sense to.

My thoughts exactly. Who uses nukes, for goodness' sake?

Eurusea has it as available tactic (So far, unused, and thus unknown). But they throw nukes at *everything*, so...

For that matter, seeing as I'm featuring nuclear *handgrenades* I would certainly consider such to be a possibility.

Nuclear weapons of various yields have been contemplated IRL [and deployed in the case of Soviet Russia] as a means of anti-missile defense.