NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, I am proposing the formation of the Government Tactical Request For Comments committee. This committee will oversee the creation and publishing of various educational and informational memoranda, encompassing many different fields of NationStates roleplay.

DUE to past confusion regarding affiliation with NationStates, please note that the GTRFC committee and the GTRFC archive is in no way officially related with NationStates or the NationStates forums. Any standards set forth in a GTRFC article (henceforth referred to as a GTRFC) are strictly voluntary, and acceptance of any standard set forth in a GTRFC is *not* required to submit your own GTRFCs.

Every author who wishes to create and publish a GTRFC must follow set guidelines:

1) Your GTRFC must be more than two (2) paragraphs in length and must remain on-topic.

In the event that your GTRFC exceeds one (1) page in length, the respective page number and author name must be placed at the bottom of each page. At the top of each page proceeding page one (1) must exist the GTRFC index number, title and the date of creation (modified to Date Published).

2) Your GTRFC must contain a header for basic filing purposes. This header must contain the following information:

Name of Author(s)
Date Created (If accepted, will be changed to Date Published)
Category
Any Relevant, Modified or Obsoleted Documents

3) Your GTRFC must be written in a clear and concise manner.

4) Your GTRFC must be written in Plain Text-compatible format for the sake of guaranteed system compatibility.

5) References, if applicable, MUST BE CITED. Additionally, acronyms, if applicable, must be defined at the bottom of the document.

Uses of this thread:

Authors wishing to submit GTRFCs may do so in this thread. Debate and discussion of current GTRFCs should take place in this thread. For the sake of organization, and to remove load from the Jolt forum servers, an online archive of current GTRFCs is available at http://gtrfc.flashwirenetwork.net for public viewing.

At this time, the only way to submit a GTRFC article is through this thread, where it can be peer-edited and discussed prior to acceptance. Upon approval of a GTRFC, a committee member will make a post assigning a number to the GTRFC in question, and it will be added to the off-site backup archive.

Authors wishing to obsolete any GTRFC must do so by posting a seperate GTRFC outlining the reasons for obsoletion and the alternate solution or idea. The GTRFC index number of the obsoleted article must be placed in the header of the new GTRFC.

I will begin with GTRFC1, outlining a few of the Basics of Vacuum Warfare. As of this post revision, there are three GTRFCs.

Foe Hammer
April 2006
Category: Warfare - Vacuum Warfare
Relevant: N/A

The Basics of Vacuum Warfare

Abstract

When one imagines space warfare, what does one relate it to? Football? Chess? The truth is, either of those two games are, in fact, very similar - Only in space warfare, you have alot more guns and alot less room to mess up. This Request For Comment concerning Vacuum Warfare should enhance the general quality of Vacuum Warfare Roleplaying and set in place strategic standards to take into account.

Table of Contents

1. THE BASICS OF VACUUM WARFARE STRATEGY.................................1
1.1 "He's not a real bishop! I never once saw him move diagonally."........1
1.2 Scare Tactics...........................................................................1


1 . THE BASICS OF VACUUM WARFARE STRATEGY

One of the most crucial components of any form of competition, be it a game or all-out combat, is the player or piece, and the ability to position that player or piece in such a way as to maximize his, her or it's performance and longevity. Let's take chess as the subject for the first example...

1.1 "He's not a real bishop! I never once saw him move diagonally."

In chess, one's key pieces are preceded by a line of pawns, referred to as the Shield Wall. The Shield Wall formation dates back to Roman times, where the front line of soldiers in a given formation would literally form a wall of shields, defending the front ranks from spears and other projectiles.

Possibly the most effective strategy in combating a shield wall formation of vessels is to use intelligent projectiles, such as guided missiles or torpedoes, to strike the rear of a formation. (World War II soldiers would often fire at soldiers near the rear of a line of troops, as this was the least noticeable loss, as opposed to seeing the head of the poor bastard in front of you literally explode.)

One less effective and possibly less humane strategy, the one that applies to chess, is to slowly weaken the shield wall. This, of course, is achieved in chess by sacrificing your own pawns first to overtake and remove your opponent's pieces from the board. Sounds easy enough, but if your Fleet Admiral isn't a heartless bastard, this is the very last thing you'd want to try, due to the sheer loss of assets that WILL hurt your side as much as it does the other. (Notice I don't refer to one side as good and one side is bad... Because you may be using this for wrongdoing.)

1.2 Scare Tactics
A great man - well, a few great men - once said, "It is better to rule with fear of force than to rule with force alone." This is very infrequently the basis of one's political standpoint in NationStates - You want to blow things up with as little interference as possible. This is your choice, but it's my choice to tell you that your choice is the wrong choice! Think of it this way... You have sentient assets and you have mechanical assets. Mechanical assets are your vessels, your ships, et cetera. Sentient assets are... well, your pilots and your crew.

Let's take the United States Navy as an example. The average cost of training a naval fighter pilot hovers around $2 million, depending on your sources (Adjust for political bias). The sheer cost of deploying and maintaining training materials for vacuum training would break the AFT (Atmospheric Flight Training) budget in a split second. It's clear that your sentient assets are not to be thrown around like play toys, especially when your decisions could affect their performance and their will to cooperate (Not very fun being dead, is it?).

In a standard fleet, you can expect to have a command ship, a few destroyers, cruisers and/or battleships, and oodles of gun ships, support craft and fighters. Now, here's where the fear comes in - The most effective way to resolve disputes with little loss of life is to scare the pants off of the poor bastards in your cross hairs. To achieve this, you need to maximize the appearance of the size of your fleet - Or, in English, space them out. Someone staring into a colossal wall of starships is more likely to "get to steppin'."

Foe Hammer................The Basics of Vacuum Warfare................[Page 1]

Salvaged from old thread - GTRFC2 originally submitted by Otares.
-----
Otares
April 2006
Requests for Comments: 2
Category: Warfare – Social Impact
Relevant: N/A

The Porous Nature of a Representative Government
Abstract
How often does your nation involve itself in military matters? When you – as
a character – role play an armed conflict do you consider the effects it might
have on the people at home? The morale of your citizens directly affects how
well a representative government can wage a war. In the effort to maintain a
realistic portrayal of your nation this Request for Comment should offer up
some considerations that players of democratic nations should take into account.
It will also offer up a few viable considerations for counteracting the
de-moralizing effects within said same nation.

Table of Contents

1. The porous nature of a representative government....................1
1.1 Homeland morale v. in theatre morale.......................2
1.2 The Ordering of Society and the effects on fighting a war..2
1.3 Possible solutions to the quandaries explored..............3
1.3.1 Civic morale.....................................3
1.3.2 Political morale.................................5
1.3.3 Social morale....................................5
1.3.4 Domestic abandonment.............................6
1.3.5 Attrition damage.................................6

1. The porous nature of a representative government

Very often in NationStates warfare is seen as a viable option in foreign
relations. This can very easily be observed by looking at technology threads
– which all boast of their military tech – or by a quick survey of the front
page in International Incidents. In the NationStates world war is as common
– if not more so – than peace.

This seems very contrary to the real life world that we – the players – find
ourselves in. It could be because we lack an outlet in real life that
NationStates seems to become a war game more often than naught but there are
certain realities players who seek realism must contend with.

As Emmanuel Kant observed democratic governments are less likely to war with
other governments which posses the same ruling principles. Moreover they find
themselves less involved in the same blood baths which characterized early
European history. Another interesting note is that a good majority of the
military code of conduct in western

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 1 ]
----
NSRFC2 The Porous Nature of a Representative Government April 2006

countries deals with preventing the dereliction of duty – i.e. not fighting.

And so it would seem easy enough to conclude that people – commoners as a
social group – don’t like war. In more authoritative regimes this makes little
difference – beyond the monies spent on keeping the populace in line. In
representative governments this can be seen by the – for a lack of a better
word – squeamish nature of the government. Any country with a representative
government has popular support to worry about – in regards to maintaining a
properly functioning engine of war.


1.1 Homeland morale v. in theatre morale

It should be noted that there arises a distinct division between the morale
of a country. It is much more complex than what follows but these two main
groupings should illustrate the point nicely.

The people who join the military – voluntarily – are more prone to accepting
that government’s decision to fight a war. These people are socialized by an
institution whose primary function is to fight wars. Moreover these same people
will find themselves in isolation from the population at large. They will have
only the other people in the same situation as themselves to refine their
opinions of the war. It is entirely possible for a government to fight a war
with no domestic support. They need only to isolate their military from the
opinions of the homeland; something which is terribly common in war time.

The group which grows most dissatisfied with a war effort in the shortest amount
of time is usually the domestic urban population. Things a player must consider
is:

1) How metropolitan their country is,
2) What is the specific level of education,
3) What is the population density in their cities, and finally,
4) Are there other pressing social issues which are not being addressed?

It would seem that while – for a short time – people are willing to bear
discomfort on the local level for the sake of their country this self
sacrificing nature is not limitless. Moreover if a player has fostered a
country that rejects collectivism and embraces individualism their
individual citizens will start thinking of the war in terms of how it
relates to them. This is especially true when it comes to initiating a
draft, raising taxes, or any other measure that alters the daily lives
of the citizenry.

A player must remember if they have given their citizens rights then they
will use them. Remember that if a country in NationStates has a billion
citizens an approval rate of 98% (something which rarely ever happens)
they still have 20 million disenfranchised citizens. This once again becomes
problematic with the right to free assembly and the right to a free press.
Demonstrations several hundred thousand large become common. This will lead
to other people questioning the war in turn.


1.2 The Ordering of Society and the effects on fighting a war

Finally, one has to ask how this makes a difference to the war effort itself.
The answer is dependant from nation to nation. If your nation is organized

Otares The Porous Nature of a Representative Government [ Page 2 ]
----
GTRFC2 The Porous Nature of a Representative Government April 2006

in a more traditional Westminster model – see British parliament – then one
might not see any immediate affect. A party with majority government can be
given carte blanche in these issues. Governments like Canada for example
have a vast amount of control during their reign. If however a player’s
government functions like this then the next election may see a massive party
upset. A government who supports an unpopular war with this system in place
might not be able to support another for decades depending on the mood of
the electorate.

Governments with greater divisions of power – like an American style republic –
can see more direct effects on the war in question. With a system like this
in place generals might be pressed into strategies which are tactically less
sound for political reasons. Players of republics needs to ask themselves
which branch of government controls military funding, what political bias
dominates each branch of government, et cetera.

With any unpopular war which is waged over an extended period of time one must
consider the effect of ‘disenfranchisement’. Could this war be creating social
divisions within your country that might have political ramifications further
down the road? Is it possible that politicians in your own country might
renege on alliances due to political pressure?

A player must ask themselves: How does my citizenry see themselves and how
does this fit into the impetus of this war? If a dichotomy arises in this
logical test then that player – in an effort to maintain realism – must begin
considering the political fallout from the war in question.

1.3 Possible Solutions to the Quandaries Explored

While it is easy enough to point out the failure of certain players and the
way democracies are RPed it is another question to offer solutions. With the
plethora of problems which arise it is wholly impossible to offer up any sort
of comprehensive list – of either problems or solutions. To this end – and for
the purposes of simplicity – one can see three main trains affecting domestic
morale and two affecting military morale.

1.3.1 Civic morale

This is seen as the first decay of domestic morale. This decay arises in the
dissenters of society first: the social critics, nay-sayers, intellectuals,
and the youth. Loosing this section can mean the further decay into the
political realm.

Effective means of preventing the decay of morale on this level include:

1) Limiting media access,
2) Offering patriotic imagery to the citizenry,
3) Holding town hall style meetings to show government concern,

Otares The Porous Nature of a Representative Government [ Page 3 ]
----
GTRFC2 The Porous Nature of a Representative Government April 2006

4) Emphasizing one type of education over another, and
4) Constantly offering stories of success from the front line.

The limiting access to media need not be an act of government. For example
enacting standards of broadcast – such as requiring a certain strength or
type of transmitter – are non-coercive measures of limiting some citizens’
access. Free market medias are notorious for creating large corporate media
enterprises which – despite their other virtues – limits those aforementioned
groups ability to spread their message.

Exposing your citizenry to patriotic imagery from a young age is also a good
method of fostering compliance. This pre-emptive measure may not stop the decay
of morale once it has started but it does mean that it takes longer for dissent
to spread about the populace. Ensuring this love of country will see young
student set against the inherently critical ideas they may be exposed to by
their educators. Moreover this type of indoctrination will see that an ample
supply of people is ever present for the military.

Town hall style meetings are meeting where government elected officials – the
higher profile the better – meet with selections of people to directly answer
specific questions. This type of reactive action is designed as a damage
control measure and should appease many. Moreover when effectively executed
it can assuage the concerns of many who may other wise be dissenter. It is
important to note however that this measure is damage control only and not a
solution in and of itself. Once more if done too late it is seen as a public
relations endeavor and not taken seriously.

Emphasizing one type of education over another may seem odd but it works like
this. A high correlation can be drawn between those likely to dissent and those
who have a liberal arts education. While this is not a hard and steadfast rule
it is an interesting observation supported by empirical evidence. A proactive
measure to ensure that these types of people – often thought of as ‘hippies’
in some western cultures – are not as prevalent would be to emphasis the trades.
If post-secondary education is not free in your country offer many more
scholarships and trusts for engineers and other ‘hard sciences’. Students of
these fields are taught skills first and perceptive ideologies second. While
arts students are taught the same in reverse priority. This – like the patriotic
imagery – alters a societal norm over long periods of time. Its effectiveness is
measured in decades and this cannot be expected to be an appropriate response to
an imminent action.

Lastly, the best defense against the decay of civic morale is to constantly
introduce images of success into the public realm. Irrespective of the losses
your military might be suffering the benefits should be emphasized. If this is a
war of liberation show them the cheering crowds – interviews of happy people. If
it is a way of expansion show them evidence of the prosperity it is bringing.
People are very willing to support a war that does not affect their daily lives
negatively but might on some level bring about positive results.

Otares The Porous Nature of a Representative Government [ Page 4 ]
----
GTRFC2 The Porous Nature of a Representative Government April 2006

1.3.2 Political morale

Political morale is an important morale to maintain. This is especially important
for democracies – because while there can be some right between popular opinion
and action there cannot be that same rift between the policy makers and that same
action. The political morale is the will of the politicians in power to support
the war.

Political morale drops off quickly once civic morale has fallen. This can include
politicians seeking to capitalize on the upheaval or merely politicians who reject
the war out of conscience. Having to combat falling moral politically is not a
good sign. It suggests that the war is going to be rejected soon and the leader
of your nation will suffer in the next election. As mentioned earlier Republics
will see a direct effect on the strategies on the ground – while parliamentary
governments have a bit more of a heat shield in this regard.

Methods to combat the falling political morale include: the party whip,
progressive social programs, tax cuts, and appointments within government. Keep
in mind that these are to appease the politicians and while some of these efforts
may appease the citizenry their greatest affect is in government and on statesmen.

The party whip may be the only tool a parliamentarian ever needs. By keeping the
ruling party inline the dissenting politicians may never gain ground. This method
works best in conjunction with the aforementioned methods to combat civic morale.
If the party whip is used without ever addressing the issues the ruling party will
suffer terribly in the next election.

Progressive social programs are used to curry the more liberal dissenters. The
fact of the matter is those who support a welfare state generally don’t support
war. By using the nuances of your country’s legislative system you can dangle this
in front of more leftist members of your government. With this they are in the
position of opposing the war and all of the social spending they campaign on – or
not talking about the war and being able to bring campaign promises to their
constituency. This may not work in every country but all too often it seems the
in the milieu that is government politicians are left with strange bed fellows.

1.3.3 Social morale

Should morale fall to the point that it is affecting the society of the country
itself a player is left with two options: one, call off the war as quickly as
possible or two, institute martial law. When opposition to a way becomes so
pervasive that there are riots in every major city and that all anyone can talk
about is the war then the battle of moral has been lost. If the only political
ideology that matters to anyone is yea or nay the war then drastic steps must be
taken. Pull out of the war or indefinitely revoke your democracy.

Otares The Porous Nature of a Representative Government [ Page 5 ]
----
GTRFC2 The Porous Nature of a Representative Government April 2006

1.3.4 Domestic abandonment

Domestic abandonment is the feeling soldiers get when morale on the home front
becomes so embittered that they feel abandoned. This normally occurs somewhere
in the middle of the political morale category. In this state the following can
be observed: The recovery rate in the hospital is not as high, more soldiers
derelict their duty, defensive actions begin to look more like retreats, and in
the final stages officers may outright refuse orders.

The only cure for the domestic abandonment is to win the morale contest at home.
Failing that here are two band-aid measures: direct contact to loved ones and
bringing your culture into the theatre.

Direct contact with loved ones will give the soldier some sense of that they are
fighting for. They will try to transfer the love and support of their friends and
family over the information that they are getting that they are not supported by
the people in their own country. This could be internet access, phone calls, or
even a regular mail service. This connection will compensate for the loss of
camaraderie they feel with their countrymen at home.

Bring your country’s culture into the theatre is simple. As soon as a city is held
and can be assured to be held for some time begin reconstructing it. A good
portion of reconstructing it should be to mass export your culture into the theatre.
This is done because the soldier will not feel as home sick as they once did.
Moreover all of the things they loved about their life back home are now in this
other country. While it might seem terribly culturally insensitive it does give the
soldier a feeling that they ‘gave’ the locals something.

1.3.5 Attrition damage

Attrition damage is the bloody loss of your forces over time. Moreover it is the
instigator of the morale dilemma in the first place. The fact of the matter is if no
democracy ever lost a single soldier in military action then there would be no
widespread dissatisfaction. Some may object to this by pointing to the selfless
nature of some people – the victims of your military – but one must remember that
the action does not happen in a void. The preemptive measures of morale boosting
will still be in place and the argument ‘well none of our people have died so this
war is not so bad’ is an effective platitude.

This piece is not a piece on military tactics but it should be remembered that
soldier survivability and extensive use of the airfare – within air superiority
situations – are surefire ways to keep the casualties down. This last subsection
was included expressly for raising awareness of why democracies must embrace
military technology and why they must consider carefully what is ‘worth dieing for’.

Otares………... The Porous Nature of a Representative Government……….…[ Page 6 ]

Salvaged from old thread - GTRFC3 originally submitted by Foe Hammer
-----
Foe Hammer
April 2006
Request For Comments: 3
Category: Warfare - General
Relevant: N/A

Guidelines for the Declaration of War

Abstract

Every nation on Earth is guaranteed one military encounter. None are sure when their
time will come, but all will fight to the death to keep it from coming. This
Request-For-Comment will hopefully outline the general procedures and guidelines for
a declaration of official war.


Table of Contents

1. Procedure.....................................................1
1.1 Objective Declarations of War........................1
1.2 Psychological Warfare................................1
2. Preparing the Public Statement of the Declaration of War......2
2.1 Maintaining Conviction Under Fire....................2
2.2 "Illegitimi Non Carborundum".........................2
2.3 The Road Ahead.......................................2


1. Procedure

Every major military conflict centers around one focal point of humankind, hostility.
While the reasons, both general and specific, are plentiful in number, there are few
which suit conflict. In every proper declaration of war should be no less than three
(3) key pieces of information, some objective and some psychological.


1.1 Objective Declarations of War - Eschew Obfuscation

For the sake of the argument, "objective" in this sense is defined as seeking a goal
(or a checkpoint, for restless war machines). Nation A's objective declaration of war
seeks to inform the populace of Nation A, the government of Nations B, C and D and
their respective populace of an intent to begin hostile military operations against
Nation B. The notification of Nations C and D allow for the evacuation of embassies
and citizens from Nation B before the imminent hostile actions of Nation A upon Nation B.


1.2 Psychological Warfare

For the sake of the argument, "psychological warfare" in this sense is defined as the
manipulation of words, facts and data in general to lessen the "mechanical advantage",
so to speak, of Nation B's war machine.

Through Psychological Warfare, one can streamline the declaration of war. This can be
achieved by intimidating or otherwise patronizing Nation B into swinging the first punch.
Not only does this worsen the world's view of Nation B, the practical benefits of such an
approach far outweigh the potential losses suffered.

Nation B appears as a violent, war-mongering and quick-tempered rogue state. Nation A
appears as the innocent bystander, simply lending a hand. Needless to say, more than the
fair share of war aid and general support will fall into the lap of Nation A, therefore
bettering the potential outcomes on the side of Nation A.

Foe Hammer Guidelines for the Declaration of War [Page 1]
----
GTRFC3 Guidelines for the Declaration of War April 2006

2. Preparing the Public Statement of the Declaration of War

The World-War II days of Adolf Hitler pounding a podium do not carry over into the
NationStates realm. When publically announcing the declaration of war, pounding the
podium and screaming in fits of rage does nothing for your international appearance.
The time and effort used to place blame on Nation B fall through the gutter, and you
are leaving others with (hopefully) false impressions of your leadership.

2.1 Maintaining Conviction Under Fire

There is no doubt that your abilities and your goals as a national leader will come
under scrutiny following a declaration of war. Prepare yourself for harsh comments,
quick judgement and petty insults. If necessary, memorize answers to possible questions.
Regardless of the basis of the war in question, keep at hand answers (or diversions
in some cases) which you know your citizens will accept.

2.2 "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"

"Don't let the bastards grind you down." A prepared national leader will keep his or
her head during scrutiny and judgement. Analyze the opposition and know their weakest
traits. If need be, use those traits like strings to pull them any which way and become
the puppet master.

2.3 The Road Ahead

Conservative solutions can expect Liberal scrutiny. In your declaration of war, whether
you seek to liberate or decimate, include both viewpoints. Include here-and-now effects
to woo the Liberal vote. Additionally, include the long-term in your planning to sway
the Conservative vote. Regardless of your primary voterbase, including more than one
political viewpoint in planning a major declaration of war will, in essence, reduce some
of the negative effects referenced in NSRFC2.

If you have no already, I highly suggest reading the NationStates Request For Comment #2,
which outlines some of the major impacts of war on a society, from a governmental
standpoint and from a social standpoint.



















Foe Hammer Guidelines for the Declaration of War [Page 2]