NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a draft.

Strength: Strong

Arguement: In an effort to establish a form of control over weapons capable of destroying entire planets, such as cannons that fire streams of antimatter with the same diameter as Pluto, the UN will take the following actions:

1. In order to help define such weapons as fall under this proposal, the UN shall use the following test:

a) Is the weapon capable of blowing up an amount of land equal to the total land of a standard UN planet?

b) Is the weapon capable of burning off the atmosphere of a planet?

c) Is the weapon capable, when operating under normal parameters, of drilling a hole through a standard UN planet?

d) Is the weapon capable of generating an effect that will cause the destruction of a planet using one standard shot?

2. In order to help define a planet, the UN shall set the minimum requirements of planet hood as being a spheroid about the size of Pluto that has a stable orbit around a star.

3. In order to define a stable orbit, the orbit shall be defined as elliptic and with a regular pattern of time between the part of the orbit closest to the sun and the part of the orbit farthest away.

4. A weapon only counts as capable if a single shot using a single cannon is what does the required damage. For weapons that use beams, the weapons counts as such if it is capable of generating such damage when fired for no more than one standard Earth minute at the target.

5. All weapons which show the capacities Clause 1 tests for shall be limited in the following ways:

a) Such weapons may only be used on an inhabited planet in self defense, which must be shown to have the entire population of the planet be against the race or nation using the weapon.

b) In cases of such weapons being used on inhabited planets, such nations must go on trial for genocide under the Eon Convention in order to prove their innocence or be proven guilty.

6. In cases of weapons being stored on planets not owned by the nation owning the weapons, such as Earth, the weapons must be limited to 1/10 of the total stockpile, or 10,000 if the resulting figure is less than that, the nation has, with the rest required to be stored somewhere outside that solar system. Any nation not capable of moving said weapons to outside the solar system must destroy all weapons in excess of the 10,000 minimum.

7. Due to the constant scalability of nuclear weapons when it comes to capacity to cause damage, they shall also be included as a restricted weapon for purposes of this resolution.

So, what do you think?

*thumbs up* Well done.

must destroy all weapons in excess of the 10,000 minimum.

Minimum? Shouldn't that be "maximum"? Otherwise, I don't see anything that would require the Gnomes...

Minimum? Shouldn't that be "maximum"? Otherwise, I don't see anything that would require the Gnomes...

Does that mean we can also make resolutions about Zombies if we can Restrict "Death Stars" like he is trying to do here? :)

Arguement: In an effort to establish a form of control over weapons capable of destroying entire planets, such as cannons that produce streams of antimatter with the same diameter as Pluto, the UN will take the following actions:

That sentence is missing something, I think. I'll add it in bold.

1. In order to help define such weapons as fall under this proposal, the UN shall use the following test:

a) Is the weapon capable of blowing up an amount of land equal to the total land of a standard UN planet?

b) Is the weapon capable of burning off the atmosphere of a planet?

c) Is the weapon capable, when operating under normal parameters, of drilling a hole through a standard UN planet?

d) Is the weapon capable of generating an effect that will cause the destruction of a planet using one standard shot?

Good.

2. In order to help define a planet, the UN shall set the minimum requirements of planet hood as being a spheroid about the size of Pluto that has a stable orbit around a star.

3. In order to define a stable orbit, the orbit shall be defined as ecliptic and with a regular pattern of time between the part of the orbit closest to the sun and the part of the orbit farthest away.

4. A weapon only counts as capable if a single shot using a single cannon is what does the required damage. For weapons that use beams, the weapons counts as such if it is capable of generating such damage when fired for at least one standard Earth minute at the target.

Good.

5. All weapons which show the capacities Clause 1 tests for shall be limited in the following ways:

a) Such weapons may only be used on an inhabitted planet in self defense, which must be shown to have the entire population of the planet be against the race or nation using the weapon.

I don't think inhabited has two T's. Otherwise, good.

b) In cases of such weapons being used on inhabited planets, such nations must go on trial for genocide under the Eon Convention in order to prove their innocence or be proven guilty.

6. In cases of weapons being stored on planets not owned by the nation owning the weapons, such as Earth, the weapons must be limited to 1/10 of the total stockpile, or 10,000 if the resulting figure is less than that, the nation has, with the rest required to be stored somewhere outside that solar system. Any nation not capable of moving said weapons to outside the solar system must destroy all weapons in excess of the 10,000 minimum.

Good.

7. Due to the constant scalability of nuclear weapons when it comes to capacity to cause damage, they shall also be included as a restricted weapon for purposes of this resolution.

Heh. This one may be controversial in the UN forum. However, the average UN voter will probably never read this far, so you're pretty safe. :)

I disagree with this proposal, as I disagree with almost every proposal, but it is very well done and DLE is to be commended.

Insert the texans comments.

Add:

Should it pass, there goes my light speed travel research and possible transportation industry.

I don't think inhabited has two T's. Otherwise, good.

That's correct. "Inhabited" does not have two T's.

Minimum? Shouldn't that be "maximum"? Otherwise, I don't see anything that would require the Gnomes...

The following clause establishes it as a minimum. Clause 6 is worded so that a nation can only store 1/10 of their armaments covered by this on Earth unless the result is below 10,000, in which case 10,000 becomes the number they may store. A nation may choose to store less than that, but they do not need to.

Texan- I changed word "produce" to "fire" for the edit. You think that'll work?

Texan- I changed word "produce" to "fire" for the edit. You think that'll work?

That's absolutely fine. Produce would be more formal, but in order to get the masses to vote for this less formality may actually be a good idea.

For weapons that use beams, the weapons counts as such if it is capable of generating such damage when fired for at least one standard Earth minute at the target.

Shouldn't it be "no more than" rather than "at least"?

From how it's currently worded, any beam weapon that could destroy a planet the size of Pluto in less than a minute would not fall under this resolution. But any weapon that took more than a minute would.

Shouldn't it be "no more than" rather than "at least"?

From how it's currently worded, any beam weapon that could destroy a planet the size of Pluto in less than a minute would not fall under this resolution. But any weapon that took more than a minute would.

Thanks. Edit made.

Anti-matter weapons? That is impossible because matter can not be created nor destroyed.

Anti-matter weapons? That is impossible because matter can not be created nor destroyed.

Actually, it's not. There is a reactor in Europe creating antimatter 2000 atoms per hour. NASA currently has plans to build a ship using an antimatter reactor as an engine, but the basic physics behind how the antimatter reactor works and how an antimatter bomb works are the same. An antimatter cannon merely launches antimatter at a target, whether in a constant controled stream or a simple one-shot blob.

This will help:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter1.htm

The website states how it could work, it hasnt actually happened yet. It is just a theory as of now. So keep dreaming about that antimatter thing in europe.

The website states how it could work, it hasnt actually happened yet. It is just a theory as of now. So keep dreaming about that antimatter thing in europe.

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html

That's from the actual group. That isn't fiction, but reality. The group is real, the reactor is real, the antimatter is real. If you check physics books, you'll find they even have an entry for antimatter and even an explaination of how it reacts with matter. This is not Star Trek.

Ok, this is real, but they are only creating this anti-matter. It is impossible right now to use it as a fuel source or as a weapon.

Why? My nation is using it as such and is soon to produce a cannon relying on its waste.

This is mainly to deal with FT NS nations, many of which are advanced enough to blow up planets if they chose to.

Ok, this is real, but they are only creating this anti-matter. It is impossible right now to use it as a fuel source or as a weapon.
Do not mistake what is imposable for your nation for what is impossible for other nations.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

(looks like you were right, DLE - an ounce of distraction is worth a pound of substance)

Which of these three individuals ...

http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/pics/Threat.jpg

does your government trust behind the big red button on something that looks like:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/ANH84572sm.jpg

http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstarbeam.html

[Don't worry, as presented, I'm not really moved by this resolution and will be joining the Texan Hotrodders in voting against this. But I do support the general idea of limiting the kinds of weapons in space. Perhaps I'll bring back my orbital weapons platform resolution!]

Do not mistake what is imposable for your nation for what is impossible for other nations.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World


LOL, keep dreaming, it is impossible for any nation at this point. Im still laughing hysterically.

LOL, keep dreaming, it is impossible for any nation at this point. Im still laughing hysterically.
OOC: This game has nations that role play as future tech nations.

OOC: This game has nations that role play as future tech nations.

im aware of that, but im not one of those nations, but for those nations that rp there is a fatal flaw. They can dream up whatever they want and it can be a load of crap. "Matter destroyers"

im aware of that, but im not one of those nations, but for those nations that rp there is a fatal flaw. They can dream up whatever they want and it can be a load of crap. "Matter destroyers"

Antimatter doesn't destroy matter. When the two collide, the resulting reaction converts them both into radiation, a form of energy. Thus, the law of the conservation of matter is not actually broken. Destroying matter is impossible under the laws of physics, and even my nation with its ships that can travel thousands of lightyears in a week must bend to the few laws of physics that exist (though, we do have an interesting way of countering the time dilation phenomenon Einstein's equation demonstrated).

im aware of that, but im not one of those nations, but for those nations that rp there is a fatal flaw. They can dream up whatever they want and it can be a load of crap. "Matter destroyers"

Still, this Proposal is to ensure, regardless of what technology Future Tech nations possess, that FT nations do not destroy planets, at least not in an offensive move. That is applaudable.

OOC: This game has nations that role play as future tech nations.

Ok, as long as we understand it to be science fantasy, not fiction;)

Antimatter doesn't destroy matter. When the two collide, the resulting reaction converts them both into radiation, a form of energy. Thus, the law of the conservation of matter is not actually broken. Destroying matter is impossible under the laws of physics, and even my nation with its ships that can travel thousands of lightyears in a week must bend to the few laws of physics that exist (though, we do have an interesting way of countering the time dilation phenomenon Einstein's equation demonstrated).

Your fleet of lightspeed vehicles must be destroyed in accordance with your resolution.

As such a ship moving at the speed of light can destroy an amount of land equal to the total land of a standard UN planet.

A ship moving at the speed of light is capable of burning off the atmosphere of a planet should it pass through the atmosphere.

Such a ship is capable, when operating under normal parameters, of drilling a hole through a standard UN planet.

One ship moving at the spped of ligt is capable of generating an effect that will cause the destruction of a planet.

They are weapons in disguise.;)

Ok, as long as we understand it to be science fantasy, not fiction;)

ROTFL

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Mod."

Your fleet of lightspeed vehicles must be destroyed in accordance with your resolution.

As such a ship moving at the speed of light can destroy an amount of land equal to the total land of a standard UN planet.

A ship moving at the speed of light is capable of burning off the atmosphere of a planet should it pass through the atmosphere.

Such a ship is capable, when operating under normal parameters, of drilling a hole through a standard UN planet.

One ship moving at the spped of ligt is capable of generating an effect that will cause the destruction of a planet.

They are weapons in disguise.;)

Note: The following information about how the jump drives work is OOC, as DLE techs have yet to discover exactly how it works themselves (they stole the plans from a different empire and have been working with them ever since).

In the Dead Zone, Warp drives are next to useless. It takes around a year to travel from Terran, the DLE homeworld, to Terrator, the closest inhabitable planet to Terran. It takes four years to travel from Terran to Earth. To add to this mess, you have the problem of the fact something, whether natural or otherwise, prevents all attempts of mapping the Dead Zone, which has an unknown area due to two thirds of it being outside the galaxy (to get an idea, the portion inside the galaxy has an area in the thousands of lightyears, if nor far more, at the very least). Warp won't get you anywhere before you die of old age. So, with certain exceptions most races must develop a form of FLT Jump that covers dozens of parsecs at once.

DLE FTL Jump Drives work on a similar premise to a black hole. The ship's jump engine builds up a mass of gravitons behind the ship, only with these are used to generate the opposite effect of massed gravity (instead of drawing you in, it shoots you forward), so you could call them antigravitons. To help counteract the time distortions and little problem with matter spreading out at FTL speeds, the shields (or surface of the ship when those are down) are covered by a combination of extreme amounts of energy and a graviton field, which combined produce a spacial distortion that keeps the ship's atoms from flying apart at those speeds and a time distortion that counters the time dilation of FTL travel. This is an engine that needs pretty much no changes as you add power to it, as the increased power output causes an increased jump range. As you can imagine, accuracy needs a little work, but it is good enough. However, there is a problem with graviton fields.

As you can imagine, anything that affects a graviton field or high-density energy fields causes the engine problems. In fact, running into one of those could cause it to implode, killing everyone on board and rendering the ship useless for even salvage. A danger of that happening also exists if you don't let the jump engine cool between jumps. Some examples of objects that cause this danger are planets, black holes, ion storms, stars, etc. objects that distort space and time. If one of these ships were to make a jump straight into Earth's atmosphere, the only danger Earth would be in from the engines is the falling debris of the ship, as the atmosphere that gets compressed in the process will merely spread back out.

So, no, I wouldn't have to dismantle my FTL drives.

Ok, as I am more inclined to agree with string theory than a singularity, and accept universes as dimensional banes. Jump away.

May want to implore anti-gravitons or dark matter. They would better serve your concept of a jump engine as described.

Ok, as I am more inclined to agree with string theory than a singularity, and accept universes as dimensional banes. Jump away.

May want to implore anti-gravitons or dark matter. They would better serve your concept of a jump engine as described.

With help files please! :)

Though I should a future tech resolution make it to the UN floor, I've got a flood of some fun ideas.

ooc: Ignoring the disastrous physics mentioned in some replies...

ic:

6. In cases of weapons being stored on planets not owned by the nation owning the weapons, such as Earth, the weapons must be limited to 1/10 of the total stockpile, or 10,000 if the resulting figure is less than that, the nation has, with the rest required to be stored somewhere outside that solar system. Any nation not capable of moving said weapons to outside the solar system must destroy all weapons in excess of the 10,000 minimum.


The Secretary General turned around, amused. "So, compared to lower tech capacities this is comparable to..."

She hesitated for a second, mildly amused. "To store no more than ten thousand times the nuclear weapons needed to destroy an average nation on earth."

She hesitated again, but soon enough, she started cackling, maniacally. Stroking the white, persian cat on her lap, giggling, she turned towards one of Unlimited Negation's (the insane AI she had constructed over the past few years, in order to subjugate the fools, the rebels outside the UN) terminals.

"Shall we?"

And Unlimited Negation (Nicknamed 'Bob') answered.

"WE SHALL."

From: Sovereign UN Territory
To: All UN Members
Subject: 'Restricting' Weapons of Planetary Destruction

"We strongly urge you to support this proposal, since it will significantly limit the destructive potential threatening our world. With approximately 100k nations on earth, and thus no more than approximately ten billion bombs capable of single- handedly destroying the planet earth, our future and survival shall be secured once this proposal becomes a resolution.

For a peaceful world.

~ Catherine Gratwick, General Secretary of the UN

Soon. Soon we will lure the fools ignoring the absolute control of the UN into a trap they can't escape. Telling them that we're reducing our WPD stockpiles while we're in fact building them up. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

It was, indeed, a great day, and Catherine decided to visit her dungeon. She was sure that her male servants would enjoy a good wipping. She was certainly in the mood, and stood up, looking rather professional in her horribly expensive business suit.

She looked almost serious, like a normal, concerned human, rather than an evil supervillain. She smiled.

Deception is the key to victory.

OOC: The proposal calls for the use of such weapons only in a defensive mechanism, and is subject to the Eon Convention on Genocide.

Although you did point out a flaw...

"Those are DEFENSIVE mushroom clouds!"

:rolleyes:

Lord Enigma

Just a minor nitpick. In the clause defining an orbit, you use the term "ecliptic"...I believe is should be replaced with "elliptical"...

Main Entry: [1]eclip·tic
Pronunciation: i-'klip-tik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English ecliptik, from Late Latin ecliptica linea, literally, line of eclipses
Date: 14th century
: of or relating to the ecliptic or an eclipse

Main Entry: el·lip·ti·cal
Pronunciation: i-'lip-ti-k&l, e-
Variant(s): or el.lip.tic /-tik/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek elleiptikos defective, marked by ellipsis, from elleipein
Date: 1656
1 : of, relating to, or shaped like an ellipse
2 a : of, relating to, or marked by ellipsis or an ellipsis b (1) : of, relating to, or marked by extreme economy of speech or writing (2) : of or relating to deliberate obscurity (as of literary or conversational style)
- el·lip·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


While your proposal really has no effect upon my own nation and the other nations of Amber, we respect your wish to limit said weapons and the admirable intent behind it.

I would ask however, how the use of such a weapon, could ever be justified under the recently passed Eon Convention on Genocide? Regardless of the soverignty of the planet, there are countless other species that would be utterly erased by such an weapon's use.

Respectfully,
Duke Sheridan
Duke of the High March
Royal Ambassador to the UN

The Secretary General turned around, amused. "So, compared to lower tech capacities this is comparable to..."

She hesitated for a second, mildly amused. "To store no more than ten thousand times the nuclear weapons needed to destroy an average nation on earth."

She hesitated again, but soon enough, she started cackling, maniacally. Stroking the white, persian cat on her lap, giggling, she turned towards one of Unlimited Negation's (the insane AI she had constructed over the past few years, in order to subjugate the fools, the rebels outside the UN) terminals.

"Shall we?"

And Unlimited Negation (Nicknamed 'Bob') answered.

"WE SHALL."



Soon. Soon we will lure the fools ignoring the absolute control of the UN into a trap they can't escape. Telling them that we're reducing our WPD stockpiles while we're in fact building them up. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

It was, indeed, a great day, and Catherine decided to visit her dungeon. She was sure that her male servants would enjoy a good wipping. She was certainly in the mood, and stood up, looking rather professional in her horribly expensive business suit.

She looked almost serious, like a normal, concerned human, rather than an evil supervillain. She smiled.

Deception is the key to victory.

Hmm. I see someone else has a similar master plan... Uh, I mean, that someone found an abuse point. Yeah. That's what I meant.

An unfortunate weakness of any attempt to lessen stockpiles, instead of outright dismantling them, has some weakness or another to plague it. In this case, the massive weapon stockpiles is a weakness (though, considering the war thread I just got reading, you may need those stockpiles...)

Just a minor nitpick. In the clause defining an orbit, you use the term "ecliptic"...I believe is should be replaced with "elliptical"...

Main Entry: [1]eclip·tic
Pronunciation: i-'klip-tik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English ecliptik, from Late Latin ecliptica linea, literally, line of eclipses
Date: 14th century
: of or relating to the ecliptic or an eclipse

Main Entry: el·lip·ti·cal
Pronunciation: i-'lip-ti-k&l, e-
Variant(s): or el.lip.tic /-tik/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek elleiptikos defective, marked by ellipsis, from elleipein
Date: 1656
1 : of, relating to, or shaped like an ellipse
2 a : of, relating to, or marked by ellipsis or an ellipsis b (1) : of, relating to, or marked by extreme economy of speech or writing (2) : of or relating to deliberate obscurity (as of literary or conversational style)
- el·lip·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Thanks. Those are two words that still plague me today. One of the few signs left of the fact English is not my first language (though, I no longer speak the first one, so...)

While your proposal really has no effect upon my own nation and the other nations of Amber, we respect your wish to limit said weapons and the admirable intent behind it.

I would ask however, how the use of such a weapon, could ever be justified under the recently passed Eon Convention on Genocide? Regardless of the soverignty of the planet, there are countless other species that would be utterly erased by such an weapon's use.

They have to prove the entire planet's population was against them. That's not exactly easy, or for that matter even possible with most planets.

OOC: The proposal calls for the use of such weapons only in a defensive mechanism, and is subject to the Eon Convention on Genocide.

Although you did point out a flaw...

The majority of the global disarmament resolutions come down to one thread of discussion:

For every weapon you limit or take away from the arsenals of UN members, you give non-UN members one more tactical advantage.

The majority of environmental resolutions come down to two threads of discussion:

My GOD! You are going to hurt our (short-term) economy!
and
By placing this restriction on UN members, you give non-UN members an economic advantage.


I don't particularly care for these arguments, since they focus on short-term impacts and ignore the possibility of the invisibile hand some call "bi-lateral" agreements. They also are really based on the small percentage of nations in the UN, but we may find that in NS2 UN members will be a larger percentage of the world.

But between these argument, the strange references to Pluto and several minutes to destroy a planet, and the fact that FTL drives seem to be outlawed (per Anti Phari's point), I honestly don't know where to begin here to make constructive suggestions.

The best and most sincere advice I can offer is to actually build global disarmament resolutions piece by piece and to limit *one* type of weapon. The idea of restricting Death Stars isn't a bad idea really. But don't include nukes on that list too. Stick to nukes or superlasers or mass drivers (which happen to be my favorite WMD ... they are cheap and even a pre-war / 1930s tech nation like mine can use Flash Gordon styled rocket ships to grab rocks and toss them around like cheap asteroids, though we'd never do this). I myself still am opposed to orbital weapons platforms, and the same argument that the UN Sov. Territories makes here will work against my proposal as well.

Thanks. Those are two words that still plague me today. One of the few signs left of the fact English is not my first language (though, I no longer speak the first one, so...)



Thats too much of an opening. What was your first language?

"Those are DEFENSIVE mushroom clouds!"

:rolleyes:

I was just saying.

This is all just an evil plan for DLE to have the top range of weapons, while making our Sovereign Class Super Star Destroyer and Torpedo Sphere (call it a mini-death star) illegal. As such I must say I do not support this. Might as well just restrict all weapons beyond arrows, so the Ewok nation in my region gets the upper hand. :mad:

They also are really based on the small percentage of nations in the UN, but we may find that in NS2 UN members will be a larger percentage of the world.
Why do you assume that the NS2 UN will have the same passed Resolutions as the NS UN?

Why do you assume that the NS2 UN will have the same passed Resolutions as the NS UN?

I don't! :)

I do assume that the NS2 UN will start with a clean slate and then adopt its own resolutions. Am I being optimistic here?

My point is the ratio of UN members to total "nations" might be a larger number, which would lower the strength behind the "you are weakening the UN" arguments.

Ah, that makes more sense. Of course, if NS2 has real war, people might be less willing to dismantle completely. Heh... "See, this is why pacifism doesn't work."

Ah, that makes more sense. Of course, if NS2 has real war, people might be less willing to dismantle completely. Heh... "See, this is why pacifism doesn't work."

Won't we still have the ability to godmode ... "Hi my name is 10kMichael, and I'm the ruler from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, and do not underestimate the Power of the Force or else!" or "Your muggle weapons of mass destruction are useless against my wand. Lingardium Disappearo. See and I can do that to any nuke you send my way. So don't make me mad, or I might cast a spell on you too."

This is all just an evil plan for DLE to have the top range of weapons, while making our Sovereign Class Super Star Destroyer and Torpedo Sphere (call it a mini-death star) illegal. As such I must say I do not support this. Might as well just restrict all weapons beyond arrows, so the Ewok nation in my region gets the upper hand. :mad:

Actually, it makes my most powerful weapons (antimatter missiles) illegal for use on planets. This is just to keep people from blowing up planets for the hell of it. Well, that and most of it is just a cover for restricting nukes...

Actually, it makes my most powerful weapons (antimatter missiles) illegal for use on planets. This is just to keep people from blowing up planets for the hell of it. Well, that and most of it is just a cover for restricting nukes...

Nothing wrong with blowing up planets for the hell of it, most of them are uninhabited anyways and it makes mining a lot easier.

Restricting nukes is quite silly at a galactic scale as well, as the amount of radiation they create is nothing compared to what's in space already.

Also I, and other EHT nations, basically cannot follow this rule because our basic battleship (the Star Destroyer) can already do several of things prohibited by this proposal (it can bombard a surface of a planet until it completely melts.) Having to tune that down, besides the loss of heavier weapons, is just economically unfeasable and silly.

Another matter is that the simplest weapon to do the things prohibited by this proposal is the very natural and abundant "asteroid". Chuck a rock of a few (10s of) miles long at a planet and the result makes every nuke seem like a bb gun.

This also makes it virtually impossible to actually control this rule, because if a planet is hit by a comet or asteroid it would have to be determined if any faul play was involved - and the clues will have been vaporized - or that it was a natural hit.

And then there's the matter of galactic distance... a planet gets utterly depopulated in some cataclysmic event - by the time anyone notices its gone and gets to the scene to investigate the culprits may be lightyears away or just claim they rushed in to investigate as well.

Still think it sounds like a plan to change the power balance in your own favor, militarily seen. :P

1st, somebody said that attacking with a "death star" is a form of Genoscide. Personally, I would consider that an act of war. Second, If one of our planets were attacked by a Non-UN planet, we would be defenceless, unless we start tossing rocks at them! 3rd, it doesn't take a "death star" 1 full minute to blow something up. One shot and its gone. Therefore, you are pretty much attempting to weaken the UN nations with this idea. Yes, limiting weapons is a sound idea, but it just becomes very difficult.

Nothing wrong with blowing up planets for the hell of it, most of them are uninhabited anyways and it makes mining a lot easier.

Restricting nukes is quite silly at a galactic scale as well, as the amount of radiation they create is nothing compared to what's in space already.

Actually, the majority of the resolution is a cover for restricting nukes. It would help to pay attention in other threads, where I said I was going to create one with just that purpose.

Also I, and other EHT nations, basically cannot follow this rule because our basic battleship (the Star Destroyer) can already do several of things prohibited by this proposal (it can bombard a surface of a planet until it completely melts.) Having to tune that down, besides the loss of heavier weapons, is just economically unfeasable and silly.

Okay, I humored you last time for the fun of it. I wanted to see how much of an arguement you would build up or if you would read the entire resolution and realize the problem with your arguement.

You also cannot park a Star Destroyer on a planet, so it is not covered by this unless you use the weapons on the actual planet. No weapons are actually banned by this. They are restricted while stored on planets you do not entirely own (such as Earth). A planet completely under your control you can covered from one pole to the other for all this proposal cares.

Another matter is that the simplest weapon to do the things prohibited by this proposal is the very natural and abundant "asteroid". Chuck a rock of a few (10s of) miles long at a planet and the result makes every nuke seem like a bb gun.

If it is a natural occurance, it is obviously not a weapons strike. If it is not a natural occurance, it is obviously a weapons strike.

This also makes it virtually impossible to actually control this rule, because if a planet is hit by a comet or asteroid it would have to be determined if any faul play was involved - and the clues will have been vaporized - or that it was a natural hit.

It's actually pretty easy to tell. If you're talking about an Earth, we have multiple FT nations that deal with those daily. If you're talking about another planet, more than likely they have people in space, people monitoring them, or are so hard to get to it would be nearly impossible to do thid anyway. It's really no harder than any other genocide case.

And then there's the matter of galactic distance... a planet gets utterly depopulated in some cataclysmic event - by the time anyone notices its gone and gets to the scene to investigate the culprits may be lightyears away or just claim they rushed in to investigate as well.

Weapons usually leave energy signatures behind. That, and them being hostile towards those on the planet would be suspicious. Besides, I have my own way of finding out whether or not they were involved and people unscrupulous enough to do it at my command.

Still think it sounds like a plan to change the power balance in your own favor, militarily seen. :P

Actually, if it were it would be one that would not allow the UN to ban such weapons. My military advantage is having small ships with surprisingly hurtful firepower.

1st, somebody said that attacking with a "death star" is a form of Genoscide. Personally, I would consider that an act of war. Second, If one of our planets were attacked by a Non-UN planet, we would be defenceless, unless we start tossing rocks at them! 3rd, it doesn't take a "death star" 1 full minute to blow something up. One shot and its gone. Therefore, you are pretty much attempting to weaken the UN nations with this idea. Yes, limiting weapons is a sound idea, but it just becomes very difficult.

1) It is called genocide as per the Eon Convention on Genocide.

2) You have at least 10,000 weapons of the types this proposal defines as capable of destroying a planet at hand if you are smart. If you are really smart, they're the 10,000 that do the most damage. If you're the smartest, it's a planet you entirely own and, as per the wording of this, you can have as many there as you want.

3) No, but it does take an antimatter cannon big enough to do it about that long. I've got some neighbors who, if I wasn't about to destroy them for helping a bunch of terrorists in my empire and trying to start an intergalactic war between my allies, would be kind enough to demonstrate.

Actually, the majority of the resolution is a cover for restricting nukes. It would help to pay attention in other threads, where I said I was going to create one with just that purpose.
Sure, but this thread is the proposal one... hence the place for all such discussion. If you want to restrict Earth-based nukes, do so - this proposal basically is way too general for that.
You also cannot park a Star Destroyer on a planet, so it is not covered by this unless you use the weapons on the actual planet. No weapons are actually banned by this. They are restricted while stored on planets you do not entirely own (such as Earth). A planet completely under your control you can covered from one pole to the other for all this proposal cares.
Still... most _planets_ are uninhabited... why put all this restriction on them? If there's anywhere to fire such or any weapons on - its those. Also.. having a weapon like this (especially in orbit) makes you own a planet, hence instantly making it legal and thus this proposal useless.
If it is a natural occurance, it is obviously not a weapons strike. If it is not a natural occurance, it is obviously a weapons strike.
You can do these things pretty subtle: just divert the track of 1 asteroid slightly so say in 10 years time it will hit. That doesn't even need a big "energy signature", a ship with gravitywells flying by will do the trick as well.

It's actually pretty easy to tell. If you're talking about an Earth, we have multiple FT nations that deal with those daily. If you're talking about another planet, more than likely they have people in space, people monitoring them, or are so hard to get to it would be nearly impossible to do thid anyway. It's really no harder than any other genocide case.
and all genocide cases are incredibly hard... so uhmm.. what are you saying?:P
Also... most colonized planets are very homogenus and often also with their fellow colonies and mother planet... massmurder perhaps, but not per definition genocide.
Weapons usually leave energy signatures behind. That, and them being hostile towards those on the planet would be suspicious. Besides, I have my own way of finding out whether or not they were involved and people unscrupulous enough to do it at my command.
as described above: not all weapons have big energy signals, not all tactics are as obvious as a huge space station blasting your planet to bits.
Actually, if it were it would be one that would not allow the UN to ban such weapons. My military advantage is having small ships with surprisingly hurtful firepower.
Ahh so it IS a ploy to get you the upperhand?:P

Sure, but this thread is the proposal one... hence the place for all such discussion. If you want to restrict Earth-based nukes, do so - this proposal basically is way too general for that.

The only way to get the UN to pass a nuke-restriction resolution is to hide the clause in a place they won't bother reading it at.

Still... most _planets_ are uninhabited... why put all this restriction on them? If there's anywhere to fire such or any weapons on - its those. Also.. having a weapon like this (especially in orbit) makes you own a planet, hence instantly making it legal and thus this proposal useless.

Hence, my constant use of the phrase "inhabitted planet" in Clause 5.

Actually, if that is so, then I currently own Earth due to the firepower in orbit above it. Excuse me while I reshape a few continents to my liking.

Realistically, you only own a planet if you own the entirety of it, not just if you have a ship in orbit above it. I can park my ships in orbit above a lot of planets, but that doesn't mean I own them.

You can do these things pretty subtle: just divert the track of 1 asteroid slightly so say in 10 years time it will hit. That doesn't even need a big "energy signature", a ship with gravitywells flying by will do the trick as well.

You need to do it within a year. Otherwise, there are too many variables that can keep it from hitting the planet. You'd be surprised how many meteors capable of killing Earth get diverted by something astronomers had not bothered to take into consideration.

and all genocide cases are incredibly hard... so uhmm.. what are you saying?:P
Also... most colonized planets are very homogenus and often also with their fellow colonies and mother planet... massmurder perhaps, but not per definition genocide.

Meh. I just abuse the passed resolutions as I can.

as described above: not all weapons have big energy signals, not all tactics are as obvious as a huge space station blasting your planet to bits.

And not all forms of torture have to be outside the mind. Like I said: I have my ways of finding out if it was intentional or not.

Ahh so it IS a ploy to get you the upperhand?:P

Hmm. This one knows too much. Time to fire up the cannons. :P

You also cannot park a Star Destroyer on a planet, so it is not covered by this unless you use the weapons on the actual planet.

First, in Star Wars Episode II there were some Star Destroyer looking ships on the homeworld place. You know. Big flying triangles full of stormtroopers.

Second, anybody can "tech"-mode and say that they have the means to "park" Star Destroyers where-ever they like. When you start talking about future tech societies, in a non structured roleplay environment you really are opening the door to "tech" moding.

EDIT: OOC: For the record, I've changed that to read "tech" moding instead of godmoding. I have no problem with SCO-land having battlefleets. In fact, SCO-land should know more about his / her Star Destroyers than anybody else and in my mind since the ships are SCO-land's, I'm going to assume that he / she is the expert. If SCO-land says they can land or destroy planets, that is good enough for me. I support SCO-land on this issue and encourage others to do the same ... players should have authority over their own technology.

Also.. having a weapon like this (especially in orbit) makes you own a planet, hence instantly making it legal and thus this proposal useless.

I think this is a good point.

I share your government's concern, and I also take exception to a resolution where the author has implied that this is a way to "sneak" nuclear disarmament on nations.

A peace and security built on "trickery" is unsteady at best.
The solution isn't to "trick" nations but to be honest with them.

Finally I am concerned about puppet nations and non-UN members. Couldn't a nation just create a puppet state and use that as their "independent" space fleet to cause damage? But I don't see any easy solution for this ... however I feel the subject to at least be admitted as a weakness.

Anyway, any use of weapons that could destroy whole planets would be in direct violation of the Eon Covention on Genocide, although this could be an add on, just to make it specific. Weapons like that are terrible things that probably should'nt have ever been made. Look at the sun destroyer in Star Wars, that could destroy entire star systems in one massive explosion. No matter how you classify this, its genocide in its most barbaric form.

Anyway, any use of weapons that could destroy whole planets would be in direct violation of the Eon Covention on Genocide, although this could be an add on, just to make it specific. Weapons like that are terrible things that probably should'nt have ever been made. Look at the sun destroyer in Star Wars, that could destroy entire star systems in one massive explosion. No matter how you classify this, its genocide in its most barbaric form.

Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy series. :)

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/kypdurron/eu.html

Armed with the Sun Crusher, Kyp soared to Carida, the heart of the Imperial Academy. Kyp launched the Sun Crusher's resonance torpedoes into Carida's sun, triggering a chain reaction that would destroy the system. As he watched the inevitable, Kyp was shocked to learn that his brother Zeth was a trooper stationed on Carida. Kyp not only failed to rescue Zeth, but was the unwitting agent of his sole surviving relative's death.


This begs two questions:

Are there any Star Wars based roleplaying regions?

And if there are, since Star Wars happened a long time ago, are they all retired now? ;)

First, in Star Wars Episode II there were some Star Destroyer looking ships on the homeworld place. You know. Big flying triangles full of stormtroopers.

We're talking about Star Wars tech, not Lucas's mental breakdown. Besides, those ships are also smaller than star destroyers.

Second, anybody can "tech"-mode and say that they have the means to "park" Star Destroyers where-ever they like. When you start talking about future tech societies, in a non structured roleplay environment you really are opening the door to "tech" moding.

Yes, they can. But the only planets they'll be parking them on have enough gravity to crush the ships. Here's what it takes to alter a star destroyer to land on a planet.

First, you need a strong enough metal to withstand the weight. Due to the size of these ships (1.6 kilometers the last time I checked), the ship requires something ultra-lightweight and with enough strength to support a dragon. We're talking tritanium, quatanium, or even godmod materials.

Now, once we have reengineered the ship to be of a completely different metal, we need to redesign it to be unable to support its own weight. As shown the in the movies, the walls are not thick enough to do that. So, I would say to make the walls in the lower half of the ship at least three feet thick and make the bottom armor about ten feet thick. Also, you have to remove everything from the bottom, as there are pretty much only two options for landing this thing and neither one allows for anything else to be on the bottom of the ship.

Next, we choose landing method. You could go for just landing on the bottom, but I would advise against that due to potential dangers and damages. Instead, you should go with legs. These, in order to support the weight, need to be at least 30 feet thick, assuming you are using quite a few. If you are not, then I don't even want to see how big they get.

Now, after all of that, you're probably thinking you can land the ship. You still can't. Even with the material used, the ship is still heavy enough to sink into most materials when on a planet. About the only places you can land are mountain ranges, with hopes those can support the weight with only a lot of ominous cracking. This, of course, is ignoring handling problems once inside the atmosphere, the fact the ship will snap like a twig if you hit the ground wrong, and who knows how many others.

If you want to land a ship, go for something about a fifth of the length of a star destroyer.

EDIT: OOC: For the record, I've changed that to read "tech" moding instead of godmoding. I have no problem with SCO-land having battlefleets. In fact, SCO-land should know more about his / her Star Destroyers than anybody else and in my mind since the ships are SCO-land's, I'm going to assume that he / she is the expert. If SCO-land says they can land or destroy planets, that is good enough for me. I support SCO-land on this issue and encourage others to do the same ... players should have authority over their own technology.

Actually, there are rules you must obey or you get ignored by others for godmodding. My talk about weight and engineering problems above reveals one of them. There is a huge arguement among the FT nations as to what is and what isn't godmodding, but most of them will agree that landing a star destroyer on a planet is such.

I think this is a good point.

Fine then. Mik, your nation is on my property. It has 36 hours to remove itself.

I share your government's concern, and I also take exception to a resolution where the author has implied that this is a way to "sneak" nuclear disarmament on nations.

This was based on a sarcastic suggestion by someone that I decided to try out for the fun of it. The idea is to see if you can sneak a limitation on nukes past the UN by slipping it at the bottom of another resolution. It shouldn't be that hard for them to notice it if they bother to look.

A peace and security built on "trickery" is unsteady at best.
The solution isn't to "trick" nations but to be honest with them.

Honesty has failed repeatedly and with consistancy. If you are going to limit nukes, you can't do it the honest way.

Finally I am concerned about puppet nations and non-UN members. Couldn't a nation just create a puppet state and use that as their "independent" space fleet to cause damage? But I don't see any easy solution for this ... however I feel the subject to at least be admitted as a weakness.

That's a problem with all resolutions. Hell, most of the DLE Empire is not in the UN for a reason.

In regard to the Star Destroyer - can I just say you have put WAY too much thought in to it, but I am pretty impressed at the analysis :}

TilEnca- Thanks. It took me two attempts to get that (the first was longer and much more detailed, but timed out on me).

We're talking about Star Wars tech, not Lucas's mental breakdown. Besides, those ships are also smaller than star destroyers.


Ah, I see. You are picking and choosing what you feel to be true and what not, especially when it comes from somebody else's area of expertise ... like their own countries.

My opinion: if you want to play make-believe and call yourself the robot leader of an empire 2000 light years away, you are in no place to start telling SCO-land or George Lucas (should he play the game) how their technology works.

Fine then. Mik, your nation is on my property. It has 36 hours to remove itself.

I don't recognize your claim.

I have no desire to engage in a roleplayed war or dispute with somebody who has in this thread told another player that he doesn't even know how his own starships work. To respond to your godmoding only encourages it more.

Ah, I see. You are picking and choosing what you feel to be true and what not, especially when it comes from somebody else's area of expertise ... like their own countries.

My opinion: if you want to play make-believe and call yourself the robot leader of an empire 2000 light years away, you are in no place to start telling SCO-land or George Lucas (should he play the game) how their technology works.

Actually, I don't have to tell Lucas. He posted a website on it and I can look it up. If he chooses to contradict his own explanations, I can point out where he erred. But the fact is that I don't make the rules of what is godmodding and what isn't, I just state what I have observed to be the standard, and in this case I see nothing about Star Destroyers to suggest my statements on how to alter them for planetary landing or the problems with it are innacurate.

Oh, the ship from Ep 2:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/republicassaultship/index.html

I don't recognize your claim.

I have no desire to engage in a roleplayed war or dispute with somebody who has in this thread told another player that he doesn't even know how his own starships work. To respond to your godmoding only encourages it more.

Once again, taking things out of context and posting flamebait. Mik, are you wanting to get in a flamewar with me? Post your evidence for this or admit that you are posting flamebait.

And, it was you who said the following by SCOLandis valid, meaning my parking space ships with weapons that fall under this category in orbit above whatever planet your nation is on means I own the planet, which in turn means I can do with it as I wish.

Also.. having a weapon like this (especially in orbit) makes you own a planet, hence instantly making it legal and thus this proposal useless.

I'm the one who posted the challenge that it's not, so you either agree with him on it or with me.

(OOC) Given the rest of the bollocks springing up in the Star Wars films, it's not surprising there is something wrong with the physics.

OOC: Despite being a Trekkie, I must admit Star Trek isn't any better. Their warp drives do things to basic physics I don't even want to describe requiring power levels antimatter is not physically possible of producing, yet they manage to use it to power both their engines and the rest of the ship. And let's not forget how Star Trek has been forced to practice revisionist history when its own predictions failed to come true.

Shadowrun, despite having its early predictions turn out false, I can at least respect for sticking to its guns. The only times I have seen it revise history is in the stuff before its predictions, and then it mostly ignores history anyway.

OOC: Despite being a Trekkie, I must admit Star Trek isn't any better. Their warp drives do things to basic physics I don't even want to describe requiring power levels antimatter is not physically possible of producing, yet they manage to use it to power both their engines and the rest of the ship. And let's not forget how Star Trek has been forced to practice revisionist history when its own predictions failed to come true.

Shadowrun, despite having its early predictions turn out false, I can at least respect for sticking to its guns. The only times I have seen it revise history is in the stuff before its predictions, and then it mostly ignores history anyway.

(OOC) I wasn't talking about the physics side of things - I can buy that on the grounds that it's a different world. But the plot holes are all over the place, the acting is appalling (and Natalie Portman can act - I have seen her give performances that blow the doors off - same with the others), the scripts are slow, Send In The Clowns was so SLOW I fell asleep in it and generally the two new movies are possibly some of the worst I have ever seen. Which is saying something.

But - back to the weapons of planetry destruction.

(IC)

I take it that a theoretical weapon - the SunCracker - would probably be banned as well? What with it having the theoretical power to cause a supernova at will?

(OOC) I wasn't talking about the physics side of things - I can buy that on the grounds that it's a different world. But the plot holes are all over the place, the acting is appalling (and Natalie Portman can act - I have seen her give performances that blow the doors off - same with the others), the scripts are slow, Send In The Clowns was so SLOW I fell asleep in it and generally the two new movies are possibly some of the worst I have ever seen. Which is saying something.

But - back to the weapons of planetry destruction.

OOC: That's the main thing that caused several Star Wars fans I know to declare the movies abominations. The originals remain classics, but the new ones... Let's just say the association is the reason why Star Wars is losing its impact on culture rapidly, much like how Star Trek is taking blows from the current series and the previous.

(IC)

I take it that a theoretical weapon - the SunCracker - would probably be banned as well? What with it having the theoretical power to cause a supernova at will?

IC:

Yes, that would definitely be restricted. If, however, you target some poor, uninhabitted solar system full of dead rocks... Well, there's nothing in this resolution to prevent that.

Once again, taking things out of context and posting flamebait. Mik, are you wanting to get in a flamewar with me? Post your evidence for this or admit that you are posting flamebait.


I'll repost SCO-land's statement:

Also I, and other EHT nations, basically cannot follow this rule because our basic battleship (the Star Destroyer) can already do several of things prohibited by this proposal (it can bombard a surface of a planet until it completely melts.) Having to tune that down, besides the loss of heavier weapons, is just economically unfeasable and silly.

This is SCO-land saying how he plays the game. He has battleships which can bombard a planet's surface.

Your immediate and exact reply to SCO-land's statement wasn't to ask about his battleships, but you told him how they work and acted like this is a FACT:

Okay, I humored you last time for the fun of it. I wanted to see how much of an arguement you would build up or if you would read the entire resolution and realize the problem with your arguement.

You also cannot park a Star Destroyer on a planet, so it is not covered by this unless you use the weapons on the actual planet.

My point (which you are attempting to hide by talking about George Lucas and Star Trek) is that the above quote is YOU telling SCO-land that his ships can't land on a planet.

This is not a flame, but I honestly think it is a fair complaint! If you disagree I suggest you ask a moderator to read my posts. But I will restate that I think it very unfair for you to play as a future tech (basically fantasy in space) nation, but then issue statements like the above on other future tech players.


It would be hypocritical of me to pretend to be set in Harry Potter's world, and then tell somebody else that their concept of magic is wrong for the simple reason that their fantasy may be slightly different than mine.

I'll repost SCO-land's statement:

Also I, and other EHT nations, basically cannot follow this rule because our basic battleship (the Star Destroyer) can already do several of things prohibited by this proposal (it can bombard a surface of a planet until it completely melts.) Having to tune that down, besides the loss of heavier weapons, is just economically unfeasable and silly.

This is SCO-land saying how he plays the game. He has battleships which can bombard a planet's surface.

So do I. He can, however, use ships with less intense weapons for that purpose. But I'll post my point behind my reply after the next quote.

Your immediate and exact reply to SCO-land's statement wasn't to ask about his battleships, but you told him how they work and acted like this is a FACT:

Okay, I humored you last time for the fun of it. I wanted to see how much of an arguement you would build up or if you would read the entire resolution and realize the problem with your arguement.

You also cannot park a Star Destroyer on a planet, so it is not covered by this unless you use the weapons on the actual planet.

My point (which you are attempting to hide by talking about George Lucas and Star Trek) is that the above quote is YOU telling SCO-land that his ships can't land on a planet.

If he is using those designed by Lucas for the Star Wars films, then he can't not because of technological capacity, but because of weight problems. The ships are too heavy for planetary landings. If he altered the design, then the alterations must be taken into consideration. If not using the design by Lucas, which is quite rare as that is one of the best designs for a ship that size I have seen, then all he has to do is post it is not Lucas's idea of a Star Destroyer and suddenly my entire arguement on it becomes irrelevant.

He did not argue against what I said, meaning he either agrees with me on it or chose to ignore it. The possibility is his to say whether or not what I said is accurate.

The only reason I include Lucas is because he designed the most famous type of Star Destroyer, the one most often used on here, and it is his tech. He dictated the strengths and weaknesses of it. And what was said OOCly does not apply to this.

This is not a flame, but I honestly think it is a fair complaint! If you disagree I suggest you ask a moderator to read my posts. But I will restate that I think it very unfair for you to play as a future tech (basically fantasy in space) nation, but then issue statements like the above on other future tech players.

You're right: Not a flame.

I do not close the door to people proving me wrong on what I say, and it is within SCO's right to decide if what I posted about it is correct or to correct me if I am wrong.

Part of the job of dealing with FT is trying to make sure your stuff doesn't violate the rules of physics too much to be unbelievable. A Star Destroyer landing on a planet is not within the realm of believability because it is obviously not designed for that and even if altered for such the ship is still too heavy to land in most places, resulting in it being too impractical to use as a landing craft. That is part of why you never see one land in the SW movies. When dealing with FT, you have to point out when things get beyond the realm of believability and hope the other person has an explanation that makes it believable or will tune it down.

It would be hypocritical of me to pretend to be set in Harry Potter's world, and then tell somebody else that their concept of magic is wrong for the simple reason that their fantasy may be slightly different than mine.

Magic is even more fun to deal with than FT is. With FT, you have something you can rely on. With Magic, the system determines what is and is not possible. Beyond that, your imagination is truly the limit, unlike FT where you still have a few annoying physics problems to deal with in some manner. The analogy is not entirely true in this case due to the differences between the two.

A better analogy for what you are trying to do: A dictator telling a nation ruled by a king that its government is doing things the wrong way simply because the government is different.

I'll have to agree with DLE on this one, about landings... I have ~3km long ships, about the size of a SD (My newer Kali class SCV's) which while capable of planetary entries, cannot actually "land" on a planet... Ships of that size have too much mass to survive a planetary landing. I really can't see any ships past ~700m landing on a planetary surface, except possible water landings.

I'll have to agree with DLE on this one, about landings... I have ~3km long ships, about the size of a SD (My newer Kali class SCV's) which while capable of planetary entries, cannot actually "land" on a planet... Ships of that size have too much mass to survive a planetary landing. I really can't see any ships past ~700m landing on a planetary surface, except possible water landings.

Here is the problem though ...

My nation feels that even a 1 km long ship is unbelievable. But that doesn't give me the right to say, "Sorry folks, you can't have anything greater than the size of a Saturn V rocket."

Even if SCO-land says, "OK guys, you are right. I'm using George Lucas's Star Destroyers and even though we've seen in Episode 2 Star Destroyers landing on the homeworld and have read Star Wars franchised novels about Sun Crushers, you are right." DemonLordEnigma is still defining what is physically possible for all other players too! Lakson already asked about a Star Wars based "Sun Crusher". A space ship that Kevin Anderson wrote could destroy an entire star system and then fly around and land on planets. His post was dismissed as, "Lucas sucks man! He sold out Star Wars!"

What DemonLord could have done is said something like, "Your Star Destroyer can land? Hmmm, if so, I did not account for that."

The question is, is this a UN resolution for DemonLord and the minority of nations that are playing the original Star Wars Trilogy? Or should this UN resolution be flexible and really seek to restrict attacks designed to devastate entire planets.

Instead of telling other players how they run their physics, it might be better to design a resolution that is:

1. Honest ... if you want to restrict the use of nukes, do it. Don't try and trick nations. Write a resolution explaining why we need to restrict nukes.

2. Flexible. Is the issue mobility or destruction?

A good UN resolution should balance the preamble / justification with the actual actions taken. A better approach would be to just deal with nukes and talk about the dangers of them on Earth and in some science fantasy.

Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy series. :)

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/kypdurron/eu.html
Booooo KJA! Boooo! :D

This begs two questions:
Are there any Star Wars based roleplaying regions?
And if there are, since Star Wars happened a long time ago, are they all retired now? ;)
Well the Emperors Hammer Territories is a Star wars roleplaying region, kinda... the Emperor's Hammer is a partially RPG star wars club... and we haven't retired yet - its all a matter of timeline ;)

We're talking about Star Wars tech, not Lucas's mental breakdown. Besides, those ships are also smaller than star destroyers.
They weren't Star Destroyers but their forerunners - which were landing ships.
Yes, they can. But the only planets they'll be parking them on have enough gravity to crush the ships. Here's what it takes to alter a star destroyer to land on a planet.

First, you need a strong enough metal to withstand the weight. Due to the size of these ships (1.6 kilometers the last time I checked), the ship requires something ultra-lightweight and with enough strength to support a dragon. We're talking tritanium, quatanium, or even godmod materials.

Now, once we have reengineered the ship to be of a completely different metal, we need to redesign it to be unable to support its own weight. As shown the in the movies, the walls are not thick enough to do that. So, I would say to make the walls in the lower half of the ship at least three feet thick and make the bottom armor about ten feet thick. Also, you have to remove everything from the bottom, as there are pretty much only two options for landing this thing and neither one allows for anything else to be on the bottom of the ship.

Next, we choose landing method. You could go for just landing on the bottom, but I would advise against that due to potential dangers and damages. Instead, you should go with legs. These, in order to support the weight, need to be at least 30 feet thick, assuming you are using quite a few. If you are not, then I don't even want to see how big they get.

Now, after all of that, you're probably thinking you can land the ship. You still can't. Even with the material used, the ship is still heavy enough to sink into most materials when on a planet. About the only places you can land are mountain ranges, with hopes those can support the weight with only a lot of ominous cracking. This, of course, is ignoring handling problems once inside the atmosphere, the fact the ship will snap like a twig if you hit the ground wrong, and who knows how many others.

If you want to land a ship, go for something about a fifth of the length of a star destroyer.
In some Star Wars novel they have a Super Star Destroyer (all about 8 kms to 17kms or so) placed on a planet and have it take off using a large thruster deck, doing extensive admage to the planet. However it was apparently built on the planet itself.

Victory Star Destroyers (older smaller (898m) type) can, according to lore, enter an atmosphere and presumably land, though I'm personally not conviced: it is based primarily on the fact that it has little outcroppings people call "wings". As aerodynamic wings they'd be incredibly useless though.

However all these technical/phyical considerations may be fun, but not really applicable to our Earth and universe. For one, gravitational and sgielding technology is about as common at the weel in Star Wars (more common actually, as more vehicles seen float then any roll). This makes it apparently possible to manouvre a space craft as easily in an atmosphere as in space... regardless of their aerodynamic characteristics. (as you can see "TIE Fighters" do around "Cloud City").

Similary, gravitational technology can be used to give constructions "airhooks", meaning that if a star destroyer is landed (or hovers low) parts of the higher construction wouldn't be supported by the lower structure. And that is besides the matter that size apparently doesn't matter for this technology to be used in an atmosphere. seen Cloud City floating in an atmosphere...

So yes, within Star Wars physical possibilities I'd say that a Star Destroyer could land and get up into space again if needed - the effects of so much artificial gravity used may also rip that planet apart, no idea... its never been shown and that's always the limitations of a fantasy-universe.

However.. is something floating just a few centimeters off a planet "on that planet" according to your resolution? If so we'll just place all our big weaponry on anti-gravity trolleys:P

Actually, there are rules you must obey or you get ignored by others for godmodding. My talk about weight and engineering problems above reveals one of them. There is a huge arguement among the FT nations as to what is and what isn't godmodding, but most of them will agree that landing a star destroyer on a planet is such.
Godmodding is generally inconsistency in favor of oneself... if you don't like the situation, you dramatically change it in an instant to suit you. (for example your sudden conversion to a spur-of-the-moment religion in the EON thread).

Techmodding is similar but actually on a smaller scale (say you find out that the antigravity bombs you have can't scratch a Star Destroyer's hull just because of the specs given about its shield... and suddenly they have a "word with lots of -ic and -ters" that makes them completely ignore the shield.)

Another matter is deciding for someone else what his options, situation and technologies are (like you did in the post i'm replying to in regards to me and Mik). All are seen as negatives because they are of the kindergarten childish variety in RPGs. "But i got the stupendous shield so your weapons are bounced back at you! Boom you're dead!"

Fine then. Mik, your nation is on my property. It has 36 hours to remove itself.

like here

This was based on a sarcastic suggestion by someone that I decided to try out for the fun of it. The idea is to see if you can sneak a limitation on nukes past the UN by slipping it at the bottom of another resolution. It shouldn't be that hard for them to notice it if they bother to look.

Honesty has failed repeatedly and with consistancy. If you are going to limit nukes, you can't do it the honest way.
All the merits of your resolution are already covered in the EON convention on genocide...

But you apparently also want everyone disarmed? Of especially nukes? Why?

There is an ulterior motive here - what? Are you waiting till we are stupid enough to pass this, disarm and then have your non-UN slave nations attack us? Is there some incredible flaw in your defences that's only vulnerable to nukes?

That's a problem with all resolutions. Hell, most of the DLE Empire is not in the UN for a reason.

Apparently you even admit to parts of these reasons... The UN would be foolish to follow into your trap? :D

(OOC) Given the rest of the bollocks springing up in the Star Wars films, it's not surprising there is something wrong with the physics.

OOC: Nerds, especially Trekkies, seem to have a serious problem with understanding that there is such a thing as relativity - which allows for (actually requires) different universes with different physics.

According to simple observation (and relativity): We and Star wars are not in the same universe. Their universe has "The Force" and some kind of cellular organelle in ALL life that life on Earth misses. Their universe also has a substance in space, its not vacuum anyways: Starships are all vaguely aerodynamic and only have engines in the back (in our universe: how would they brake?), fighters fly like atmospheric fighters, starships as submarines, there's sound in space, people walk out in space w/o pressuresuits, no-one bothers to give their space fighter pilots pressuresuits either. (there's more, but ok...)

As such "Newtonian" expressions by DLE about constructions and energy and all that doesn't particulary match up - because elemental things are apparently so different you cannot make a definite determination about the rest. DLE's anti-matter bombs for exaple may be completely useless cause there's matter everywhere or because the entire SW universe is in anti-phase making his anti-matter just simple matter.

Star Wars is phantasy.. like Lord of the Rings for example. It has wizards and knights and princesses and dwarfs and dragons and sword fights. (and it starts with "long ago, far away") Just because it includes space ships doesn't make it even vaguely comparable with trek or other _science_ fiction. Science has as much to do with it as with why Dragons can fly.

in other words: not FT, but Magic.

Lucas' next project was supposed to be LotR, but it was blown off late on rights etc so he made "Willow" with the stuff already prepared (not a bad thing actually.)

DLE and I are talking basic physics.

Even theforce.net confirms the concept in their extensive analysis of ISD landings. And, as I, admit "soft oceanic landings" are about the only possibility. (The only example of a ~2km+ long type "newer" ISD comming in contact was in "Dark Empire", and the ship was destroyed in the landing.)
Hovering is another thing, many large ships can enter planetary enviroments, and use their drives to hover... But hovering against the force of gravity, and exchanging large amounts of impact energy due to mass, are two completely different concepts.

DLE and I are talking basic physics.

Even theforce.net confirms the concept in their extensive analysis of ISD landings. And, as I, admit "soft oceanic landings" are about the only possibility. (The only example of a ~2km+ long type "newer" ISD comming in contact was in "Dark Empire", and the ship was destroyed in the landing.)
Hovering is another thing, many large ships can enter planetary enviroments, and use their drives to hover... But hovering against the force of gravity, and exchanging large amounts of impact energy due to mass, are two completely different concepts.

OOC: theforce.net (SWTC) admits itself that it uses our physics for all its comparisons and adds to this that this is a choice to make their "scientific" calculations and such make any sense. The other alternative is completely redoing all the work of Newton, Einstein, Faradey etc in the SW universe which is a bit much for them (or anyone i guess).

This still doesn't mean that this is "true" inside the star wars universe: it means its "true" if the star wars universe was our own - which it isn't (according to our own physics (relativity) even.)

The same type of "nerds" are the ones that hate the new episodes the most, because it doesn't fit with their "realistic" view. Basically: If Lucas wants a Star Destroyer to land in episode 3, it will - just like that Tolkien wanted elves to be tall (instead of really small like normally) so they were. In fact the landed ships of the Trade Federation in Attack of the Clones were not much smaller. Their Universe - Their Physics... even Lucas Film employees seem to have trouble with grasping this concept. (Well it took a genious like Einstein to find it out:P) :OOC

Back to the matter at hand: is floating "on a planet"? What's the ACTUAL difference between having a Star Destroyer have big legs coming out supporting it say 20 meters off the ground and it hovering 20 meters stationary on anti-gravity? Is a "land speeder" a surface vehicle or an airplane?

I'm offering anti-gravity trolley's to all nations that want to keep their nukes and such - at very reasonable prices!

OOC: theforce.net (SWTC) admits itself that it uses our physics for all its comparisons and adds to this that this is a choice to make their "scientific" calculations and such make any sense. The other alternative is completely redoing all the work of Newton, Einstein, Faradey etc in the SW universe which is a bit much for them (or anyone i guess).

This still doesn't mean that this is "true" inside the star wars universe: it means its "true" if the star wars universe was our own - which it isn't (according to our own physics (relativity) even.)

The same type of "nerds" are the ones that hate the new episodes the most, because it doesn't fit with their "realistic" view. Basically: If Lucas wants a Star Destroyer to land in episode 3, it will - just like that Tolkien wanted elves to be tall (instead of really small like normally) so they were. In fact the landed ships of the Trade Federation in Attack of the Clones were not much smaller. Their Universe - Their Physics... even Lucas Film employees seem to have trouble with grasping this concept. (Well it took a genious like Einstein to find it out:P) :OOC

Back to the matter at hand: is floating "on a planet"? What's the ACTUAL difference between having a Star Destroyer have big legs coming out supporting it say 20 meters off the ground and it hovering 20 meters stationary on anti-gravity? Is a "land speeder" a surface vehicle or an airplane?

I'm offering anti-gravity trolley's to all nations that want to keep their nukes and such - at very reasonable prices!

There were no SD's at the time.... And the Victory Class (at less than 900m) is designed for planetary entry and landing. The Imperator (1.6km) and larger, are not, never have, nor ever will "land" (Since they will never be seen)without being rendered useless in the process (aka destroyed), and such has been demonstrated in all cases of Imperator's comming in contact with the surface of another body, in all present Cannon. Case, fucking, closed.... No vessel in the ~2km long range, can land on a hard planetary surface (though I will allow soft water landings, since it is at least theoretically possible, even with vessels of such sizes).

And once again, HOVERING against the force of gravity, IS NOT THE SAME THING, as actual transfer of impact energy in a hard planetary landing, neither concepts are equivalent, and totally independent of one another. Even my Kali class SCV's (almost twice the size of an Imperator) can enter atmospheres and hover if necessary.

DLE and I are talking basic physics.

Half-true. I'd say you are talking about phsyics as designed around a fantasy creation. The TIE engines are solar panels? And yet offer a nice big target to blow up? No, I agree with SCO-land that Star Wars is fantasy and was designed not on physics, but around telling a Samurai story mixed with a bit of Flash Gordon and some old WWII flicks.

Nasa.org might be a better place to talk about feasability in relation to spacecraft. There may even be other places too.

Death Stars, Star Destroyers, etc. are sexy, but it is pretty obvious that he is still ignoring many possibilities outside of his fantasy and just dismissing them.

If he wants to restrict nukes, I'd rather see him talk about that instead of mentioning some number of "minutes" or whatnot. The fantasy tech in this proposal remains geared towards an extremely specific fan base -- Star Warsies.

The problem with the previous nuke bans is that they were viewed as bans and not restrictions on use. He doesn't need to trick the UN members if his idea has a valid point.

I'll point out that I happen to love Star Wars as well. I did when I saw the film in 1977 at the age of 5 and I loved it all the same when I watched it for the millionth time a year ago. My objection isn't that Star Wars can't be fun, nor that outlawing Death Stars is a bad idea. It is a matter of record that my government feels Space should be reserved for Peaceful Uses (per that proposal I had that was bothering people a few weeks ago).


__

n.p. proyecto mirage :: gas alarm (hands productions)

Completely Off Topic:

There were no SD's at the time....
Say your sources, the same that were completely wrong about the age and origin of C-3PO, the Death Star, Sith, Clones, Boba Fett etc etc.
And the Victory Class (at less than 900m) is designed for planetary entry and landing.
Say even dodgier sources, because other (from ILM/Lucas Film) call the Star Destroyer you see at the beginning of A New Hope a "Victory Star Destroyer"... that's what it was called in production anyways. The VSD of now has mostly been taken from the game TIE Fighter, which was based on unused production schetches. Good chance that if you ask George Lucas himself, he'll think he already used the VSD in the movies.
The Imperator (1.6km) and larger, are not, never have, nor ever will "land" (Since they will never be seen)
Says who? The same sources that claimed that jedi cloned themselves and then added double-vowels? A Star Destroyer may well be seen in the Revenge of the Sith, as a direct link to the first scenes of A New Hope. If Lucas wants it as such a cinematic link, no amount of sourcebooks and other written merchendizing will stop him.
without being rendered useless in the process (aka destroyed), and such has been demonstrated in all cases of Imperator's comming in contact with the surface of another body,
Uhmm.. that was a crash landing... that's like saying aircraft can't land based on seeing 1 incident of one smacking into the sea because a technological failure/sabotage.
in all present Cannon. Case, fucking, closed....
Ahh, i was wondering when that word would be used. Now: "Cannon" is the movies, the rest is merchendizing to fund a big lifestyle and more movies. Especially novellists have often taken the trekkie, limited, view on star wars - which is why their work has been rightfully and completely been disregarded in the new movies.
Lucas has a vision of a galaxy (meaning HUGE, with many actiually different species) in which everything about is possible.. not a collection of stars and planets too small to keep some novellists interested so they had to drag some fake Borg trek-aliens (humans with make-up) from another galaxy. Its a scale problem really... like thinking every universe has our phyisics.
Oh.. coincidentally, the Emperors Hammer Territories "cannon" is first the X-W series of games and then the movies... since you seem to be interested in these things.

No vessel in the ~2km long range, can land on a hard planetary surface (though I will allow soft water landings, since it is at least theoretically possible, even with vessels of such sizes).
Do you mean "in our universe" or "in any universe?" or "in the star wars universe"? Because i definitely saw Lexx land in its series, and that thing was way bigger.

And once again, HOVERING against the force of gravity, IS NOT THE SAME THING, as actual transfer of impact energy in a hard planetary landing, neither concepts are equivalent, and totally independent of one another. Even my Kali class SCV's (almost twice the size of an Imperator) can enter atmospheres and hover if necessary.
You are making assumptions about my nation's physics and situation as if they are facts. I propose you read the godmodding thread.

And... So hovering inches above the floor is not on the planet..? Making this resolution utterly worthless?

GET YOUR ANTI-GRAV AIRHOOK 2000 HERE! SPECIAL PRICE FOR ALL CRAZED DICTATORS AND RELIGIOUS NUTS WITH NUKES!

(lots and lots of meaningless bullshit)

Fine, tech-wank your crap all you want... I personally don't give a damn about ISD's as they are weak, slow vessels... Land them on planets, whatever... (they'll make nice large stationary targets if this proposal is passed).

:D

Meet up with a Kali one time, or even an Orion-II (Which is close to the same size as an Imperator)... If you like we can do an FTL race... Kraskinov Wormhole Technology vs. Hyper-jump.... M1 to M33 and back....

Meet up with a Kali one time, or even an Orion-II (Which is close to the same size as an Imperator)... If you like we can do an FTL race... Kraskinov Wormhole Technology vs. Hyper-jump.... M1 to M33 and back....
Ahh, but in what universe? Star Systems in the Star Wars universe are a lot closer to eachother (guess they can be, because of that "ether"), as displayed by the Falcon going from the Hoth System to the Anoat System within 1 chase (max a day)... "sub-light" (well not via hyperspace)... in Empire Strikes Back. And perhaps your drive doesn't work in star wars, or the hyperdrive in yours? :D

They weren't Star Destroyers but their forerunners - which were landing ships.

Covered that in a previous post.

In some Star Wars novel they have a Super Star Destroyer (all about 8 kms to 17kms or so) placed on a planet and have it take off using a large thruster deck, doing extensive admage to the planet. However it was apparently built on the planet itself.

Think: If a ship like that can damage the planet extensively, how much will a regular Star Destroyer do?

Victory Star Destroyers (older smaller (898m) type) can, according to lore, enter an atmosphere and presumably land, though I'm personally not conviced: it is based primarily on the fact that it has little outcroppings people call "wings". As aerodynamic wings they'd be incredibly useless though.

However all these technical/phyical considerations may be fun, but not really applicable to our Earth and universe. For one, gravitational and sgielding technology is about as common at the weel in Star Wars (more common actually, as more vehicles seen float then any roll). This makes it apparently possible to manouvre a space craft as easily in an atmosphere as in space... regardless of their aerodynamic characteristics. (as you can see "TIE Fighters" do around "Cloud City").

Similary, gravitational technology can be used to give constructions "airhooks", meaning that if a star destroyer is landed (or hovers low) parts of the higher construction wouldn't be supported by the lower structure. And that is besides the matter that size apparently doesn't matter for this technology to be used in an atmosphere. seen Cloud City floating in an atmosphere...

One of the main problems you have is the fact graviton tech of the right type and right size is not common. I'm probably the only nation you will meet that has it capable of enhancing a Star Destroyer in that way without extensive modifications and developments, but that's only because of how mine is designed.

Now, the problem with TIE fighters is the fact they use ion engines, which are (realistically) not powerful enough for half the stuff they pull in atmosphere. Ion engines are known for their efficiency, not their power. But, this is SW, so in this case we are free to ignore the physics problem of it.

Keep in mind Cloud City didn't actually move that much, at least from what I saw of it. It might have been moving, but I only have the movies to work on.

So yes, within Star Wars physical possibilities I'd say that a Star Destroyer could land and get up into space again if needed - the effects of so much artificial gravity used may also rip that planet apart, no idea... its never been shown and that's always the limitations of a fantasy-universe.

Thus, why we default to reality on the issue and use reality for estimating what will happen until given evidence otherwise.

However.. is something floating just a few centimeters off a planet "on that planet" according to your resolution? If so we'll just place all our big weaponry on anti-gravity trolleys:P

I consider in atmosphere to be on the planet. Planets without atmospheres do not usually support life.

Godmodding is generally inconsistency in favor of oneself... if you don't like the situation, you dramatically change it in an instant to suit you. (for example your sudden conversion to a spur-of-the-moment religion in the EON thread).

Post evidence to back this up. Nothing against you, but recently I've had someone who makes wild claims about what I have posted and then ignores my challenges to provide evidence.

Techmodding is similar but actually on a smaller scale (say you find out that the antigravity bombs you have can't scratch a Star Destroyer's hull just because of the specs given about its shield... and suddenly they have a "word with lots of -ic and -ters" that makes them completely ignore the shield.)

That is quite annoying. I'm probably one of the few with enough integrity to have my captains having to change their pants while ordering their ships to turn around and run. Wouldn't be the first time, though this time they'll be retreating to the more heavily armed and much more supported fleet armed with enough antimatter missiles to decimate Earth and evaporate two layers.

Another matter is deciding for someone else what his options, situation and technologies are (like you did in the post i'm replying to in regards to me and Mik). All are seen as negatives because they are of the kindergarten childish variety in RPGs. "But i got the stupendous shield so your weapons are bounced back at you! Boom you're dead!"

I was relying on realistic interpretations of size (based off the SW website) compared to mass and what it would do. I see no evidence to the contrary.

like here

Hey, if you want to argue that someone having a ship capable of what I posted back in the first post above a planet makes them the owner of the planet, don't complain when I use it to annex you. I only posted it to him because he chose to quote it in a post and I wanted to limit repetitions.

All the merits of your resolution are already covered in the EON convention on genocide...

But you apparently also want everyone disarmed? Of especially nukes? Why?

There is an ulterior motive here - what? Are you waiting till we are stupid enough to pass this, disarm and then have your non-UN slave nations attack us? Is there some incredible flaw in your defences that's only vulnerable to nukes?

Apsu Lilith has no space armada and doesn't want one, Merlyns is in the middle of attempting to rebel on me, and Tiamat Taveril has no military. Besides, I don't want Earth. It's already inhabitted (I don't annex inhabitted planets), it's too far from my homeworld or any world under my control to defend, and Sarkarasetans don't want to deal with ruling over what is, to them, an inferior species (this view happens to have genetics to back it, so it's not likely to go away).

Also, the only weakness against nukes my ships have is if they are stupid enough to get hit by them. My ships can, even in atmosphere, outrun them and from a distance have the technology to destroy them before they get too close for comfort. I'm not exactly worried about them and I have bigger weapons anyway.

Apparently you even admit to parts of these reasons... The UN would be foolish to follow into your trap? :D

Actually, no. This won't be submitted at this point due to opposition to it and the fact one is about to go up to vote. But it did prove something.

Consider this: Am I the first to come up with this, or am I warning you that someone else will try something similar? Keep in mind that, even now, the focus is not on nukes, but on the rest. Nukes are still more of a side-issue.

Ahh, but in what universe? Star Systems in the Star Wars universe are a lot closer to eachother (guess they can be, because of that "ether"), as displayed by the Falcon going from the Hoth System to the Anoat System within 1 chase (max a day)... "sub-light" (well not via hyperspace)... in Empire Strikes Back. And perhaps your drive doesn't work in star wars, or the hyperdrive in yours? :D

Don't pull that SW/ST crap on me... I don't use inherant ST tech... so I could care less about arguments between trekkies and warsies.

For FTL travel I use Kraskinov artificially created wormholes.

Power systems are ZPM Quantum Reactors.

And my ships look like nothing from SW or ST.... (since when did ST have ships in the 1.6-3km range?)

Covered that in a previous post.
I was agreeing with you.
Think: If a ship like that can damage the planet extensively, how much will a regular Star Destroyer do?
The damage was done because it had been built underground with a city covering it.
One of the main problems you have is the fact graviton tech of the right type and right size is not common. I'm probably the only nation you will meet that has it capable of enhancing a Star Destroyer in that way without extensive modifications and developments, but that's only because of how mine is designed.

About all the technology seen in Star Wars is comparable to our wheel or fire: They are millenia old. This kind of technological state is hard for westerners to relate too, assuming there must be a big technological breakthrough every 10 years or so.

However its more comparable to how the Chinese empire for example ran for centuries. Craft and weapon designs are based on economy, use and fashion. This is why the technology seen in the prequels isn't any less then in the original trilogy. Written merchendize shows craft bigger and heavier armed then Star Destroyers 4000 years before the movies.

For example: A TIE Fighter is economical, based on having masses of the cheap designs instead of just a few of a more expensive design. (pilots being cloned). The Naboo-1 is meant to value the pilot and be estetically pleasing. Technology levels (set in time) have little to do with it.

My point? Gravitation devices are so common, reliable and energy efficient that they have basically completely replaced wheels. Even the smallest space craft has onboard artificial gravity. Toys just use it unthinkingly. That indicates a intensive knowledge and practical use on the subject... comparable to basic mechanics for us.

Now, the problem with TIE fighters is the fact they use ion engines, which are (realistically) not powerful enough for half the stuff they pull in atmosphere. Ion engines are known for their efficiency, not their power. But, this is SW, so in this case we are free to ignore the physics problem of it.
Exactly! I know a ionengine in our universe (or on our planet) can push away about two paperstamps worth - but apparently that don't matter in star wars, because its not our universe. Our physics do not apply.
Keep in mind Cloud City didn't actually move that much, at least from what I saw of it. It might have been moving, but I only have the movies to work on.
Only having the movies to work on is exactly what i mean here. FOrget your knowledge of how our physics are, use our own rules of science and only use what you can observe. In which case you observe completely different physics. According to relativty, that's then what we got to work with.
Thus, why we default to reality on the issue and use reality for estimating what will happen until given evidence otherwise.
Yes, and our own reality and physics then demand what I suggested above. (enter Einsteins' "Scientists in an elevator" story). By the laws of our physics you cannot apply them on any given system.
I consider in atmosphere to be on the planet. Planets without atmospheres do not usually support life.
Yes, me too... besides... on gassgiants it would raise the question of where the surface actually is.
Post evidence to back this up. Nothing against you, but recently I've had someone who makes wild claims about what I have posted and then ignores my challenges to provide evidence.
They deleted the EON thread but you probably remember Pinguintalia accusing you of the same.
That is quite annoying. I'm probably one of the few with enough integrity to have my captains having to change their pants while ordering their ships to turn around and run. Wouldn't be the first time, though this time they'll be retreating to the more heavily armed and much more supported fleet armed with enough antimatter missiles to decimate Earth and evaporate two layers.
And where does this fleet suddenly come from? ;)
Besides, you are here making clear why your proposal is bs... it don't stop you from still having that and doing that.
I was relying on realistic interpretations of size (based off the SW website) compared to mass and what it would do. I see no evidence to the contrary.
If you continue to go on by our physics, yes... still that doesn't change anything within star wars, which doesn't use them. :P
Hey, if you want to argue that someone having a ship capable of what I posted back in the first post above a planet makes them the owner of the planet, don't complain when I use it to annex you. I only posted it to him because he chose to quote it in a post and I wanted to limit repetitions.
That's not my problem with it, the utter assumption by you that he'll have to hike out of there and not have a chance fighting you is what bugs me. You assume too much about his situation.
Apsu Lilith has no space armada and doesn't want one, Merlyns is in the middle of attempting to rebel on me, and Tiamat Taveril has no military. Besides, I don't want Earth. It's already inhabitted (I don't annex inhabitted planets), it's too far from my homeworld or any world under my control to defend, and Sarkarasetans don't want to deal with ruling over what is, to them, an inferior species (this view happens to have genetics to back it, so it's not likely to go away).
Why the big invasion fleet in orbit around it then?
Also, the only weakness against nukes my ships have is if they are stupid enough to get hit by them. My ships can, even in atmosphere, outrun them and from a distance have the technology to destroy them before they get too close for comfort. I'm not exactly worried about them and I have bigger weapons anyway.
You have very weak shields.
Actually, no. This won't be submitted at this point due to opposition to it and the fact one is about to go up to vote. But it did prove something.
If you want a retry making nukes on Earth illegal and the use on any Earth nations from out of space illegal as well - you have my support. This first try just is way too general to apply to all universes, galaxies and timelines. A restriction on Earth alone can be enforced by all other space faring nations declaring to unite and take care of the culprit in case of a breach.
Consider this: Am I the first to come up with this, or am I warning you that someone else will try something similar? Keep in mind that, even now, the focus is not on nukes, but on the rest. Nukes are still more of a side-issue.
which you seem to be determined to run by the UN in some kind of trick.. which is dubious to say the least.

Don't pull that SW/ST crap on me... I don't use inherant ST tech... so I could care less about arguments between trekkies and warsies.
I did not realize i was. I just stated that since my ships are in the star wars universe and yours not - the "race" would be very hard to do.
For FTL travel I use Kraskinov artificially created wormholes.
Yes, and uhmmm.. there's no saying that would actually work in the star wars universe.
Power systems are ZPM Quantum Reactors.
And my ships look like nothing from SW or ST....
Got pics? *always likes to see new funky starships* :)
(since when did ST have ships in the 1.6-3km range?)
I think since Borg-Cubes.. but i'm not really uptodate on trek. Actually I don't see me mentioning trek in that post - and i'd certainly not apply it to you.

I did not realize i was. I just stated that since my ships are in the star wars universe and yours not - the "race" would be very hard to do.

Yes, and uhmmm.. there's no saying that would actually work in the star wars universe.

Got pics? *always likes to see new funky starships* :)

I think since Borg-Cubes.. but i'm not really uptodate on trek. Actually I don't see me mentioning trek in that post - and i'd certainly not apply it to you.

Well, your tactics are what are typically used in vs. arguments.

And given the fact I have been up against an SSD of the Executor class before, I know my Kraskinov works... Because I left him wondering where in the hell I went. I was not going to take a chance with a then new and only Orion-II, the TRSS Titan (BSG-6) [since the BSGX-5 was lost], at only 1.6km, against a 8+km long Executor.... If it were to reoccur again now (Considering there are 8 Orion-II's, and 2 Kali's in service) I'd probably take the chance.[with 2 more Orion-II's and 4 more Kali's[so far] schedueled].

These vessels are big.... 1.2km in length for an Orion; 1.6km length for an Orion-II, and 3.06km on a Kali (All my SCV's are named from the Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindi and Norse pantheons)... so far
Orion, Pegasus, Chronos, Zeus, Titan, Thor, Tiamat, Anubis, Hathor, Ra, Poseidon, Odin, Freyre, Loki, Kali, Shiva, Ganesha, Aries, Hera and Kingu...

Attaching an old Picture of the Orion's in maneuvers during the Battle of Tekadia Prime(edit, which I appearantly can't do anymore, damnit... ok, LINKING to an image of this... Pegasus and Orion at Maneuvers...) http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/POM.jpg

I was agreeing with you.

Meh. It could've gone either way, so I decided to err on the side of arguement.

The damage was done because it had been built underground with a city covering it.

Never read the book, so that information was not available at the time I made that statement.

About all the technology seen in Star Wars is comparable to our wheel or fire: They are millenia old. This kind of technological state is hard for westerners to relate too, assuming there must be a big technological breakthrough every 10 years or so.

You're talking to someone using technology from two empires that died out over 3500 years ago and spent about a billion years or so (estimate based on laziness) building their empires before they wiped each other out in a war that left pretty much nothing left of them. This isn't exactly foreign to my way of thinking.

However its more comparable to how the Chinese empire for example ran for centuries. Craft and weapon designs are based on economy, use and fashion. This is why the technology seen in the prequels isn't any less then in the original trilogy. Written merchendize shows craft bigger and heavier armed then Star Destroyers 4000 years before the movies.

Point it out. My memory is fuzzy on this one, as I don't usually consider books to be canon with SW and ST.

For example: A TIE Fighter is economical, based on having masses of the cheap designs instead of just a few of a more expensive design. (pilots being cloned). The Naboo-1 is meant to value the pilot and be estetically pleasing. Technology levels (set in time) have little to do with it.

My point? Gravitation devices are so common, reliable and energy efficient that they have basically completely replaced wheels. Even the smallest space craft has onboard artificial gravity. Toys just use it unthinkingly. That indicates a intensive knowledge and practical use on the subject... comparable to basic mechanics for us.

Generating artificial gravity is not difficult. We had the technological know-how in reality to do it twenty years ago but have been too lazy to give it a try. Generating a field of antigravity is extremely difficult no matter the technological era without having a device capable of generating gravitons on large quantities. You also waste a lot of energy, as you have to force the gravitons to become antigravitons. The result is it is easier to create a cannon that fires black holes than to put enough of an antigrav field around a Star Destroyer to prevent gravity from causing problems.

Exactly! I know a ionengine in our universe (or on our planet) can push away about two paperstamps worth - but apparently that don't matter in star wars, because its not our universe. Our physics do not apply.

Or, given enough of them you can keep an orbital platform big enough to throw Earth into an ice age in orbit.

Only having the movies to work on is exactly what i mean here. FOrget your knowledge of how our physics are, use our own rules of science and only use what you can observe. In which case you observe completely different physics. According to relativty, that's then what we got to work with.

According to relativity, relativity doesn't apply because it is a different universe and relativity is based on our understanding of our universe. So relativity also cancels itself out and, as such, invalidates itself.

Whoops.

Yes, and our own reality and physics then demand what I suggested above. (enter Einsteins' "Scientists in an elevator" story). By the laws of our physics you cannot apply them on any given system.

Relativity also demands what I said above. Since it cancels itself out by its own logic, you can instead turn to the idea that our physics apply unless otherwise contradicted, which is simpler, easier, and saves headaches for the writers.

Yes, me too... besides... on gassgiants it would raise the question of where the surface actually is.

They typically don't have surfaces. Unless you count vast acidic seas as surfaces.

They deleted the EON thread but you probably remember Pinguintalia accusing you of the same.

Must have missed that post. I thought the topic was still around.

And where does this fleet suddenly come from? ;)
Besides, you are here making clear why your proposal is bs... it don't stop you from still having that and doing that.

It doesn't stop anyone from having or using them. It does limit whether or not they can use them on planets and how many they can store on certain planets.

If you continue to go on by our physics, yes... still that doesn't change anything within star wars, which doesn't use them. :P

If it doesn't use them, then explain why gravity exists in SW.

That's not my problem with it, the utter assumption by you that he'll have to hike out of there and not have a chance fighting you is what bugs me. You assume too much about his situation.

If it is my property, then I may do what I wish with it, including kicking off a bunch of trespassers. He'll have to leave under that scenario because if he doesn't, there is the fact he is trepassing in my territory and committing what I consider to be a hostile act.

Why the big invasion fleet in orbit around it then?

Communications. I have to route communications from my homeworld through a series of ships to various parts of the galaxy. Besides, I also have something going on down on Earth's surface at the moment and have several ships monitoring it.

You have very weak shields.

I use deflector shields. They're not the best in the world, but the ships are small enough that stronger shields are not that necessary.

If you want a retry making nukes on Earth illegal and the use on any Earth nations from out of space illegal as well - you have my support. This first try just is way too general to apply to all universes, galaxies and timelines. A restriction on Earth alone can be enforced by all other space faring nations declaring to unite and take care of the culprit in case of a breach.

Actually, that would ignore the idea of several FT nations sharing a planet elsewhere and allow attacks there. I'm covering my bases with this.

which you seem to be determined to run by the UN in some kind of trick.. which is dubious to say the least.

No one said I had to be straightforward with these as long I don't bother to actually hide anything.

Fine, tech-wank your crap all you want... I personally don't give a damn about ISD's as they are weak, slow vessels... Land them on planets, whatever... (they'll make nice large stationary targets if this proposal is passed).

Now might be a good time to cool down and focus on a rewrite of the proposal.

Well, your tactics are what are typically used in vs. arguments.
I've always stayed clear of such arguements basically for the reasons i've given already: you cannot compare events in different universes.
I think its a typical american game to do so however, starting with the setting up different superheroes against eachother. ("If Mighty Mouse and Superman fought, who'd win?" "Superman of course, he's a real guy - Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon.") Personally I feel its silly: it all depends on who's universe you're in, who has the main role... This "vs" stuff is generally the mentality of show wrestling taken into the extreme.
And given the fact I have been up against an SSD of the Executor class before, I know my Kraskinov works... Because I left him wondering where in the hell I went.
Seen as you assume a Newtonian universe everywhere I think that's why the reason "it worked". I would not see this as proof personally, as obviously your craft have an advantage in your own universe under your physics. Its a simple practice of "my phyics, I win".. which gets really close to techwanking... actually probably is the basis of techwanking.
I was not going to take a chance with a then new and only Orion-II, the TRSS Titan (BSG-6) [since the BSGX-5 was lost], at only 1.6km, against a 8+km long Executor.... If it were to reoccur again now (Considering there are 8 Orion-II's, and 2 Kali's in service) I'd probably take the chance.[with 2 more Orion-II's and 4 more Kali's[so far] schedueled].
What kind of guy were you racing with anyways, and according to what game rules? Cause uhmm... to me it seems silly to use a SSD for a race in the first place - but that may be just me. The fact that's something is bigger generally doesn't make it faster.
These vessels are big.... 1.2km in length for an Orion; 1.6km length for an Orion-II, and 3.06km on a Kali (All my SCV's are named from the Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindi and Norse pantheons)... so far
Orion, Pegasus, Chronos, Zeus, Titan, Thor, Tiamat, Anubis, Hathor, Ra, Poseidon, Odin, Freyre, Loki, Kali, Shiva, Ganesha, Aries, Hera and Kingu...

Attaching an old Picture of the Orion's in maneuvers during the Battle of Tekadia Prime(edit, which I appearantly can't do anymore, damnit... ok, LINKING to an image of this... Pegasus and Orion at Maneuvers...) http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/POM.jpg
Looks nice!

So I guess you're in some far future of the Battle Star Galactica universe? (as those craft look like 90s re-renderings of the 70s Battlestar.. and would explain the names.)

Got any newer Vipers too you can show me? I personally always liked Galactica designs, the Cylon fighter is utterly da bomb for example.

I've always stayed clear of such arguements basically for the reasons i've given already: you cannot compare events in different universes.
I think its a typical american game to do so however, starting with the setting up different superheroes against eachother. ("If Mighty Mouse and Superman fought, who'd win?" "Superman of course, he's a real guy - Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon.") Personally I feel its silly: it all depends on who's universe you're in, who has the main role... This "vs" stuff is generally the mentality of show wrestling taken into the extreme.

Actually, all would be guilty, under your definition; since everyone in open RP determined their own tech capabilities... Unlike most, however, my Tech I have documented (even down to energy transfers) which I apply in all battle situations.


Seen as you assume a Newtonian universe everywhere I think that's why the reason "it worked". I would not see this as proof personally, as obviously your craft have an advantage in your own universe under your physics. Its a simple practice of "my phyics, I win".. which gets really close to techwanking... actually probably is the basis of techwanking.

Same as above... We must assume, in all open RP, that all tech will work when in confrontation. The only person legally capable of declaring his tech non-working in a situation, is the person weilding that tech; for anyone else to do it, it becomes godmoding.


What kind of guy were you racing with anyways, and according to what game rules? Cause uhmm... to me it seems silly to use a SSD for a race in the first place - but that may be just me. The fact that's something is bigger generally doesn't make it faster.

The "race" was me getting out of there ASAP, before the SSD had a chance to get into weapons range. If you want to call that a "race" but I was not the challenger.


So I guess you're in some far future of the Battle Star Galactica universe? (as those craft look like 90s re-renderings of the 70s Battlestar.. and would explain the names.)

Sort of, with lots of 3DS reworking... And completely differentiating internal tech. (Those are also my oldest SCV's)


Got any newer Vipers too you can show me? I personally always liked Galactica designs, the Cylon fighter is utterly da bomb for example.

Actually I shitcanned the idea of using "Vipers"... Instead I built the "Wasp" in 3DS very loosely off of the Cyclon fighters... though from ground up...
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/wasp.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/O_W_A.jpg
(Includes an Aurora)
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/Aurora.jpg
And Mule Class Heavy Transport Shuttles (Similar idea to SW Troop Barges in ISD's)
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/mule.jpg

The old Fleet
http://www.geocities.com/tekcomputers/OPZ.jpg

Those are some cool images.

Propulsion is also unique, in the FTL realm, (As it is based off of RL Physicist Sergei Kraskinov's work) of using exotic matter to create temporary artificial wormholes.... Those Orions in that picture, can create wormholes using a large device called a "Kraskinov Generator". And can effectively move several hundred thousand lightyears, in seconds... And the newer and larger Orion-II's and Kali's just get worse ;).