NationStates Jolt Archive

DECLARING that nations able to maintain these weapons programs must have a considerable amount of wealth or labor,

REAFFIRMING that one of the U.N.'s goals is to promote world peace,

NOTING that these weapons bring nothing but fear to the vast majority of the world,

The Free Socialist States of The Ethics Union urge the United Nations to directly tax nations, specifically the U.N. member nations, for every nuclear weapon they at a cost of the equivalent of 1% (one percent) of their nuclear program per nuclear warhead.

Nuclear energy shall not be taxed by this bill, however.

The Ethics Union feels that 25% (twenty-five percent) of this money should be given to U.N. Peacekeeping forces to further discourage international militant activities.

Also, because up to this point nuclear weapons have not contributed positively to the majority of society, the rest of the money (75%, seventy five percent) will go toward U.N. anti-poverty programs.

-----

I designed it to have a bit of, what's it called, poetic irony? Poetic justice? Anyway, a simple search for "The Nuclear Tax" will benefit everybody.

Thanks!

The Free Socialist States of The Ethics Union urge the United Nations to directly tax nations
I thought "UN Taxation Ban" would put a "no" on that, but due to the wording, i'm not sure.

The UN cannot collect taxes, nor can it have forces, so this won't work.

Are there even such things as nuclear nations?

The UN cannot collect taxes.
Really? Nothing in Resolution #4 prohibits the UN from collecting taxes from nations, only national citizens directly.
The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.
Lots of UN resolutions do the indirect tax thing. There's plenty of precedent. Find another reason to oppose this - you shouldn't have to look very hard.

Really? Nothing in Resolution #4 prohibits the UN from collecting taxes from nations, only national citizens directly.
Ah, I had wondered.
That explains quite a lot!

DECLARING that nations able to maintain these weapons programs must have a considerable amount of wealth or labor,

REAFFIRMING that one of the U.N.'s goals is to promote world peace,

NOTING that these weapons bring nothing but fear to the vast majority of the world,

The Free Socialist States of The Ethics Union urge the United Nations to directly tax nations, specifically the U.N. member nations, for every nuclear weapon they at a cost of the equivalent of 1% (one percent) of their nuclear program per nuclear warhead.

Nuclear energy shall not be taxed by this bill, however.

The Ethics Union feels that 25% (twenty-five percent) of this money should be given to U.N. Peacekeeping forces to further discourage international militant activities.

Also, because up to this point nuclear weapons have not contributed positively to the majority of society, the rest of the money (75%, seventy five percent) will go toward U.N. anti-poverty programs.

-----

I designed it to have a bit of, what's it called, poetic irony? Poetic justice? Anyway, a simple search for "The Nuclear Tax" will benefit everybody.

Thanks!
So, I'd need to keep my nukes in a puppet nation?
What's the point of that?

Also, there's a tpyo in there making it hard for me to figure out the best way to get around this resolution.
every nuclear weapon they at a cost of the equivalent
Every nuclear weapon they what?
Every nuclear weapon they build?
Every nuclear weapon they buy?
Every nuclear weapon they launch?

DECLARING that nations able to maintain these weapons programs must have a considerable amount of wealth or labor

Incorrect. Even poor nations are capable of having nuclear weapons and/or capabilities. Black markets, intelligence deals, military exchanges... all ways for poor countries to gain access to nuclear material and/or weapons under the table without a body of the UN having a clue.

REAFFIRMING that one of the U.N.'s goals is to promote world peace

This is not a goal of the UN, and it shouldn't be stated as such, at least IMHO. The point of the UN is to seek a place of refuge from common day misconceptions between not so friendly nations in an effort to promote a unity of policy and practice in the modern NS world.

NOTING that these weapons bring nothing but fear to the vast majority of the world

Actually, most countries find having nuclear weapons make them much more secure than not having them... hence why many nations see them are brokering chips at the bargaining table.

The Free Socialist States of The Ethics Union urge the United Nations to directly tax nations, specifically the U.N. member nations, for every nuclear weapon they at a cost of the equivalent of 1% (one percent) of their nuclear program per nuclear warhead.

So, you're going to tax me about the nuclear weapons you know about, right? What about the 100 or so oddball nuclear warheads our scientists have developed that you have no clue about or we haven't released? These top secret, underground, nuclear weapons that won't see the light of the day unless they are used that will never be revealed to the public let alone the UN. What happens them? Will their be penalities for nations that withold this information?

Nuclear energy shall not be taxed by this bill, however.

Why not? Once a nation has nuclear energy capabilities, it's much easier to make nuclear warheads... why not tax the problem where it starts?

The Ethics Union feels that 25% (twenty-five percent) of this money should be given to U.N. Peacekeeping forces to further discourage international militant activities.

Also, because up to this point nuclear weapons have not contributed positively to the majority of society, the rest of the money (75%, seventy five percent) will go toward U.N. anti-poverty programs.

Why not give this money to the disestablishment of nuclear warheads for countries that wish not to be taxed but can't afford to dismantle or safey destroy these weapons of mass destruction? I see no point in giving funds going to either UN Peacekeeping forces or anti-poverty funds; that leap seems to be quite disjointed and out of place in this proposal.

Because that's such a long post, Tuesday Heights, I won't use the quote button.

First off, yes, I suppose you could have a suitcase bomb. Sure. Unless you have a substantial amount of money however, you cannot buy one or create a program to build one.

Next, I would definitely say a goal of the U.N. is to promote peace. Hence why their forces are called Peacekeeprs.

Third, I would definitely stand by my earlier statement about nuclear weapons not benefiting most people. I would like to a source that'll back you up about people feeling more secure. Nuclear weapons only benefit upper government officials because their positions become that much more stable. Nuclear weapons won't protect the common man from losing his job, from poverty, or from a foreign attack. The very fact that they are deterrants is because people are in fact so afraid of them.

After that, yes, we should tax you on the nukes we know about. In today's world of spy satellites and intelligence community corruption, somebody's bound to know you have nukes, and that somebody could very well be your enemy. Sure this isn't 100%, but then again, just because we know income tax fraud is inevitable doesn't mean we shouldn't have an income tax at all. But yes, there should be a penalty for lying nations. A very, very big penalty.

The reason I wouldn't make nuclear power plants taxed by this is because it does benefit the masses. Just because they have nuclear power plants doesn't mean they plan to make bombs. Pre-emptive strikes are illegal, and by the same logic, pre-emptive taxation should be illegal too.

I do love the idea of the money going toward programs to help nations get rid of their nukes though. But to answer your question, the reason why the money should go into anti-poverty funds is because this way, the nukes will help the masses (through being taxed). The reason for using this money for peacekeeping is so that nuclear wars might never get going in the first place.

And for filling in the blank, the tax would be on every nuclear weapon in the process of being built and every nuclear weapon already built.

Apparently though, the bill was deleted anyway. That's no good. I'll re-submit following you guys' suggestions.

Next, I would definitely say a goal of the U.N. is to promote peace. Hence why their forces are called Peacekeeprs.
Point of order. That is the Real World UN, not the NSUN. This one isn't allowed to have any armed forces.

First off, yes, I suppose you could have a suitcase bomb. Sure. Unless you have a substantial amount of money however, you cannot buy one or create a program to build one.

How many nations under economic sanctions are able to produce and/or procure weapons grade materials through the black market? In fact, weapons grade materials are cheap. From small dirty bombs to intermediate range conventional missiles, a poor nation could easily acquire these types of weapons from non-NSUN members.


I would definitely stand by my earlier statement about nuclear weapons not benefiting most people. I would like to a source that'll back you up about people feeling more secure. Nuclear weapons only benefit upper government officials because their positions become that much more stable.

Nuclear weapons make nations secure. And a secure nation benefits its citizens. It is the government's duty to assure security by building its armed forces and advancing military technology.

It is true that weapons benefit government officials. Our positions become much more stable. This is the kind of stability we want to achieve. A stable government means a stable nation.

It is the government who protects the people from aggression. And if the government cannot protect itself, then the rest of society falls.

Nuclear weapons won't protect the common man from losing his job, from poverty, or from a foreign attack.

The fact that our largest industry is uranium mining, weapons production has become our greatest source of income and jobs. The production of nuclear weapons has brought down unemployment, poverty, and reduced the threat of being attacked.

The very fact that they are deterrants is because people are in fact so afraid of them.

Absolutely. People are afraid of these weapons that's why it is an effective tool to deter violence. The threat of punishment or force deters human nature to be the first aggressor.

After that, yes, we should tax you on the nukes we know about. In today's world of spy satellites and intelligence community corruption, somebody's bound to know you have nukes, and that somebody could very well be your enemy. Sure this isn't 100%, but then again, just because we know income tax fraud is inevitable doesn't mean we shouldn't have an income tax at all. But yes, there should be a penalty for lying nations. A very, very big penalty.

What penalties? I didn't read any provisions on penalties in your proposed legislation.

This is a bigger cause of international conflict. NSUN members will be penalized for undisclosed weapons program but non-NSUN members are free to go on with their production and procurement. While NSUN members are being stripped away of their right to self-defense, non-NSUN members are building their nuclear arsenal against target countries. Rogue non-NSUN members will be emboldened to attack first because the threat of retaliation has been reduced.


I do love the idea of the money going toward programs to help nations get rid of their nukes though. But to answer your question, the reason why the money should go into anti-poverty funds is because this way, the nukes will help the masses (through being taxed). The reason for using this money for peacekeeping is so that nuclear wars might never get going in the first place.

Taxing nuclear weapons would kill the very people you want to protect. If this legislation is ratified, the huge amount of tax burden would discourage us to produce nuclear weapons. The effect is: no weapons, no taxes, no anti-poverty programs.

Why do most people think that taxation is the solution to all problems? Taxing is legalized stealing.

While taxing nukes may be fun, nukes are actually a minor weapon on the scale of destruction. They're more useful for precision strikes than mass destruction. For mass destruction, I can rely on antimatter weapons (300 times more powerful than thermonuclear weapons), plasma weapons, energy weapons, graviton weapons (nothing like ripping a fleet apart with gravity), temporal weapons, and a host of others that are equally dangerous and dwarf nukes.

Go ahead and limit nukes. Just remember that some of us have bigger and are far more advanced.

Excerpted from an internal Vastivan site which, while it does not exactly quote our "bill of rights", does contain a general gist.


That the right of the people to bear arms--- even the "scary" ones that frighten politicians and busybody activists--- is and must remain inviolate. That it is part of the necessary balance of power between the people and the state, because for all the lipservice given to "the power of the press," no would-be tyrant has ever been deterred by the threat of papercuts. That, more importantly, the right to defend oneself from lawless violence by force --- even lethal force--- is an inalienable human right.

That the most effective way to reduce crime is to give people back the complete and unrestricted right to bear arms.

We note: This approach has worked every single time it has been attempted.

Vastiva does not perceive a lessening of arms as "creating peace". We see it as "creating weakness". We remind the proposer - the resolutions of the UN affect only those nations in the UN. And we are not in the mood to attempt to stand in the world with our pants around our ankles.

So, you're going to tax me about the nuclear weapons you know about, right? What about the 100 or so oddball nuclear warheads our scientists have developed that you have no clue about or we haven't released? These top secret, underground, nuclear weapons[...]

Well, the UN Gnomes are pretty craft... :p

1) Weapons disarmmament has in fact reduced crime. Take Japan for example. Civilians aren't allowed to have guns there, and so only about 30 people die from gun crimes every year. Compare that to America, or the nation of your choice. Of course, nations that have the same policy as Japan have gotten the same results as Japan, and nations with America's policy have gotten America's results.

2) Nuclear weapons are a purely offensive weapon. That's what it was built for, aside from acting as a deterrant.

3) If you want to call inaction as a result of fear "peace," or if you think the road to "peace" is through making everybody fully aware that they will die a horrible death if they step out of line, then perhaps you're missing a few of the deeper meanings of peace.

Take the Cold War for example. You can look at it in two ways. One, that no missiles were launched and therefore everybody was happy. Or you can look at it how it really was, with everybody hideously afraid of the slightest accident. In fact, you could even simply look at the name of it. It wasn't called a Cold Peace, afterall.

4) Yes, U.N. states with nuclear arms would be taxed while non-U.N. states with nukes wouldn't be taxed. Big deal. They can still have nukes if they want. They just have to pay the world for the insecurity they're dishing out. Plus, we should lead by example, no?

5) This would make us weaker? Interesting. I thought that nuclear weapons were such great deterrants though, and so therefore I thought you didn't have anything to worry about. Then again, there are plenty of nations without nukes that nobody would dare attack, but they don't count in our eyes, do they? No sir, the only way to achieve power is through a one-time-only, button-pushing, civilian-killing mega bomb. I wonder where this logic stops?

6) Uranium mining does help the people. Of your nation. It doesn't help the majority of your nation (I do hope that you don't have +50% of your whole nation working in uranium mines) unless of course you tax that industry and put that money back in the system for everybody.

Of course, the uranium might go toward nuclear power instead of nuclear weapons anyway.

And even so, your slightly vague situation represents a minority of nations, and therefore, it is still entirely fair to say that nuclear weapons does not give any benefits to the masses.

7) Whatever happened to working toward world peace and putting the common man first?

Since when did the UN stop legislating in favour of largely cost-free schemes and begin assuming the role of taxman? As, currently, a small nation, measures like this which tax for all manner of things can do more harm than good. It's this 'big power/small power' bully-bargaining which causes disaffection in the United Nations; not the absence or presence of nukes.

1) Weapons disarmmament has in fact reduced crime. Take Japan for example. Civilians aren't allowed to have guns there, and so only about 30 people die from gun crimes every year. Compare that to America, or the nation of your choice. Of course, nations that have the same policy as Japan have gotten the same results as Japan, and nations with America's policy have gotten America's results.

We would ask for a citation of such statistics, and allow for "other violent crimes" to be added into the sum total of violent crime. This creates a parity of numbers the representative from the Ethics Union does not seem to have taken into account.

Regardless, this proposal is about nuclear weapons, not sidearms.



2) Nuclear weapons are a purely offensive weapon. That's what it was built for, aside from acting as a deterrant.

We refer the representative from the Ethics Union to the "MAD Doctrine", which envisions nuclear weapons as a defensive weapon. We would also demonstrate how nuclear weapons are usable as defensive weaponry, but this would involve state secrets.



3) If you want to call inaction as a result of fear "peace," or if you think the road to "peace" is through making everybody fully aware that they will die a horrible death if they step out of line, then perhaps you're missing a few of the deeper meanings of peace.

Take the Cold War for example. You can look at it in two ways. One, that no missiles were launched and therefore everybody was happy. Or you can look at it how it really was, with everybody hideously afraid of the slightest accident. In fact, you could even simply look at the name of it. It wasn't called a Cold Peace, afterall.

We had no fear - we sit behind our nuclear arsenal and know any who attempts to nuke us will be soundly bombed into glass - or worse. As such, we do not fear nuclear war, only conventional. This is "peace of mind". We like it.



4) Yes, U.N. states with nuclear arms would be taxed while non-U.N. states with nukes wouldn't be taxed. Big deal. They can still have nukes if they want. They just have to pay the world for the insecurity they're dishing out. Plus, we should lead by example, no?

No. This is entirely unrealistic.



5) This would make us weaker? Interesting. I thought that nuclear weapons were such great deterrants though, and so therefore I thought you didn't have anything to worry about. Then again, there are plenty of nations without nukes that nobody would dare attack, but they don't count in our eyes, do they? No sir, the only way to achieve power is through a one-time-only, button-pushing, civilian-killing mega bomb. I wonder where this logic stops?

If you were a robber, which house would you attempt to rob - the one with the armed owner who is "demented enough" to blast you into next tuesday with semi-automatic fire, or the one who hides under the bed with a teddybear?



6) Uranium mining does help the people. Of your nation. It doesn't help the majority of your nation (I do hope that you don't have +50% of your whole nation working in uranium mines) unless of course you tax that industry and put that money back in the system for everybody.

Of course, the uranium might go toward nuclear power instead of nuclear weapons anyway.

And even so, your slightly vague situation represents a minority of nations, and therefore, it is still entirely fair to say that nuclear weapons does not give any benefits to the masses.

We still disagree and believe you have a very rosy view of the subject.



7) Whatever happened to working toward world peace and putting the common man first?

We aren't.

The cynic in me just had to check.


The Free Socialist States of The Ethics Union

Economic Rating: Imploded

Exchange Rate: 214.0627 labor tokens = $1
Gross Domestic Product: $58,277,490,927.10
GDP Per Capita: $88.17
Unemployment Rate: 14.43%
Consumption: $21,254,785,500.00
Government Budget: $38,895,439,973.25
Government Expenditures: $38,117,531,173.78
Goverment Waste: $777,908,799.47
Exports: $6,556,245,989.62
Imports: $7,651,071,736.31
Trade Deficit: $1,094,825,746.69



So, the rest of the UN is supposed to help The Ethics Union out of the economic hole they've created for themselves?

I hope you don't mind me asking, but:

HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS TO THAT KIND OF DATA ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY?

I appreciate your help. Thanks.

:)

HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS TO THAT KIND OF DATA ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY?
http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/
http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php
Why are you shouting?

I remember this pathetic argument being used in the original Global Library debate- as opposed to replying to the points the person has put forwards, someone opposed to them instead quotes some statistics about the first person's country to prove their point. It's like an ad hominem argument, just on a larger scale really...

1) Weapons disarmmament has in fact reduced crime. Take Japan for example. Civilians aren't allowed to have guns there, and so only about 30 people die from gun crimes every year. Compare that to America, or the nation of your choice. Of course, nations that have the same policy as Japan have gotten the same results as Japan, and nations with America's policy have gotten America's results.

The United States has gotten the opposite results, with the areas that regulate guns the least having lower crime rates over all. You're comparing two entirely different cultures with nearly-opposing outlooks on life and histories too vastly different for them to be effective. Try finding a European nation that shows that.

What you posted is about like comparing tomatos and celery.

2) Nuclear weapons are a purely offensive weapon. That's what it was built for, aside from acting as a deterrant.

The deterrant function works quite well. Some nations are not using nukes against others because everyone has them, when in the past it wasn't unknown for a nation with nukes to destroy a nation that doesn't have them just because they can. This is also the era of alliances, and everyone's probably in one.

3) If you want to call inaction as a result of fear "peace," or if you think the road to "peace" is through making everybody fully aware that they will die a horrible death if they step out of line, then perhaps you're missing a few of the deeper meanings of peace.

Peace is the absense of war. In the real world, right now the US and several other nations, none of who particularly like each other, keep a nuclear war from happening due to the sheer fact they're all too scared to launch because others will launch back. If it wasn't for that, you can bet the US and certain others would use nukes as often as possible and use the same reasons as the US did in WW2 to justify it. Don't forget the shining examples of nuclear peace now were each at one time threatening to use those weapons on each other.

Take the Cold War for example. You can look at it in two ways. One, that no missiles were launched and therefore everybody was happy. Or you can look at it how it really was, with everybody hideously afraid of the slightest accident. In fact, you could even simply look at the name of it. It wasn't called a Cold Peace, afterall.

You missed the point. The Cold War was two sides of an issue attempting to oppose each other and destroy each other without using armies. It was a war of economics and ideology, not a war of weapons and death. The nukes were just a minor part of the fear everyone felt in that era. Just ask McCarthy.

4) Yes, U.N. states with nuclear arms would be taxed while non-U.N. states with nukes wouldn't be taxed. Big deal. They can still have nukes if they want. They just have to pay the world for the insecurity they're dishing out. Plus, we should lead by example, no?

No, we shouldn't. The UN is one of the most hated organizations in NS and the only reason it still stands is because it is the only official one. The majority of my allies either hate or sneer at the group, and in my case I wasn't planning on being in it this time around.

Besides, nuclear weapons are the only defense most nations have against those of us who use space as a playground and are not as scrupulous about destroying less advanced nations.

5) This would make us weaker? Interesting. I thought that nuclear weapons were such great deterrants though, and so therefore I thought you didn't have anything to worry about. Then again, there are plenty of nations without nukes that nobody would dare attack, but they don't count in our eyes, do they? No sir, the only way to achieve power is through a one-time-only, button-pushing, civilian-killing mega bomb. I wonder where this logic stops?

In space, it's even worse. And there, the scruples are even less.

Keep in mind some of us are very militaristic and not unwilling to destroy you just because you got in our way. I've taken down my fare share of smaller nations just for annoying me, and I'm one of the less aggressive nations in that category.

6) Uranium mining does help the people. Of your nation. It doesn't help the majority of your nation (I do hope that you don't have +50% of your whole nation working in uranium mines) unless of course you tax that industry and put that money back in the system for everybody.

Of course, the uranium might go toward nuclear power instead of nuclear weapons anyway.

And even so, your slightly vague situation represents a minority of nations, and therefore, it is still entirely fair to say that nuclear weapons does not give any benefits to the masses.

A minority of nations can still take out a majority if they use tactics correctly. It doesn't take a majority to cause world-wide devastation.

7) Whatever happened to working toward world peace and putting the common man first?

Reality got in the way.

I remember this pathetic argument being used in the original Global Library debate- as opposed to replying to the points the person has put forwards, someone opposed to them instead quotes some statistics about the first person's country to prove their point. It's like an ad hominem argument, just on a larger scale really...
Meh. The esteemed delegate hasn't seen fit to answer the question I put 3 days ago, or to correct the glaring mistake in his proposal. How should I debate him?

I remember this pathetic argument being used in the original Global Library debate- as opposed to replying to the points the person has put forwards, someone opposed to them instead quotes some statistics about the first person's country to prove their point. It's like an ad hominem argument, just on a larger scale really...

I remember those debates, and I remember the persons in question having repeatedly dealt with his points and the dozens of points they made having been ignored.

maybe putting the words differently, the UN can't tax nations directly, maybe promote international neglegence to nations who wil not disarm of nuclear nations. Yes, there are nuclear nations.

maybe putting the words differently, the UN can't tax nations directly, maybe promote international neglegence to nations who wil not disarm of nuclear nations. Yes, there are nuclear nations.
I believe the UN can tax nations directly. As I read it, the UN can't tax member nations' citizens directly.

My question is, why? Why specifically punish nations who [sic] nuclear weapons? Why not chemical weapons? Why not death stars? Why not nanotech plagues?

It frankly annoys me that there's such stigma attached to nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons killed far more civilians in WW II than the two atomic bombs. There are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today, and they're not all 3-armed mutants, so the whole secondary radiation scare seems overblown to me too.

And that's talking about air-detonated strategic bombs. There are far more nuclear weapons around than that. An attack submarine is a weapon. If it's nuclear powered, it's a nuclear weapon. What about a nuclear-tipped bunker buster? Why should that be wrong?

[/rant]
*deep breaths*


The rant wasn't directed at you, LovAmore. It just burst out while I was replying about direct taxation.

You do have a point, weapons of less ocntroversy do cause more deaths than nuclear weapons...but none of those weapons have the capability of destroying a habitat for half a century, potentially causing a nuclear war, meaning all of humanity would be destroyed or compromised, and nuclear fallout will definitely affect other surrounding nations. this isn't an insult toward you, just a suggestion. :-)

maybe putting the words differently, the UN can't tax nations directly, maybe promote international neglegence to nations who wil not disarm of nuclear nations. Yes, there are nuclear nations.

So... the UN ignores nations which do not disarm? :confused: That would mean ignoring most of its own constituency.

Of course it could get alot quieter in here all of a sudden.

My words from your excerpt of my statement were merely, and obviously a suggestion for the change of the idea at hand. not a statement of truth.

Its good that nuclear energy will not be taxed under this proposal. However, as the single largest industry in my nation is uranium mining, we cannot back this resolution as it will severely effect our economy.

It frankly annoys me that there's such stigma attached to nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons killed far more civilians in WW II than the two atomic bombs. There are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today, and they're not all 3-armed mutants, so the whole secondary radiation scare seems overblown to me too.

Er, the stigma about secondary radiation comes from thermonuclear devices, which leave radiation behind for thousands of years. If I remember correctly, the second site where they tested the hydrogen bomb is still radioactive and estimated to be for the next few thousand years (the first site stopped existing when the bomb detonated, having been an island).

That's ignoring antimatter bombs, which are the bigger brother of thermonukes.

...we're working on it, we're working on it. Some punk kid scribbled in the margin...

when did the UN stop legislating in favour of largely cost-free schemes

When did it start?

http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/
http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php
Why are you shouting?

Thanks for the help. Didn't intend to shout; I just wanted to make sure I got the info.

The Free Socialist States of The Ethics Union urge the United Nations to directly tax nations, specifically the U.N. member nations, for every nuclear weapon they at a cost of the equivalent of 1% (one percent) of their nuclear program per nuclear warhead.
errr, you cant exactly impose this on nations that arn't UN members anyway. concidering the cost of nukes, i'd say this one is kinda pointless. i mean, why tax them, when the nation has already taxed people to build them in the first place.
*whispers something in the ear of High Chief Cid of Dire-Tribes that the president of The Ethics Union is screwing his daughter*
i suggest you start stockin those nukes. to Dire-Tribes, nukes = spears, and they are not in short supply.

Er, the stigma about secondary radiation comes from thermonuclear devices, which leave radiation behind for thousands of years. If I remember correctly, the second site where they tested the hydrogen bomb is still radioactive and estimated to be for the next few thousand years (the first site stopped existing when the bomb detonated, having been an island).

That's ignoring antimatter bombs, which are the bigger brother of thermonukes.
OOC:
I don't remember it that way. The radiation from thermonuclear bombs comes from (a) the atomic bomb used to trigger the hydrogen fusion, and (b) the depleted U-238 in the third stage, which is fissioned by the neutrons from the fusion reaction. Without the third stage it's a neutron bomb, hyped a couple of decades ago as the perfect tactical battlefield weapon.

PA! This is stupid! It is Regulastan's manifest destiny to build Nukes and we will launch them at the "Ethics Union" before we pay any taxes for them

PA! This is stupid! It is Regulastan's manifest destiny to build Nukes and we will launch them at the "Ethics Union" before we pay any taxes for them
I would join you, but I've been told it's impolite to lob nukes at a nation because you don't like their draft proposal.

While taxing nukes may be fun, nukes are actually a minor weapon on the scale of destruction. They're more useful for precision strikes than mass destruction. For mass destruction, I can rely on antimatter weapons (300 times more powerful than thermonuclear weapons), plasma weapons, energy weapons, graviton weapons (nothing like ripping a fleet apart with gravity), temporal weapons, and a host of others that are equally dangerous and dwarf nukes.1. Antimatter weapons gain their energy from matter annihilation, which is to say, mostly from the annihilation of neutrons/ antineutrons & protons/ antiprotons. Which is to say, from the nucleus of atoms, rather than from their 'hulls' (Electrons).

Just like (thermo)nuclear warheads.

As such, an antimatter weapon is a nuclear weapon, as the energy is produced due to nuclear effects, rather than due to chemical processes.

Or in other words, your antimatter stuff would be included.

And I wont even get started on the rest of your bodily fluids.

2. Did you ever think about the option to interpret the (predominantly 'realistic') UN as, uh... suiting your needs? I.e. a WMD resolution would include your $Bullshit, even though it isn't explicitly mentioned? It's called 'Fair Play'. Oh, and it would allow you to be polite enough not to disrupt UN proceedings with your 'Rar! Nukes are pointless! I have $Techwank and I'm not affected by your silly resolution!'

Which is more than just slightly annoying.

~ Catherine Gratwick, somewhat oocly.

Ouchie!

I beg to differ. NSUN proposals should be written with an eye to the fantasy and scifi nations so many players RP. It really wouldn't have been difficult for the author to have made this a tax on all WMD's, instead of only nukes.

Or, "all WMD's, with the exception of biological weapons, which are already outlawed under a previous resolution".

That said, YGSM is wholly opposed to redistribution of wealth between nationstates. Period, for any reason.

[OOC: How are the Gnomes supposed to interpret this if it passes? Gut the economy of any nation with a defense budget, and magically bump up the economy of any nation without one?

If you've answered teh issues in such a way as to zero out your defense budget, you've already gotten the economic bump you deserve for limiting your role-play.

I want no part of my economy being boosted from Powerhouse to Frightening on the backs of DLE or Vastiva. My nation's economic performance is the result of choices I make, and that's the way I want it.]

1) Weapons disarmmament has in fact reduced crime. Take Japan for example. Civilians aren't allowed to have guns there, and so only about 30 people die from gun crimes every year. Compare that to America, or the nation of your choice. Of course, nations that have the same policy as Japan have gotten the same results as Japan, and nations with America's policy have gotten America's results.

Not necessarily true. Canada has more guns per capita than the US does, and similar gun control laws, if I'm not mistaken, and the number of gun deaths per year there is a fraction of the number that occur in the US.

1. Antimatter weapons gain their energy from matter annihilation, which is to say, mostly from the annihilation of neutrons/ antineutrons & protons/ antiprotons. Which is to say, from the nucleus of atoms, rather than from their 'hulls' (Electrons).

Just like (thermo)nuclear warheads.

As such, an antimatter weapon is a nuclear weapon, as the energy is produced due to nuclear effects, rather than due to chemical processes.

Or in other words, your antimatter stuff would be included.

Furthermore, your argument is not founded upon solid science. Anti-matter weapons are not nuclear warheads, any more than lasers are nuclear warheads.

I beg to differ. NSUN proposals should be written with an eye to the fantasy and scifi nations so many players RP. It really wouldn't have been difficult for the author to have made this a tax on all WMD's, instead of only nukes.I would tend to agree, but it doesn't change the fact that DLE's attitude is annoying.* 'sides, it can get a bit extreme. I have nation(s) that are effectively god (And I'm not the only one, just see the region 'Heaven'), but I don't think that the NSUN should accept members going 'I'm GOD, so I don't give a damn, and you should all follow my commandments!' There are borders you shouldn't cross, no matter how you play your nation. DLE crossed this border.

* And by 'annoying' I mean that his 'HaHa I'm ultrawank so you can't touch me!' posts ought be be killed.

Furthermore, your argument is not founded upon solid science. Anti-matter weapons are not nuclear warheads, any more than lasers are nuclear warheads.What part of my explanation did you miss? You know, the part where I mention that both kinds of energy production work by gaining energy from the nucleus (You know, hence the term 'nuclear'), thus making both nuclear weapons?
Gotta love you just claiming that it isn't 'Solid Science' without trying to, say, invalidate my claim with, uh... Evidence? Kinda like what I mentioned in my post to back it up. So stuff your rhetorics elsewhere and try to prove your point.

PS: Wrong example. A laser can get its energy from a fuckton of energy sources (Comparable to how a kinetic projectile can use a wide variety of propellants, electromagnetic acceleration, slingshots etc.), and has nothing to do with a bomb. So, try to find correct examples.

~ Catherine Gratwick, still oocly, and annoyed

Not necessarily true. Canada has more guns per capita than the US does, and similar gun control laws, if I'm not mistaken, and the number of gun deaths per year there is a fraction of the number that occur in the US.

OOC: Simply put, you're mistaken.

OOC:
I don't remember it that way. The radiation from thermonuclear bombs comes from (a) the atomic bomb used to trigger the hydrogen fusion, and (b) the depleted U-238 in the third stage, which is fissioned by the neutrons from the fusion reaction. Without the third stage it's a neutron bomb, hyped a couple of decades ago as the perfect tactical battlefield weapon.

Last time I checked, fusion itself also unleashes radiation, which gives a third source you're not listing. In any case, the first island they tested on ceased to exist after the bomb was dropped. The scientists underestimated the power of hydrogen bombs.

1. Antimatter weapons gain their energy from matter annihilation, which is to say, mostly from the annihilation of neutrons/ antineutrons & protons/ antiprotons. Which is to say, from the nucleus of atoms, rather than from their 'hulls' (Electrons).

Incorrect. Antimatter weapons work by letter matter and antimatter hit, with the two instantly converting each other to energy. This unleashes massive amounts of radiation and produces an explosive effect much more powerful than anything currently held by modern nations. In the aftermath there is always a small amount of ultraradioactive matter left behind due to the conversion favor towards matter. That's part of why, in reality, the Europeans currently making antimatter atoms require so much energy to force the conversion of matter to antimatter and then can watch as the antimatter converts back to matter without their help.

Except for one requirement, antimatter weaponry is perfectly within the range of a post-modern nation willing to put in the effort. Most don't.

Just like (thermo)nuclear warheads.

Quite unlike a nuclear warhead or any other type of weaponry used by modern nations.

As such, an antimatter weapon is a nuclear weapon, as the energy is produced due to nuclear effects, rather than due to chemical processes.

Which is blatantly illogical. Antimatter weapons work on an entirely different principle than nuclear weapons or any other weapons currently used by nations in reality. They use a set of physics that not even Einstein accounted for and a set of laws completely alien to anything naturally occuring in the Sol system. About the only reason it's included in the nuclear family is because there is no other class of reaction currently existing in which to put it that includes radiation, though the latest finds about black holes may change that in the future.

The system of how antimatter missiles work is actually similar to a NASA design for an antimatter engine for space travel, except in this case is doesn't push the energy outwards for propulsion and instead lets it go as it will.

So, dearie, I'm not basing my weapons on some made-up principle or set of physics, but upon the work of real-world scientists and the next natural application of their hard labor. The part that keeps it from being entirely science fiction is the amount of work in the field of antimatter currently being conducted in reality.

Or in other words, your antimatter stuff would be included.

Not by my definitions. I class antimatter weapons as different than nuclear weapons, putting them in the family of weapons that produce radiation as a mild side-effect of their real destructive function. Such items include graviton weapons and their singularity subdivision, ion cannons (which use the electrical power of hyperionized gas to overwhelm ship systems, effectively acting as an EMP on steroids), hyperkinetic weapons (the radiation results from the impact), and a few others my nation doesn't have that I won't go into.

And I wont even get started on the rest of your bodily fluids.

You're close to crossing a line and I'm not in the best of moods to deal nicely with those who do. Fair warning.

2. Did you ever think about the option to interpret the (predominantly 'realistic') UN as, uh... suiting your needs? I.e. a WMD resolution would include your $Bullshit, even though it isn't explicitly mentioned? It's called 'Fair Play'. Oh, and it would allow you to be polite enough not to disrupt UN proceedings with your 'Rar! Nukes are pointless! I have $Techwank and I'm not affected by your silly resolution!'

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"Predominantly realistic"! Good one.

A resolution only covers what is included in the wording of it, no matter the circumstances of the various nations involved. A resolution that covers nukes is covering a specific type of WMD and doesn't cover such weapons as graviton cannons or even tomahawk cruise missiles carrying deadly chemical agents. And no modern tech nation has room to talk about "Fair Play" when one considers how many of them techwank and numberwank MT technology, often far more than those of us in the FT community do. I remember quite well certain nations that have used salvos of deadly agents of all types against their enemies in ways they can't respond.

You're forgetting this is NS, which has its own reality and its own code of what can happen. In NS, you can have a nation using massive numbers of ships in space that travel thousands of lightyears daily and a nation that uses massive amounts of magic and whose people ride dragons instead of airplanes in the same world as nations using modern technology and nations still stuck in the early 1900s. And you do. That's ignoring the nation of sentient penguins, another example of what can be found on Earth and possibly in the UN.

If you think it is pointless, you are of limited experience in NS and need to gain more before stopping here to deal with those of us who know what can happen here. While you may not like it, the reality of NS is that it's not just modern nations in a modern world dealing with each other. I do have a point behind why I spend hundreds of posts talking about my nation and why it doesn't affect me, and it is a point that needs to be considered more and more these days.

Which is more than just slightly annoying.

What's more annoying is to have people like you who don't consider that your level of tech is not the only one comming on here and trying to use your standards to cover a group of nations that are more diverse than the fiction section of Barnes and Noble. In this case, you're at least lucky enough that this does affect a large number of nations, including those that are far-future. Some of them don't.

My whole point behind all of this is to get it considered that you have to cover possibilities or accept the fact that your resolution doesn't apply to all members. Besides, this way provides for a better possibility of arguement than the fact the UN has a long history of repeatedly shooting down all proposals and resolutions that attempt to ban or restrict nukes in any way and this is likely to be just another one to add to the long list of proposals that had no hope before they were even submitted.

I would tend to agree, but it doesn't change the fact that DLE's attitude is annoying.* 'sides, it can get a bit extreme. I have nation(s) that are effectively god (And I'm not the only one, just see the region 'Heaven'), but I don't think that the NSUN should accept members going 'I'm GOD, so I don't give a damn, and you should all follow my commandments!' There are borders you shouldn't cross, no matter how you play your nation. DLE crossed this border.

~Sniffs~

Gotta love the smell of baseless, unprovable bullshit.

You got all of this from a single post pointing out that some of us have weapons more destructive than nukes and listing a few varieties? Hell, I don't even have all of the weapons on that list (though, I'm allies with those who do...). I see no evidence from the post you have quoted to support this and must conclude you are trolling, thus having crossed a line.

* And by 'annoying' I mean that his 'HaHa I'm ultrawank so you can't touch me!' posts ought be be killed.

Once again, unprovable accusations. Where's your proof? Don't have any? Thought so.

Don't make accusations unless you can prove them. And listing technology types isn't saying "phear me, I'm unstoppable" anymore than listing possible diseases a person can catch is saying they will catch them.

And listing technology types isn't saying "phear me, I'm unstoppable" anymore than listing possible diseases a person can catch is saying they will catch them.
Well, don't do it anyway. I'm sick so much lately, I swear I've been coming down with diseases that are mutually exclusive.

Somebody, somewhere, has a voodoo doll of me. I'm sure of it.

Wasn't us. Seen any butterflies lately?

Wasn't us. Seen any butterflies lately?
stop it. really.
you'll just get me in more trouble with the mods.

*changes the display on his "Virtual Voodoo Doll 2.6"*

Alright. Seen any gophers lately?





OOC: honest mistake.

hehe, the easiest way to avoid the tax is to launch the missiles before it takes effect. i have an idea, lets aim them at TEU. jus their name alone makes me think they have a superiority complex

hehe, the easiest way to avoid the tax is to launch the missiles before it takes effect. i have an idea, lets aim them at TEU. jus their name alone makes me think they have a superiority complex
Even easier method, form a puppet nation that you control and give them the nukes. Since their not a UN member they're not affected by any resolution and you still get to keep the nukes at your disposal.

...but launching them makes fireworks. And we know how much everyone loves fireworks.

What about non-UN countries with nuclear weapons? They wouldn't be taxed.

While UN members are being encouraged to disarm, non-UN nations are building up their arsenal. How many rogue states are non-UN? They could totally take hostage the UN Assembly!

WE NEED NUKES FOR PROTECTION!

Who are the victims of most crimes? The unarmed.

Incorrect. Antimatter weapons work by letter matter and antimatter hit, with the two instantly converting each other to energy. This unleashes massive amounts of radiation and produces an explosive effect much more powerful than anything currently held by modern nations. In the aftermath there is always a small amount of ultraradioactive matter left behind due to the conversion favor towards matter. That's part of why, in reality, the Europeans currently making antimatter atoms require so much energy to force the conversion of matter to antimatter and then can watch as the antimatter converts back to matter without their help.

Except for one requirement, antimatter weaponry is perfectly within the range of a post-modern nation willing to put in the effort. Most don't.Could it be that you're incapable of, uh reading? What the hell do you think antiprotons/ antineutrons are, and what they do when they hit protons/ neutrons? It's what I said.

Aside from that, there's a tiny problem with your claim that postmodern nations can do it. Namely, antimatter is produced in, shall we say tiny amounts, in multikilometer particle accelerators. This would need to be kept save, since unlike a common nuke, where a tiny malfunction results in the wholöe thing not exploding, an antimatter bomb would explode as soon as a tiny malfunction results in the containment field failing.

Quite unlike a nuclear warhead or any other type of weaponry used by modern nations.Both produce their energy by way of nuclear reactions. Both release energy in the form of Gamma rays. Both would have the same effect in an atmosphere: Gamma rays/ X rays (produced by way of Gamma rays vaporising the bomb shell) heat the atmosphere, resulting in a blast.

It doesn't get much closer. By your definition, a fission bomb is 'Quite unlike a fusion warhead'. Yet, both are counted as nuclear weapons. Guess why?

Which is blatantly illogical. Antimatter weapons work on an entirely different principle than nuclear weapons or any other weapons currently used by nations in reality.Since I just provided you evidence to the contrary... care to point them out? I'm quite curious justb how you're smarter than a few hundredthousand physicians worldwide...

They use a set of physics that not even Einstein accounted for and a set of laws completely alien to anything naturally occuring in the Sol system.1. the first antimatter particle were discovered in the thirties, if I recall it right. Could be fifties, though. Not as new as you might think. 2. Wrong. Antimatter reactions are quite a natural phenomenon and can be observed in a variety of nuclear reactions.

About the only reason it's included in the nuclear family is because there is no other class of reaction currently existing in which to put it that includes radiation, though the latest finds about black holes may change that in the future.The aforementioned fact that antimatter reactions are nuclear reactions really isn't bothering you, is it? And again, I want examples of this 'totally alien physics' (Commonly teached in graduation level physics classes, I think), proving your point, rather than your pointless rhetorics.

The system of how antimatter missiles work is actually similar to a NASA design for an antimatter engine for space travel, except in this case is doesn't push the energy outwards for propulsion and instead lets it go as it will.Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program etc. etc. I know. Amazingly enough, 'design' should be interpreted as 'Nice theory', not as 'existing' or even 'planned'. Congratulations, you have managed to type hot air. Especially seeing as it is also similar to how a combustion jet engine works...

Which means that your 'point' is actually quite pointless.

So, dearie, I'm not basing my weapons on some made-up principle or set of physics, but upon the work of real-world scientists and the next natural application of their hard labor. The part that keeps it from being entirely science fiction is the amount of work in the field of antimatter currently being conducted in reality.Yes, i'm sure that your 'temporal' and 'gravitic' weapons are quite realistic, nevermind relativity and the problem of a gravitic weapon, based on E=MC^2, uh... Well, I guess your fleetcrushing weapon needs a gravity roughly equivalent to that of the sun, this meaning that you do indeed need to converse the energy of the sun 8The energy 'saved' in its mass, not its actual energy production) to get your beloved effect... So much for 'based upon the real world'.

A resolution only covers what is included in the wording of it, no matter the circumstances of the various nations involved. A resolution that covers nukes is covering a specific type of WMD and doesn't cover such weapons as graviton cannons or even tomahawk cruise missiles carrying deadly chemical agents. And no modern tech nation has room to talk about "Fair Play" when one considers how many of them techwank and numberwank MT technology, often far more than those of us in the FT community do. I remember quite well certain nations that have used salvos of deadly agents of all types against their enemies in ways they can't respond.So you're wanking just like them? Oh, and I seem to recall you being quite guilty of puppetwanking, so, yeah... You're really not one to talk.

You're forgetting this is NS, which has its own reality and its own code of what can happen. In NS, you can have a nation using massive numbers of ships in space that travel thousands of lightyears daily and a nation that uses massive amounts of magic and whose people ride dragons instead of airplanes in the same world as nations using modern technology and nations still stuck in the early 1900s. And you do. That's ignoring the nation of sentient penguins, another example of what can be found on Earth and possibly in the UN.I'm certain you can. However, this doesn't remove the point about 'fairness'.

If you think it is pointless, you are of limited experience in NS and need to gain more before stopping here to deal with those of us who know what can happen here. While you may not like it, the reality of NS is that it's not just modern nations in a modern world dealing with each other. I do have a point behind why I spend hundreds of posts talking about my nation and why it doesn't affect me, and it is a point that needs to be considered more and more these days.Well, seeing as I've played since jan '03... including prety wanky S/F & Magic nations... Without seeing a need to fap all over the UN forum...

Be careful, that shit streaks.

What's more annoying is to have people like you who don't consider that your level of tech is not the only one comming on here and trying to use your standards to cover a group of nations that are more diverse than the fiction section of Barnes and Noble. In this case, you're at least lucky enough that this does affect a large number of nations, including those that are far-future. Some of them don't.See above. There is a little difference between you masturbating all over $Modern_UN_Member and me not doing it.

My whole point behind all of this is to get it considered that you have to cover possibilities or accept the fact that your resolution doesn't apply to all members. Besides, this way provides for a better possibility of arguement than the fact the UN has a long history of repeatedly shooting down all proposals and resolutions that attempt to ban or restrict nukes in any way and this is likely to be just another one to add to the long list of proposals that had no hope before they were even submitted.But you don't have to consider the same? It works both ways. Why is it that you see a need to go 'RAWR THE CULTURE IS IN THE THIRD WORLD!'? Would you enjoy it if $Modern_UN_Member went into your threads going 'RAWR! YOU DON'T EXIST IN MY UNIVERSE!' (I seem to recall Mikitivity doing pretty much that in your 'Weapons of Planetary destruction) thread)?

Gotta love the smell of baseless, unprovable bullshit.

You got all of this from a single post pointing out that some of us have weapons more destructive than nukes and listing a few varieties? Hell, I don't even have all of the weapons on that list (though, I'm allies with those who do...). I see no evidence from the post you have quoted to support this and must conclude you are trolling, thus having crossed a line.*Checks his post*

Lesse... I wrote that you are annoying. As far as I am concerned, you are annoying. Amazingly enough, I don't find where you get your 'bullshit' claim from.

Once again, unprovable accusations. Where's your proof? Don't have any? Thought so.

Don't make accusations unless you can prove them. And listing technology types isn't saying "phear me, I'm unstoppable" anymore than listing possible diseases a person can catch is saying they will catch them.

To quote, well, you...

While taxing nukes may be fun, nukes are actually a minor weapon on the scale of destruction. They're more useful for precision strikes than mass destruction. For mass destruction, I can rely on antimatter weapons (300 times more powerful than thermonuclear weapons), plasma weapons, energy weapons, graviton weapons (nothing like ripping a fleet apart with gravity), temporal weapons, and a host of others that are equally dangerous and dwarf nukes.

Go ahead and limit nukes. Just remember that some of us have bigger and are far more advanced.This screams 'Compensation'.

Oh, and I might even take the time to search through anti- WMD proposal threads just to find a few of your posts involving your pointless rawr.

AND I recall a thread (Regarding Vegana & syskeyia, as well as Chimaea) where you rather explicitly announced a possible tech/ puppetwank in order to enforce an UN WMD (Chemical weapons, i believe) resolution. Here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381523)

Enough proof for you?

Programs! Get'cher programs here! Facts and figures, stats and mathematics, everything you'd want to know about the... thank you, sir, that'll be 2 USD, here's your change...Programs! Get'cher Programs here!

Could it be that you're incapable of, uh reading? What the hell do you think antiprotons/ antineutrons are, and what they do when they hit protons/ neutrons? It's what I said.

Your word "annihilation" is what I was taking apart, as it ignores the Law of Matter Conservation. Besides, you're ignoring antielectrons, the most common of the antimatter particles encountered. So, yes, the hulls are also included.

And I do have issue with CERN using the word "annihilate" as well, as the word gives across the wrong idea of the actual reaction.

Aside from that, there's a tiny problem with your claim that postmodern nations can do it. Namely, antimatter is produced in, shall we say tiny amounts, in multikilometer particle accelerators. This would need to be kept save, since unlike a common nuke, where a tiny malfunction results in the wholöe thing not exploding, an antimatter bomb would explode as soon as a tiny malfunction results in the containment field failing.

If you're going to store the antimatter weapons for long periods of time, take the warheads apart first. These are not exactly weapons you just keep sitting around for the fun of it.

And, yes, I'm fully aware of how fast antimatter is produced. But I'm also aware of how rapidly advances are comming in the area. It is impossible for a modern nation to produce antimatter, but it's also impossible for a modern nation to have fusion reactors. Post modern is merely an advanced form of modern, taking current technology further down the road and adding in a few minor discoveries. And considering how recent discoveries are allowing for faster production of higher quantities of antimatter than before, it's far from the realm of impossibility that the next 70 years will exclude antimatter being put into more practical uses.

Both produce their energy by way of nuclear reactions. Both release energy in the form of Gamma rays. Both would have the same effect in an atmosphere: Gamma rays/ X rays (produced by way of Gamma rays vaporising the bomb shell) heat the atmosphere, resulting in a blast.

Plasma weapons also heat the atmosphere and, depending on the method used, can emit Gamma rays. By your definition, certain plasma weapons are nuclear weapons.

What you are ignoring is the required basics. Nuclear weapons require unstable elements that can be induced to rapidly undergo fission to work. Antimatter weapons require stable elements that are merely thrown together to work, much like some chemical explosives invented in the recent era. So going by your logic of lumping it together based on similarities, that must mean antimatter weapons are both chemical and nuclear weapons.

You still have yet to account for many types of energy weapons, which unleash Gamma radiation as a result of how they work, and singularity weapons, which unleash radiation as well. To be pretty honest, I find your criteria of releasing Gamma radiation to be shaky because of the number of items that do it as they work, and so far you're not quite accurate on what is involved in the explosion or even the basics of the weapons themselves.

It doesn't get much closer. By your definition, a fission bomb is 'Quite unlike a fission warhead'. Yet, both are counted as nuclear weapons. Guess why?

A fission bomb and a fission warhead both require unstable materials that can be induced to undergo fission. The radiation of nuclear weapons is the main method by which they operate and destroy, unlike antimatter weapons where it is a side-effect of how they operate and destroy. Don't forget that antimatter weapons include cannons that fire just antimatter.

Since I just provided you evidence to the contrary... care to point them out? I'm quite curious justb how you're smarter than a few hundredthousand physicians worldwide...

When it comes to physics, anyone who has studied it in mild interest is smarter than a few hundred thousand physicians worldwide. Mainly because physicians deal with human health, not with nuclear physics. But I assume you meant physicists and not physicians.

1. the first antimatter particle were discovered in the thirties, if I recall it right. Could be fifties, though. Not as new as you might think. 2. Wrong. Antimatter reactions are quite a natural phenomenon and can be observed in a variety of nuclear reactions.

1. Einstein's Equation of Relativity was revised in 1928 to account for the existance of antimatter in the universe. Positrons, or antielectrons, were discovered in 1932. Unsurprisingly, it resulted from guy getting the idea that mass could have a negative number instead of a positive.

2. Antimatter reactions are, themselves, quite rare in nature. The majority of the reactions do not happen at all in any part of known space and are only theorized about from observing matter. That is where the theories of antimatter galaxies come from. But, you have not actually refuted how I stated antimatter weapons work. Throwing two opposing stable substances together and watching them instantly convert each other into energy that sends radiation out at the speed of light is still, despite any claims to the opposite, something not naturally seen in the Sol system.

The aforementioned fact that antimatter reactions are nuclear reactions really isn't bothering you, is it? And again, I want examples of this 'totally alien physics' (Commonly teached in graduation level physics classes, I think), proving your point, rather than your pointless rhetorics.

I can provide you an easy example: Tell me of the last time you threw two bricks, of the same materials as the typical building brick is made from, together and watched them take out a city block just because they touched. Now, point out where in the Sol system that has been observed happening.

The physics involved in that are totally alien to the Sol system because nothing in the Sol system has to worry about going through that. The antimatter involved is in small quantities and is typically positrons. If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to go to a local construction yard and pound random pieces of steel together and tell me if they explode.

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program etc. etc. I know. Amazingly enough, 'design' should be interpreted as 'Nice theory', not as 'existing' or even 'planned'. Congratulations, you have managed to type hot air. Especially seeing as it is also similar to how a combustion jet engine works...

You're referring to this (http://science.howstuffworks.com/antimatter2.htm)? A combustion engine doesn't work by just throwing two materials together and flushing them out the back. It's called a combustion engine because it actually ignites a combustable material. The two are not even similar at a glance.

Which means that your 'point' is actually quite pointless.

It would be nice if the evidence supported that statement.

Yes, i'm sure that your 'temporal' and 'gravitic' weapons are quite realistic, nevermind relativity and the problem of a gravitic weapon, based on E=MC^2, uh... Well, I guess your fleetcrushing weapon needs a gravity roughly equivalent to that of the sun, this meaning that you do indeed need to converse the energy of the sun 8The energy 'saved' in its mass, not its actual energy production) to get your beloved effect... So much for 'based upon the real world'.

Actually, you're right. The amount of power needed to generate gravitons is massive. That's why most of my ships either get it from larger ships or are equipped with multiple antimatter reactors, which happen to need refueling quite often.

Graviton weapons work by taking gravitons, which is basically just the particle that controls gravity, and unleashing them to do as they will, which is typically to form a temporary gravity field before dispersing. The result is reverse concussion, ripping a ship apart by pulling it apart. This proves to be quite effective because most ships are not built with the idea someone is going to be pulling them apart. The graviton cannons use a bit of the gravitons they emit to create a gravity field that is temporarily more stable and push it away. The Planet Buster uses graviton shields to stabilize it into a temporary beam so that it can increase the gravity of its target, allowing it to circumvent the normal rules of mass by increasing the gravity connections of the present mass. The results, quite often, are lethal. However, the amount of time and power expendature means it can only be used on planets.

Now, while these would make effective fleet-killers, the amount of energy involved is too much for my ships, the majority of which are below 500 meters in length. Even with AIs and automation, you can only fit so many antimatter reactors in a given space, even with putting the graviton reactors outside of the ship. The DLEMB10 carries a single antimatter reactor, allowing it just enough power for the shields and jump engines. The DLEX80 carries six reactors, plus two microreactors in the external graviton generators. The DLEMB30 carries 8 microreactors, while the Graviton Destroyer and the DLEAD10 and 20 carry 32 reactors. Most other ships either have half a dozen reactors or, such as the DLEAF20, are fueled up by the bigger ships before launch.

How do graviton shields work? Basically a graviton field of a different frequency, allowing it to block attacks (but the gravitons leak from the shield, even more when the ships are under fire, requiring constant replacement). The engines are ingenious and something I don't feel like going into at this time.

And if you bothered to do the research you claim you have, you would realize I don't have temporal weapons. Feel free to stop chewing on your foot.

So you're wanking just like them? Oh, and I seem to recall you being quite guilty of puppetwanking, so, yeah... You're really not one to talk.

If you have evidence, post it. If not, stop wasting my time with unprovable accusations. And on this one, you have no evidence.

I'm certain you can. However, this doesn't remove the point about 'fairness'.

What point? I read it, and all it amounted to what baseless tripe of no more importance than anything else. If anything, the comments about fairness are based on an illogical arguement that totally miss the point.

Well, seeing as I've played since jan '03... including prety wanky S/F & Magic nations... Without seeing a need to fap all over the UN forum...

Be careful, that shit streaks.

M'dear, the one thing I have learned in my time on the internet is that time spent on a forum doesn't always equal experience or knowledge. Considering you have only made 14 posts with that nation in the entire time it has been around and have made a few elementary mistakes, such as not bothering to research the person you are accusing and not even being familiar with their tech before commenting on it, I would say you're not that experienced at all. Come back when your experience matches your age.

See above. There is a little difference between you masturbating all over $Modern_UN_Member and me not doing it.

I'm an unaldurated asshole. What's your excuse?

If you'll bother to notice, I only bring up the technology level of my nation in times in which I feel the proposal in question is ignoring technology levels, like this one, or in times when I'm just being an asshole, like my occasional reminders to people about genetic differences or my occasional invasion of a small nation just because I feel like it or they annoyed me. Then again, I never claimed to be a nice girl.

If you think that is, as you said it, masturbating, you have no idea who you're dealing with. It's the heat of the passion, the joy of the battle, not taking out an easy target. Taking out the easy targets is just because I can, and that always happens on this forum to deal with those who are annoying and who I don't feel like an extended arguement with. You, however, have been a nice source of amusement, especially ever since I got over a slight annoyance from earlier in the day.

But you don't have to consider the same? It works both ways. Why is it that you see a need to go 'RAWR THE CULTURE IS IN THE THIRD WORLD!'? Would you enjoy it if $Modern_UN_Member went into your threads going 'RAWR! YOU DON'T EXIST IN MY UNIVERSE!' (I seem to recall Mikitivity doing pretty much that in your 'Weapons of Planetary destruction) thread)?

Their perogative. Besides, that thread was to prove a point about how easy it would be to sneak a resolution through banning something without the members even realizing it. Pretty effective demonstration.

Now, you need a lesson on roleplaying. If you ever bothered to read the RP material I so helpfully provided in my sig, you would realize that a good portion of that is just staying in character. In character, I'm a nation of people who are egotistical and love flouting their genetic superiority, despite the irony of how new civilization is to them. The people are egotistical, sometimes rude, and often willing to gloat. And the very dictator is the same way. And before you comment, this is a board on which people do a mix of RPing and OOC. So, yes, I am going to RP my posts. It's best if you keep that mind.

*Checks his post*

Lesse... I wrote that you are annoying. As far as I am concerned, you are annoying. Amazingly enough, I don't find where you get your 'bullshit' claim from.

You said:

I would tend to agree, but it doesn't change the fact that DLE's attitude is annoying.* 'sides, it can get a bit extreme. I have nation(s) that are effectively god (And I'm not the only one, just see the region 'Heaven'), but I don't think that the NSUN should accept members going 'I'm GOD, so I don't give a damn, and you should all follow my commandments!' There are borders you shouldn't cross, no matter how you play your nation. DLE crossed this border.

The part about annoying isn't what I was talking about. The rest is. And, yes, it is bullshit.

To quote, well, you...

This screams 'Compensation'.

No, it screams ego. Compensation is being in space and having 2+ kilometer ships, heavily armed. Those are the weapons I've found necessary in my time here to survive.

Oh, and I might even take the time to search through anti- WMD proposal threads just to find a few of your posts involving your pointless rawr.

If you can do it, then do it.

AND I recall a thread (Regarding Vegana & syskeyia, as well as Chimaea) where you rather explicitly announced a possible tech/ puppetwank in order to enforce an UN WMD (Chemical weapons, i believe) resolution. Here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381523)

Enough proof for you?

Wow. I didn't even give you the rope yet.

You'll have to post a link to the specific post that is a puppet/tech wank. And, yes, I expect an example of both and a long, detailed history of my posts that proves I do not have the technology and reasoning to back it. Have fun.

Oh, you missed this post, which undermines what you have said: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7827991&postcount=54

I love this quote:

And before someone comments about FT vs. MT, I just lost 200 ships in a conflict with an MT nation much smaller than any of the ones involved in this.

Wow. Ya know, someone techwanking wouldn't lose that many ships to a less advanced nation.

It's gotta suck when your own evidence helps disprove your own arguement and fails to back it.

Your word "annihilation" is what I was taking apart, as it ignores the Law of Matter Conservation. Besides, you're ignoring antielectrons, the most common of the antimatter particles encountered. So, yes, the hulls are also included.Semantics.

Oh, and seeing the mass difference between a Neutron or Proton on the one side, and the electron on the other, your antimatter weapons would have vastly less yield than a thermonuclear warhead. So, I would assume that you don't use pure positrons, seeing as it would be pointless.

Plasma weapons also heat the atmosphere and, depending on the method used, can emit Gamma rays. By your definition, certain plasma weapons are nuclear weapons.Plasma is an effect, not a weapon. 'Sides, you did again ignore the source.

What you are ignoring is the required basics. Nuclear weapons require unstable elements that can be induced to rapidly undergo fission to work. Antimatter weapons require stable elements that are merely thrown together to work, much like some chemical explosives invented in the recent era. So going by your logic of lumping it together based on similarities, that must mean antimatter weapons are both chemical and nuclear weapons.Wrong example. For a nuclear weapon to be nuclear, it needs to be based on nuclear reactions. Which is what antimatter reactions are. Chemical reactions are defined by the reaction only involving the hull of an atom, not the nucleus.

Now, you're partly right, seeing as the electrons/ positrons are also present. But they make up a reaaaaaallllllllllly tiny amount of the energy in question (For hydrogen, about 1/ 1837 of the entire energy), as such, i would say that the nuclear part is by far the dominant one.

Especially seeing as with certain types of nuclear weapons, chemical explosives are used to achive critical mass. Does this make this nukes chemical explosives?

You still have yet to account for many types of energy weapons, which unleash Gamma radiation as a result of how they work, and singularity weapons, which unleash radiation as well. To be pretty honest, I find your criteria of releasing Gamma radiation to be shaky because of the number of items that do it as they work, and so far you're not quite accurate on what is involved in the explosion or even the basics of the weapons themselves.
[7quote]Gamma radiation is always the result of nuclear reactions. As such, yes, it is quite an excellent criterion.

Oh, and please tell me where my inaccuracies are, and correct me. Just quit with the rhetorics and provide evidence.

[quote]A fission bomb and a fission warhead both require unstable materials that can be induced to undergo fission. The radiation of nuclear weapons is the main method by which they operate and destroy, unlike antimatter weapons where it is a side-effect of how they operate and destroy. Don't forget that antimatter weapons include cannons that fire just antimatter.See above. And once again, the gamma rays produced during the matter/ antimatter reaction is doing the damage. I'm sorry, but an 'I eradicate one kilogram of your hull' is laughable, since it wouldn't even account for 1/1000000 of the damage done.

When it comes to physics, anyone who has studied it in mild interest is smarter than a few hundred thousand physicians worldwide. Mainly because physicians deal with human health, not with nuclear physics. But I assume you meant physicists and not physicians.
Point taken, forgive e for english not being my first language. Now that we have finished with semantics, where is your evidence?

Oh, right, you quietly forgot about it.

The physics involved in that are totally alien to the Sol system because nothing in the Sol system has to worry about going through that. The antimatter involved is in small quantities and is typically positrons. If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to go to a local construction yard and pound random pieces of steel together and tell me if they explode.What, and positrons aren't antimatter? I never made any claims regarding the quantity. But they have been observed. And the physics cannot be alien. The laws of physics don't just change for varying times and places. They stay the same.

You're referring to this? A combustion engine doesn't work by just throwing two materials together and flushing them out the back. It's called a combustion engine because it actually ignites a combustable material. The two are not even similar at a glance.The point is, of course, that both result in reaction mass being used to accelerate. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_rocket) for a (Very) simplified explanation.

<snip on gravity>You store the energy... How? Seeing as the most effective way to store energy is... Matter. You can hardly store more energy than your ship weights.

If you have evidence, post it. If not, stop wasting my time with unprovable accusations. And on this one, you have no evidence.


I have. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7856862&postcount=72) To quote the relevant line: I would like to remind you that the majority of the DemonLordEnigma Empire is not in the UN. Just a single territory of it.

And seeing your region's (Four members) Factbook stating 'Welcome to the DLE Empire!'... Yeah.

The part about annoying isn't what I was talking about. The rest is. And, yes, it is bullshit.So you wouldn't mind me switching UN membership to Holy Divine Trinity and staying in character in the UN building while being the second coming?

Good to know.

You'll have to post a link to the specific post that is a puppet/tech wank. And, yes, I expect an example of both and a long, detailed history of my posts that proves I do not have the technology and reasoning to back it. Have fun.With regards to the puppetwank, see above, as I already linked that specific post.

With regards to the techwank, doing what you did in the thread in question, which was effectively an offshot of Eurusea's/ The Reich's invasion of Syskeyia, with the former explicitly telling two nations (Constantinopolis and dangwhatshisname?) not to go spacedy, and with The Reich, namely Vegana and Endless Crimes, leaving their spacedyships elsewhere, to keep the thread on a moderate level, well... Yes, yes I would count that as techwank.

Even easier method, form a puppet nation that you control and give them the nukes. Since their not a UN member they're not affected by any resolution and you still get to keep the nukes at your disposal.
hehe, its a good thing we deal with The Nomadic Peoples of Dire-Tribes then ;)

Semantics.

Yes, but enjoyable to write up the arguement for. Especially when one hasn't been to sleep and just finished off a pot of coffee overnight.

Oh, and seeing the mass difference between a Neutron or Proton on the one side, and the electron on the other, your antimatter weapons would have vastly less yield than a thermonuclear warhead. So, I would assume that you don't use pure positrons, seeing as it would be pointless.

No, I use anticarbon for the weapons and antihydrogen for the power plants. Anticarbon is useful because of its larger mass for explosions, while the antihydrogen allows for the frequency of hydrogen to be effective for power plants and to save on fuel.

Plasma is an effect, not a weapon. 'Sides, you did again ignore the source.

It's your arguement I'm dealing with, not the source. The source is there for kicks. If you're going to argue what something does, present it on here. I keep giving you the opening, and you keep ignoring it.

Actually, plasma isn't just an effect. It is superheated gas, sometimes called the fourth state of matter, and it is quite an effective weapon when you consider what large streams of superheated gas do to what they hit. I have yet to see a plasma missile I'll trust as actually using plasma, so I'm talking about the cannons.

Wrong example. For a nuclear weapon to be nuclear, it needs to be based on nuclear reactions. Which is what antimatter reactions are. Chemical reactions are defined by the reaction only involving the hull of an atom, not the nucleus.

In which case you have a problem. Nuclear reactions are primarily defined by effects resulting from the nucleus (which is where the word "nuclear" comes from) while chemical reactions result primarily from effects in the hull. The problem of definition is that antimatter reactions don't use one or the other as primary. They result from both. The majority of naturally-occuring antimatter reactions known involve the hull only, mainly because it's the only thing present. By using the standard definitions, you have a problem in that defining it one way or another on the chemical/nuclear scale is ignoring a major part of antimatter reactions.

Do you define it by what happens more frequently, or what is most powerful? If most frequently, it's chemical. If most powerful, it's nuclear. If you bother to pay attention to both, it suddenly doesn't neatly fit anymore.

Now, you're partly right, seeing as the electrons/ positrons are also present. But they make up a reaaaaaallllllllllly tiny amount of the energy in question (For hydrogen, about 1/ 1837 of the entire energy), as such, i would say that the nuclear part is by far the dominant one.

Except for the fact it's also quite rare, which means it is in fact the minority of reactions. The most frequent reactions involve positrons, which are hull particles, only.

Especially seeing as with certain types of nuclear weapons, chemical explosives are used to achive critical mass. Does this make this nukes chemical explosives?

The chemicals are not the primary method of destruction, so no.

[/quote]Gamma radiation is always the result of nuclear reactions. As such, yes, it is quite an excellent criterion.[/quote]

And this is where you get into trouble.

So, by that logic, an energy weapon that sends out a beam on a frequency to cause atoms to lose cohesion is a nuclear weapon (it's a nice dream, but I'll never use it). Also, any plasma weapon that unleashes gamma radiation as a result of how the plasma was created is a nuclear weapon.

Oh, you might want to read this to get what plasma is: http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-cutter3.htm

An interesting system of making it is to use excess energy from powerful reactors, such as fission reators, to superheat gas.

[/quote]Oh, and please tell me where my inaccuracies are, and correct me. Just quit with the rhetorics and provide evidence.[/quote]

You're late in asking to provide evidence. I have asked you that repeatedly and been ignored. And, considering the fact I actually have provided evidence at least partially relevant to my evidence and even in your last post you failed to provide evidence that actually proves your point. Until you actually provide at least semirelevant evidence that helps give you some proof, I will not waste my time posting evidence beyond what I feel is necessary. This is a policy I hold of everyone and expect to be held of me. The policy is simple: The first person to ignore or refuse a call for evidence has no right to ask for evidence. You are that person.

See above. And once again, the gamma rays produced during the matter/ antimatter reaction is doing the damage. I'm sorry, but an 'I eradicate one kilogram of your hull' is laughable, since it wouldn't even account for 1/1000000 of the damage done.

The direct conversion of the mass of the target to energy is going to do its own damage. Even if just a kilogram of the hull, in space that could be enough to be a major hull breach. Of course, that's assuming only a minute amount of antimatter is being fired. Against planets, antimatter cannons are usually of a reduced effectiveness due to atmosphere.

While I'll give you points for one item I was getting tired of leaving open to you, you are still ignoring the reaction in how they are done. Nuclear weapons involve the radioactive material being forced to undergo fission, typically causing it to release gamma rays as a result of the process. But nuclear reactions require a nucleus to function, while the majority of known naturally-occuring antimatter reactions don't even involve a nucleus. Since antimatter doesn't even require a nucleus to be useful as a weapon (positrons can be useful for making small, controlled explosions where you don't want massive destruction), then how can you continue to justify antimatter reactions as being nuclear?

Point taken, forgive e for english not being my first language. Now that we have finished with semantics, where is your evidence?

Oh, right, you quietly forgot about it.

See above about the evidence.

What, and positrons aren't antimatter? I never made any claims regarding the quantity. But they have been observed. And the physics cannot be alien. The laws of physics don't just change for varying times and places. They stay the same.

Okay, now you're just making stuff up and attributing it to me. If you read what I said, you'll notice why your comment about positrons isn't even based on my comments.

Go back, read what I said, and think about what quality of bricks there is that would cause them to be relevant in a discussion about antimatter, and then think about why two bricks of what appears to be the same material would explode like that when comming into contact with each other in relevance to a discussion about antimatter. Finally, stop and think of what I could possibly have meant that excludes small particles from being what I was discussing. I'd explain what I had meant, but right now it would take an incredible act of not thinking to figure it out.

The point is, of course, that both result in reaction mass being used to accelerate. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_rocket) for a (Very) simplified explanation.

Or, you can try the explanation I provided in one of my posts a few posts back.

You store the energy... How? Seeing as the most effective way to store energy is... Matter. You can hardly store more energy than your ship weights.

If antihydrogen, you actually can attempt (key word) it by not bothering to store one part of the fuel needed and doubling the other. Store the antimatter, pick up the matter as you move along. This is part of why I construct ships in space. If you wish to have systems independent of the antimatter reactors, using a high-energy battery would help in that area.

I have. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7856862&postcount=72) To quote the relevant line:

And seeing your region's (Four members) Factbook stating 'Welcome to the DLE Empire!'... Yeah.

There's a large piece of backstory behind how that came about, and it's ironic. Tiamat Taveril (the UN nation of the DLE Empire) was not originally my nation. Someone gave it to me when they left NS, after having asked me to represent their views on this forum. I've kept it ever since. The creation of the DLE Empire was simply a way to get all of my puppets under my control and known.

The one thing most people don't know is the relationship between many of the puppets (my Factbook lists which puppets are in the DLE Empire) is one that, despite my claims of a loophole, can come around to be used against me. DLE claims it is independent of the UN because of this, and yet Tiamat Taveril is just a territory with no government of its own. I'm amazed I've gotten away with it for this long without someone realizing the problems with the claims and the situation and what situation it really creates. So, when you realize the reality of the legitimacy of the claim, it's not puppet wank, but an interesting bluff.

Oh, that part in the region is roleplay info, which you would know if you read my factbook and realized what Terran and Terrator are.

So you wouldn't mind me switching UN membership to Holy Divine Trinity and staying in character in the UN building while being the second coming?

Good to know.

I'd even be willing to give you advice if you were having problems with it. I have before.

With regards to the puppetwank, see above, as I already linked that specific post.

Yes, but it doesn't prove your point. People have been well aware of it for months now. And no one has yet to consider it puppet-wank, including many RPers who have heard the setup and I know to be better than myself.

With regards to the techwank, doing what you did in the thread in question, which was effectively an offshot of Eurusea's/ The Reich's invasion of Syskeyia, with the former explicitly telling two nations (Constantinopolis and dangwhatshisname?) not to go spacedy, and with The Reich, namely Vegana and Endless Crimes, leaving their spacedyships elsewhere, to keep the thread on a moderate level, well... Yes, yes I would count that as techwank.

I made my tech level known so that anyone wishing an FT nation to not be involved could say so. No one did. In fact, neither side said nothing to me about it. They were going outside the conflict to the UN, and the UN isn't limited to just one tech level under normal circumstances. Hell, I was even notified about their tech level and how easily I would lose by TG.

Notice to DLE and Sovereign UN

Your flaimebaiting has bored me.

All of this originated from a post on the first page that was forgotten about until someone replied to it. Hell, I was enjoying the discussion we were having before this. Besides, Fris has already addressed this.

Going back to page 3, you have any replies to what was posted before this mess started?