NationStates Jolt Archive

The Rogue Nation of Triocetia, in accordance with Dictatorial Order #3402-B, is initiating The Satelite Mounted Balistic Missle (SMBM) Program to create the building blocks for affordable development of the next-generation strike weapons system.

Details are as follows;

Overview:

The Satelite Mounted Balistic Missle (SMBM) Program, is the Defence Corps' focal point for defining affordable next generation sudden strike weapon systems for defensive and invasive purposes. The focus of the program is affordability and power. The Satelite Mounted Balistic Missle (SMBM) Program is a multi-role weapon optimized for ground superiority from space, designed to affordably meet the needs of The Rogue Nation of Triocetia and its allies, with high speed, high accuracy engagement capability associated with tomorrow’s fiscal environment.

The SMBM program is required to demonstrate multiple concepts for a dual role weapons system that is not only capable of attacking anywhere from any altitude but also capable of acquiring the necessary intelligence relavant to it.

The Key design goals of the SMBM system are:

LETHALITY: Being able to hold a minimum of 5 S-class Balistic Missiles in the 5-10 Megaton range plus one 50 Megaton internal warhead for emergency self-destruct and atmospheric blast purposes.

INTELLIGENCE: The system should be equipped with top end orbital imaging and tracking systems to be able to detect and pinpoint any actions with melicious intent toward Triocetia and its allies

LONG LIFE: The system must have a minimum effective life span of 25 years.

SUPPORTABILITY: The system must be able to be easily reloaded and refueled while in orbit, and should be able to support future enhancements and upgrades.

AFFORDABILITY: Focus on having low development, manufacture, owning and maintanence costs to provide adequate force structure.


The Rogue Nation of Triocetia is offering a Systems Design and Development (SSD) contract to any interested Nation or Corporation that can offer a suitable design within the set requirements.

Signed on behalf of his evilness, Sir E. M. Anash,

Dave Nob - Minister Of Defense
June Higawara - Program Director

OOC: A bit young to be doing any of this, aren't we?

Yes, post #1,337!!!!
Bow before the 1337 m4573r!!

Sorry, had to do that.

remind me to use you as a test subject once the program is complete..

remind me to use you as a test subject once the program is complete..

I'd like to see you try, young one.
Either way, I advise that, so people don't IGNORE you, you wait a while before developing ballistic missiles. Your nation is a bit young for all of that.

I thank you for your advice, but you must understand, even though we may be a young country, that does not mean we should take our time in solidifying our defensive structure, the sooner we act, the sooner we can be assured of out livelihood.

I thank you for your advice, but you must understand, even though we may be a young country, that does not mean we should take our time in solidifying our defensive structure, the sooner we act, the sooner we can be assured of out livelihood.

Very well. We shall keep an eye on you.

"The Commonality strongly 'recommends' that Triocetia pursue a different method of self-defence.

"Placing a weapons platform in Earth orbit for the explicit purpose of delivering weapons of mass destruction to the surface could easily be perceived as wholly unacceptable, and furthermore as a prelude to active pursuit of extension of the Triocetian sphere of control; therefore, we gently suggest that Triocetia reconsider."

~ 1st Ambassador Nejure

Any attempts to develop such a system will be met with hostility by the Imperium; as it is a threat to space going vessels, as well as a clear danger to structures, people and nations planetside

The Commonwealth of Avu-Akar Oivi concurs with the statements of Ma-Tek and Chronosia, and will not take part whatsoever in this project. A new weapon (nuclear or not) will do nothing for the world except increase tension between nations. Please, Triocetia, reconsider.



"Avu, Kak Avo"

Aoza-Avu
Leader of the Prime City-State
Avu-Akar Oivi

Most nations spend billions of dollars trying to build a bigger army or more advanced waepons, they never actually even consider to take a break, our philosophy is this, instead of spending so much money and time building a bigger and more powerfull army, we just build one multi-role weapon that would be suffiecient enough to act as a deterrant, once we have the weapons in place we could then decrease our military budget and spend the money elsewhere.

You must view this matter in the context of my country, many new countries are formed everyday, but most of have no security what so ever, and the UN isnt exactly something i would put trust on, so far all they've done lately is talk and no action, there is no point at it if it's under the influence of larger and more powerfull nations, at the end of the day each country is on it's own.

On behalf of Dictatorial order #4458 :

BUMP !

#23 - Goverment Official

Most nations spend billions of dollars trying to build a bigger army or more advanced waepons, they never actually even consider to take a break, our philosophy is this, instead of spending so much money and time building a bigger and more powerfull army, we just build one multi-role weapon that would be suffiecient enough to act as a deterrant, once we have the weapons in place we could then decrease our military budget and spend the money elsewhere.

You must view this matter in the context of my country, many new countries are formed everyday, but most of have no security what so ever, and the UN isnt exactly something i would put trust on, so far all they've done lately is talk and no action, there is no point at it if it's under the influence of larger and more powerfull nations, at the end of the day each country is on it's own.

"Such points as those made are, to our way of thinking, utterly irrelevant. The deployment of such a weapon represents a distinct attempt to bring about a shift in the existing geopolitical power structure. Therefore, it is an act of aggression.

"Furthermore, we ask the question: why would any nation interested merely in its own 'defence' desire to put nuclear weapons in orbit?

"Lastly: the Commonality will likely take a much more pleasant look at this situation, should the noble and great nation of Triocetia (who's might and majesty is surely enough to make the entire world tremble at their feet) deign to offer a single response to our comments. We would be greatly humbled."

~ Ambassador Neurat

* * *

Once the message was composed and sent, Ambassador Neurat leaned back in his chair and ran his fingers back through his hair; only then did he glance over at his adjutant with a wry smile. "Was that enough sarcasm, d'you think?"

"Lastly: the Commonality will likely take a much more pleasant look at this situation, should the noble and great nation of Triocetia (who's might and majesty is surely enough to make the entire world tremble at their feet) deign to offer a single response to our comments. We would be greatly humbled."


ATT: Ambassador Neurat of The Iluvauromeni State of Ma-tek
SUB: SBMB Program

There is no reason for your sarcastic flattery, that is something we can very much do without, for both our sakes.

But we are an honorabable nation, so with permition from the great one i shall try satisfy your curiousity regarding this matter.

1. As you know every nation has the right to provide the necessary solutions to maintain their own existence, these solutions could range anywhere from political and financial manipulation to outright nuclear warfare, basically whatever it takes to survive and grow strong, you cannot prevent a country from securing its existance just because you THINK they might become a challenge or even a rival later on.

2. You are correct that our weapon would bring a shift in the power structure, but you fail to notice that this shift is for the good of all, because in the current situation the power structure is not balanced at all, it IS balanced in a way that clearly points out the strong nations from the very weak ones, which is realistically very unfair for the weaker nations because there is no guarantee that the stronger nation will help the weaker ones just out of charity, lets be honest, no one does anything for free, there is always a personal agenda involved, we've seen plenty of examples of these in the past few years.

3. Nations today follow the same "proven" example in strengthening their defensive structure, which is having a bigger and more powerfull military, this has been done for centuries, the downside of this particular application is the huge amount of spending involved with the process, not to mention the risk that you put your personel under, granted Triocetia is in short supply of both of them.

So after reviewing the case with our military and scientific advisors we've came to the decision to build a first class strike weapon strong enough to be a deterrant, cut down on our military budget, and spend the money elseware, as long as we have this weapons system there would be no need for us to increase the size of our military more than enough to sustain smaller, regional guard units.

We also wouldnt have to go through all the trouble of aquiring many land, air or sea units.

4. So why put a nuke in orbit?, when considering todays possible nuclear war scenarios, when conventional nukes like ICBM's fired from land based silos are used there is sufficient time for the recieving nation to launch a counter attack, they may not be able to avoid being hit, but they can make sure that they hit the originating nation too. Sea and Air based launches suffer the same fate because they are also detectable, and since many of todays nations have or have started their own nuclear programs, nukes today do not act as sufficient deterrants, unlike 30-40 years ago.

So enter the SMBM Program, by mounting said nukes on a space orbital satelite based launching mechanism (SOSBLM) we cut the minimum nuclear warning times in half, thus doubling the weapons psychological effectiveness.

The other plus side of this application is that since the weapon is in space orbit it makes it harder for them to be decommitioned by rival nations in wartime scenarios.

Concluding, this weapons actual application would indeed be a defensive deterrant of hostile action against our nation, if we recieve intelligence reports of an hostile action we have the capability of first strike, probably before they even put their uniforms on.

I hope that this letter was a sufficient response to your question regarding our reasoning in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me personally if you have any other questions relating to this subject.

Regards,

Signed on behalf of his greatness, Sir E. M. Anash,

Dave Nob - Minister Of Defense

"It is agreed that a state has the right to ensure its own continued existance. Therefore, we see no reason why we should not merely destroy any satelite that you put into orbit, on the grounds that it may well constitute a direct threat to our existance.

"Yet we likely would not do so. But the very ease with which one can rationalize something to be in the interest of a state due to the requirements of security is the primary reason why any such explanation is wholly unacceptable, by itself.

"Your other reasoning is flawed. The difficulty with altering a power structure is the resulting instability caused in the system in which the power structure has been altered. Uncertainty enters the equation, as does greed, as in the desire for power. Envy, also, plays a part. Military anxieties typically increase. When nuclear assets are in the equation, nuclear anxieties increase. Political unrest can be expected to take a sharp rise, as citizens become increasingly anxious regarding the 'nuclear stalemate' scenario that so easily arises; often without any direct threat, a population will become increasingly anxious as it is utterly aware that to possess nuclear armaments is to become a target for nuclear attack.

"As to your remarks regarding the constant increase required in the 'size' of an armed force for a state, we must disagree. We, for example, are currently in the process of downsizing our military, on the grounds that one does not need a large military force, should one ensure that true defensive capabilities are enhanced beyond the feasible capacity of any potential enemy to cause distinct harm and/or damage to the state as a whole or in seperate units.

"It is far wiser to maintain a strong, small armed force, and extend good will wherever possible, in order that one might gain strong allies upon whom one can depend - and be one upon who those same allies can also, in turn, depend. Many small units are stronger than one large unit, after all, as they are more diverse and more flexible.

"From a strategic standpoint, this also makes no sense for defensive purposes alone. By using this method, you are 'putting all of your eggs in one basket', to borrow a foreign phrase. The destruction of these 'SSBM' launcn units would leave you largely defenceless, relatively speaking. Further, they are one-use affairs; should you use them, you would undoubtedly come under heavier attack from any allies of the state they were used against. Anyone can see this; some, indeed, would presume that the entire operation is a bluff.

"We strongly suggest your government bring in new advisors; for the current ones clearly have greatly flawed rational processes.

"Lastly, we appreciate your humble acceptance of our superiority."

~ Ambassador Neurat