Biological Weapons Discussion [Split From Sharina Thread] [Archive]

Sharina

27-05-2005, 01:15

OOC:You are confusing OOC with IC. Dont do that.

No problem. I thought it was an IC post, didn't read the OOC part. My apologies.

Second off, you cannot have developed a vaccine for EVERYSINGLE biological and chemical weapons. There are agents (EG:Ebola, Bubonic Plague(and a TON of genetically engineered bio-agents on NS)) that we cannot invent vaccines or cures for. Some agents(EG:Most chemical weapons, few bio-weapons(mainly the zombie creating ones)) for which it is to difficult to apply a cure in time.

Yes, I am aware of that fact. Hence, me ONLY using biological, chemical, or gases that I DO have vaccines for. If I don't have a vaccine for a particular biological or chemical weapon, I don't use the weapon at all.

Then you are neglecting the fact that there are no biological weapons and chemical agents that remain in a area for just 'a couple of minutes'. Airborne or not, all bio-weapons work to slowly to be reasonable in tactical combat. There are no such thing as '30 second viruses', hell the quickest killing virus in Real Life is Ebola... and that takes 5 days AT THE MINIMUM to kill. Even genetically engineered viruses on NS take HOURS at the least to kill. There is also no such thing as a chemical weapon that hangs around for just a few minutes. VX Gas(when in 'fog form') hangs around from a few hours to several days, depending on weather conditions and climate.

I know viruses don't kill in 30 seconds. For that 30 second thing, I was referring to weapons such as nerve gas or chemical weapons that destroy your inner organs like lungs, nervous system, heart, etc. Those weapons act far quicker than Ebola and the like.

Finally, you are completely neglecting the ability of Sattelite delivered nukes. These are basicilly maneuverable sattelites loaded with Reentry9Vehicles. When launched, there is no warning as the RVs are 'dropped' from orbit instead of 'launched' by a ground base missile(which the launch of can be detected). And there is another type of sattelite weapon that I have devised, a kamikaze sattelite, but I wont go into details there.

My space based SDI systems are meant to target both land based ICBM's and space weaponary. My satellites won't allow foreign satellites into any space in the air or space above my nation. They'd shoot any non-Sharina satellites down without question.

Due to this, foreign satellites that launch nukes and such would have to do so at an tangent, or at an angle. This would give me precious seconds for my computers to calculate a firing solution, and fire ABM's, projectiles, or space-borne lasers accordingly.

One more thing, I can equip my satellites with targeted EMP weapons, or powerful sensor jammers to disrupt enemy targeting capabilities. Thus, the enemy's space-borne missiles and such will have relatively low accuracy as a result. Their nukes might as well land in the middle of an ocean, or hit a nation adjacent to me.

I keep 50% of my STRATEGIC weapons in sattelites, 10% in subs, 10% in bombers, and the remaining 30% are in missiles(both Ballistic and Cruise)

Finally there seems to be a HUGE proliferation of cruise missiles on NS capable of outrunning or outsmarting most SAMs.

My anti-aircraft defenses use solid projectiles, accelerated at high velocities and aided by computer targeting + triangulations. Missiles can't fool my solid projectiles with chaff or false sensor readings and the like. In addition, my computers calcuate the missile's trajectory, and then "lead the missile" or so to speak. Once the computers determine the missile's trajectory, they adjust the AA guns position, orientation, and angle accordingly, then fire the AA guns. The solid shell projectiles will then either travel into the missile's course, causing damage as the missile slams into the solid projectiles, or they directly intercept the missile, hitting the missile itself.

Thus, the outsmarting problem is solved. You cannot outsmart simple laws of physics, geometry, and trigometry.

If the missile detects incoming solid projectiles, they will have to outmanuever them. However, traveling at "speeds that outpace conventional SAM's" meaning Mach 4+ or so, the missiles would snap in half as they try to swerve around or zig-zag through my belts of solid-shell AA defense. Again, simple laws of physics and force apply here.

Essentially, my AA is computer-aided and enhanced flak guns of WW II with drastically increased accuracy, lethality, and effectiveness, supplemented by semi-automation.

Sometimes to outsmart uber-tech, you can find effective solutions by returning to low tech, instead of creating more uber-tech wanking. ;)

Green Sun

27-05-2005, 01:29

OOC: Who in their right mind would use a chemical/biological weapon taht they don't have a vaccine for?

Leafanistan

27-05-2005, 01:37

OOC: Who in their right mind would use a chemical/biological weapon taht they don't have a vaccine for?

*raises hand*

Last resort, let us have peace or let everyone die.

Red Tide2

27-05-2005, 01:38

Leafanistan

27-05-2005, 01:41

Sharina

27-05-2005, 03:08

Thanks for the tips... however your SDI CANNOT SHOOT DOWN OTHER A SATTELITES AUTOMATICALLY! To dot that you must manually aim the laser at another sattelite. Also, since foreign sattelite(the non-maneuverable ones)s HAVE to pass over your nation eventually, shooting down every sattelite that came over your nation would cause a hell of alot of trouble for you. You see, space is a 'international zone'. Once you get to the mid mesosphere, it is no longer your airspace. Shooting down any foreign sattelites up there is a great way to start a international incident, and since it is illegal to shoot at foreign sattelite in space(unless you are already at war of course), you really are provoking a war yourself. Finally you would HAVE NO WARNING! For a falling RV(one that hasnt been put on a missile that is) would be interprinted by any radar computer as a meteor or falling sattelite whose orbit has been decayed and is burning up and will subsequently ignore it.

I realize that, and I have several solutions to solve those problems.

1. Space SDI is divided into two "layers". One layer focuses on destroying any ICBM's or hyper-sonic missiles. The other layer focuses on defense of space assets and the SDI satellites that watch + take action aganist Earth-side targets.

Consquently, I have a set of SDI satellites pointing their defensive weapons towards Earth, while I have another set providing cover by pointing their weapons towards space-borne targets and equipment.

2. My computers track every "hostile" foreign satellites which would have flight paths across my territory. What I define "hostile" in this situation would be nations that are ideological enemies, bad relations, warmongering nations, or highly militant nations.

Satellites belonging to allies would not be hindered whatsoever, while neutral satellites would be watched closely. My SDI defense satellites will train their weapons upon the neutral nation satellites, so that any surprise nuke attack will be prevented, or at the very least, compromised. Training my weapons on neutral satellites would shave precious seconds off the time it takes for the SDI to take full action. My SDI can more quickly adapt and destroy missiles or sneak satellite attacks than if I don't train my weapons on neutral or "hostile" satellites.

3. I can employ other types of sensors to accurately determine the difference between a Re-entry Vehicle and a meteor or debris floatsam. For instance, I can use Infrared sensors and SQUID (sensors that detect electromagnetics) in conjunction with RADAR.

In addition, I can configure sensors to search for shapes that resemble missiles, tungsten rods, ICBM's, etc. Certainly most debris don't have a bullet shape 10 meters long, and missiles certainly don't have solar panels or antennae that satellites have.

Hope that answers your questions.

Sharina

27-05-2005, 03:17

I thought of that too, wouldn't annhilating every foreign satellite be horribly dangerous. What if my comms satellite comes over? What if GSRN's satellite comes over? What if a derelict space capsule containing nuclear material comes over?

And if his computers are built to shoot down anything falling out of the sky, you must be spending billions because of all the space junk and micrometeorites that have the same RADAR signature as a falling satellite.

GSRN? I'm not familiar with that ancroym.

I can afford these extensive computer and sensor capabilities from the money and resources I save by not having a nuclear weapons program anymore.

McKagan

27-05-2005, 03:19

GSRN is my nations main news source....

Praetonia

27-05-2005, 19:03

Sharina

27-05-2005, 21:50

[OOC: Sharina, a few points:

1) Chemical weapons, as stated, are often rendered useless against military targets by the simple use of haz-mat suits. Your insistance that the enemy then has to endure the disadvantages of wearing said suits while you are sitting there shooting them, while true, is rendered useless as you also then have to have your troops wear suits before going near the affected zone (there are no "innoculations" against neurotoxins). This was discovered in WWI, leading WWI generals to come to the realisation that chemical weapons merely made fighting a living hell and drastically reduced morale on both sides. Best left alone in a tactical sense. Also, as you say, modern battletanks are not affected by chemical weapons, nor are helicopters and aircraft.

All I have to do is to roll in my full NBC protected vehicles, such as tanks and APC's to destroy the floundering enemy infantry, while my own infantry stays back until the "all-clear" is given.

This would nullify the "OMG! I send 10 million man invasion army aganist j00!" should I be invaded. Conversely, should I be the invading nation, I can reduce vast numbers of enemy infantry, making the jobs of my own infantry easier in the long run. My infantry would have an easier time when lots and lots of the enemy infantry are either dying or dead from a combined bio / chem attack WITH my NBC-proof vehicles swooping in for kills.

That, or I could use artillery and missiles to bombard the legions of enemy infantry in haz-mat suits.

2) The above scenario (that of troops being attacked chemically moments before being attacked conventionally) is a tactical not a strategic situation, whereby it is used basically as artillery. What nuclear weapons are generally used for is strategic deterrant.

Understood. However, tactics can win wars. Many NS'ers don't RP tactics in warfare, as they mindlessly throw soldiers, tanks, missiles, ships, planes, etc. aganist each other WW-I style. A glorified meat-grinder.

I can employ a one-and-two punch. I launch bio or chem weapons aganist concentrations of enemy infantry, then follow up with tanks, APC's, missiles, artillery, etc. while keeping my infantry back for urban defense and the like.

3) Chemical dispersal, especially over a wide area is... problematic... if your troops are close enough to shoot at the enemy the wind could easily blow the toxins away from the enemy or towards you, or just away from the enemy in any random direction not affecting you. It's also a problem that chemical weapons do not stay in the atmosphere for very long. Simply sitting in your house and closing all the doors and windows would almost certainly prevent enough toxins entering to do you any serious damage in the event of an attack on a city.

Two solutions.

1. Launch the chem / bio weapons when the weather conditions are ideal.

2. Launch the chem / bio weapons aganist cities during Rush Hours (6 - 9 AM, and 4 - 7 PM). In real life, cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. have hundreds of thousands of people walking around during the day. People going to work, going out for lunch, going to city parks, shopping at malls, etc.

Now, upscale that to NS populations and mega-cities. I'd be able to kill millions in a NS city, hitting all those people who "walk around" doing their businesses or lesuires during the daytime. Thus, the enemy's economy is trashed, then when I move in, I will have all the factories, malls, etc. intact. Survivors of the chem / bio attack will be easily dealt with.

4) They also have a tendancy to be absorbed by vegetation and persist for years, only being released when the ground is disturbed. In short, you are likely to kill some people, maim a lot (most WWI casualties to gas were not killed outright... not by the gas anyway...), but it's more of a nuisance on a national level rather than an oh-my-god-we're-all-going-to-die type event.

I can engage in clean-up efforts to solve this "persist" problem. Ground containing bio-toxins and chemical residues are far easier to dipose of than radiation ground. I can put the toxic ground into large incinerator factories, then put the ash to good use. The toxic air and such, a byproduct of the incinerators, can be dealt with via extensive scrubber systems, purifying the air.

However, all these cannot be done with radiation, because radiation is pretty much permanent for 24,000 years. No amount of scrubbing or incineration will get rid of radiation. I'd rather use toxins and pay any extra expenses in such efforts that last for 10 - 20 years than wait 24,000 years to live on my land again (when radiation dissolves).

5) Biological agents (especially ones that can be used effectively as weapons) tend to spread. Very quickly, and almost silently. As soon as you've launched, all it takes is for someone to get on an aeroplane and it's just spread all around the world. What's worse is that you don't know it's reached any one country for at the very least a few days (after the incubation period ends).

A solution would be to cordon off the affected areas, or closing all international flights to Sharina, or to the area being affected (whoever I'd be invading). Ditto for international shipping and the like.

This would help prevent the spread of biological agents into the world.

6) All of these attacks are likely to get you nuked. Chemical weapons will cause an lot of damage to the target nation but nothing too fatal, biological weapons will kill 99% of the world's population but regardless of what happens to anyone else, if you launch them against a nuclear power you get splatted very quickly with thousands of ICBMs which no AMBS can protect against enough of.

I can build a much stronger SDI system with the money and resources I save from scrapping all my nuclear weapons.

Suppose Sharina spends $1 trillion annually on nuclear weapons. By giving up the nuclear weapons, Sharina will save the $1 trillion, and thus, be able to add that $1 trillion to SDI systems. Ditto for resources and manpower. With that $1 trillion, I can double or triple my SDI systems by adding thousands more ABM missiles, or hundreds of SDI satellites equipped with laser weapons (Like in the Tom Clancy novels).

If the enemy decides to number-wank nukes and ICBM's I can simply "return-wank" with thousands of ABM missiles and hundreds of SDI lasers.

In addition, my AA is focused on enhanced flak guns with accuracy and targeting aid from computers, rather than SAM missiles (as missiles can be fooled whereas solid projectiles cannot). I'll be able to throw up so many shells in the air directly in the path of the missiles that these missiles internals would be shredded like tissue paper. Then the internal electronics won't be able to initate the countdown or the actual detonation of the nuclear core.

7) Not entirely related, but still... I hate it when people claim to shoot down every sat that passes over their nation all of the time. Except for those in geo-stationary orbit (which isn't all that much, other than communications satellites) Every satellite in the world will pass over your territory periodically. Right now satellites in a moderately high orbit have a few years of lifespan. With any amount of fuel they could reasonably fit into a rocket to launch into space, the average lifespan of a NS satellite would be a few days if it had to keep weaving around nations like people demand they should...

I did not say I'd shoot down every satellite that crosses my territory.

I'd let allied satellites pass by, while training my SDI weapons upon neutral and "hostile" satellites but do not actually fire upon them. However, if any object exits those satellites, then they will actually be shot down (along with the objects). Then if it wasn't an ICBM or laser satellite, I'll promptly pay reparations, but it is extremely unlikely that weather, communications, GPS, etc. satellites would extend objects the size of ICBM's or laser cannons out of themselves.

This way, I can significantly reduce the effectiveness of "surprise" and "sneak" attacks. Any obvious weapons satellites (external missiles, external laser cannons, etc.) that cross into my airspace will be asked to leave. If they refuse, then they will be shot down.

I can also employ EMP weapons to eliminate any hostile satellites that begin firing upon my nation, equipment, or holdings.

Finally, most nuclear attacks end up being IGNORED or ruin RP's, so why bother? I lose nothing by not having nukes, as I'll be able to fund a larger conventional force and more effective defense systems than a nation of similiar size who possesses nukes.

The nation that possesses nukes will have to deal with the costs in resources, manpower, and money for things that would probably never be used in RP's without them being IGNORES. Consquently, nuke-owning nations will have significantly smaller and less well-equipped conventional militaries than non-nuke nations.

Red Tide2

27-05-2005, 22:09

OOC:No system is 100% effective. There are also something called 'decoys'.

And, as stated before, the reentering RV would send the same signal to the radar as a meteor, and you havent even contemplated the issue with kamikaze sattelites.

And charging enemy positions are a excellent way to get your tanks blown up by the OTHERSIDES NBC protected tanks(who would be extra difficult to see in the immense clouds of gas).
Also, a RV is half the size of a human. The reason the ICBMs are so huge is because they have to get said RV OUT of the atmosphere first.

Praetonia

27-05-2005, 22:21

All I have to do is to roll in my full NBC protected vehicles, such as tanks and APC's to destroy the floundering enemy infantry, while my own infantry stays back until the "all-clear" is given.

This would nullify the "OMG! I send 10 million man invasion army aganist j00!" should I be invaded. Conversely, should I be the invading nation, I can reduce vast numbers of enemy infantry, making the jobs of my own infantry easier in the long run. My infantry would have an easier time when lots and lots of the enemy infantry are either dying or dead from a combined bio / chem attack WITH my NBC-proof vehicles swooping in for kills.

That, or I could use artillery and missiles to bombard the legions of enemy infantry in haz-mat suits.
And you assume that the enemy does not also have tanks with NBC filters? And you assume that the enemy are completely incompetent and cannot operate ATGWs whilst wearing haz-mat suits... you also assume that in the event of a protracted war the enemy will not fire back against you with nuclear weapons. And I don't see how wearing a haz-mat suit makes you any more or less suseptible to being killed by an intensive bombardment.

Understood. However, tactics can win wars. Many NS'ers don't RP tactics in warfare, as they mindlessly throw soldiers, tanks, missiles, ships, planes, etc. aganist each other WW-I style. A glorified meat-grinder.

I can employ a one-and-two punch. I launch bio or chem weapons aganist concentrations of enemy infantry, then follow up with tanks, APC's, missiles, artillery, etc. while keeping my infantry back for urban defense and the like.
So you're intending to attack an enemy position manned by slightly-debilitated infantry as well as all the related armoured, aviation and artillery with just armour, aviation and artillery? Somehow I don't see this working very well...

Two solutions.

1. Launch the chem / bio weapons when the weather conditions are ideal.
I'm nuking you now. What are you going to do about it? You don't have time to wait.

2. Launch the chem / bio weapons aganist cities during Rush Hours (6 - 9 AM, and 4 - 7 PM). In real life, cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. have hundreds of thousands of people walking around during the day. People going to work, going out for lunch, going to city parks, shopping at malls, etc.

Now, upscale that to NS populations and mega-cities. I'd be able to kill millions in a NS city, hitting all those people who "walk around" doing their businesses or lesuires during the daytime. Thus, the enemy's economy is trashed, then when I move in, I will have all the factories, malls, etc. intact. Survivors of the chem / bio attack will be easily dealt with.
Oh of course, and equally they would have hundreds of thousands not walking to or from work. Equally they would have between 30 minutes and 2 hours worth of warning that an attack was coming. You can protect people against chemical weapons relatively easily (I'll go into the horrible impracticalities of biological weapons later...), you can't simply shut the door and protect yourself from a 100 atmosphere over-pressure moving at several thousand miles per hour.

I can engage in clean-up efforts to solve this "persist" problem. Ground containing bio-toxins and chemical residues are far easier to dipose of than radiation ground. I can put the toxic ground into large incinerator factories, then put the ash to good use. The toxic air and such, a byproduct of the incinerators, can be dealt with via extensive scrubber systems, purifying the air.

However, all these cannot be done with radiation, because radiation is pretty much permanent for 24,000 years. No amount of scrubbing or incineration will get rid of radiation. I'd rather use toxins and pay any extra expenses in such efforts that last for 10 - 20 years than wait 24,000 years to live on my land again (when radiation dissolves).
This is massively expensive, and involves basically ripping up the city that you've caputured (assuming that the enemy, who presumably has a nuclear retaliation available, simply sits there for a few years whilst you assemble an invasion force and occupy their nation) and building it again. You might as well not bother.

A solution would be to cordon off the affected areas, or closing all international flights to Sharina, or to the area being affected (whoever I'd be invading). Ditto for international shipping and the like.

This would help prevent the spread of biological agents into the world.
So you'll accept destroying any capablity of any nation to trade or move people around, including yourself, as a trade-off for not having nuclear weapons? Strange... you're also condemning yourself to being nuked by dozens of uninvolved nations (including my own) for effectively wiping them out over a conflict of no concern to them.

I can build a much stronger SDI system with the money and resources I save from scrapping all my nuclear weapons.

Suppose Sharina spends $1 trillion annually on nuclear weapons. By giving up the nuclear weapons, Sharina will save the $1 trillion, and thus, be able to add that $1 trillion to SDI systems. Ditto for resources and manpower. With that $1 trillion, I can double or triple my SDI systems by adding thousands more ABM missiles, or hundreds of SDI satellites equipped with laser weapons (Like in the Tom Clancy novels).

If the enemy decides to number-wank nukes and ICBM's I can simply "return-wank" with thousands of ABM missiles and hundreds of SDI lasers.

Not... really... as you say, you're not scrapping the really expensive parts, the ICBMs, only the warheads (why the hell do you spend 2/3 of the UK's GDP on nuclear weapons, btw). You'd probably save, at most, about 30% of your strategic weapons bill by switching to inferior chemical or biological alternatives. And SDI can never be 100% accurate. The US, the only country in the real world to try to build one of these, has been trying to make one for 20 years and cannot even hit a missile unless they know it's coming and it's painted flourescent silver. Even with a NS tech-wanked / godmodded 99% accuracy rate, with 10,000 missile (about the same as the USSR had I think... I forget...) that's 1,000 missiles getting through. Suppose each has a modest 5 MIRV warheads. That's 5,000 warheads... not much left of Sharina, now is there?

In addition, my AA is focused on enhanced flak guns with accuracy and targeting aid from computers, rather than SAM missiles (as missiles can be fooled whereas solid projectiles cannot). I'll be able to throw up so many shells in the air directly in the path of the missiles that these missiles internals would be shredded like tissue paper. Then the internal electronics won't be able to initate the countdown or the actual detonation of the nuclear core.
You wouldn't even be able to track an ICBM on re-entry, let alone target it with something like an AA gun. A RL ICBM on re-entry is going about Mach 24. You wouldn't even be able to train the gun in time. Most of the ABM systems rely on taking down missiles in the boost stage.

I did not say I'd shoot down every satellite that crosses my territory.

I'd let allied satellites pass by, while training my SDI weapons upon neutral and "hostile" satellites but do not actually fire upon them. However, if any object exits those satellites, then they will actually be shot down (along with the objects). Then if it wasn't an ICBM or laser satellite, I'll promptly pay reparations, but it is extremely unlikely that weather, communications, GPS, etc. satellites would extend objects the size of ICBM's or laser cannons out of themselves.

This way, I can significantly reduce the effectiveness of "surprise" and "sneak" attacks. Any obvious weapons satellites (external missiles, external laser cannons, etc.) that cross into my airspace will be asked to leave. If they refuse, then they will be shot down.

I can also employ EMP weapons to eliminate any hostile satellites that begin firing upon my nation, equipment, or holdings.
*sigh* The first part is reasonable, but the whole point is that you cant "ask a satellite to leave". They only carry enough fuel to make minor course adjustments. They couldn't leave your nation even if they wanted to, and it would probably be quicker for them just to follow their normal orbit pattern away from your nation anyway.

Finally, most nuclear attacks end up being IGNORED or ruin RP's, so why bother? I lose nothing by not having nukes, as I'll be able to fund a larger conventional force and more effective defense systems than a nation of similiar size who possesses nukes.

The nation that possesses nukes will have to deal with the costs in resources, manpower, and money for things that would probably never be used in RP's without them being IGNORES. Consquently, nuke-owning nations will have significantly smaller and less well-equipped conventional militaries than non-nuke nations.
You should bother because for a small fee (the UK has about 300 nuclear warheads and a £32bn total defence budget... I dont see them breaking the bank with my $11tn defence budget) I could hold your entire nation for ransom and missile-point and unless a friendly ally was willing to step in and risk getting nuked on your behalf, you would have nothing you could do to stop me.

Sharina

28-05-2005, 00:21

And you assume that the enemy does not also have tanks with NBC filters? And you assume that the enemy are completely incompetent and cannot operate ATGWs whilst wearing haz-mat suits... you also assume that in the event of a protracted war the enemy will not fire back against you with nuclear weapons. And I don't see how wearing a haz-mat suit makes you any more or less suseptible to being killed by an intensive bombardment.

Most NS war RP's result in WW-I type battles of pure numbers and attrition. You throw 10 million troops aganist the enemy, hoping your 10 million troops can overwhelm the enemy's 7 million troops. I have yet to see war RP's that actually employ geniune tactics and strategy.

Haz-mat suits severely limit mobility, speed, and dexterity. Infantry won't be able to run, jump, strafe, dodge, etc. as effectively as they would without wearing haz-mat suits. Thus, infantry would be in a much weaker position, hence this strategy.

So you're intending to attack an enemy position manned by slightly-debilitated infantry as well as all the related armoured, aviation and artillery with just armour, aviation and artillery? Somehow I don't see this working very well...

It will work very well if the enemy has multi-million man infantry. You can't possibly have 1 million tanks and crap, can you? In NS, nations throw millions of infantry soldiers around like there's nothing to it.

In the clouds and miasma that results from massive bio / chem / etc. the enemy's tanks, artillery, planes, etc. will be just as blind as my stuff will be. Works both ways.

In addition, I have one of the best artillery platforms, my 800mm Colossus cannons. These beasts can act as "knock-over" weapons, as their 10-ton shells will create heavy concussion waves upon impact, flipping over enemy tanks and heavy equipment. This will make my mop-up job somewhat easier.

The enemy's infantry is pretty much taken out of the picture, as they would be like beached whales trying to defend aganist my attack. Thus, it will result in my armor vs enemy's armor, my artillery vs enemy artillery, and so on, without any serious infantry action on either side.

The enemy will be forced to use up a lot of money, as well as have much worse logistics than me when they are forced to equip their 10 million infantry men with haz-mat suits.

I'm nuking you now. What are you going to do about it? You don't have time to wait.

Ahh... I haven't seen any player RP weather effects in war RP's to date. I will simply shoot down your incoming ICBM's and nukes with all my SDI systems, AA batteries, ABM's, etc. and hope for the best.

However, firing nukes as 1st strike doesn't happen 99% of the time without being IGNORED. People would treat those kinds of 1st strike nuking as n00bish behavior, and IGNORE that.

In addition, enemy nations would be likely to nuke me if I use WMD's aganist them. Thus, I will not be the one who strikes first with WMD's. What's more is that if I don't have nukes, I'm not a "threat" to be nuked immediately or a "nuclear power" that would be the first to die in a nuclear war.

By adopting a less threatening stance, and having no nukes, I'll eventually gain the upper hand in politics in the long run. I can expand, build up, etc. quietly while everybody else is shouting at each other and threaten each other with nukes.

Oh of course, and equally they would have hundreds of thousands not walking to or from work. Equally they would have between 30 minutes and 2 hours worth of warning that an attack was coming. You can protect people against chemical weapons relatively easily (I'll go into the horrible impracticalities of biological weapons later...), you can't simply shut the door and protect yourself from a 100 atmosphere over-pressure moving at several thousand miles per hour.

30 minutes to 2 hours worth of warning?

If my ICBM's and such carrying biological and chemical weapons take that long to travel to the enemy nation, then this means the enemy's nukes will take approximately the same amount of time reaching me.

Consquently, I will have 30 minutes to 2 hours to shoot down all incoming nuke ICBM's and crap, first with satellites, then the ones that get past my satellites will be targeted by naval vessels. Then if any nukes get past that line of defense, my AA and ABM systems take them on. I can also use planes to attack or ram incoming nukes as well.

This is massively expensive, and involves basically ripping up the city that you've caputured (assuming that the enemy, who presumably has a nuclear retaliation available, simply sits there for a few years whilst you assemble an invasion force and occupy their nation) and building it again. You might as well not bother.

Use a lot of money to rebuild a city or landscape from toxic bio / chem weapons and have it all clean within 10 - 20 years?

Or wait 24,000 years to re-inhabit the city or landscape after nuke radiation dissipates?

Hard choice. :rolleyes:

I'd go with the 10 - 20 year wait time instead of 24,000 years.

So you'll accept destroying any capablity of any nation to trade or move people around, including yourself, as a trade-off for not having nuclear weapons? Strange... you're also condemning yourself to being nuked by dozens of uninvolved nations (including my own) for effectively wiping them out over a conflict of no concern to them.

Actually, if I'm invading a nation, I will cordon off the areas under attack by bio / chem weapons. Then gradually expand the area, until no new cases of bio / chem victims are occurring. Then clean-up and re-open the area to foreign trade and people.

What's more, there could be other ports, airports, cities, etc. out of the way of the bio / chem attack. A bio / chem attack aganist New York City would have little to no effect aganist, say, Los Angeles, Denver, or Houston (+2000 miles away). Those three cities would still be able to recieve foreign trade and people, thus trade and international relations are maintained.

In NS, nations could claim / exist on 10,000 mile wide continents all to themselves.

If I'm the nation being invaded, I would employ biological and chemical weapons as A LAST RESORT, assuming 80% - 90% of my soldiers, tanks, artillery, etc. are killed + destroyed. Because at that time, I have nothing left to lose, so "screw the world" and go out in a blaze of glory.

I would employ a scorched earth policy, self-destructing in such a manner that my continent will be un-inhabitable for millennia, while killing as many of the invaders as possible. This will only happen if my back was aganist the wall with no options and no ways out available.

Not... really... as you say, you're not scrapping the really expensive parts, the ICBMs, only the warheads (why the hell do you spend 2/3 of the UK's GDP on nuclear weapons, btw). You'd probably save, at most, about 30% of your strategic weapons bill by switching to inferior chemical or biological alternatives. And SDI can never be 100% accurate. The US, the only country in the real world to try to build one of these, has been trying to make one for 20 years and cannot even hit a missile unless they know it's coming and it's painted flourescent silver. Even with a NS tech-wanked / godmodded 99% accuracy rate, with 10,000 missile (about the same as the USSR had I think... I forget...) that's 1,000 missiles getting through. Suppose each has a modest 5 MIRV warheads. That's 5,000 warheads... not much left of Sharina, now is there?

I was only throwing the $1 trillion number as an example. I don't actually spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons.

30% is a damn good number, which I can divert to reinforce my SDI defenses and / or conventional military by 30%.

100% accuracy doesn't matter if you have sheer quantity. If 1,000 nuke missiles are headed my way, and I have 5,000 ABM missiles, I'd have 5 ABM missiles for each nuke missile. This means I'll have a damn good chance of shooting all 1,000 down. I can afford to have 4 ABM missiles miss or hit decoys, while the last one connects with the enemy ICBM.

That'd be 20% accuracy (1 ABM missile hits out of 5 total ABM's per enemy nuke), with 100% confirmed kills, all nuke missiles destroyed. From what I've seen, many NS SDI systems operate at 50% - 70% accuracy.

You wouldn't even be able to track an ICBM on re-entry, let alone target it with something like an AA gun. A RL ICBM on re-entry is going about Mach 24. You wouldn't even be able to train the gun in time. Most of the ABM systems rely on taking down missiles in the boost stage.

A few points to make.

1. My space satellites can discover the missiles entering space, calculate their trajectories, then transmit possible trajectories info to my ground guns, assuming my ground guns are guarding aganist ICBM's at that time.

2. My AA guns could target cruise missiles and bombers carrying nuke payloads, not ICBM's. Thus, taking a load off my SDI resources, allowing my core SDI systems to focus on ICBM's in space.

3. Distances in NS Earth are easily 100x the distances in RL Earth, so Mach 24 would mean nothing. Mach 24 would be a snail's pace in Jupiter sized Earth, as the distance between the ground and space would be 100x the distance in RL Earth. In RL Earth, it is 60 - 100 miles between ground and outer space, I believe. In NS Earth, that distance would be 6,000 - 10,000 miles between ground and outer space.

Thus, ample time to prepare for mach 24 ICBM's.

However, to attain the "no-time-to-respond" factor in NS Earth, the ICBM's would have to travel at Mach 100+ or more, which is not possible in MT times.

*sigh* The first part is reasonable, but the whole point is that you cant "ask a satellite to leave". They only carry enough fuel to make minor course adjustments. They couldn't leave your nation even if they wanted to, and it would probably be quicker for them just to follow their normal orbit pattern away from your nation anyway.

I stated clearly that I would allow allied satellites to pass over my nation without question.

"Neutral" and "Hostile" satellites will be allowed to pass over my nation, BUT with my SDI weapons trained on them, prepared to fire on a moment's notice.

Only obvious weapons satellites, like satellites with external missile modules, laser gun modules, etc. clearly and blatantly obvious, will be asked to leave or be shot down.

If the "neutral" or "hostile" satellites being WATCHED make any weird or abnormal movements towards my nation landmass, then action will be taken. If large objects are seen exiting otherwise normal satellites, the objects will be destroyed promptly.

In other words, any satellites EXCEPT weapons satellites will be allowed to pass over my nation, but will be very closely monitored by my SDI systems, to minimize any surprise or sneak attacks.

You should bother because for a small fee (the UK has about 300 nuclear warheads and a £32bn total defence budget... I dont see them breaking the bank with my $11tn defence budget) I could hold your entire nation for ransom and missile-point and unless a friendly ally was willing to step in and risk getting nuked on your behalf, you would have nothing you could do to stop me.

Threats, hostage-holding, etc. mean little in RP's because of several factors.

1. IGNORE cannons being fired by players.

2. If the nation is destroyed, the player can simply RP rebuilding in another part of NS Earth, or take control of their nation in a parallel universe.

3. Hostage situations are quite difficult to RP in NS without being IGNORED or calls of god-modding.

4. The player can quit NS for a bit, then come back as a different era nation. He/she could go FT, PMT, or Pre-MT era and RP different history or whatever.

Putting all these facts aside, if this was to happen in the real world, I'd still have the threat of massive bio / chem return attacks, completely destroying your nation's crops, ecology, and such if your follow through with your nuke threats.

Consquently, your nation would collapse on itself as your people starve, cities become empty desolate places, the populace cowering in fear of becoming re-infected, etc. What's more, if the bio-damage spreads to other nations, they would blame not just me, but you as well. They'd consider it your fault for nuking me, and getting bio'ed in return. They would also say that if you hadn't threatened / hostage'd me then no bio-damage would have happened.

We both lose, not just me.

Bottom line.... Bio / chem weapons are just as destructive as nukes, while having two major advantages over nukes.

1. Infrastructure remains intact with bio / chemical weapons, while everything is melted to slag by nukes, unusable.

2. No 24,000 year waiting period for nuke radiation to dissipate. You can clean up bio / chem damage / effects within 10 - 30 years, or more... a far cry from 24,000 years.

Omz222

28-05-2005, 00:38

2. My AA guns could target cruise missiles and bombers carrying nuke payloads, not ICBM's. Thus, taking a load off my SDI resources, allowing my core SDI systems to focus on ICBM's in space.

That statement directly contradicts the statement amde by you in the same thread:
Ahh... I haven't seen any player RP weather effects in war RP's to date. I will simply shoot down your incoming ICBM's and nukes with all my SDI systems, AA batteries, ABM's, etc. and hope for the best.

Even if it is a simple error, Praetonia still has a point in that it would be relatively difficult to train an AAA gun (whatever directed, radar or whatnot) onto a high-speed target, especially supersonic targets that travels at a high speed and a reasonable altitude. At high altitudes, this is further complicated by the fact that very few if any anti-aircraft rounds are able to reach such altitudes, thus it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to hit anything, let along damage anything, at high altitudes using projectile-based systems. Further, even if you use saturation tactics such as "peppering" an area full of shrapnel from anti-aircraft rounds, it'll still prove much less effective than the usage of surface-to-air missiles, which are much more accurate, better in performance, mobile (whereas large-calibre AAA guns like the famous 88mm and early-generation SAMs are far less mobile than today's air defene units), and does not require too many units to achieve the same effect. These factors are also the reason why most countries has abandoned large-calibre AAA guns in favour of guided missiles starting in the fifties, with small-calibre automatic AAA guns used for low altitude air defence (which is still very deadly to this day)

Sharina

28-05-2005, 00:47

That statement directly contradicts the statement amde by you in the same thread:

An error, I apologize for that.

Even if it is a simple error, Praetonia still has a point in that it would be relatively difficult to train an AAA gun (whatever directed, radar or whatnot) onto a high-speed target, especially supersonic targets that travels at a high speed and a reasonable altitude. At high altitudes, this is further complicated by the fact that very few if any anti-aircraft rounds are able to reach such altitudes, thus it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to hit anything, let along damage anything, at high altitudes using projectile-based systems. Further, even if you use saturation tactics such as "peppering" an area full of shrapnel from anti-aircraft rounds, it'll still prove much less effective than the usage of surface-to-air missiles, which are much more accurate, better in performance, mobile (whereas large-calibre AAA guns like the famous 88mm and early-generation SAMs are far less mobile than today's air defene units), and does not require too many units to achieve the same effect. These factors are also the reason why most countries has abandoned large-calibre AAA guns in favour of guided missiles starting in the fifties, with small-calibre automatic AAA guns used for low altitude air defence (which is still very deadly to this day)

I am aware of the fact that WW-II type of flak guns and modern projectile systems most likely won't be able to reach missiles and aircraft travelling at 40,000+ feet up.

hence, me considering switching over to railguns as AA weapons. With railguns, I can achieve 2000+ meter per second velocities, which means my projectiles would possibly have "escape velocity" speeds. In roughly 10 seconds, my projectiles launched from railguns can reach 20,000 meters, or approx. 65,000 feet up.

If railguns doesn't work, I can research hyper-velocity guns and the like, with 2,000 - 3,000 meter per second velocities. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that some infantry guns can fire at 1,000 - 1,500 meters per second velocities.

I'm attempting to develop a completely different AA system that can't be fooled by the missile countermeasures (Chaff, sensor jamming, fake signatures, etc.) that everybody and their uncles in NS are making / using. In these times, missiles are getting smarter and smarter, perhaps too smart.

To defeat uber-tech's, solutions can be found in low-tech's or old tech's instead of making more uber-tech or uber-wank.

Omz222

28-05-2005, 00:57

Aztec National League

28-05-2005, 01:13

We applaud this action towards peace by Sharina. The ANL has long abandoned nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. We see these weapons as dishonorable and we are glad to see the disarmament of these terrible blemishes upon humanity.

-Premier Quetzalcoatl Nochtli
USRANL

Sharina

28-05-2005, 02:41

Velocity and the maximum altitude is ot the question, however, it is the question of whether you'd actually be able to hit the target or not. Most large-calibre anti-aircraft guns in the 40es and 50es were actuall able to hit targets flying at a fraction of the altitude you mentioned, but it would never bw too practical by doing so. Further, as shown in different instances, a hit by anti-aircraft gun on a large target (direct or by the shrapnel of the exploded projectile) doesn't necessarily mean a kill, as there has been various examples of large jet aircraft (especially bombers) limping back after suffering hits by AAA. Even then, massing railguns in large concentrations of air defence systems would be an extraordinary waste of money, especially when considering that missiles designed for high-altitude air defence can do a much better job at a cheaper cost in the long term, and in terms of efficency.

My flak guns, either railguns or hyper-velocity guns, will use computers to improve accuracy and efficiency. The flak guns in WW-II were able to shoot down enemy planes through sheer numbers of shells thrown in the air, and WW-II planes didn't fly 20,000+ feet up in the sky (As far as I know).

My flak guns won't waste as many shells and such, because of precise targeting using geometry and trigometry. Here is what would essentially happen...

1. Enemy launches a missile or aircraft.
2. My sensors detect the incoming missile / aircraft.
3. The sensors route that information into computer banks.
4. Computer banks formulate firing solutions using geometry and trigeometry.
5. Computer banks direct the AA guns to correct positions.
6. AA guns fire upon the incoming missile / plane.
7. If enemy missile / plane is not destroyed, repeat steps 1 - 6 at the next AA gun station.

The computers will take into account the plane or missile's projected course, then factor in their speed. Then they will calculate the necessary vector / path of my flak projectiles to intercept the incoming plane / missile. Then calculate the angle and position that my guns will have to swivel and raise / lower to. After those calculations are done, the guns fire after achieving their final position. This entire process can take less than 5 seconds, ample time when the extreme distances of NS Earth are taken into account. In addition, 5 seconds calculating time is quite possible, as computers are pretty powerful now, and will be even more so in 5 or 10 more years. We already have supercomputers capable of terabytes (1 trillion bytes), as opposed to mere megabytes (1 million bytes) 15 years ago. Within the next 5 - 10 years, we can probably have petabytes (1 thousand trillion bytes) or exabytes (1 million trillion bytes) computers.

This system is semi-automated to eliminate human errors with targeting, while cutting down on time dramatically. The automous part is the computer calculations and the automatic positoning of guns directly linked to computer systems. The "semi" part is that my people still can control the system, by raising or lowering alert status (so not to shoot down friendly aircraft, kites, birds, etc.) and the guns retain the ability to be manually operated, should the computers and electronics parts be disrupted or fail.

With the system you are developing, the gun itself doesn't matter, but the system that directs it (e.g. a radar) matters. It'd be possible to develop a system that has improved resistance against ECM and decoys, but you can never make a foolproof system. Old technologies, while they may hold against something newer on their own, are still far from foolproof just like many newer technologies today.

True. However, I can enhance my "directing" systems by using more than one sensor system. I can use LIDAR, Infrared, Sonar, SQUID, LADAR, AWACS planes, etc. in a sophiscated sensor system that will be able to "sweep" and analyze every possible spectrum. Stealth planes and crap will be more readily detected via this method of multi-sensor'ing than relying solely on one system, such as RADAR-only.

I completely agree that there is no fool-proof technology, except perhaps in the future (FT eras). However, sometimes old tech can beat new uber-tech, as I've been trying to do lately.

An example would be using WW-II type of concepts and technologies to defeat 2000 - 2020 technology. Some of these would include using ultra-heavy artillery systems to combat concentrations of enemy troops, or combat naval ships bombarding my shores. Another instance would be using the German super-tank concept, (placing naval guns on a tank chassis, as evidenced by the P-1000 tank) to defeat these "OMG! Uber-tanks of d00m" that nations like Doomingsland uses.

Sometimes raw power and raw technology is the only way to defeat fancy tech gizmos, instead of wasting billions or trillions of dollars trying to develop even more uber-tech to counter the original uber-tech. Examples of this include using simple rubbing sticks with dry straw or grass to start fires instead of fancy matches or cigarette lighters. Using sharpened wooden sticks to hunt instead of fancy shotguns, rifles, or laser weapons. That sort of thing.

Green Sun

28-05-2005, 02:49

((What are you people trying to do, get him to start his nuclear program again? If he wants to blow billions of his anti-nuclear systems, let him!))

Omz222

28-05-2005, 03:11

Your system is basically what they used to do in some of the later anti-aircraft gun systems starting in the fifties, using radar and a computer to calculate the lead needed to target the hostile aircraft. However, even with a lot of processing power (I'd assume that your computers are measured in the terahertz and not terabyte, as terabyte is an unit used for measuring the capacity of a computer storage system), it's almost guarenteed that such computers are still aids rather than being the magical weapon, as there are still a lot of factors that could make the projectiles inaccurate (similar to releasing bombs, really). With respects to the statement about the flak guns, indeed there has been very high concentrations of anti-aircraft guns during the strategic bombing campaign of WWII, though that fact is quite irrelevant to the current matter at hand, where it is irrational to say that anti-aircraft guns could be suddenly made very precise with the use of computers, as these computer systems are simply aids in aiming the guns at the targets.

In regards to sensors. While it is indeed true that stealth aircraft can be detected in various ways, it is also guarenteed that there's no guarenteed and foolproof ways to detect them, and that each system has their own shortcomings. For example, low frequency and bistatic radars are generally too inaccurate to be used to track and target airborne targets precisely, while systems such as LIDAR/LADAR are prone to bad weather conditions. I have serious doubts about using sonar, though acoustic based detection systems were used to detect aircraft raids in the WWII timeframe, measuring the altitude and bearing of the target. Finally, the AWACS is a platform, not a sensor, as it consists of the sensor itself, in addition to a full array of communication and control suites. I have very serious doubts about using SQUID, and using these sensors in a network alone won't solve any problems. It is the deployment of them.

EDIT: In regards to some of the later statements. While admittingly many of the tanks that nations around NS uses are pretty much souped up with a lot of technology and firepower, using a failed concept from WWII is incredibly stupid, as essentially you'd be placing platforms that are barely mobile as targets and cannon fodder for an enemy with superior tactics and equipment. Ultra-heavy artillery systems are similar, and are far from foolproof, as they are generally huge targets, immobile, and simply impractical for wide-scale deployment (as in the case, for example, of the 600mm German mortars used in the siege of Sevastopol). By implying that you could use size to defeat better technologies, it doesn't prove anything except the fact that such analysis is in fact, flawed in the sense that it's rather the deployment and usage of them that makes them effective, as opposed to sheer size. If you still insist on such logic to defeat such technology as you described, you'll either need a lot of luck, or a lot of time when considering that you could just use a lighter to start a fire instead of using other comparatively time-wasting and inefficient processes, or to get dangerously close to an animal and stab sticks in them as opposed of just shooting them. With the same logic, why should we eat with forks when we could ust use our hands; or in a similar scenario, why learn to write when you can speak?

I agree that superior technologies can be defeated, but it is not the size or simplicity that defeats it, but rather a combination of the superior characteristics of the "inferior" technology used and the usage of them. This also works in reverse, as in this case it's also about the efficiency of the method, instead of being about how one could just make fire using some sticks and grass - admittingly, rather inefficent and quite stupid when a superior method is available.

Sharina

28-05-2005, 03:38

Your system is basically what they used to do in some of the later anti-aircraft gun systems starting in the fifties, using radar and a computer to calculate the lead needed to target the hostile aircraft. However, even with a lot of processing power (I'd assume that your computers are measured in the terahertz and not terabyte, as terabyte is an unit used for measuring the capacity of a computer storage system), it's almost guarenteed that such computers are still aids rather than being the magical weapon, as there are still a lot of factors that could make the projectiles inaccurate (similar to releasing bombs, really). With respects to the statement about the flak guns, indeed there has been very high concentrations of anti-aircraft guns during the strategic bombing campaign of WWII, though that fact is quite irrelevant to the current matter at hand, where it is irrational to say that anti-aircraft guns could be suddenly made very precise with the use of computers, as these computer systems are simply aids in aiming the guns at the targets.

I'm merely using the computers to increase the probability / chance of my AA guns of actually hitting the targets.

More modern computers would be much more capable of calculating possible variances in weather, irregular flight patterns, wind velocity, etc. than 1950's computers. Thus, it would be more feasible and efficient for my computer systems to predict possible enemy plane / missile vectors with more processing power, and at quicker speeds as well.

The computers issue aside, I could possibly compensate for the potential "inaccuracy" factors. I could tie in several AA gun emplacements to fire upon the same target, or I could employ multi-barreled guns with capacity of firing several rounds before reload.

That means there will be several projectiles that will be able to hit the incoming aircraft or missile. If every round misses, my next batch of AA guns can try again, and so on, until either the enemy planes / missiles are destroyed, or they "hit" their targets (complete their mission of bombing or missile impact).

In regards to sensors. While it is indeed true that stealth aircraft can be detected in various ways, it is also guarenteed that there's no guarenteed and foolproof ways to detect them, and that each system has their own shortcomings. For example, low frequency and bistatic radars are generally too inaccurate to be used to track and target airborne targets precisely, while systems such as LIDAR/LADAR are prone to bad weather conditions. I have serious doubts about using sonar, though acoustic based detection systems were used to detect aircraft raids in the WWII timeframe, measuring the altitude and bearing of the target. Finally, the AWACS is a platform, not a sensor, as it consists of the sensor itself, in addition to a full array of communication and control suites. I have very serious doubts about using SQUID, and using these sensors in a network alone won't solve any problems. It is the deployment of them.

This is why I employ multiple types of sensors, to compensate for each other's weaknesses, while reinforcing their strengths.

I can deploy those sensor platforms uniformly throughout my nation, and on islands as well (for advance warning). In addition, I could employ AWACS planes to any weak spot in my sensor network, to shore up the "blind-spots" or so to speak.

I'm not that proficient with military terminology or the exact pros / cons of every sensor suite, so please bear with me. I appreciate your feedback and criticism, Omz, as I am learning. :)

Sharina

28-05-2005, 04:51

Didn't catch your EDIT until just now, Omz.

EDIT: In regards to some of the later statements. While admittingly many of the tanks that nations around NS uses are pretty much souped up with a lot of technology and firepower, using a failed concept from WWII is incredibly stupid, as essentially you'd be placing platforms that are barely mobile as targets and cannon fodder for an enemy with superior tactics and equipment. Ultra-heavy artillery systems are similar, and are far from foolproof, as they are generally huge targets, immobile, and simply impractical for wide-scale deployment (as in the case, for example, of the 600mm German mortars used in the siege of Sevastopol). By implying that you could use size to defeat better technologies, it doesn't prove anything except the fact that such analysis is in fact, flawed in the sense that it's rather the deployment and usage of them that makes them effective, as opposed to sheer size. If you still insist on such logic to defeat such technology as you described, you'll either need a lot of luck, or a lot of time when considering that you could just use a lighter to start a fire instead of using other comparatively time-wasting and inefficient processes, or to get dangerously close to an animal and stab sticks in them as opposed of just shooting them. With the same logic, why should we eat with forks when we could ust use our hands; or in a similar scenario, why learn to write when you can speak?

I was merely using the German tanks as an example of low tech aganist high tech. In that example, using brute power, namely a naval ship cannon, would tear through NS's tanks which have 3 meter thick armor (3000 mm RHA). Using one or two 15-inch guns on a tank would completely shred NS's modern tanks.

Granted, that example was extreme, but I was referring to the principle.

I could use ultra-heavy artillery cannons to shred heavy fortifications, cut down infantry like a scythe via massive shrapnel shells, use the concussive shock-waves from impact of multi-ton shells (They only have to hit the ground) to flip tanks and heavy equipment over, employ 5 ton napalm shells that cannot be shot down by CIWS or SAM batteries, etc.

In this particular instance, employing old tech of heavy solid shells would be beneficial. However, if I was to use missiles, the apparent 97291728771816 CIWS and SAM batteries in any given NS nation would make short work of my missiles. The old tech of solid shell artillery would negate those over-developed and too-extensive anti-missile systems, ensuing actual hits / kills aganist enemy targets that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

I agree that superior technologies can be defeated, but it is not the size or simplicity that defeats it, but rather a combination of the superior characteristics of the "inferior" technology used and the usage of them. This also works in reverse, as in this case it's also about the efficiency of the method, instead of being about how one could just make fire using some sticks and grass - admittingly, rather inefficent and quite stupid when a superior method is available.

Sometimes simple stuff works much better than overly complicated stuff. In addition, simple stuff is much easier to understand in RP's and much more "accepted" rather than the various tech-wanking that takes place... like this...

"My X-7836-C fighter swoops upon your bomber, via a patented switching wings design that is powered by (yadda yadda yadda). The fighter releases Hammer Missiles through an exotic hydraulics system which (yadda yadda yadda)..."

Get the idea? In all honesty. reading those kind of RP's actually makes my head hurt.

That aside, I do understand that characterstics and usage of inferior technology are important. In my ultra-heavy artillery example, I demostrated those very things. Solid projectiles have three good characterstics compared to missiles... cheaper to build, near-immunity to CIWS and SAM systems, and potent concussive waves to flip over tanks and heavy equipment. As for the usage of such technology, I use them aganist large formations of enemy armor or infantry.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 04:58

OOC: Enough bickering already. We'll point out something that hasn't been discussed yet - Sharina is part of not one but two alliances. And I guarantee if some shishka attempts to nuke Sharina, they're going to get glassed many times over. Many, MANY times over. This is not one nation alone.

We could go into the many nations which have interlocking defensive systems, the reciprocal methodologies of defense, the treaties... but we'll leave that to the imagination.

In short - Sharina is very well defended even without a nuclear program because dozens of other nations will make hash out of the attacker.

Omz222

28-05-2005, 05:05

In short - Sharina is very well defended even without a nuclear program because dozens of other nations will make hash out of the attacker.
OOC: Actually, I think that's probably one of the reason why "de-nuclearization" in NS for many nations are actually feasible, and it's one of the reasons for my own "de-nuclearization" (aside from the facts that nuke wars are /generally/ viewed as bad RP, and that it's requires a colossal amount of finances). Since almost all NS nations belongs to at least one to two large alliances, it is guarenteed that the bond between these nations alone will serve as a virtual nuclear deterrence.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 05:06

OOC: Actually, I think that's probably one of the reason why "de-nuclearization" in NS for many nations are actually feasible, and it's one of the reasons for my own "de-nuclearization" (aside from the facts that nuke wars are /generally/ viewed as bad RP, and that it's requires a colossal amount of finances). Since almost all NS nations belongs to at least one to two large alliances, it is guarenteed that the bond between these nations alone will serve as a virtual nuclear deterrence.

OOC: Works for us. Vastiva uses it's nuclear program in concert with several others, and has no difficulty in maintaining it's nuclear arsenals because of an incredible trade surplus - and as we're being paid by *ahem* several nations to maintain ours so they don't have to maintain one themselves.

We do love politics.

GMC Military Arms

28-05-2005, 09:24

Changeling Founders

28-05-2005, 09:43

Not to mention that both, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were comparatively dirty nuclear detonations. Not made to be dirty (Like a fission/ fusion/ fission bomb would be), but still.

Modern nuclear weapons built to be effective instead of wasting ludicrous amounts of fission material are significantly cleaner.

Oh, and before I forget it...

6) All of these attacks are likely to get you nuked. Chemical weapons will cause an lot of damage to the target nation but nothing too fatal, biological weapons will kill 99% of the world's population but regardless of what happens to anyone else, if you launch them against a nuclear power you get splatted very quickly with thousands of ICBMs which no AMBS can protect against enough of.No they aren't. Do I need to point out poisonous chemicals being used many times since ww 1 without nukes being thrown arund? Do I need to point out that general tendency of chemical weapons to have a very limited effect, when it comes to the area effected by them? They are chemical weapons, yes. But, assuming a significant infrastructure (Wastewater treatment plants etc), they are not an effective WMD.

Furthermore, I would note the inefficiency of bioweapons. The highest mortality (Percentage of victims killed by $Disease within a given population. Yes, the entire population, not just those who show symptoms) ever was during the time of the black death, 35% (At specific places. Lower for the overall population of, say, the affected territories in europe). I hasten to note that this (Like the vastly inferior effect of syphilis) was a completely new disease entering a society that lacked any kind of preparation, be it behaviours (hygiene) or a prepared immune system. As such, it is indeed equivalent (Possibly even more dangerous) than what engineered smallpox or the likes would manage. In a third world nation suffering from famine, lacking any kind of help from the (post)industrial world, suffering overpopulation, a lack of water and religious cults requiring its (Many) members to do everything they can to be infected.

If the bioweapon is particularly, especially, and unexpectedly successful beyond any statistical probability.

In a modern, industrialised, health-conscious nation, a mortality of 0.1% would be an exceptionally good result for a bioweapon.

It is a nasty thing, yes. But 99%? Personally, I suggest you stop basing your arguments on badly researched OMFG TEH HORROR Tom Clancyesque novels.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 09:56

Just as a point of clarification.... what was the percentage of native americans killed by foreign illnesses again? How about the Incans and Aztecs?

We would also note that Black Death was treated in the timeperiod, rather successfully, with preparations including large amounts of rose hips (which contain vitamin C). While in no way a complete cure, it did reduce the effect.

So did burnouts and the relative scarcity of the population/low population density.

Modern world - much higher population density, germs which can ignore any sort of "natural" defense (ah, germ warfare), far better infection systems... I could go on, but I would estimate a modern nation with significant reason to do so could wipe out 60% to 70% of a nation's population with biological warfare if they chose to design their attack accordingly. This would be crippling.

GMC Military Arms

28-05-2005, 10:04

Modern world - much higher population density, germs which can ignore any sort of "natural" defense (ah, germ warfare), far better infection systems... I could go on, but I would estimate a modern nation with significant reason to do so could wipe out 60% to 70% of a nation's population with biological warfare if they chose to design their attack accordingly. This would be crippling.

Yes, because bioweapons are impossible to defend against and propagate at infinite speed, kill everyone they infect, and all modern nations still have primitive disease control measures and a poor understanding of transmission and spread of bacteria / viruses.

Oh wait, that's utter bullshit.

Natural immunity will get you some free survivors simply because of genetic variance, even something as adaptable as HIV can't infect some people. Most MILITARY GRADE bioweapons don't get anything approaching 100% of infections as casualties, and many not even anything like 50%. Bioweapons have been massively overhyped by the media, 60-70% is an absolutey absurd figure unless, as said, you have Black Death-era standards of disease control and a magic disease that kills everyone it infects.

In which case I'd destroy you with my secret army of invincible dragon-zombies and giant nuclear gorillas.

Changeling Founders

28-05-2005, 10:07

Just as a point of clarification.... what was the percentage of native americans killed by foreign illnesses again? How about the Incans and Aztecs?25% for the Aztecs. Less than the black death managed in europe, oddly enough.

Modern world - much higher population density, germs which can ignore any sort of "natural" defense (ah, germ warfare), far better infection systems...Oh, right, the higher population density which results in all of us fearing so many diseases, with untold millions dying every year, hundreds of thousands dead in New York, London, Berlin...

Errr... Wait... The media goes into shock when its a few dozen victims worldwide.

Why?

Oh, right, we invented effective hygiene, science, responsible for medicines, has advanced quite a bit...

A bioweapon will generally not have the decade or so it needs to manage its devastating effects.

The Most Glorious Hack

28-05-2005, 10:15

Just as a point of clarification.... what was the percentage of native americans killed by foreign illnesses again? How about the Incans and Aztecs?

Hm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples#Why_were_the_diseases_so_deadly.3F)

The people of the Old World had had thousands of years to accommodate to their common diseases; the natives of the Americas faced them all at once.

Other contributing factors:

* People fled whenever there were outbreaks of disease, which inadvertantly helped spread the disease even further. This also left few people behind to care for the infected people, who often died from lack of food and water.

* Native American medical treatments such as sweat baths and cold water immersion (practiced in some areas) weakened patients and probably increased mortality rates.

* Europeans brought so many deadly diseases with them because they had many more domesticated animals than the Native Americans. Domestication usually means close and frequent contact between animals and people, which is an opportunity for animal diseases to mutate and migrate into the human population.

So it looks like primative medical treatment, starvation, and total alienness was more the source of the problem than the disease itself. Of course, when you contract five or six deadly diseases all at once, you're pretty much fucked.

Somehow, I don't think the same conditions apply to a Modern, Post-Modern, or Future-tech nation.

By and large, biological weapons are the most inefficient weapons in the world. They're a weapon of terror and psychological warefare, not a strategic or tactical weapon.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:16

Yes, because bioweapons are impossible to defend against and propagate at infinite speed, kill everyone they infect, and all modern nations still have primitive disease control measures and a poor understanding of transmission and spread of bacteria / viruses.

Oh wait, that's utter bullshit.

Natural immunity will get you some free survivors simply because of genetic variance, even something as adaptable as HIV can't infect some people. Most MILITARY GRADE bioweapons don't get anything approaching 100% of infections as casualties, and many not even anything like 50%. Bioweapons have been massively overhyped by the media, 60-70% is an absolute absurd figure unless, as said, you have Black Death-era standards of disease control and a magic disease that kills everyone it infects.

Hang on there, GMC. We're not talking about a "single strike" and train of infection, we're talking about concerted effort to infect at once as wide an area as possible.

We're also talking about NationStates bioweapons, which involve far more financing and a far greater biodiversity then Earth could manage (considering the posited size of NSEarth, the biodiversity is staggeringly large).

So, let us consider:
a) Widespread infection, timed and set to hit large areas, with a weapon with a reasonably long incubationary period, during which it is infectious (assume by liquid transmission, such as sweat and the like, as aerosol would be difficult). Include food and water sources, and just for kicks, infect the blood supply as well.

b) Sabotage of the nation's ability to respond to that threat. As supplies themselves are infectious, the nation is paralyzed until such time new supplies can be brought into the nation. We'll also use multiple forms of infection, to wipe out the greatest number of "natural immunes", possibly piggybacking the infectors for some of the infections but not all. So lets say eight or nine different bugs. We'll also have active terrorists causing damage to the infrastructures ability to respond.

c) Set, oh, three of these to have flu-like adaptability, with a progression through animal sources to really play with the DNA/RNA of the bug, and adding greater mutation rates. So once they think they're cured - another variant shows up. Possibly, they'll have to wipe out a food source to stop this, which further causes problems.

d) Add in some nice radioactives to weaken general immune systems. Better yet, have spent years introducing immunosuppressants into the population under the radar of the government. This further increases your infection rate.

So, lethiality is increased to the 60% to 70% range of those exposed - which you have increased as much as possible. You have also clipped the ability to respond to that threat. Assuming geographical isolation (Switzerland comes to mind), your infection and lethality rate could go rather high rather quickly.

Rebuttal - and I do ask that as a moderator you demonstrate decorum.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:19

From your quoted site, Hack:

The scope of the epidemics over the years was enormous, killing millions of people — in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas — and creating "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe."6

And from you:

Of course, when you contract five or six deadly diseases all at once, you're pretty much fucked.

My quote was for eight or nine.

Would this naturally happen? No. Could it be engineered to happen? Methinks so - it would take real work, but it would be plausible.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:24

25% for the Aztecs. Less than the black death managed in europe, oddly enough.

That's not what the other source says, so apparently there's some discrepancy. Which is normal, considering the limits of study in the time period.

Oh, right, the higher population density which results in all of us fearing so many diseases, with untold millions dying every year, hundreds of thousands dead in New York, London, Berlin...

Errr... Wait... The media goes into shock when its a few dozen victims worldwide.

Why?

Oh, right, we invented effective hygiene, science, responsible for medicines, has advanced quite a bit...

A bioweapon will generally not have the decade or so it needs to manage its devastating effects.

Reread the scenario I gave. It doesn't need a decade because we are not talking about ONE disease. For that matter - if Sharina concentrates her work on bioweapons, a nation could find itself infected with thirty or forty or (lets play in FT and different planets) three hundred different diseases all at once.

Now, do explain how a widespread plague of plagues, with a sabotaged infrastructure and weakened general immunity of the population, I could not achieve a very high death rate? We'll play with ten infections going on at once, all over, no localization, and your health department can't adequately respond for six months.

GMC Military Arms

28-05-2005, 10:25

Hang on there, GMC. We're not talking about a "single strike" and train of infection, we're talking about concerted effort to infect at once as wide an area as possible.

Oh, so something that would get you a very, very big nuclear reprisal before you were even half done? Strategic strikes that take months to even start are stupid.

We're also talking about NationStates bioweapons, which involve far more financing and a far greater biodiversity then Earth could manage (considering the posited size of NSEarth, the biodiversity is staggeringly large).

Ah, random '+wankery' bioweapons with no basis in legitimate biology. As I said, magic.

So, let us consider:
a) Widespread infection, timed and set to hit large areas, with a weapon with a reasonably long incubationary period, during which it is infectious (assume by liquid transmission, such as sweat and the like, as aerosol would be difficult). Include food and water sources, and just for kicks, infect the blood supply as well.

If you have this large a network of agents in the enemy's nation don't you think there's a very, very high chance that one might have problems with unprovoked mass murder and tell someone? Oh wait, you have magic NS morale, sorry.

b) Sabotage of the nation's ability to respond to that threat. As supplies themselves are infectious, the nation is paralyzed until such time new supplies can be brought into the nation. We'll also use multiple forms of infection, to wipe out the greatest number of "natural immunes", possibly piggybacking the infectors for some of the infections but not all. So lets say eight or nine different bugs. We'll also have active terrorists causing damage to the infrastructures ability to respond.

Magic terror cells distrubuting thousands / millions of tons of magically smuggled magic viruses? My wizards would soon solve this, forsooth.

d) Add in some nice radioactives to weaken general immune systems. Better yet, have spent years introducing immunosuppressants into the population under the radar of the government. This further increases your infection rate.

A strategic strike that takes years and requires colossal amounts of radioactive material to be smuggled and enormous numbers of magically loyal agents who don't care the magic virus will kill them too versus a nuclear strike that takes hours? Wow, your armed forces must hate your guts. Do you also have bombers with a top speed of half a mile a week?

The Most Glorious Hack

28-05-2005, 10:32

My quote was for eight or nine.

One reasonably assumes that every native didn't contract every disease before dying. Of course, this only supports my point, specifically that it was a combination of factors (which would not occur in a modern nation) that caused the high death tolls.

Also, that 25% figure was for Small Pox. Therefore, one assumes that even with primative medtech, a solitary disease will have no more than a 25% mortality rate.

Would this naturally happen? No. Could it be engineered to happen? Methinks so - it would take real work, but it would be plausible.

Nevermind the fact that the tech that allows for these super-deadly viruses will also allow for super-vaccines and treatment options.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:35

Oh, so something that would get you a very, very big nuclear reprisal before you were even half done? Strategic strikes that take months to even start are stupid.

All depends on how you are planning on doing things.

On a side note, are you even capable of "polite"?

Ah, random '+wankery' bioweapons with no basis in legitimate biology. As I said, magic.

I call "bullshit" - so you'll have to show how a larger biosphere would not naturally produce more biologically active species. You can't, you lose, next.

If you have this large a network of agents in the enemy's nation don't you think there's a very, very high chance that one might have problems with unprovoked mass murder and tell someone? Oh wait, you have magic NS morale, sorry.

We'll go back to "you are obviously incapable of polite".

Considering how people are blowing themselves up in cars to kill Americans, I'd say it's possible to do with Modern brainwashing techniques - they're managing it with relatively archaic methods, and very effectively.

Magic terror cells distrubuting thousands / millions of tons of magically smuggled magic viruses? My wizards would soon solve this, forsooth.

"...still impolite..."

You don't really understand how infection works, do you? You don't need "tons" of viruses. A few dozen Typhoid Mary's works very well.

A strategic strike that takes years and requires colossal amounts of radioactive material to be smuggled and enormous numbers of magically loyal agents who don't care the magic virus will kill them too versus a nuclear strike that takes hours? Wow, your armed forces must hate your guts. Do you also have bombers with a top speed of half a mile a week?

What is your goal? Nuclear weapons leave nuclear holes. However, a massive infection that wipes out a nation over a period of time, then burns out from having no carriers... seems relatively a better way to do things.

Obviously, you don't understand what an immunosuppresive is - they do not have to be radioactive. Radioactive material was mentioned as one plausibility - however, a food additive that has a side effect of immunosuppressant activity will work just as well. Particularly if it "tastes good". (see also MSG and various additives in cosmetics)

Now you've used up your sarcasm for the thread. Do respond with decorum. Thank you.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:40

One reasonably assumes that every native didn't contract every disease before dying. Of course, this only supports my point, specifically that it was a combination of factors (which would not occur in a modern nation) that caused the high death tolls.

Also, that 25% figure was for Small Pox. Therefore, one assumes that even with primative medtech, a solitary disease will have no more than a 25% mortality rate.

This is engineered, not natural. I believe I've pointed this out. It is unnecessary for any individual or group to be affected by all current infectives: you want to wipe out those with natural immunity to one or more by having widespread infections of various types. Affecting everyone with everything is nigh impossible.

However, let us assume you first infect with an HIV-like virus, whose sole purpose is to weaken the immune response. Let that go for a few decades, relatively undetected as it's weakening is to certain proteins and not a wide number. When you strike with your larger number, insure all the weapons (or most of them, depending on the strategy) affect through the lack of that protein series. Voila - higher infection and death rate. Engineered.

Nevermind the fact that the tech that allows for these super-deadly viruses will also allow for super-vaccines and treatment options.

Already said, those get sabotaged or subverted.

WTF? I quoted Hack - and "GMC Military Arms" showed up on the quotes??? Hack = GMC? Or was that one of those "Arooo?" glitches???

Changeling Founders

28-05-2005, 10:41

That's not what the other source says, so apparently there's some discrepancy. Which is normal, considering the limits of study in the time period.Indeed. Of course, having read a few of the texts of the time period in question, well... They generally read as if 90% + died. It's just that the census they had (Specifically, registries in the churches, who was born/ married, christened, died) kinda disprove this apocalyptic versions.

As such, it is generally a good idea to use the lowest number available (Needless to say, the indians didn't even have churches/ registries to check. Well, not any the spanish could read. So I would suggest downscaling the given numbers a little more...).

Reread the scenario I gave. It doesn't need a decade because we are not talking about ONE disease. For that matter - if Sharina concentrates her work on bioweapons, a nation could find itself infected with thirty or forty or (lets play in FT and different planets) three hundred different diseases all at once.

Now, do explain how a widespread plague of plagues, with a sabotaged infrastructure and weakened general immunity of the population, I could not achieve a very high death rate? We'll play with ten infections going on at once, all over, no localization, and your health department can't adequately respond for six months.1. You're assuming that only research to increase offensive capacities is done. Oddly enough, defensive capacities (Medicine and stuff) will be boosted by others, this negating the effect. After all, everyone is having this resources.

(Technically speaking, if you want to go the biodiversity way (Unfeasible, given the MT scenario generally expressed in this thread) you will also have to deal with humans evolving inside this biospheres, featuring an immune system capable of dealing with the threat).

2. How exactly do you sabotage such an excessive infrastructure? You're dealing with god-know-how-many hospitals and even more doctors. With extremely diverse supply chains. And so on.

Not to mention that such a project, apart from risking discovery (Bad) requires you to infiltrate the target beforehand. LONG before the strike (That may never happen. After all, this is supposed to be mutually assured destruction, ne?) is eventually carried out.

It requires you to know your target.

And it is kinda hard to infiltrate $Giant_Number_Of_Nations_In_NS.

Praetonia

28-05-2005, 10:46

Most NS war RP's result in WW-I type battles of pure numbers and attrition. You throw 10 million troops aganist the enemy, hoping your 10 million troops can overwhelm the enemy's 7 million troops. I have yet to see war RP's that actually employ geniune tactics and strategy.

Haz-mat suits severely limit mobility, speed, and dexterity. Infantry won't be able to run, jump, strafe, dodge, etc. as effectively as they would without wearing haz-mat suits. Thus, infantry would be in a much weaker position, hence this strategy.
I have yet to see a 10 million man or even a 7 million man army ever used, but still, the point remains that your infantry can't either. It really makes very little overall difference since both sides will have to enter the same chemical environment.

It will work very well if the enemy has multi-million man infantry. You can't possibly have 1 million tanks and crap, can you? In NS, nations throw millions of infantry soldiers around like there's nothing to it.

In the clouds and miasma that results from massive bio / chem / etc. the enemy's tanks, artillery, planes, etc. will be just as blind as my stuff will be. Works both ways.

Modern tanks aren't affected by chemica smokescreens, as was demonstrated in the Gulf War. The main problem with your strategy is that, as we've both said, it affects both sides the same. It doesn't give you an advantage, nor does it give the enemy an advantage. It just makes war that bit worse than it already is.

In addition, I have one of the best artillery platforms, my 800mm Colossus cannons. These beasts can act as "knock-over" weapons, as their 10-ton shells will create heavy concussion waves upon impact, flipping over enemy tanks and heavy equipment. This will make my mop-up job somewhat easier.

The enemy's infantry is pretty much taken out of the picture, as they would be like beached whales trying to defend aganist my attack. Thus, it will result in my armor vs enemy's armor, my artillery vs enemy artillery, and so on, without any serious infantry action on either side.

The enemy will be forced to use up a lot of money, as well as have much worse logistics than me when they are forced to equip their 10 million infantry men with haz-mat suits.
Well my entire army is already equipped with haz-mat suits... just like every good army in the entire real world. And I still fail to understand how firing chemical weapons at someone first makes them any more suseptible to heavy artillery. It won't be a "mop-up job" it will be a "battle" and it will be utter hell, just like Ypres was when the Germans first attacked using gas in WWI.

Ahh... I haven't seen any player RP weather effects in war RP's to date. I will simply shoot down your incoming ICBM's and nukes with all my SDI systems, AA batteries, ABM's, etc. and hope for the best.

However, firing nukes as 1st strike doesn't happen 99% of the time without being IGNORED. People would treat those kinds of 1st strike nuking as n00bish behavior, and IGNORE that.
I think ignoring legitimate attacks just because you dont want to risk losing your nation / giving into someone's demands is n00bish, but that's just me. And how will you shoot down 10,000 missiles...

In addition, enemy nations would be likely to nuke me if I use WMD's aganist them. Thus, I will not be the one who strikes first with WMD's. What's more is that if I don't have nukes, I'm not a "threat" to be nuked immediately or a "nuclear power" that would be the first to die in a nuclear war.
If you dont want to launch a first stike then that's a doctrine choice for your nation. However, all you're doing is removing your ability to defend yourself. In a nuclear war, I dont
need to nuke you, I can just order you to surrender. If you dont agree, all your people die... it's a no-brainer.

By adopting a less threatening stance, and having no nukes, I'll eventually gain the upper hand in politics in the long run. I can expand, build up, etc. quietly while everybody else is shouting at each other and threaten each other with nukes.
??? Where is everyone shouting at each and and threatning each other with nukes? Links?

30 minutes to 2 hours worth of warning?

If my ICBM's and such carrying biological and chemical weapons take that long to travel to the enemy nation, then this means the enemy's nukes will take approximately the same amount of time reaching me.
Believe it or not, ICBMs do take some time to travel half way around the world... *rolleyes*. The difference is that in 30 minutes to 2 hours I can get a lot of people protected from your chemical weapons, whereas there is nothing you can do to stop a nuclear attack.

Consquently, I will have 30 minutes to 2 hours to shoot down all incoming nuke ICBM's and crap, first with satellites, then the ones that get past my satellites will be targeted by naval vessels. Then if any nukes get past that line of defense, my AA and ABM systems take them on. I can also use planes to attack or ram incoming nukes as well.
No. You'll have about 15 minutes. Then my missiles leave the boost phase, launch an innumerable number of countermeasures and inevitably drop off your radar. And no naval vessels carry missiles that can reach into space. They simply aren't big enough.

Use a lot of money to rebuild a city or landscape from toxic bio / chem weapons and have it all clean within 10 - 20 years?

Or wait 24,000 years to re-inhabit the city or landscape after nuke radiation dissipates?

Hard choice. :rolleyes:

I'd go with the 10 - 20 year wait time instead of 24,000 years.
You miss the point. You dont get any cities, you just get nuked. Your nation is dead. Even if you did land and capture a city, since you have to rip the whole thing up and start again, you may as wel just build a new city from scratch in your own nation. You've killed all the people in it, so why do you want the city anyway?

Actually, if I'm invading a nation, I will cordon off the areas under attack by bio / chem weapons. Then gradually expand the area, until no new cases of bio / chem victims are occurring. Then clean-up and re-open the area to foreign trade and people.
It isn't your choice to close down another nation's airports. If you launch a biological attack against one city, it will spread wherever people from that city go. Once it reaches somewhere with an open airport, or reaches a ship, it becomes uncontrollable. I don't see many instances in which, having surrounded the enemy with your troops and cordoned off an area you would need to fire biological weapons at it.

What's more, there could be other ports, airports, cities, etc. out of the way of the bio / chem attack. A bio / chem attack aganist New York City would have little to no effect aganist, say, Los Angeles, Denver, or Houston (+2000 miles away). Those three cities would still be able to recieve foreign trade and people, thus trade and international relations are maintained.

And why would New York airport stop immediately? I think you're missing the point with the previous part of your post I quoted, that we aren't actually talking about launching NBC weapons against troops in an otherwise conventional war, we're talking about a replacement for the strategic deterrant you've just scrapped. You can't cordon off bits of the enemy's nation when you have no troops there, and you cant stop their aircraft taking off.

In NS, nations could claim / exist on 10,000 mile wide continents all to themselves.
Your point...

If I'm the nation being invaded, I would employ biological and chemical weapons as A LAST RESORT, assuming 80% - 90% of my soldiers, tanks, artillery, etc. are killed + destroyed. Because at that time, I have nothing left to lose, so "screw the world" and go out in a blaze of glory.
And why are bio-chem weapons any better than nuclear weapons in these circumstances?

I would employ a scorched earth policy, self-destructing in such a manner that my continent will be un-inhabitable for millennia, while killing as many of the invaders as possible. This will only happen if my back was aganist the wall with no options and no ways out available.
This is inconsistent. You say that when you use bio-chem weapons on your own nation as a last resort it will become uninhabitable for millenia, yet you also assert that when using exactly the same weapons on others you will easily be able to clean it all up.

I was only throwing the $1 trillion number as an example. I don't actually spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons.
Good. Because $1tn is silly. $75bn would probably be a fairly conservative figure.

30% is a damn good number, which I can divert to reinforce my SDI defenses and / or conventional military by 30%.
Great. You've just put an extra $22.5bn into your armed forces. Be happy.

100% accuracy doesn't matter if you have sheer quantity. If 1,000 nuke missiles are headed my way, and I have 5,000 ABM missiles, I'd have 5 ABM missiles for each nuke missile. This means I'll have a damn good chance of shooting all 1,000 down. I can afford to have 4 ABM missiles miss or hit decoys, while the last one connects with the enemy ICBM.

I didn't say that, I said there were 10,000 on their way. And after about 15 minutes they leave the boost phase and you're going to have serious difficulty takng them down, especially after launching about 10 decoys each (now you have 100,000 targets... oh dear...).

That'd be 20% accuracy (1 ABM missile hits out of 5 total ABM's per enemy nuke), with 100% confirmed kills, all nuke missiles destroyed. From what I've seen, many NS SDI systems operate at 50% - 70% accuracy.
ABMs are just as expensive as ICBMs. Yet my ICBMs can launch 10 decoys. In reality, however, even what you've outlined doesn't work. You launch 5 missiles at each ICBM, it doesnt mean you get 20% accuracy out of each of these groups. In reality you'll get some groups where 40% - 80% or even all of the ABMs either hit their targets or would hit if the target wasn't destroyed already, and other groups will have 0% accuracy with none hitting.

A few points to make.

1. My space satellites can discover the missiles entering space, calculate their trajectories, then transmit possible trajectories info to my ground guns, assuming my ground guns are guarding aganist ICBM's at that time.
Your AA guns couldn't train fast enough to actually track the missile's decent, regardless of whether they were on target when the missile entered their range. You also have only a tiny amount of time between the missile entering your AAA gun range and exploding (nuclear missiles detonate above ground level).

2. My AA guns could target cruise missiles and bombers carrying nuke payloads, not ICBM's. Thus, taking a load off my SDI resources, allowing my core SDI systems to focus on ICBM's in space.
Why would people launch cruise missiles with nuclear payloads at you? They don't have the range.

3. Distances in NS Earth are easily 100x the distances in RL Earth, so Mach 24 would mean nothing. Mach 24 would be a snail's pace in Jupiter sized Earth, as the distance between the ground and space would be 100x the distance in RL Earth. In RL Earth, it is 60 - 100 miles between ground and outer space, I believe. In NS Earth, that distance would be 6,000 - 10,000 miles between ground and outer space.

Thus, ample time to prepare for mach 24 ICBM's.

However, to attain the "no-time-to-respond" factor in NS Earth, the ICBM's would have to travel at Mach 100+ or more, which is not possible in MT times.
...

No one actually knows how big the NS world is, and so it is assumed that it operates in the same way as the earth for all purposes except for land space. If you really want to go down the "earth is the size of Jupiter" route then RP all of your people being crushed into the ground by the immense gravity of this huge planet they're on.

I stated clearly that I would allow allied satellites to pass over my nation without question.

"Neutral" and "Hostile" satellites will be allowed to pass over my nation, BUT with my SDI weapons trained on them, prepared to fire on a moment's notice.

Only obvious weapons satellites, like satellites with external missile modules, laser gun modules, etc. clearly and blatantly obvious, will be asked to leave or be shot down.
As I said, they cant leave. No quicker than they would anyway.

If the "neutral" or "hostile" satellites being WATCHED make any weird or abnormal movements towards my nation landmass, then action will be taken. If large objects are seen exiting otherwise normal satellites, the objects will be destroyed promptly.

In other words, any satellites EXCEPT weapons satellites will be allowed to pass over my nation, but will be very closely monitored by my SDI systems, to minimize any surprise or sneak attacks.
Everything has to be allowed to pass over your nation, unless you want to get into lots of pointless wars with annoyed tungsten rod satelite owners and the like.

Threats, hostage-holding, etc. mean little in RP's because of several factors.

1. IGNORE cannons being fired by players.
This is n00bish. Simply trying to get out of having to make concessions. Real life nations cant just "IGNORE" each other if they get threatened with nuclear weapons, which is a perfectly legitimate action.

2. If the nation is destroyed, the player can simply RP rebuilding in another part of NS Earth, or take control of their nation in a parallel universe.
How? All your people are dead and (according to you) the landscape is uninhabitable for 24,000 years... your arguments are inconsistent.

3. Hostage situations are quite difficult to RP in NS without being IGNORED or calls of god-modding.
See above.

4. The player can quit NS for a bit, then come back as a different era nation. He/she could go FT, PMT, or Pre-MT era and RP different history or whatever.
... I don't see your point.

Putting all these facts aside, if this was to happen in the real world, I'd still have the threat of massive bio / chem return attacks, completely destroying your nation's crops, ecology, and such if your follow through with your nuke threats.

Consquently, your nation would collapse on itself as your people starve, cities become empty desolate places, the populace cowering in fear of becoming re-infected, etc. What's more, if the bio-damage spreads to other nations, they would blame not just me, but you as well. They'd consider it your fault for nuking me, and getting bio'ed in return. They would also say that if you hadn't threatened / hostage'd me then no bio-damage would have happened.

We both lose, not just me.
Biological weapons would lead, as I have said, to a lot of the world being destroyed. Chemical weapons wouldnt have an awful lot of effect on the nation as a whole.

Bottom line.... Bio / chem weapons are just as destructive as nukes, while having two major advantages over nukes.

1. Infrastructure remains intact with bio / chemical weapons, while everything is melted to slag by nukes, unusable.
No it isnt. It's just knocked over. Nuclear weapons don't destroy very much with the initial blast, they explode above ground and destroy large swaves of the nation with massive over-pressure waves.

2. No 24,000 year waiting period for nuke radiation to dissipate. You can clean up bio / chem damage / effects within 10 - 30 years, or more... a far cry from 24,000 years.
This is a moot point. Your nation has just been nuked... you can't use my land.

As far as I can see, you havent disbanded your WMD projects at all, you've just tried to replace nuclear weapons with chemical and biological weapons, which are completel unsuited to their purposes. Biological weapons cause massive amounts of collateral damage all across the world. Chemical weapons are easy to protect against. Nuclear weapons only damage their target, and they are impossible to protect against.

GMC Military Arms

28-05-2005, 10:49

All depends on how you are planning on doing things.

Magically, apparently.

On a side note, are you even capable of "polite"?

Does it matter? http://datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm

In addition, does trying to troll me about it get you anywhere in a debate?

I call "bullshit" - so you'll have to show how a larger biosphere would not naturally produce more biologically active species. You can't, you lose, next.

You have to show how these species would necessarily be vastly deadlier than any viruses we've ever encountered. And because this is FFRP, the two words 'they don't' is all I actually need to present in order to have observational evidence that such species do not exist.

Nice with your usual burden of proof fallacy, there.

We'll go back to "you are obviously incapable of polite".

Because that affects the validity of my argument how?

Considering how people are blowing themselves up in cars to kill Americans, I'd say it's possible to do with Modern brainwashing techniques - they're managing it with relatively archaic methods, and very effectively.

And so you clearly have the same kind of motivation, a 100% success rate and all your people will always be perfectly loyal. 'Magic,' as I said.

You don't really understand how infection works, do you? You don't need "tons" of viruses. A few dozen Typhoid Mary's works very well.

To infect a nation's entire food and water supply and get around modern isolation techiques? Do you have any idea how much contaminant and how many carriers you would need to do anything resembling that?

And again, magic morale. You'd have to find people willing to infect themselves with a fatal disease to murder innocent civilians in a nation that you weren't at war with, since otherwise they'd just close their borders to you and your magic terrorist army would be useless with no materials.

What is your goal? Nuclear weapons leave nuclear holes. However, a massive infection that wipes out a nation over a period of time, then burns out from having no carriers... seems relatively a better way to do things.

Giving them all the time in the world to turn your nation into a smoking crater with their own nuclear weapons? Or attack with their own magic bioweapons with the network of magic agents they just happened to have spent years building just in case they needed to destroy your nation at random?

Praetonia

28-05-2005, 10:49

(...)
And the entire native population of Tazmania was annihilated by the common cold. If you introduce a viral agent which the people have no natural resistance to, then the chances of survival are quite low. It's almost certainly true that in a massive nation a lot of people will survive, but it is also true that it will spread across the world, and affect a lot of otherwise uninvolved nations.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:50

Indeed. Of course, having read a few of the texts of the time period in question, well... They generally read as if 90% + died. It's just that the census they had (Specifically, registries in the churches, who was born/ married, christened, died) kinda disprove this apocalyptic versions.

As such, it is generally a good idea to use the lowest number available (Needless to say, the indians didn't even have churches/ registries to check. Well, not any the spanish could read. So I would suggest downscaling the given numbers a little more...).

Too many discrepancies. So lets discard this bit as we can't prove anything? The subject matter is rather inapplicable if you're talking about spread out agricultural vs densepack urban in any case.

1. You're assuming that only research to increase offensive capacities is done. Oddly enough, defensive capacities (Medicine and stuff) will be boosted by others, this negating the effect. After all, everyone is having this resources.

Not true, because you can't defend against everything. There will also be areas which are not funded - and there are nations which do not fund "medicine and stuff" sufficient to deter a nation which is putting all the resources which used to go to nuclear maintenance, technology, etc towards this project. In short, you're being massively outspent.

(Technically speaking, if you want to go the biodiversity way (Unfeasible, given the MT scenario generally expressed in this thread) you will also have to deal with humans evolving inside this biospheres, featuring an immune system capable of dealing with the threat).

And there will be those who have immune systems which cannot deal with this threat. Both are generally irrelevant for this matter; we could discuss biospheres and long-axis' and biodiversity, but really thats TMI to be useful here. We're talking feasibility, not "well, under x scenario, y doesn't work, but under z it does" as that will go on forever.

2. How exactly do you sabotage such an excessive infrastructure? You're dealing with god-know-how-many hospitals and even more doctors. With extremely diverse supply chains. And so on.

The bigger the machine, the easier it is to kludge and gremlin.

Not to mention that such a project, apart from risking discovery (Bad) requires you to infiltrate the target beforehand. LONG before the strike (That may never happen. After all, this is supposed to be mutually assured destruction, ne?) is eventually carried out.

It requires you to know your target.

And it is kinda hard to infiltrate $Giant_Number_Of_Nations_In_NS.

:rolleyes: I know the five nations which comprise my "major threats". Of those, four are significantly penetrated. I don't need to infiltrate *everyone*. I just need to infiltrate threats and prepare my "little surprises". In some cases, I've had decades to do this. In others, I'll have less.

You'll note, I'm positing a multistage strike, of which one is "foment a structural weakness in the population".

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 10:59

***

:rolleyes: As you're overfixated on "magic" and other hyperbole terminology - and blatant rudeness removes any enjoyment in debating you - never you mind.

GMC Military Arms

28-05-2005, 11:02

:rolleyes: As you're overfixated on "magic" and other hyperbole terminology - and blatant rudeness removes any enjoyment in debating you - never you mind.

Concession accepted.

The Most Glorious Hack

28-05-2005, 11:07

Affecting everyone with everything is nigh impossible.So are your super-viruses.

However, let us assume you first infect with an HIV-like virus, whose sole purpose is to weaken the immune response.These are assumptions that you can't make. The arrogance is staggering. You're assuming that not only do we not notice, but that we are utterly incapable of dealing with this problem. Do you honestly think a nation wouldn't notice a sudden increase in fatalities from normally non-fatal diseases? Especially when you admit your timetable is decades?

Let that go for a few decades, As mentioned above, this is an insane amount of time for an attack.

When you strike with your larger number, insure all the weapons (or most of them, depending on the strategy) affect through the lack of that protein series. Voila - higher infection and death rate. Engineered.And, of course, I haven't advanced my medical sciences in the 30 years you're screwing around with immune-weakening systems. I guess sequencing DNA and applying it to medicine is just too fantastic.

Already said, those get sabotaged or subverted.How? If we're playing the "Your Defences Don't Work Game", just 'break' the ABM and counter-strike systems and use a flipping nuke.

Again, your assumptions in this situation are mind boggling. You're, somehow, eliminating my infrastructure while, somehow, introducing a virus I, somehow don't notice for decades and, somehow, am powerless to treat. Then you, somehow, infect me again and wipe me out. Doesn't this strike you as wanky?

Or, if nothing else, an excessive waste of resources?

Changeling Founders

28-05-2005, 11:12

And the entire native population of Tazmania was annihilated by the common cold. If you introduce a viral agent which the people have no natural resistance to, then the chances of survival are quite low. It's almost certainly true that in a massive nation a lot of people will survive, but it is also true that it will spread across the world, and affect a lot of otherwise uninvolved nations.Odd. I seem to recall british hunting parties and mindless slaughter, and a couple survivors dying out on some random island, a good while later. It's hardly only the common cold.

And while there is indeed a risk of sreading the disease to other nations, one could still cut all connections off and isolate cases, minimising the damage.

Too many discrepancies. So lets discard this bit as we can't prove anything? The subject matter is rather inapplicable if you're talking about spread out agricultural vs densepack urban in any case.Well, given that in modern societies, it is safer to live in urban than in rural areas...

Not true, because you can't defend against everything. There will also be areas which are not funded - and there are nations which do not fund "medicine and stuff" sufficient to deter a nation which is putting all the resources which used to go to nuclear maintenance, technology, etc towards this project. In short, you're being massively outspent.'Massively' seems to be a mildly excessive term, given relative percentages. Furthermore, even you manage the 'massively outspend' thing, you will still have to deal with modern medical standards.

And given that [i]new plagues we get every few years manage aforementioned... Couple dozen victims, what would your massive spending result in? A couple thousand?

Not exactly an effective deterrence.

We're talking feasibility, not "well, under x scenario, y doesn't work, but under z it does" as that will go on forever.Indeed. And your scenarios are not feasible.

Creating a 'working' scenario that has nothing to do with reality, well, fails to achive its objective.

The bigger the machine, the easier it is to kludge and gremlin.Wooo, rhetorics. To bad that you're not dealing with 'a' machine. As far as the analogy goes, you're dealing with thousands of more or less independent machines.

I know the five nations which comprise my "major threats". Of those, four are significantly penetrated. I don't need to infiltrate *everyone*. I just need to infiltrate threats and prepare my "little surprises". In some cases, I've had decades to do this. In others, I'll have less.

You'll note, I'm positing a multistage strike, of which one is "foment a structural weakness in the population".1. What happens if a new 'global player' shows up?

2. In other words, you're committing an act of war against a civilian population. You are the one who started hostilities. You are the one immediately targetting the civilians in ways that would make Douhet orgasm. You are the one who does, apparently, play a nation full of hive-minded mass murderers who don't see a problem with this kind of act. You are the one who will, upon discovery (Which, in any realistic scenario, is excessively easy, given the resources involved) be insta-glassed.

Smart move.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 11:13

Wanky? No. Feasible? Possibly. Difficult? Very. Plausible? Yes.

So are your superviruses

So you're saying I can't engineer biological weapons designed to subvert the normal immune system?

These are assumptions that you can't make. The arrogance is staggering. You're assuming that not only do we not notice, but that we are utterly incapable of dealing with this problem. Do you honestly think a nation wouldn't notice a sudden increase in fatalities from normally non-fatal diseases? Especially when you admit your timetable is decades?

Gee... HIV... AIDS... seems to have happened already.

As mentioned above, this is an insane amount of time for an attack.

Why? I've had the same foes for eight months real time - which some would call 240 years game time. All depends on what you're doing.

And, of course, I haven't advanced my medical sciences in the 30 years you're screwing around with immune-weakening systems. I guess sequencing DNA and applying it to medicine is just too fantastic.

In that same 240 year period, "enemy" technology in combat has increased... nil. NS is weird that way.

How? If we're playing the "Your Defences Don't Work Game", just 'break' the ABM and counter-strike systems and use a flipping nuke.

Again, your assumptions in this situation are mind boggling. You're, somehow, eliminating my infrastructure while, somehow, introducing a virus I, somehow don't notice for decades and, somehow, am powerless to treat. Then you, somehow, infect me again and wipe me out. Doesn't this strike you as wanky?

Or, if nothing else, an excessive waste of resources?

It would all depend on the priorities of the nation, and their methodology for defensive strikes. Lacking nuclear technologies, having a few "designer viruses" out there which are set to be infectious but "inert" until activated would seem an effective method of creating MAD conditions without nuclear weapons.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 11:25

Too many discrepancies. So lets discard this bit as we can't prove anything? The subject matter is rather inapplicable if you're talking about spread out agricultural vs densepack urban in any case.

Well, given that in modern societies, it is safer to live in urban than in rural areas...

You want to drag crime into this? Good god, why?

Not true, because you can't defend against everything. There will also be areas which are not funded - and there are nations which do not fund "medicine and stuff" sufficient to deter a nation which is putting all the resources which used to go to nuclear maintenance, technology, etc towards this project. In short, you're being massively outspent.

'Massively' seems to be a mildly excessive term, given relative percentages. Furthermore, even you manage the 'massively outspend' thing, you will still have to deal with modern medical standards.

Define "modern". Vastiva has reached medical science theoretically equivalent to 2020 standards. Another of our allies has 1970 standards. Still another trading partner has 1350 standards. Define "modern" if you would?

And given that new plagues we get every few years manage aforementioned... Couple dozen victims, what would your massive spending result in? A couple thousand?

Not exactly an effective deterrence.

Natural vs manufactured, big difference.

We're talking feasibility, not "well, under x scenario, y doesn't work, but under z it does" as that will go on forever.

Indeed. And your scenarios are not feasible.

Difficult, yes, unfeasible, no.

Creating a 'working' scenario that has nothing to do with reality, well, fails to achive its objective.

Bluntly, I don't see them unproven, and I don't play with you anyway, so whats the difference to you save as a debate point? I see them as functional - very difficult, but functional. You don't. Fine, great, move on.

The bigger the machine, the easier it is to kludge and gremlin.

Wooo, rhetorics. To bad that you're not dealing with 'a' machine. As far as the analogy goes, you're dealing with thousands of more or less independent machines.

As I work in modern medicine - har. A regulation hospital has more theft and downright "what the hell?" going on in it then you would want to know about. Adding [i]intentional sabotage wouldn't be difficult at all. All these thousand or so "independant machines" have to work together - and it is physically impossible for, say, blood to be reverified in total at every single step of the supply chain. By the time you were done testing, you'd have used up all your materials. Introduce random infectives, randomly, and you will get caught some places - but more likely, most people will ignore it until someone doesn't ignore it. And you'd be amazed how long that goes on.

I know the five nations which comprise my "major threats". Of those, four are significantly penetrated. I don't need to infiltrate *everyone*. I just need to infiltrate threats and prepare my "little surprises". In some cases, I've had decades to do this. In others, I'll have less.

You'll note, I'm positing a multistage strike, of which one is "foment a structural weakness in the population".

1. What happens if a new 'global player' shows up?

They get infiltrated, both directly and indirectly. And so on and so forth.

2. In other words, you're committing an act of war against a civilian population. You are the one who started hostilities. You are the one immediately targetting the civilians in ways that would make Douhet orgasm. You are the one who does, apparently, play a nation full of hive-minded mass murderers who don't see a problem with this kind of act. You are the one who will, upon discovery (Which, in any realistic scenario, is excessively easy, given the resources involved) be insta-glassed.

Smart move.

Nothing was begun by an inert virus - it simply exists. Proving that I did anything is difficult at best.

Targeting civilians - well, duh. You figure a nuclear strike will hit only military bases? Or that the firebombing of civilian centers in WW2 was "accidental"?

Excessively easy to discover - methinks not, and you'll have to show how this is "excessively easy to discover", until it is activated - which happens when I'm already glassed, so no problem there.

For the last, I don't need a nation of mass murderers, just a few handfulls of fanatics.

The Most Glorious Hack

28-05-2005, 11:33

Wanky? No. Feasible? Possibly. Difficult? Very. Plausible? Yes.Yes; no; prohibatively; not in the least. In that order.

So you're saying I can't engineer biological weapons designed to subvert the normal immune system?Oh, that's possible. Why do you assume I can't make an antidote?

Gee... HIV... AIDS... seems to have happened already.Guess I missed the part where HIV and AIDS were subersively introduced into a nation by sleeper agents. And the part where nobody noticed.

Why? I've had the same foes for eight months real time - which some would call 240 years game time. All depends on what you're doing.This explains a lot. Okay, using the absurd 1 day = 1 year method, I'm somewhere in the year 2700. I annihilate you with my $wankbeams from another universe. Oh, and I abolished illness some 200 years ago. I'm immune to your viruses.

In that same 240 year period, "enemy" technology in combat has increased... nil. NS is weird that way. No, that method of measuring time is perposterous.

It would all depend on the priorities of the nation, and their methodology for defensive strikes. Lacking nuclear technologies, having a few "designer viruses" out there which are set to be infectious but "inert" until activated would seem an effective method of creating MAD conditions without nuclear weapons.Since you missed it the first time:

You're, somehow, eliminating my infrastructure while, somehow, introducing a virus I, somehow, don't notice for decades and, somehow, am powerless to treat. Then you, somehow, infect me again and wipe me out.

Remember that? Every single one of those "somehow"s represents godmoding.

Step 1: Eat pizza.
Step 2: <something>
Step 3: Rule the world.

Same thing, really.

Changeling Founders

28-05-2005, 11:45

You want to drag crime into this? Good god, why?I thought you were smart enough to figure from the context of the discussion that I'm referring to health risks posed by infectious diseases only.

Looks like I was wrong.

Define "modern". Vastiva has reached medical science theoretically equivalent to 2020 standards. Another of our allies has 1970 standards. Still another trading partner has 1350 standards. Define "modern" if you would?Wow, more rhetorics. Of course, from every given context, it should be obvious that I mean 2005 A.D., but hey... Apparently you're really incapable of common logic.

My mistake, sorry.

Natural vs manufactured, big difference.Both enter a unsuspecting and unprepared (As unprepared as you can be, assuming a modern scenario) population where they're supposed to be capable of killing significant percentages of said population.

Well... Does it work?

The worst we've had over the last, uh... 80 years was HIV. Everything else... Rather poor results. And even HIV manages nothing even remotely resembling the results you're believing are possible.

Bluntly, I don't see them unprovenCan't prove a negative, remember? But hey... Here's your chance. Prove it. Link to a thread (Preferably several threads) where your scenario is happening. You manage that, and I will concede this point.

They get infiltrated, both directly and indirectly. And so on and so forth.
Leaving you helpless for several decades you mean? Not terribly effective, really.

Nothing was begun by an inert virus - it simply exists. Proving that I did anything is difficult at best.

Targeting civilians - well, duh. You figure a nuclear strike will hit only military bases? Or that the firebombing of civilian centers in WW2 was "accidental"?

Excessively easy to discover - methinks not, and you'll have to show how this is "excessively easy to discover", until it is activated - which happens when I'm already glassed, so no problem there.

For the last, I don't need a nation of mass murderers, just a few handfulls of fanatics.Hey, read your previous posts. You're actively sabotaging your target, weakening the overal immunity of its population, thus efectively accounting for higher casualities due to diseases. That's not 'inert'.

Furthermore, the difference is simple: You're starting this war. That's not MAD, that's suicide. It's equivalent to putting leaky nuclear warheads in your target nation to blow up by pressing the red button.

It's stupid.

And it has to be easy to discover. I think Hack pointed it out earlier. If you use $Fuckton_of_resources and manpower to infiltrate your target, something is bound to leak out. Because the opponent might watch. Because someone might get scruples. Because some stupid accident happens. Because a dozen new diseases have to come from. Because your nation will be known for developing bioweapons. Because you're a suspected enemy to begin with, thus being watched closely, closer than others.

Or are you ignoring logistical requirements and potential risks just like your orbital railguns are ignoring conservation of momentum? :)

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 12:03

Mu.

Yes; no; prohibatively; not in the least. In that order.

Oh, that's possible. Why do you assume I can't make an antidote?

Where did I say you couldn't?

Guess I missed the part where HIV and AIDS were subersively introduced into a nation by sleeper agents. And the part where nobody noticed.

How long did they exist in the general population before someone noticed and put all the pieces together?

This explains a lot. Okay, using the absurd 1 day = 1 year method, I'm somewhere in the year 2700. I annihilate you with my $wankbeams from another universe. Oh, and I abolished illness some 200 years ago. I'm immune to your viruses.

:rolleyes: I'll mention that 1 day = 1 year is a ridiculous scale. I'm on "year 2" after nine months of play, which seems more realistic.

No, that method of measuring time is perposterous.

Since you missed it the first time:

You're, somehow, eliminating my infrastructure while, somehow, introducing a virus I, somehow, don't notice for decades and, somehow, am powerless to treat. Then you, somehow, infect me again and wipe me out.

Remember that? Every single one of those "somehow"s represents godmoding.

Again, Hack, this depends on the players, the game, the agreements - consensual roleplaying means you can have smurfs and goblins and all sorts of whatever running around. There's no rule about "x is always godmodding". Otherwise, IGNORE cannons would come with instruction manuals and 'no fire' zones.

I'm really confused why two moderators are so gung ho about "wait! This must be REAL!" when it doesn't by the game standards. Heck, the game itself is so unreal as to defy description - pray tell, why can what goes on within the game not follow the same course of action?

"But, we're looking for realism!" - well, not everyone is, and I'm willing to bend reality in a donut if it makes the game more fun for the players, namely me. I could care less what someone says is real or not real - particularly if they get flummoxed and decide that yelling 'MAGIC' is an arguement, and I don't play with them anyway.

End arguement - if you like it, wonderful, if you don't, oh well, there's no rule saying Sharina or anyone else has to play with anyone.

Step 1: Eat pizza.
Step 2: <something>
Step 3: Rule the world.

Same thing, really.

Been done.

Step 1: Eat pizza.
Step 2a: Get annoyed with multiple Earths
Step 2b: Create Earth XI
Step 2c: Claim Earth XI absolutely
Step 3: Rule the world.

GMC Military Arms

28-05-2005, 12:21

I'm really confused why two moderators are so gung ho about "wait! This must be REAL!" when it doesn't by the game standards.

Three players, not two moderators. Players who are moderators are not moderators unless they are doing official business. At other times, their opinions are their own and carry no more or less weight than anyone else's.

And generally, if you claim something to be a plausible method of replacing nuclear weapons you should ensure you state initially that you know it's wildly implausible and you're just using it as an RP schtick or ensure it is not wildly implausible. Presenting it with real-life examples implies you believe it realistic, and it will therefore be criticised as such.

The Most Glorious Hack

28-05-2005, 13:02

Where did I say you couldn't?By implying the perfection of your method, you are requiring that nothing can be done to stop it.

How long did they exist in the general population before someone noticed and put all the pieces together?Depends. Since the history of AIDS isn't very well known, it's hard to say. One possible source is the mass polio vaccine in Africa in the 1950's. That would give you around 30 years before anybody noticed. In America.

Since it didn't originate in America, that time-table is necessarily reduced. It was first named in 1982. I believe that what is generally accepted to be the first actual case in America was in the mid-seventies. Your 30-year window is now less than 10 years.

However, I'll be charitable. HIV can lay dorment for up to 10 years. This gives us a rough timeline:

Year 0: You (somehow) infect the nation.
Year 10: People start manifesting symptoms.
Year 15: Someone figures out there's a disease bouncing around.
Year 18: Someone figures out symptoms, high risk behavior, and how to test for it.

Uh-oh. Your plan is supposed to span "decades". Your plan is already unravelling, because people have figured out that something's up. Nevermind the fact that you're starting with (at the very least), 2005 medicine, as opposed 1980's medicine. DNA has already been sequenced at this point. Genetherapy exists already. By 2023, stem-cell therapies are reasonable to assume in existance.

Of course, this is all ignoring several important things if a HIV-like virus was to be introduced into a modern society.

First, HIV is easily preventable. Safe sex, don't share needles, blood screening, latex gloves on medical professionals, etc. all reduce a person's chance to be afflicted with the virus. A similar biowanked virus would have many of the same problems. People are considerably more careful these days, for the very reason that there are such diseases.

Second, the ability to detect viruses have advanced considerably in the past 20-some years. Finding such a virus would be much easier, reducing your timetable even more.

Finally, the above time table assume that a sizable portion of the populace is infected all at once. Any event that would do it that quickly is bound to be noticed. If you're doing it with "a few handfulls of fanatics", you're going to need decades just to infect a sizable portion of a nation. Which, of course, means that by the time you finish your invection cycle, I've already got a cure.

And you did know that, right now, in the real world, pharm companies are testing vaccines (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104268.htm?z=1727_00000_5024_hv_03)? You're on a multi-decade timetable. In under 30 years we've gone from unknown to experimental vaccines. Starting to see why this is unworkable?

:rolleyes: I'll mention that 1 day = 1 year is a ridiculous scale. I'm on "year 2" after nine months of play, which seems more realistic. And you mentioned a method that you don't use to support your argument... why?

Sounds like you're grasping at straws here.

Again, Hack, this depends on the players, the game, the agreements - consensual roleplaying means you can have smurfs and goblinsYes, I have a Smurf nation.

and all sorts of whatever running around. There's no rule about "x is always godmodding". Otherwise, IGNORE cannons would come with instruction manuals and 'no fire' zones.Certain things (ie: invincible forcefields surrounding the nation) are generally accepted to always be godmoding. I would say your ability to perfectly infiltrate my nation (twice!) to infect me with these viruses I can't defend against would be generally accepted to be godmoding.

Admit it. This is only continuing because of inertia. This is a silly idea that you refuse to let go of.

I'm really confused why two moderators are so gung ho about "wait! This must be REAL!" when it doesn't by the game standards. Heck, the game itself is so unreal as to defy description - pray tell, why can what goes on within the game not follow the same course of action?I've signed a post in here as a mod? News to me. Oh, that's right, this is another red herring that has nothing to do with the "debate" at hand. In case you weren't aware, I'm allowed to play this game too. If you prefer, I can easily switch to a puppet.

Or make a new puppet even. Of course, that wouldn't change a damn thing.

"But, we're looking for realism!" - well, not everyone is, and I'm willing to bend reality in a donut if it makes the game more fun for the players,So why are you presenting this as a "plausible" alternative to nuclear warfare? Seems you're plenty willing to claim realism when it helps you.

Or is this another cop-out?

I could care less what someone says is real or not real - particularly if they get flummoxed and decide that yelling 'MAGIC' is an arguement, and I don't play with them anyway. I'm sure GMC's heart broken. He used magic because there was no other rational explination.

Besides, part of the point of this is so that people you do play with see the absurdity of your claims.

End arguement - if you like it, wonderful, if you don't, oh well, there's no rule saying Sharina or anyone else has to play with anyone. Never said they did.

Some horse wants its hay back. You're making too many straw men.

Been done.

Step 1: Eat pizza.
Step 2a: Get annoyed with multiple Earths
Step 2b: Create Earth XI
Step 2c: Claim Earth XI absolutely
Step 3: Rule the world.And you missed the point again.

Quoting myself one more time:

You're, somehow, eliminating my infrastructure while, somehow, introducing a virus I, somehow, don't notice for decades and, somehow, am powerless to treat. Then you, somehow, infect me again and wipe me out.

All of those "somehow"s are gaps in your plan that you're unwilling (or unable) to fill in. Simply saying "I remove your ability to deal with the virus" is not sufficient. This is the core of the problem with your plan, and you've ignored it twice now.

Vastiva

28-05-2005, 19:26

Hack....

It's been seventy years since WW2. They just realized that some "accepted medical knowledge" involving deaf women and birth defects is sheer bunk.

We've been using forms of cosmetics since the 50s. It took fifty years to realize the connection between an additive in these cosmetics and certain birth defects.

Your assuming one set up, no movements to increase or change approach - the basic requirement is penetration of the target nations, the methodologies all work from that point. And it cannot be said "nations have perfect defense against penetration from outside".

However, I'll be charitable. HIV can lay dorment for up to 10 years. This gives us a rough timeline:

Year 0: You (somehow) infect the nation.
Year 10: People start manifesting symptoms.
Year 15: Someone figures out there's a disease bouncing around.
Year 18: Someone figures out symptoms, high risk behavior, and how to test for it.

Year 0 - commercially market some material which I know causes an immune system "flaw", but do not release that information.
Year 4 - different material, same effect. At this point, the sources of said material are myriad, so tracing it to any concerted or intentional effort by my nation is difficult.
Year 13 - symptoms are seen mostly as "normal". No one has died from this, there's no massive influx of disease as it's a specific combinational flaw, not generally exploited by biology. Fifteenth method of "bio-timebombery" has been introduced to the target nation by now, all different, all from different sources.
Year 15 - someone notes the flaw introduced in Year 0 because a natural biological agent (a "flu") uses the flaw. Death on a larger then usual scale occurs in the target nations and in nations which use that material - hey, it's commercially available. General outrage about it.
Year 16 - Agent X is removed from the market. Many apologies and a general "we couldn't know then" released. Several lawsuits, and a company goes out of business. Twentieth method of "biotimebombery" has been introduced, again from a "deniable source".

I only need the fanatics (or some interesting weapons) to release the final stage. The initial stages, international commerce will take care of for me due to the nature of the material - its a commercial, normal product, seemingly harmless and of commercial advantage. Companies will even produce this stuff and sell it for me elsewhere - unknowingly spreading the impact.

I've signed a post in here as a mod? News to me. Oh, that's right, this is another red herring that has nothing to do with the "debate" at hand. In case you weren't aware, I'm allowed to play this game too. If you prefer, I can easily switch to a puppet.

Actually, I'd rather a puppet as the underlying idea of "if I tick off a mod, does it affect me later?" comes to mind. I've had this discussion with Fris in the UN as well - the title on the signature makes for a difference.

You're, somehow, eliminating my infrastructure while, somehow, introducing a virus I, somehow, don't notice for decades and, somehow, am powerless to treat. Then you, somehow, infect me again and wipe me out.

All of those "somehow"s are gaps in your plan that you're unwilling (or unable) to fill in. Simply saying "I remove your ability to deal with the virus" is not sufficient. This is the core of the problem with your plan, and you've ignored it twice now.

1) Infrastructure is eliminated or hogtied at the time of the strike, not before, though methods of doing so can be laid years - or decades - in advance. One particularly nasty method was in getting prefabricated parts to be used in an embassy. These parts were later determined to have listening devices and explosives imbedded in them, or "intentional weaknesses" which could be exploited later, remotely. Are you saying I can't lay out a plan which does so to hospitals and the like, which are usually under much less scrutiny then government buildings? Heck, why don't I subtly help build the things in the first place through international shell corporations and such - which gives even more access?

2) The biological attack is the last step. The former steps can be chemical in nature, commercial in expression, and generally ignored by the public until such time as they are used. They can also be introduced from various angles over and over and over.

3) At no point was the statement "powerless to treat" used. This is your own strawman, I request you stop using it. The method stated intentionally goes after your ability to treat - which implies I already accepted you have the potential ability to do so.

The Most Glorious Hack

29-05-2005, 03:24

Changing the goal posts, mate.

It's been seventy years since WW2. They just realized that some "accepted medical knowledge" involving deaf women and birth defects is sheer bunk.Irrelevent. This has nothing to do with your scenerio.

We've been using forms of cosmetics since the 50s. It took fifty years to realize the connection between an additive in these cosmetics and certain birth defects.When did birth defects become an HIV/AIDS style disease? Birth defects are a corruption of the genetic code, not a disease. This has nothing to do with your original claims. Red herring ignored.

Your assuming one set up, no movements to increase or change approach - the basic requirement is penetration of the target nations, the methodologies all work from that point. And it cannot be said "nations have perfect defense against penetration from outside".Sigh. Never said perfect defence, yet you continue to assume perfect penetration. Double-standards don't cut it.

Year 0 - commercially market some material which I know causes an immune system "flaw", but do not release that information.Billions of people in most nations. Relying on that product to infect them all is... silly. Besides, you base for this method of insertion is the birth defect model. If you're wanting to cause the immune problems via birth defects, you've expanded your time scale to 50-70 years. Cause, you know, you need the previous generation to die off.

Year 4 - different material, same effect. At this point, the sources of said material are myriad, so tracing it to any concerted or intentional effort by my nation is difficult.Terminally vague. And just because $item is made of $materials from numerous sources, I can still trace $item to you. Or ban it outright.

Year 13 - symptoms are seen mostly as "normal". Laughable. You're running on a birth defect model now, remember?

Admit it. You're just spinning desperately trying to avoid admitting that this is a blindingly stupid idea.

I only need the fanatics (or some interesting weapons) to release the final stage. The initial stages, international commerce will take care of for me due to the nature of the material - its a commercial, normal product, seemingly harmless and of commercial advantage. Companies will even produce this stuff and sell it for me elsewhere - unknowingly spreading the impact.Well, aside from the fact that 16 years isn't "decades", you're still assuming I can't solve the original problem. Of course, since you've changed your stated method, again, it's more difficult. However, once again: stem cell therapy.

Your habit of discounting the defending nation's ability to detect and treat, as well as your habit of pulling in sources when they help you and completely ignoring them when the aren't is getting tiresome. What happened to making it be like HIV/AIDS? A couple posts ago, you were using that as you base for attack. Now you're using cosmetic-caused birth defects? Admit it: you're just skimming Wikipedia, desperately searching for ideas.

Or you've watched Tim Burton's Batman one to many times.

Actually, I'd rather a puppet as the underlying idea of "if I tick off a mod, does it affect me later?" comes to mind. I've had this discussion with Fris in the UN as well - the title on the signature makes for a difference.Well thank you for implying that I'm incapable of keeping my player motivations separate from my Moderator ones. I've been doing this Moderating thing for about two years now. I've got a good grasp on how to manage impartiality.

And, seriously, don't flatter yourself. A disagreement in II over bioweapons is hardly going to "tick me off".

1) Infrastructure is eliminated or hogtied at the time of the strike, not before, though methods of doing so can be laid years - or decadesNow we're back to decades. Make up your mind on the time table.

One particularly nasty method was in getting prefabricated parts to be used in an embassy.Supposing that the host nation doesn't build said embassies themselves.

Heck, why don't I subtly help build the things in the first place through international shell corporations and such - which gives even more access?This is where we get into nation specifics. This plan wouldn't really work for my nation, because I contract out all that kind of work to just one nation. It might work for another nation, however.

Still, the chances of being able to be building even a slight majority of those buildings is slim. 4 billion people need a lot of hospitals.

The biological attack is the last step. The former steps can be chemical in nature, commercial in expression, and generally ignored by the public until such time as they are used. They can also be introduced from various angles over and over and over.Wait... I thought you said that biological agents alone were enough, and that all you needed were those fanatics? Now you're using chemical agents (back to birth defects, I see), shell building companies and bioattacks.

You know, there's nothing wrong with saying "Okay, I was wrong. It's a lot more complicated than I said it was."

You actually are getting close to a workable scenerio. However, to claim that all this work is just as good as a nuke is insane. Look over your plan again. Your producing a series of "untracable" goods that will be used to introduce birth defects. Using shell companies to be involved in the building of critical infrastructure. Presumably, you'll also somehow eliminate all the stuff that was around before you launched this plan (ie: how many new hospitals does a nation build every year for you to sabatoge? 2? 3?). Then you've got wait a generation so that the defective people are the majority of the population. Then you launch your prime attack.

All the while hoping that nothing goes wrong of these many, many years. Oh, and hoping that nobody changes their mind about doing this. "Oops, sorry about that whole infecting your whole nation thing..."

3) At no point was the statement "powerless to treat" used. This is your own strawman, I request you stop using it. The method stated intentionally goes after your ability to treat - which implies I already accepted you have the potential ability to do so.You don't see the assumption here, do you?

IF you attack treatment ability THEN I can't treat

You scenerio fails utterly if treatment is introduced. This is no straw man, Vastiva. Originally, you weren't attacking my infrastructure, it wasn't until I mentioned treatment that you started this. And look at what you're saying. You're building shell companies specifically to destroy my hospitals. If that succeeds, I'm powerless to treat. If that fails, so does your attack.

You may not have used the words "powerless to treat" (which is why I didn't put them in quotation marks, by the way), but your entire plan fails without it. This isn't a big jump of logic, Vastiva. A biological attack will only work (on the scale you originally mentioned) if the target cannot treat. Especially since you're working on a "decades" long time scale.

Or did you change that, too? Are we no longer trying to be as effective as an all-out nuclear strike?

Sharina

29-05-2005, 07:12

Okay, I'll introduce several possible scenarios to hopefully help you understand where and what I'm coming from. Here goes...

Scenario 1:

1. Sharina develops an Ebola virus (or similar) biological weapon.

2. There is no RL cure for several diseases, like Ebola, AIDS, common cold, etc.

3. Consquently, the enemy nation won't be able to vaccinate or magically "cure" their victimzed citizens and people unless they suddenly jump to 2030 - 2040 tech. If the enemy nation does that, they'd be ignored for "cheating" and god-modding.

4. Thus, my Ebola virus bio-weapon will indeed have an effect, and start killing off enemy military and civilians within 5 - 10 days. The enemy logistics system will collapse as they would be forced to dipose of the dead bodies or risk additional infections, in addition to supplying haz-mat suits and all the related apparel and replacement parts for those.

The enemy would suddenly need double or triple the logistics manpower, forcing the enemy to draw the extra men from their combat-ready forces to undertake the tasks associated with biological clean-up, prevention, or containment. The enemy's combat strength would be reduced as a result, in an effort to maintain the logistics status-quo. However, if the enemy refuses to boost their logistics personnel by using combat-ready men to assist, then they run the risk of serious problems with logistics for tanks, planes, infantry, guns, ammo, etc. This is because the enemy's non-boosted logistics would be too busy handling the biological stuff to focus on equipment / resupplying. Or vice-versa, focus on equipment / resupply, but not as effective at biological cleanup or prevention stuff.

Scenario 2:

1. Sharina employs a triple bio-chem weapon which would be a combination of VX gas, Sarin gas, and anthrax spores.

2. These types of bio-chem weapons would be able to kill people within 30 seconds or so, without need for virus agents. No incubation times, and no vaccines.

3. Enemy will face the same logistics problems as Scenario 1.

Scenario 3:

1. Sharina engineers a genetic weapon that would attack specific DNA stuff. Examples would be hair color, eye color, certain disabilities, or even male / female chromosomes.

2. This type of weapon would probably be within a 2015+ timeframe, or later. Difficult to pull off, but is possible, as we already use gene therapy and such. It wouldn't be an impossible feat to reverse gene therapy into a genetic weapon.

Scenario 4:

1. Sharina develops a non-uranium radiation weapon. Sharina creates a weapon that irradiates tracts of land, but the radiation would 100% disappear in 10 minutes. The gamma or neutron radiation particles or whatever would become non-radiation in 10 minutes instead of 24,000 year radiation that occurs with nuclear weapons.

2. I don't see this happening until probably Post-MT as uranium is the only material suitable for nuclear fission and such in MT times. Perhaps in the future, there would be a new nuclear bomb fission-able element or mineral or whatever with radiation of only 10 minutes or so.

My goal with bio-chem weapons would be to force the enemy into making sacrifices, weakening their overall power / strength. Sacrifice combat soldiers, or logistics. Sacrifice military personnel, or civilians. Sacrifice resources, or land. And so forth.

Hope that made it more clear, but if not, I can elaborate further.

GMC Military Arms

29-05-2005, 08:04

The gamma or neutron radiation particles or whatever would become non-radiation in 10 minutes instead of 24,000 year radiation that occurs with nuclear weapons.

Sharina, the 24,000 year figure is wrong. Even the most primitive nuclear weapons we've detonated [Trinity nuclear test and 'Little Boy' / 'Fat Man' tactical bombs] have not caused anything like that level of fallout, and modern nuclear weapons cause less fallout, not more, unless they are specifically designed to cause fallout.

Der Angst

29-05-2005, 10:00

1. Sharina develops an Ebola virus (or similar) biological weapon.

2. There is no RL cure for several diseases, like Ebola, AIDS, common cold, etc.

3. Consquently, the enemy nation won't be able to vaccinate or magically "cure" their victimzed citizens and people unless they suddenly jump to 2030 - 2040 tech. If the enemy nation does that, they'd be ignored for "cheating" and god-modding.

4. Thus, my Ebola virus bio-weapon will indeed have an effect, and start killing off enemy military and civilians within 5 - 10 days. The enemy logistics system will collapse as they would be forced to dipose of the dead bodies or risk additional infections, in addition to supplying haz-mat suits and all the related apparel and replacement parts for those.
*Giggles*

Ahem. Lets see. First of all, you're partially correct. As a logistics killer, bioweapons (Not lethal ones. Weakening ones) are vaguely effective.

Unfortunately you're a tad to optimistic. Did you ever check on the results this 'incurable' diseases (Ebola) manage?

Hundreds of lethal cases.

Yes, hundreds. Not hundreds of millions, not hundreds of thousands, but hundreds.

In scenarios that come close to the ideal case I mentioned above.

HIV on the other hand is quite simply a horrible method to use as a tactical (Yes, tactical. What you described is not a replacement for strategic nuclear weapons. It's something completely different, namely, an ineffective weapon, due to the sheer amount of time it needs to actually have an effect.

Furthermore, there are treatments for AIDS, Ebola, the common cold. They are not perfect, and in the case of AIDS, they can only delay, but they are there.

And frankly, if you're the one who demands $Excessive_Casualities and $Excessive_Effect_On_Logistics from bioweapons, then you're the one who ought to be ignored.

1. Sharina employs a triple bio-chem weapon which would be a combination of VX gas, Sarin gas, and anthrax spores.

2. These types of bio-chem weapons would be able to kill people within 30 seconds or so, without need for virus agents. No incubation times, and no vaccines.

3. Enemy will face the same logistics problems as Scenario 1.Regional effect. This isn't a weapon to attack logistics, this is a weapon to break up concentrated enemy formations (And what the hell are the anthrax spores for?). This is definitely a tactical weapon, and, annoyingly enough, it can 1. be protected against (Gas masks) and 2. doesn't allow for effective, offensive warfare (You have to wait until the gas is gone) as WW 1 Generals would surely be able to tell you. It's an area denial weapon used to slow down the opponent, and not a replacement for conventional nukes, nor is it effective to kill off logistics (How exactly are you getting the gas behind enemy lines? Right, just like conventional bombs. What is the gas doing there? Well, it is not destroying supplies and as such, less effective than conventional bombs. Incidentally, this is the reason why the RAF didn't gas german cities when the V2 was used. Conventional explosives work better. The only positive effect gas has is an effect on the morale. Apparently, suffocating is worse than suffering a shot in the stomach or getting your arm ripped off by a 20mm projectile, followed by bleeding to death.

1. Sharina engineers a genetic weapon that would attack specific DNA stuff. Examples would be hair color, eye color, certain disabilities, or even male / female chromosomes.

2. This type of weapon would probably be within a 2015+ timeframe, or later. Difficult to pull off, but is possible, as we already use gene therapy and such. It wouldn't be an impossible feat to reverse gene therapy into a genetic weapon.
And you do this... why? Not to mention that the moment you pull that, $Opponent can quite easily pull countermeasures. Introduce an additional DNA sequence that does nothing but preventing the virus from multiplying inside the cell. Prevent it from 'docking' on the cell by introducing a DNA sequence that will block $Specific_Molecule_Structure (Usually of the virus' protein hull) from entering the cell. Add some piece of DNA into the immune system to have it identify and attack the virus, immediately.

ANd of course a lot of other options a geneticist would know more about than I do.

Yes, yes, it means genetic manipulations of humans. We can pull it off quite easily, today (We are, after all, doing it quite regularily with mammels).

1. Sharina develops a non-uranium radiation weapon. Sharina creates a weapon that irradiates tracts of land, but the radiation would 100% disappear in 10 minutes. The gamma or neutron radiation particles or whatever would become non-radiation in 10 minutes instead of 24,000 year radiation that occurs with nuclear weapons.

2. I don't see this happening until probably Post-MT as uranium is the only material suitable for nuclear fission and such in MT times. Perhaps in the future, there would be a new nuclear bomb fission-able element or mineral or whatever with radiation of only 10 minutes or so.*Yawn* Actually, quite easy to do. Today. There are, after all, quite a few radioactive elements, you can 'force' radiation upon stable elements by exposing them to alpha/ betaradiation, and they have recently managed to accelerate radiation under some odd circumstances.
The problem is that lacking a blast radius, your weapon's effect would again be tactical, prolly a good bit less effective than a neutron bomb. While at the same time suffering all the problems of conventional weapons. And, most importantly, it 1. doesn't destroy material and 2. with the half life period being so excessively short, it doesn't work as area denial weapon, either. Now, if you made it irradiate the area in question sufficiently for... weeks, or months...

My goal with bio-chem weapons would be to force the enemy into making sacrifices, weakening their overall power / strength. Sacrifice combat soldiers, or logistics. Sacrifice military personnel, or civilians. Sacrifice resources, or land. And so forth.

Hope that made it more clear, but if not, I can elaborate further.Well, your methods aren't necessarily the most useful, but sure, that works. The point remains, while this is doubtlessly a suitable tactic on the (Extended) battlefield, it is not deterrence, contrary to what Vastiva wants to tell us (Note that a good part of the criticism I included here is aiming more in Vastiva's than in your direction. Sorry for that).

And as a result, you're simply not having deterrence.

Novikov

29-05-2005, 16:31

I'm going to add my two cents because I feel that the strategic value of chemical weapons is not being addressed.

I will begin with a question. Why are strategic nuclear weapons such an effective deterrent? Answer: When serving a strategic role, nukes aren't used to attack an enemy army - that is the job of tactical nukes, if you believe they exist - but rather the civilian population which supports that army. The ICBM is almost a political weapon, used to attack a hostile government with fear and threaten that, should they order an attack, they will quickly lose their home support and infrastructure that keeps the country running. To be brief, strategic nukes threaten non-combatants enough to force combatants to end (or simply not begin) a war.

In a similar role, chemical and biological weapons could serve the same purpose. The can be used - with the proper delivery systems - to attack any city on the globe not with a massive explosion, but with disease and infection, with poison and death. This has exactly the same result as a strategic nuke in the long run, it threatens to kill enough enemy civilians that it is not a practical option for that nation to attack you.

What advantage do nukes then hold? It has been argued that they are the only feasible tactical WMD, that chemical and biological weapons are ineffective against well prepared soldiers and will likely harm your own troops as well - this is especially true when on the defensive. Okay, granted its true that a nuke is far more efficient on the battlefield, but the problem is that most nations do not distinguish between the tactical and strategic use of a nuclear device, particularly when it is being used on their soldiers. A tactical situation then will theoretically break down into a strategic one as retaliation is carried out on all fronts. In this belief, tactical nuclear weapons are held at bay by the threat of a strategic response. Strategic weapons win out in all situations, and chemical and biological weapons are just as, if not more effective than nuclear weapons in a strategic aplication.

So go right ahead and use VX and Ebola all you want, just use it in a wise manner, as a deterrent and not as a military weapon.

Sharina

29-05-2005, 21:24

*Giggles*

Ahem. Lets see. First of all, you're partially correct. As a logistics killer, bioweapons (Not lethal ones. Weakening ones) are vaguely effective.

Unfortunately you're a tad to optimistic. Did you ever check on the results this 'incurable' diseases (Ebola) manage?

Hundreds of lethal cases.

Yes, hundreds. Not hundreds of millions, not hundreds of thousands, but hundreds.

In scenarios that come close to the ideal case I mentioned above.

Only hundreds of lethal cases in cities of 200 million populations?

In NS, urban areas have population densities 10x or even 100x more than RL nations do... New York City, Tokyo, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and The Vatican (Holy See) are among the most population-dense cities. In NS, cities are easily 10x bigger and denser than those RL cities. IIRC, New York City, Tokyo, and Mexico City has roughly 10 million people living and working in their urban sprawl. Now, with NS nations with 2+ billion populations, cities of 50 million or even 100 million populations are commonplace. That'd be a factor of 10x of New York City, Tokyo, or Mexico City.

There would be literally millions of potential hosts for the Ebola virus to mainfest itself in, and do its lethal work on. In addition, in a dedicated bio-weapon research effort, Ebola virus could theoretically be enhanced in its lethality or better infection rates.

HIV on the other hand is quite simply a horrible method to use as a tactical (Yes, tactical. What you described is not a replacement for strategic nuclear weapons. It's something completely different, namely, an ineffective weapon, due to the sheer amount of time it needs to actually have an effect.

I was merely using HIV / AIDS as an example of an incurable disease. Even if I actually used HIV / AIDS as a weapon, I'd use it primarily for terror and pyschological weapons. Lower enemy civilian morale, and cause problems when enemy civilians panic and stuff.

You cannot have a 100% fear-immune citizen populace, unless you go Post-Modern, by creating brain chips or whatever to control emotions like in several Sci-Fi movies.

Thus, if someone RP's 100% fear-proof citizen populace in MT times, it would be "cheating" and god-modding.

Furthermore, there are treatments for AIDS, Ebola, the common cold. They are not perfect, and in the case of AIDS, they can only delay, but they are there.

Yes, this is another way to slow down the enemy's logistics and economy. The enemy would be forced to use up considerable sums of money and resources trying to use treatment for its citizens affected by the bio-weapon.

What's more, in normal cases, some civilians wouldn't be able to afford expensive treatment without insurance. However, in nations or governments like Canada with free health-care, the nation / government would have to divert funding from other vital areas to boost the expenses incurred by its "free" health-care systems. Or raise taxes, making more of its own people pissed off, paranoid, or angry, causing riots and perhaps revolutions.

And frankly, if you're the one who demands $Excessive_Casualities and $Excessive_Effect_On_Logistics from bioweapons, then you're the one who ought to be ignored.

I am not looking for extreme casaulties, like 1 billion people casaulties. I'm looking to use my bio-weapons to considerably "fubar" or screw up the enemy logistics systems, reducing their combat effectiveness.

I am not attacking logistics directly, as in attacking logistics convoys, supply depots, etc. Instead, I am seeking to dramatically increase the amount of resources the enemy will have to use logistics for, and also drastically increase the costs / economy strain on the enemy.

I aim to force the enemy to purchase, build, and maintain millions of haz-mat suits. Being forced to manufacture and develop millions of treatment machines (X-ray machines, chemo-therapy equipment, surgery tools, etc.) Having to massively expand health-care budgets, infrastructure, and employment, or risk internal collapse (due to diseases spreading or "evolving" without treatment).

The enemy military would have to divert manpower from its combat-ready infantry, air-force, navy, etc. to boost the logistics system to handle the massive increase in cases, cargo, equipment, etc. therefore weakening the enemy's combat forces, allowing my forces a considerably easier time aganist the enemy.

Or if the enemy chooses to divert manpower from civil services like police, firemen, etc. then crime would increase as more people would be tempted to commit crimes. Fires wouldn't be as effectively doused / fought. And so on. In the end, the enemy will be forced to make sacrifices one way or another.

Regional effect. This isn't a weapon to attack logistics, this is a weapon to break up concentrated enemy formations (And what the hell are the anthrax spores for?). This is definitely a tactical weapon, and, annoyingly enough, it can

1. be protected against (Gas masks) and...

Sharina's solution: Employ acid or corrosive weapons like flourine gas and such to eat through haz-mat suits and gas masks.

2. doesn't allow for effective, offensive warfare (You have to wait until the gas is gone) as WW 1 Generals would surely be able to tell you.

Sharina's solution: This would buy me more time to manuever my forces elsewhere, manufacture more weapons, rebuild defenses, redeploy troops, etc. Basically, I can use this situation as a delaying tactic.

My solutions are highlighted in bold / italics.

It's an area denial weapon used to slow down the opponent, and not a replacement for conventional nukes, nor is it effective to kill off logistics (How exactly are you getting the gas behind enemy lines? Right, just like conventional bombs. What is the gas doing there? Well, it is not destroying supplies and as such, less effective than conventional bombs. Incidentally, this is the reason why the RAF didn't gas german cities when the V2 was used. Conventional explosives work better. The only positive effect gas has is an effect on the morale. Apparently, suffocating is worse than suffering a shot in the stomach or getting your arm ripped off by a 20mm projectile, followed by bleeding to death.

As I've stated before, I do not plan on DIRECTLY attacking enemy logistics. Instead, I plan on complicating and compounding logistics problems indirectly, by forcing the enemy to use up more money, resources, and manpower to combat the effects of my bio-weapons.

More resources + money needed to build millions of haz-mat suits, disease treatment equipment, diverting manpower and funding from vital and critical areas to support combat the effects of bio-weapons, etc. I don't actually have to attack the actual logistics camps, vehicles, factories, etc. to make this work.

And you do this... why? Not to mention that the moment you pull that, $Opponent can quite easily pull countermeasures. Introduce an additional DNA sequence that does nothing but preventing the virus from multiplying inside the cell. Prevent it from 'docking' on the cell by introducing a DNA sequence that will block $Specific_Molecule_Structure (Usually of the virus' protein hull) from entering the cell. Add some piece of DNA into the immune system to have it identify and attack the virus, immediately.

ANd of course a lot of other options a geneticist would know more about than I do.

Yes, yes, it means genetic manipulations of humans. We can pull it off quite easily, today (We are, after all, doing it quite regularily with mammels).

Yes, I am aware of this. However, it will take TIME to identify, develop, and then put into action. This will use up additional money and resources to do so. It would take the best geneticists months to develop / forumlate / design the proper gene sequence to destroy the genetic weapon virus / DNA / whatever.

Months is a long time in modern direct warfare (not counting insurgencies or terrorists like in Iraq or Afghanistan).

*Yawn* Actually, quite easy to do. Today. There are, after all, quite a few radioactive elements, you can 'force' radiation upon stable elements by exposing them to alpha/ betaradiation, and they have recently managed to accelerate radiation under some odd circumstances.
The problem is that lacking a blast radius, your weapon's effect would again be tactical, prolly a good bit less effective than a neutron bomb. While at the same time suffering all the problems of conventional weapons. And, most importantly, it 1. doesn't destroy material and 2. with the half life period being so excessively short, it doesn't work as area denial weapon, either. Now, if you made it irradiate the area in question sufficiently for... weeks, or months...

As I recall, you don't need months or years of radiation to kill someone. A few seconds would be as effective, if the sheer amount of radiation would fry / ruin the cells of the enemy soldiers / civilians.

For example, you put your hand in lava. Your hand gets burnt / melted no matter if you hold it in the lava for 1 second or 1 hour.

That aside, I am not seeking to destroy infrastructure with my bio-weapons. In fact, I employ them to preserve the enemy's infrastucture or equipment for occupation upon the end of the war (should I emerge victorious). On the other hand, nuclear weapons melt stuff, shatter infrastructure, etc. with their tempature and shockwaves. Then you'd have to wait a long time for the radiation to dissolve / go away 100%.

Well, your methods aren't necessarily the most useful, but sure, that works. The point remains, while this is doubtlessly a suitable tactic on the (Extended) battlefield, it is not deterrence, contrary to what Vastiva wants to tell us (Note that a good part of the criticism I included here is aiming more in Vastiva's than in your direction. Sorry for that).

And as a result, you're simply not having deterrence.

I can rely on my NATO allies for nuclear deterrence. Failing that, I can still wield a deterrence power, as I can launch bio-chem weapons aganist the uber-dense cities in enemy nations (See my explaination at beginning of this post). I could destroy the enemy nation's entire ecosystem by poisoning their crops, cattle / animal herds, etc. so that the enemy nation would either have to buy foreign food, or risk starvation. And so on.

Bottom line, bio-chem weapons can be a deterrant, just like nuclear weapons.

Vastiva

29-05-2005, 22:03

Well, your methods aren't necessarily the most useful, but sure, that works. The point remains, while this is doubtlessly a suitable tactic on the (Extended) battlefield, it is not deterrence, contrary to what Vastiva wants to tell us (Note that a good part of the criticism I included here is aiming more in Vastiva's than in your direction. Sorry for that).

So far, we have a scenario by which an attacking nation will have massive, sudden infrastructure problems, mass terror, heavy doses of disease of the civilian population, selective destruction of their ability to respond to these threats - and a war going on. At that point, the war becomes an excess to be cut back.

Sharina still has their "nuclear umbrella" because they have allies who will nuke the snot out of an attacker.

So your choice is:
a) Conventional war, which you take huge amounts of problems onto yourself from bioweapons usage by Sharina or
b) Nuclear war, in which you too get glassed.

It appears to be a significant deterrent to me.

And you do this... why? Not to mention that the moment you pull that, $Opponent can quite easily pull countermeasures. Introduce an additional DNA sequence that does nothing but preventing the virus from multiplying inside the cell. Prevent it from 'docking' on the cell by introducing a DNA sequence that will block $Specific_Molecule_Structure (Usually of the virus' protein hull) from entering the cell. Add some piece of DNA into the immune system to have it identify and attack the virus, immediately.

And you say this like you're going to protect multibillion people overnight - no, you're not, you first have to identify the problem, analyze the problem, respond to the problem, then affect your people. Which will take time, and affect your supply of medical people. "Poof, fixed" doesn't happen.

Finally - your army soldiers are informed their families are being germed to death. What's their response? Are they focused on the battlefield?

I think not.

The Most Glorious Hack

30-05-2005, 03:10

I was merely using HIV / AIDS as an example of an incurable disease. Even if I actually used HIV / AIDS as a weapon, I'd use it primarily for terror and pyschological weapons. Lower enemy civilian morale, and cause problems when enemy civilians panic and stuff.Don't make the mistake of confusing "don't currently have a cure" with "uncurable". As I mentioned a few posts ago, they are performing human trials with an AIDS vaccine.

If half of the money going to AIDS was spent on Ebola, we'd like be knocking on a cure for it right now.

And if half the money spent on AIDS "awareness" was spent on something useful, we would have had that vaccine years ago.

Sharina

30-05-2005, 04:23

Don't make the mistake of confusing "don't currently have a cure" with "uncurable". As I mentioned a few posts ago, they are performing human trials with an AIDS vaccine.

If half of the money going to AIDS was spent on Ebola, we'd like be knocking on a cure for it right now.

And if half the money spent on AIDS "awareness" was spent on something useful, we would have had that vaccine years ago.

Yes, cures would be possible. I do not dispute that.

The two points I was going for are as follows....

Point #1: Cures can be done, but they would take TIME to do so.

Suppose I hit the enemy with Ebola-B, a slight variant off the original Ebola. Thus, the enemy will have to acquire samples of the Ebola-B virus, then research and develop amino acids, genetics, vaccines, etc. to combat the Ebola-B virus. By the time a cure was actually developed, the war will long be over.

This is assuming that the "gathering samples" to final cure phase occurs realistically, and in a MT setting of 2000 - 2015. This process can take years, or months at the very best.

In the modern battlefield, wars are fought within weeks or months, not years or decades like in WW I and WW II, Vietnam, or Ancient Roman times. By the time the enemy discovers the cure for one of my biological weapons, three things could be happening...

A. War is over.
B. I hit enemy with another biological weapon. Maybe Ebola-C strain or a completely different virus strain.
C. I capture or destroy the research buildings that the cure research is taking place.

In summary, the enemy will have to spend time to discover a cure to my biological weapon. However, in modern battlefields, time is a very precious commodity, and many things can happen within the timeframe that the enemy needs to discover an effective cure.

Point #2: Logistics of delivering the cure to BOTH military and civilian populations.

The enemy would have to spend tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in resources, logistics, and manpower to effectively develop a cure, then deliver it to a multi-billion populace.

First, the enemy would have to spend billions of dollars on top-of-the-line research facilities and equipment, with the best computers, microscopes, bio-labs, etc. In addition, the enemy would need manpower to actually manufacture, build, and "garrison" the research labs to start cure research. Then, the enemy will have to supply those research labs with expensive replacement parts, new computers, bio-hazard material, hospital equipment, and so forth. That means more logistics convoys and more valuable convoys for the military to protect from my own airstrikes or army attacks. The enemy military would be spread slightly thinner as it would be forced to escort these research logistics convoys.

Second, once the cure is developed in, say, 6 months or a year, assuming the war is still ongoing by then, there will be a huge logistics problem delivering the cure to 2+ billion people while warding off my military attacks.

The enemy would have to produce billions of vials of vaccine and / or cures. Then escort those convoys into major cities, rural towns, remote villages, military outposts, army bases, and all places where their people live and work. Then the enemy would have to use a lot of time inoculating 2+ billion people.

Lets take a logistics scenario of trying to inoculate a 200 million population city.

There are 20 hospitals in the 200 million population city. Each hospital could hold 500,000 patients at the most. Keep in mind, most of the hospital capacity would be filled from war casaulties, normal sicknesses, emergency room patients, etc. Next, lets assume that everybody is trying to get cured as soon as possible. They'd try to rush to the hospital, for time is of the essence with potent diseases like Ebola that kills within 5 - 10 days. "Sooner get cured, the better" philosophy takes hold in the civilian populace. Suppose the enemy establishes "cure stations" where medical personnel inject the populace with the cure.

It would require 3 minutes at max to inoculate one person, considering all the paperwork, forms, etc. the person would need to fill out, as well as the actual process of injection. The doctors would need at least 30 seconds to safely retrieve the cure vials and put it in the syringe. Then another 30 seconds to effectively inject it into the person. The other 2 minutes are used up in paperwork, clean-up for the next person in line, and so forth.

3 minutes times 200 million people... That's 600 million minutes. Suppose the enemy could handle roughly 20,000 people each 3 minutes. Consquently, the enemy could cure 400,000 people each hour, and 9.6 million people per day. At this rate, the enemy would need 21 days to cure 200 million people, or 210 days to cure 2 billion people.

That's roughly 7 months just to cure 2 billion people, given the cure-centers run nonstop 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Then factor in other issues such as massive traffic jams, overloaded buses and trains, etc. as people scramble to get cured. Add in aerial attacks by me aganist these cities, causing damage to roads, train tracks, etc. Mountains of rubble and debris would make transit inside cities difficult at best. Some cities would be isolated from the enemy's curing efforts as I'd be laying siege to the cities, or occupy tracts of land, blocking the logistics vehicles from supplying the enemy cities with the cure vaccine.

Add in other issues such as terror, rioting, panic, etc. while being under direct attack by my forces, WHILE having their (enemy) health worsen each day from the infections / effects from my bio-attacks. The enemy would have to use up even more billions of dollars for the operation of those cure centers.

Finally, the Ebola virus kills within 5 - 10 days, so after 10 days at best, some of the people won't get cured in time due to the massive "back-log" experienced by the enemy's health-care system. Thus, thousands of people would still die even during the process of curing / inoculating the entire populace. Never mind the fact that it would be months since the initial bio-weapons attack until the time of curing. During that interval of time, millions of people could become infected or die from the virus.

Consquently, the enemy would have less funding and resources to feed their war machine, relieving pressure on my own war machine. This whole process could repeat itself over and over when I introduce another virus strain in another bio-attack.

The bottom line is that the dense urban areas of NS nations would be the ideal place for bio-weapons to do a lot of damage. Millions of people packed in small spaces = high potential for viruses to spread and such.

Vastiva

30-05-2005, 04:29

Yanno, the frippin' thing is Sharina is saying what I was saying, only I included destroying infrastructure and some "preparatory" bits....

Man or Astroman

30-05-2005, 05:30

No time to deal with the whole thing, so I'll hit this now and the rest later.

Suppose I hit the enemy with Ebola-B, a slight variant off the original Ebola.

"Original" Ebola? You really should read up on Ebola before making weapons out of it. There's already 3 strains (4 if you count Marburg). There is no "original" Ebola. Furthermore, the fatality ranges from 60% (Marburg) to 95-98% for Ebola Zaire.

Vastiva

30-05-2005, 05:35

"Original" Ebola? You really should read up on Ebola before making weapons out of it. There's already 3 strains (4 if you count Marburg). There is no "original" Ebola. Furthermore, the fatality ranges from 60% (Marburg) to 95-98% for Ebola Zaire.

Ok, how about "Ebola-Q", a genetically mutated version of Ebola Zaire. Later followed by "Smallbox-C" and "Influenza-X" - each of which will require a different approach by the target infrastructure.

Sharina

30-05-2005, 06:38

No time to deal with the whole thing, so I'll hit this now and the rest later.

"Original" Ebola? You really should read up on Ebola before making weapons out of it. There's already 3 strains (4 if you count Marburg). There is no "original" Ebola. Furthermore, the fatality ranges from 60% (Marburg) to 95-98% for Ebola Zaire.

I was only using "Ebola-B" and "Ebola-C" as examples of mutated strains of the Ebola virus, or the Ebola virus with variants from the original Ebola.

In this instance, I could say I'm using Ebola Zaire, then develop strain Ebola Zaire-B, and Ebola Zaire-C (the B and C would be variants or mutated strains of original Ebola Zaire).

GMC Military Arms

30-05-2005, 06:49

Finally - your army soldiers are informed their families are being germed to death. What's their response?

They fight far more ruthlessly, probably commit terrible atrocities against your troops and possibly your civilians and are more resolved to destroy your regime at all costs.

Didn't you notice how despite all the massive airstikes on civilian targets in WW2 with their horrendous casualties nobody surrendered or even considered surrender? Indeed, that the only civilian bombings noted to have any effect whatsoever were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Imperial Japan was facing invasion anyway and according to some accounts already trying to surrender?

Sharina

30-05-2005, 06:52

They fight far more ruthlessly, commit terrible atrocities against your troops and probably your civilians and are more resolved to destroy your regime at all costs.

Didn't you notice how despite all the massive airstikes on civilian targets in WW2 with their horrendous casualties nobody surrendered or even considered surrender? Indeed, that the only civilian bombings noted to have any effect whatsoever were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Imperial Japan was facing invasion anyway and according to some accounts already trying to surrender?

Conventional bombs are quite different from biological weapons.

In WW-II they did not have Ebola weapons, viral weapons, VX nerve gas, Anthrax, Sarin gas, etc. employed on equal scale as the conventional bombs.

GMC Military Arms

30-05-2005, 07:01

Conventional bombs are quite different from biological weapons.

A massive attack on a civilian target would have the same effect regardless of how it was carried out. The point is that it has been shown that dead civvies back home do not make your soldiers lose focus; more often than not, it just makes them very, very angry.

In WW-II they did not have Ebola weapons,

Correct

viral weapons,

Incorrect. Diseased carcasses were fired from catapults to this end in the middle ages, viral warfare was very much available as an option. It wasn't used because, well, it's rubbish.

VX nerve gas

Correct, was discovered in 1952.

Anthrax

Incorrect. Britain tested weaponised anthrax spores in 1942.

Sarin gas

Incorrect. Sarin was discovered in 1938.

Though sarin, tabun and soman were incorporated into artillery shells, Germany ultimately decided not to use nerve agents against Allied targets. German intelligence was unaware that the Allies had not developed similar compounds, and they were concerned that the Allies' ability to reach German targets would prove devastating in a chemical war.

In any case, given that Britian issued gas masks and drilled civilians on how to use them, what makes you think that gas attacks would have been more effective or have higher casualties than conventional bombing that levelled whole cities?

Vastiva

30-05-2005, 07:08

They fight far more ruthlessly, probably commit terrible atrocities against your troops and possibly your civilians and are more resolved to destroy your regime at all costs.

Didn't you notice how despite all the massive airstikes on civilian targets in WW2 with their horrendous casualties nobody surrendered or even considered surrender? Indeed, that the only civilian bombings noted to have any effect whatsoever were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Imperial Japan was facing invasion anyway and according to some accounts already trying to surrender?

*cough* Ahem. It broke the ability to resist of Germany - the number of civilian refugees increased, the number of man hours needed to keep the people "in line" increased... and it was the civilian native resistance to Vietnam which eventually caused America one of it's most ridiculous defeats. Propaganda, particularly that which involves "killing the children" works. Now consider this day and age of bleeding hearted tree-huggers who are already against Iraq because "people are getting hurt" and you'll see a response.

In any case, given that Britian issued gas masks and drilled civilians on how to use them, what makes you think that gas attacks would have been more effective or have higher casualties than conventional bombing that levelled whole cities?

Machinery is easily replaced - people are not. In this case, Britain used how much of it's war effort in gas masks and training? How much equipment was used? How much effort that could have been put elsewhere?

And let us remember - the German effort on Britain was restrained as Hitler thought Britain would surrender.

Vastiva

30-05-2005, 07:11

In any case, given that Britian issued gas masks and drilled civilians on how to use them, what makes you think that gas attacks would have been more effective or have higher casualties than conventional bombing that levelled whole cities?

This required much training by the government to it's people - it required dispersement centers, equipment, time. The German initiative on Britain was restrained by Hitler, who thought they would just surrender.

This sort of restraint isn't present in NS.

Finally - equipment can be rebuilt. People cannot be so easily replaced.

Omz222

30-05-2005, 07:11

In WW-II they did not have Ebola weapons, viral weapons, VX nerve gas, Anthrax, Sarin gas, etc. employed on equal scale as the conventional bombs.
OOC: Might I interject here. The point is still quite irrelevant as conventional bombing in Europe against population centers are intended to demoralize the morale of the civilians. While its true that such bombing did drive many civilians to despair and misery, there were also many who were angry at not only the bombing in general but also the allied aircrews (for example, at one time pistols were reissued to B-17 aircrews to protect downed aircrew against angry civilians, who sometimes would shoot them on the spot once they land since they were so angry with the allied bombing). Further, massive civilian casulties would also trigger a propaganda war, in which the enemy will use the fact that you've killed a lot of civilians to their advantage.

GMC Military Arms

30-05-2005, 07:18

*cough* Ahem. It broke the ability to resist of Germany

Did it? I recall there being quite a large battle to take Berlin...And did it break the resolve of Britain? Soviet Russia?

Did the terrible bombings of civilian targets in Japan affect their resolve until invasion was upon them and two entire cities were obliterated with nuclear weapons?

and it was the civilian native resistance to Vietnam which eventually caused America one of it's most ridiculous defeats.

Ah, because America was being bombed during the Vietnam war? How on Earth does this help you? You're actually undermining your argument here; when your bioweapons start killing enemy civvies, you're saying your people will hate you for it.

While that's true, it hardly helps your case.

Propaganda, particularly that which involves "killing the children" works. Now consider this day and age of bleeding hearted tree-huggers who are already against Iraq because "people are getting hurt" and you'll see a response.

A response to killing other people's civilians in the example you gave. Do you think it would be the same response if American civilians were dying on American soil?

Did we see such a response when the Twin Towers went down, Vastiva? I sure didn't.

Vastiva

30-05-2005, 07:21

"If your military attempts to nuke us, we shall kill your children".

So, planning on it? Or more likely to follow other routes?

GMC Military Arms

30-05-2005, 07:26

"If your military attempts to nuke us, we shall kill your children".

So, planning on it? Or more likely to follow other routes?

A state that made such a threat would be destroyed. National-level terrorism doesn't tend to earn you many friends or allies. Further, as per your own example, a nation that made such a threat would face massive internal opposition, and would probably have its government overthrown in short order.

Der Angst

30-05-2005, 10:02

*cough* Ahem. It broke the ability to resist of Germany - the number of civilian refugees increased, the number of man hours needed to keep the people "in line" increased...Ahem. The opposite is true. The bombings made sure that they were fighting harder, since, well, as GMC mentioned, if your family dies in a firestorm consuming an entire city, you tend to want revenge and kill shit.

Douhet believed the opposite. Reality disagreed.

Furthermore, the bombings of civilian targets didn't shorten the war, they prolonged it, as necessary industrial structures actually tended to survive, courtesy of targetting inhabited areas, rather than factories. As a result: More guns, for fuel, more ammunition.

Now, for your OMG BIOWEAPONS, this means that the very moment you start targetting a civilian population, your nation is doomed. Either because they're ineffective or because you're going to be glassed.

Or both.

More to the point, you mentioned that Sharina would still have deterrence due to its allies (And due to its bioweapons, which isn't true, but I suppose that you don't actually have a proper definition of 'deterrence' in the WMD context).

This is true.

It's just... I wonder what your/ his allies would think if you/ he suddenly start attacking civilian population concentrations with this means.

Now, personally, if I were your ally, well, there wouldn't be an alliance remaining (Incidentally, I thought NATO == do-gooders? Doesn't really work well with such a scenario).

Please, get it into your head that deterrence is supposed to be just that, deterrence. Actually using it defeats the point of having it. As your scenario requires it to be used in peacetime, it is simply a nationwide suicide.

Only hundreds of lethal cases in cities of 200 million populations? <snip>Actually, in big, developed cities inside a first world scenario, more likely dozens of cases, rather than hundreds. Because, ya'know, reality disproves your nice imaginations, as the highest casualities are 1. in rural areas and 2. in the developing/ undeveloped world. A big city with its excessive health infrastructure is an excessively hard target, contrary to what the media tells you.

You cannot have a 100% fear-immune citizen populace, unless you go Post-Modern, by creating brain chips or whatever to control emotions like in several Sci-Fi movies.

Thus, if someone RP's 100% fear-proof citizen populace in MT times, it would be "cheating" and god-modding.The german workforce in WW2, producing guns for the front while the bombs were falling are an ignorable godmode?

The citizens on London holding out under V2 bombardement are a godmode?

The soldiers in ww1, suffering gas attacks and still fighting are a godmode?

The amies of the napoleonic era, which constantly suffered more casualities from diseases than from bullets and still fought are a godmode?

Moral effects are excessively overrated. Just like bioweapons, really.

I am not attacking logistics directly, as in attacking logistics convoys, supply depots, etc. Instead, I am seeking to dramatically increase the amount of resources the enemy will have to use logistics for, and also drastically increase the costs / economy strain on the enemy. <snip>Well, this works. Vastly less good than you would think, but ok. Of course, I notice that you have never really paid attention to the way NS conflicts work, basing your stuff on RL assumptions rather than NS realities (Which suggest extremely short, brutish wars where the effect on logistics wouldn't take off until the conflict is over), but hey... Your military planners are doubtlessly allowed to make mistakes.

Sharina

30-05-2005, 20:33

Ahem. The opposite is true. The bombings made sure that they were fighting harder, since, well, as GMC mentioned, if your family dies in a firestorm consuming an entire city, you tend to want revenge and kill shit.

Douhet believed the opposite. Reality disagreed.

Yes, true. However, human emotions can be their undoing, as rage and fury can override common sense, leading to either mass heroism or mass suicide (going on "rage" or "fury" runs aganist fortifications or difficult targets).

Furthermore, the bombings of civilian targets didn't shorten the war, they prolonged it, as necessary industrial structures actually tended to survive, courtesy of targetting inhabited areas, rather than factories. As a result: More guns, for fuel, more ammunition.

Those were for conventional bombs.

Employing bio-weapons adds more fear and terror throughout the populace as opposed to conventional bombs. The impact on morale would be more significant than conventional bombs.

What's more, there would be increased logistics to effectively supply equipment and facilities to combat effects of bio-weapons. This means more traffic and such on roads, resulting in more targets to hit.

There would also be millions of civilians rushing to get vaccines and inoculations, thus, making traffic a nightmare. There would be huge grid-locks, thus, making movement of war-material like guns, ammo, etc. extremely slow as the supply trucks would have to deal with the extreme traffic and grid-locks.

As for factories out in rural areas, those would be easily dealt with, via airpower or missile bombardment.

Now, for your OMG BIOWEAPONS, this means that the very moment you start targetting a civilian population, your nation is doomed. Either because they're ineffective or because you're going to be glassed.

Or both.

I have never said that I would be the one who fires the WMD's first. The enemy will be the one who does it first, and thus, the fault shall lie with the enemy, not me. Thus, I would be in the "right" for attacking enemy civilian centers as the enemy would have attacked my own civilian centers first.

If I get glassed, the enemy would easily get glassed by my NATO allies, as well as individual non-organization allies.

More to the point, you mentioned that Sharina would still have deterrence due to its allies (And due to its bioweapons, which isn't true, but I suppose that you don't actually have a proper definition of 'deterrence' in the WMD context).

This is true.

It's just... I wonder what your/ his allies would think if you/ he suddenly start attacking civilian population concentrations with this means.

Refer to above. I will employ bio-weapons aganist enemy civilian targets if the enemy attacks my civilian centers first. The enemy will be blamed, not me, thus I will save face.

Military targets are a different story, though. Bio-weapons aganist military targets would be considered "okay" as compared to civilian targets in terms of atrocities and international opinion.

Now, personally, if I were your ally, well, there wouldn't be an alliance remaining (Incidentally, I thought NATO == do-gooders? Doesn't really work well with such a scenario).

Please, get it into your head that deterrence is supposed to be just that, deterrence. Actually using it defeats the point of having it. As your scenario requires it to be used in peacetime, it is simply a nationwide suicide.

See above.

Actually, in big, developed cities inside a first world scenario, more likely dozens of cases, rather than hundreds. Because, ya'know, reality disproves your nice imaginations, as the highest casualities are 1. in rural areas and 2. in the developing/ undeveloped world. A big city with its excessive health infrastructure is an excessively hard target, contrary to what the media tells you.

Can hospitals in a mega-city handle 200 million citizens all at once? Doubtful. Even if the hospitals were large, they'd still need days or even weeks to inoculate their home-city's entire population. This is assuming that the enemy already has the vaccine before the bio-weapons are used for the first time. If the enemy doesn't have the vaccine, good luck. They'd need 6 months minimum to research any effective cures, rather than "OMG! Magic Cure In 1 Week or 1 Day!" god-mods.

Hell, even hospitals in NYC, Los Angeles, etc. can't handle the entire populace of the city. They can't, as time and space are factors. In addition, urban areas means giant crowds and huge traffic.

Getting from Point A to Point B in dense urban areas would be quite problematic at best if the city was under both conventional AND bio-attack at the same time. The streets, subways, etc. would be filled with rubble, creating lots of obstacles for civilians to get across / around.

In addition, civilians aren't trained to overcome obstacles as military soldiers are. Granted, a small number may be able to do so, but others won't be able to do so effectively.

You're forgetting emotions. Panic and fear. This would deprive many civilians of rational thought and action, as they'd be literally screaming and running for their lives. They wouldn't stop for a minute and think "Okay, how do I get around this pile of rubble blocking the street?". They'd just run around, trying to hide or hurry to shelter.

The german workforce in WW2, producing guns for the front while the bombs were falling are an ignorable godmode?

The citizens on London holding out under V2 bombardement are a godmode?

The soldiers in ww1, suffering gas attacks and still fighting are a godmode?

The amies of the napoleonic era, which constantly suffered more casualities from diseases than from bullets and still fought are a godmode?

I said 100% fear-proof. In those scenarios, these civilians and people made up a fraction of the total population of the nation / empire in question. Even among those "fractions", that would be like 70% - 80% fear-proof. 100% is impossible to attain, unless you literally remove all emotions from human beings via some kind of FT or Post-MT tech-wank.

There are always people who *will* panic or submit to fear, no matter how well trained or fanatical they are. Thus, the impossibility of perfect fear-proof armies or civilian populations.

Moral effects are excessively overrated. Just like bioweapons, really.

And nukes aren't?

Well, this works. Vastly less good than you would think, but ok. Of course, I notice that you have never really paid attention to the way NS conflicts work, basing your stuff on RL assumptions rather than NS realities (Which suggest extremely short, brutish wars where the effect on logistics wouldn't take off until the conflict is over), but hey... Your military planners are doubtlessly allowed to make mistakes.

Well, in NS, we have to suspend several realistic things, namely Jupiter Size NS Earth and 2 billion populations living on a land area the size of Japan or Hawaii (in the various Earth Series, like Earth I, II, III, etc.) So why not suspend believability with bio-weapons or whatever else?

Also, people can't be arsed to RP realistic wars. In NS, many wars are finished quickly so that the players can claim "OMG! Fast Victory!!!!" or so that the players can focus on other RP's.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 01:18

Also, people can't be arsed to RP realistic wars. In NS, many wars are finished quickly so that the players can claim "OMG! Fast Victory!!!!" or so that the players can focus on other RP's.

Yes, Sharina, you are the only person on the whole of NS who knows how to RP. Please guide us unworthy commoners with your sacred light.

Omz222

31-05-2005, 01:46

Yes, true. However, human emotions can be their undoing, as rage and fury can override common sense, leading to either mass heroism or mass suicide (going on "rage" or "fury" runs aganist fortifications or difficult targets).
So in essence, you are saying that it should be necessary for American troops to charge into a Taliban machine gun position while blasting automatic fire blindly? Or maybe the Americans should slam their torpedo bombers into a Japanese carrier since they are so angry about Pearl Harbour? Anger and logic are still separate, as anger is the feeling that drives a person to (try to) /accomplish/ things, while logic is the thing that allows one to think rationally. One can still think rationally to outsmart the enemy that he hates so much.

There would also be millions of civilians rushing to get vaccines and inoculations, thus, making traffic a nightmare. There would be huge grid-locks, thus, making movement of war-material like guns, ammo, etc. extremely slow as the supply trucks would have to deal with the extreme traffic and grid-locks.
Who said that the civilians would be travelling over a hundred mile on highways as opposed to seeking treatment in their local areas and districts, and who is saying that transportations always wake lace on highways? There's a reason why railroads exist.

Refer to above. I will employ bio-weapons aganist enemy civilian targets if the enemy attacks my civilian centers first. The enemy will be blamed, not me, thus I will save face.
...Using conventional weapons? Though an attack on civilian centers is often flamed upon, terror bombing using conventional methods in no way justifies the use of biological weapons against enemy civilian targets in return. Instead, it would be your nation who will be scorned upon by the international community, as you'll be the first nation who has used weapons of mass destruction. It's like saying that I should nuke you just because you attacked my missile silos with conventional weapons.

Can hospitals in a mega-city handle 200 million citizens all at once? Doubtful. Even if the hospitals were large, they'd still need days or even weeks to inoculate their home-city's entire population.
As a city gets larger, so will its public healthcare system and so on. The same thing, for the matter, also applies to smaller cities as well, as there is simply no use for so many healthcare enters. In larger cities, there will obviously be more healthcare facilities, along with temporary facilities set up by governmental and military units. The statement you made by itself is true, but that same thing also applies to any and every other city.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 01:53

... so you hit the healthcare areas first, using subterfuge and spies. Considering how a hospital works, one turncoat with a syringe and access can poison most of the hospital within 24 hours - 48 hours, definitely. This includes water supply, treated patients, out patients, and anyone who uses the pharmacy or breathing treatment areas. This also destroys the medical basis of the area, meaning you have to import doctors and trained medical staff from somewhere. This takes even more time and resources from you and creates greater panic.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 03:03

How does a plan that must be carried out in complete secrecy act as a deterrant, then? Surely the whole point of deterrance is the enemy knows about it in advance...

Sharina

31-05-2005, 03:15

So in essence, you are saying that it should be necessary for American troops to charge into a Taliban machine gun position while blasting automatic fire blindly? Or maybe the Americans should slam their torpedo bombers into a Japanese carrier since they are so angry about Pearl Harbour? Anger and logic are still separate, as anger is the feeling that drives a person to (try to) /accomplish/ things, while logic is the thing that allows one to think rationally. One can still think rationally to outsmart the enemy that he hates so much.

Yes, I do realize that rational thought aganist an extremely hated enemy is possible. However, citing the RL examples... here's one. Suicide bombers running down soldier or police officer gauntlets. Look at Iraq for instance, people blow themselves up out of hatred of the American invasion and such.

However, it is also possible for humans to go into "beserk" mode out of rage and fury, thus, losing much rational thought. The "beserk" people would only think about killing the enemy, and strategy + tactics go out the window.

I'm only saying that that can happen, and I can take full advantage of human emotional states. There's no way to make humans 100% emotion-free, and 100% fool-proof in actual combat conditions, unless we move into Post-MT or FT settings.

Who said that the civilians would be travelling over a hundred mile on highways as opposed to seeking treatment in their local areas and districts, and who is saying that transportations always wake lace on highways? There's a reason why railroads exist.

Railroads can be bombed easily, as the train tracks don't move, like trucks can.

In NS, the mega-cities can extend in all directions for 20 - 30 miles. In addition, there could be traffic jams and snarls inside the cities themselves, presenting a lot of problems for locals to reach their local hospitals in a fast / timely manner. Ditto if I attack the city / locale with conventional weapons, which would fill the streets and buildings with rubble, presenting a lot of obstacles that civilians are not trained to scale or overcome.

...Using conventional weapons? Though an attack on civilian centers is often flamed upon, terror bombing using conventional methods in no way justifies the use of biological weapons against enemy civilian targets in return. Instead, it would be your nation who will be scorned upon by the international community, as you'll be the first nation who has used weapons of mass destruction. It's like saying that I should nuke you just because you attacked my missile silos with conventional weapons.

I would employ a mix of bio-weapons AND conventional weapons aganist the enemy if he/she attacks my civilian centers with bio-weapons or nukes. Basically, if the enemy WMD's me first, I can WMD him back and not be shunned by alliances and the international community.

As a city gets larger, so will its public healthcare system and so on. The same thing, for the matter, also applies to smaller cities as well, as there is simply no use for so many healthcare enters. In larger cities, there will obviously be more healthcare facilities, along with temporary facilities set up by governmental and military units. The statement you made by itself is true, but that same thing also applies to any and every other city.

Yes, but size does matter. the bigger the city is, the more complex transportation system is required to move citizens around quickly and efficiently. Ditto for more complex public services.

The more complex a network is, the easier it is to disrupt one part, and set off a chain reaction. Sorta like with computers, take out a few pieces, then the computer would stop functioning.

Another saying comes to mind... "The bigger it is, the harder it falls." Or a slightly different saying... "The more complex, the easier to screw up."

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 03:32

How does a plan that must be carried out in complete secrecy act as a deterrant, then? Surely the whole point of deterrance is the enemy knows about it in advance...

"If you attempt this, we will nuke you."

Does it say where? How? Mention cities? No.
Does it work? Yes.

"Sharina has a multi-trillion USD biological and chemical warfare division, easily thirty times as large as any other. They have also announced publicly if attacked, they will use them liberally on the attacking nation."

Does it say where? How? Mention cities? No.
Does it work? Yes.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 03:44

"If you attempt this, we will nuke you."

Does it say where? How? Mention cities? No.
Does it work? Yes.

No. Any idiot can look at their own nation and tell what the intended targets would be for a nuclear strike; major industrial centres, military bases, large population centres. Basic intel will tell you what your enemy has in their stockpile; indeed, nuclear deterrence makes a point of giving the enemy knowledge that you can strike at them, with what and where.

Didn't you notice the Soviets parading their nuclear missiles through Red Square, and that they only ever made attempts to hide where mobile launchers would be? Didn't you notice America housing missiles in gigantic complexes of hardened silos that anyone could find?

Nuclear deterrence works because the enemy knows exactly what they will lose; it's simply ridiculous to claim they won't know the targets, the method of delivery or even roughly where the missiles will be coming from.

"Sharina has a multi-trillion USD biological and chemical warfare division, easily thirty times as large as any other. They have also announced publicly if attacked, they will use them liberally on the attacking nation."

Does it say where? How? Mention cities? No.
Does it work? Yes.

No. Again, any idiot could tell where chemical weapons would be deployed with a simple map of population density and take steps to minimise risk in those areas. Further, the enemy is not going to be intimidated unless you can demonstrate you are able to deploy weapons. In the Cold War, this was done through visible placement of delivery systems in large facilities or military parades, highly visible above-ground nuclear tests and so on. Without demonstrating an ability to deliver weapons to their targets effectively, a threat is just so much hot air.

And given your plan, Vastiva, involves a ridiculously complex network of sleeper cells, even mentioning that it exists is impossible because you'd massively increase the risk of compromise. Therefore, your plan has no value at all as a deterrant.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 03:57

Let's go over this again.

"Sharina has a multi-trillion USD biological and chemical warfare division, easily thirty times as large as any other. They have also announced publicly if attacked, they will use them liberally on the attacking nation."

It would appear they have the ability. A few parades, and you'll see the MIRV delivery systems ostensibly to be used - there's no requirement you show precisely how you're going to deliver it, only that you show off how you could possibly do it (these are your words, right?).

Tests of "Agent-34371-B" can be "leaked" to spies or to the press - or through any number of means, given the internet. Wanna spook the hell out of a population? Run over a few of these "test films" quietly, make them illegal to see - and the hackers will have a field day. What the heck, this sort of "disinformational information" happens daily.

There is no reason to display the ability to neutralize or inhibit the ability to respond until such ability is required - and used.

Next arguement please.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 04:16

It would appear they have the ability. A few parades, and you'll see the MIRV delivery systems ostensibly to be used - there's no requirement you show precisely how you're going to deliver it, only that you show off how you could possibly do it (these are your words, right?).

This means your sleeper cells have no deterrance value, and an enemy with a decent NS-modern SDI system will discount the threat of your deterrant entirely. Further, bioweapons are ineffective when delivered by ICBM, being rather sensitive to, say, thousands of degrees temperature variation in flight and hitting the ground really, really hard.

Again, the sleeper cell plan is a reprisal or first strike attack, not a deterrant. Nobody will be deterred by something they don't know exists. Given the general uselessness of strategic bioweapons in any other scenario, nobody will buy it and the 'deterrant' will have to be used when the enemy tries to call your bluff over the public system.

It isn't wise to threaten someone with an obvious toy gun to get them to leave you alone, it's rather better they know you have a real kitchen knife than wait until they start beating up on you before you make with the stabbity.

Tests of "Agent-34371-B" can be "leaked" to spies or to the press - or through any number of means, given the internet. Wanna spook the hell out of a population? Run over a few of these "test films" quietly, make them illegal to see - and the hackers will have a field day. What the heck, this sort of "disinformational information" happens daily.

And is almost never taken seriously by anyone but crackpots. You really think a government's nuclear policy is going to be swayed by a dodgy .mov file on the internet?

There is no reason to display the ability to neutralize or inhibit the ability to respond [i]until such ability is required - and used.

There is if you wish to demonstrate a weapon that poses a serious threat of reprisal as part of a policy of deterrance. To do so you must demonstrate the weapon can be deployed effectively and in large quantities, and cause similiar damage to the enemy as his first strike caused to you ['symmetrical destruction,' the cornerstone of MAD]; bioweapons are not nearly effective enough on ICBMs to be counted as a serious threat of reprisal, that's why in the Cold War nobody bothered to try it.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 04:35

This means your sleeper cells have no deterrance value, and an enemy with a decent NS-modern SDI system will discount the threat of your deterrant entirely. Further, bioweapons are ineffective when delivered by ICBM, being rather sensitive to, say, thousands of degrees temperature variation in flight and hitting the ground really, really hard.

Again, these systems have been demonstrated to be effective by Sharina ahead of time - including delivery systems.

Again, the sleeper cell plan is a reprisal or first strike attack, not a deterrant. Nobody will be deterred by something they don't know exists. Given the general uselessness of strategic bioweapons in any other scenario, nobody will buy it and the 'deterrant' will have to be used when the enemy tries to call your bluff over the public system.

I don't care if they know about the sleepers ahead of time. All I care about is that they take the threat seriously. And if it has to be used - so be it, we'll then use that as a show of "You'll see, we are serious". Meanwhile, that nation will get invaded by (at last count) thirty other nations, burned to the ground, salted, and mass executed, leaving no one alive who will be able to "leak" all the details.

Or if they use nukes, they just get glassed. Simple.

It isn't wise to threaten someone with an obvious toy gun to get them to leave you alone, it's rather better they know you have a real kitchen knife than wait until they start beating up on you before you make with the stabbity.

See above. Covered.

And is almost never taken seriously by anyone but crackpots. You really think a government's nuclear policy is going to be swayed by a dodgy .mov file on the internet?

Ah, but what of the "test files" that government agents manage to get? You have FAR oversimplified what will be out there in a proper disinformation campaign.

You do remember this whole Iraq thing, when dodgy information swayed a whole government to invade? Seems it does have an impact - because people are stupid. They believe what they want, or what they fear. In this case, it will be fear that makes Sharina's weapons far more effective then they have to be.

There is if you wish to demonstrate a weapon that poses a serious threat of reprisal as part of a policy of deterrance. To do so you must demonstrate the weapon can be deployed effectively and in large quantities, and cause similiar damage to the enemy as his first strike caused to you ['symmetrical destruction,' the cornerstone of MAD]; bioweapons are not [i]nearly effective enough on ICBMs to be counted as a serious threat of reprisal, that's why in the Cold War nobody bothered to try it.

NATO has proven over and over it can and will roll over any nation which threatens it's members, of which Sharina is one. They have also proven over and over they will use nuclear weapons to glass anyone who uses nuclear weapons - heck AMF alone proves that.

Now, you dare not use nuclear arms - and Sharina will cause untold numbers of fatalities with proven methods of delivering thousands of tons of effective, virulent, and fatal bioweapons to your doorstep.

Use nukes, you die.
Use conventional weapons, you get bioweaponed severely.

Seems like a deterent to me.

That you are uninformed of every method Sharina will use, and has at her disposal - that's your problem. I'm not telling Flecanian's president that his mistress is our agent with orders to kill him when combat starts either - but it's going to happen anyway.

That is how a war with subterfuge and propaganda is fought. You start it, we'll screw you into the ground either way you try and fight it.

As a result, you'll leave Sharina alone. Deterrent complete.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 05:03

Again, these systems have been demonstrated to be effective by Sharina ahead of time - including delivery systems.

He has yet to do so. Therefore, no deterrance value.

Further, there are very few useful ways to deploy bioweapons, that's why they've been used so little in the history of warfare.

I don't care if they know about the sleepers ahead of time.

You should. The entire plan is virtually worthless if the enemy is actively hunting them down following compromise, since if they are hiding from arrest they won't be doing much else.

Meanwhile, that nation will get invaded by (at last count) thirty other nations, burned to the ground, salted, and mass executed, leaving no one alive who will be able to "leak" all the details.

Wow, they're sure to have a fun time in an RP like that. Aren't 'horrible alliancewanks' one of the biggest things people dislike about II forum war RPs?

Ah, but what of the "test files" that government agents manage to get? You have FAR oversimplified what will be out there in a proper disinformation campaign.

What of them? Who the hell would take a .mov claimed to be a leaked secret weapon test seriously, knowing what kind of supposedly leaked silliness is out there already? Alien autopsies, oh noes.

You do remember this whole Iraq thing, when dodgy information swayed a whole government to invade?

Oh yes...I remember how they got the information from the internet rather than their own intelligence services especially well, that was the best part. That plus you're describing the opposite situation; did you notice the bit where Iraq got invaded?

NATO has proven over and over it can and will roll over any nation which threatens it's members, of which Sharina is one. They have also proven over and over they will use nuclear weapons to glass anyone who uses nuclear weapons - heck AMF alone proves that.

AMF has also, IIRC, gone on record as disliking the kind of boring '30 nations invead joo' RP situations you're advocating.

Now, you dare not use nuclear arms - and Sharina will cause untold numbers of fatalities with proven methods of delivering thousands of tons of effective, virulent, and fatal bioweapons to your doorstep.

Proven when? By the fact that nobody has every bothered to create a strategic bioweapon because bioweapons are badly suited to being forced into a role nuclear weapons excel at? Or are you going to argue that you get proven technology just by throwing a trillion dollars at it in the hope that physics and biochemistry can be bribed?

Use nukes, you die.
Use conventional weapons, you get bioweaponed severely.

Seems like a deterent to me.

That's because you're oversimplifying matters so you can claim bioweapons are effective strategic weapons, when they are anything but.

Also sounds like a good way to get yourself ignored for horrible 'GRAAR ME BIG' powergaming.

That you are uninformed of every method Sharina will use, and has at her disposal - that's your problem. I'm not telling Flecanian's president that his mistress is our agent with orders to kill him when combat starts either - but it's going to happen anyway.

That you fail to inform your enemy of the only useful method of deployment a weapon has renders the weapon useless as a deterrant. Do you think nuclear deterrence would still have worked if the Soviet Union didn't know the US had ballistic missiles or long-range bombers and had to drive warheads into their country in semi trucks? ICBM delivery of bioweapons is a bad joke, not an effective deterrant.

That is how a war with subterfuge and propaganda is fought.

By wanking your enemy to death with your thirty gigantic allies so they lose no matter what they do or how lame and badly thought out their enemy's tactics are? Fun.

Yes, if you have thirty allies with sensible deterrence policies it doesn't matter how unlikely, stupid and dangerous your own deterrence policy is. However, since you're claiming here that it's somehow a good idea, the allies don't come into it. Red Herring.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 05:17

Again, these systems have been demonstrated to be effective by Sharina ahead of time - including delivery systems.

He has yet to do so. Therefore, no deterrance value.

Further, there are very few useful ways to deploy bioweapons, that's why they've been used so little in the history of warfare.

Gee, she just announced it. The propaganda campaign has far from begun - and you're already damning it as a complete failure. Tsk tsk.

I don't care if they know about the sleepers ahead of time.

You should. The entire plan is virtually worthless if the enemy is actively hunting them down following compromise, since if they are hiding from arrest they won't be doing much else.

Pick a side, George. I'm not telling them about the agents, just as no other nation gives up all their agents.

Meanwhile, that nation will get invaded by (at last count) thirty other nations, burned to the ground, salted, and mass executed, leaving no one alive who will be able to "leak" all the details.

Wow, they're sure to have a fun time in an RP like that. Aren't 'horrible alliancewanks' one of the biggest things people dislike about II forum war RPs?

Irrelevant. The point is deterrence.

Ah, but what of the "test files" that government agents manage to get? You have FAR oversimplified what will be out there in a proper disinformation campaign.

What of them? Who the hell would take a .mov claimed to be a leaked secret weapon test seriously, knowing what kind of supposedly leaked silliness is out there already? Alien autopsies, oh noes.

You really don't have any idea how disinformation works, or you're using simplistic commentary in an attempt to look snide. As you've shown a comprehension of how war - including cold war - works, I'll have to assume the latter. You know how disinformation and "we want them to know this" campaigns work. Enough silliness.

You do remember this whole Iraq thing, when dodgy information swayed a whole government to invade?

Oh yes...I remember how they got the information from the internet rather than their own intelligence services especially well, that was the best part. That plus you're describing the opposite situation; did you notice the bit where Iraq got invaded?

Yep, just like they wanted. Worked beautifully. In other words a disinformation campaign can cause a political unit to function exactly the way you want it to - whether they know you're pulling strings or not.

Iraq got invaded because of false intelligence information. Just as Sharina won't be because of false intelligence.

NATO has proven over and over it can and will roll over any nation which threatens it's members, of which Sharina is one. They have also proven over and over they will use nuclear weapons to glass anyone who uses nuclear weapons - heck AMF alone proves that.

AMF has also, IIRC, gone on record as disliking the kind of boring '30 nations invead joo' RP situations you're advocating.

Irrelevant, as you're mixing OOC and IC actions. Does not matter in the least - certainly you know about Red Herrings?

Now, you dare not use nuclear arms - and Sharina will cause untold numbers of fatalities with proven methods of delivering thousands of tons of effective, virulent, and fatal bioweapons to your doorstep.

Proven when? By the fact that nobody has every bothered to create a strategic bioweapon because bioweapons are badly suited to being forced into a role nuclear weapons excel at? Or are you going to argue that you get proven technology just by throwing a trillion dollars at it in the hope that physics and biochemistry can be bribed?

I'm stating Sharina is investing in the technology and may come up with something - at which time, it will be displayed.

Once again - who cares what nukes do, you use them you're dead. The point of this is "If you use conventional weapons, you're also dead". Deterrence.

Use nukes, you die.
Use conventional weapons, you get bioweaponed severely.

Seems like a deterent to me.

That's because you're oversimplifying matters so you can claim bioweapons are effective strategic weapons, when they are anything but.

Also sounds like a good way to get yourself ignored for horrible 'GRAAR ME BIG' powergaming.

Repeat after me: "Deterrence".

That you are uninformed of every method Sharina will use, and has at her disposal - that's your problem. I'm not telling Flecanian's president that his mistress is our agent with orders to kill him when combat starts either - but it's going to happen anyway.

That you fail to inform your enemy of the only useful method of deployment a weapon has renders the weapon useless as a deterrant. Do you think nuclear deterrence would still have worked if the Soviet Union didn't know the US had ballistic missiles or long-range bombers and had to drive warheads into their country in semi trucks? ICBM delivery of bioweapons is a bad joke, not an effective deterrant.

Covered - see above.

That is how a war with subterfuge and propaganda is fought.

By wanking your enemy to death with your thirty gigantic allies so they lose no matter what they do or how lame and badly thought out their enemy's tactics are? Fun.

Irrelevant statement.

Yes, if you have thirty allies with sensible deterrence policies it doesn't matter how unlikely, stupid and dangerous your own deterrence policy is. However, since you're claiming here that it's somehow a good idea, the allies don't come into it. Red Herring.

Red herring - obviously Sharina's defense includes her allies. As such, this deters against nuclear or conventional warfare. That being the point, it apparently works. Nice try though.

Sharina

31-05-2005, 05:43

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 05:49

Gee, she just announced it. The propaganda campaign has far from begun - and you're already damning it as a complete failure. Tsk tsk.

Lovely flamebaiting. I suggest you chill.

Pick a side, George. I'm not telling them about the agents, just as no other nation gives up all their agents.

You just said it didn't matter if they were compromised. It clearly does matter if they are compromised, and you have no deterrent from them because the enemy can't know they're there.

Irrelevant. The point is deterrence.

Wrong, the point is for both players in a given RP to enjoy playing Nationstates. Everything else is secondary.

You really don't have any idea how disinformation works, or you're using simplistic commentary in an attempt to look snide. As you've shown a comprehension of how war - including cold war - works, I'll have to assume the latter. You know how disinformation and "we want them to know this" campaigns work. Enough silliness.

No disinformation campign using highly dubious sources such as internet boards would ever get far; the best you would ever hope for would be the enemy would investigate matters further, they'd certainly never take something so commonly faked by conspiracy websites as gospel. Your example was internet boards.

Yep, just like they wanted. Worked beautifully. In other words a disinformation campaign can cause a political unit to function exactly the way you want it to - whether they know you're pulling strings or not.

Iraq got invaded because of false intelligence information. Just as Sharina won't be because of false intelligence.

Iraq did not distribute that false intelligence in order to get itself invaded, last I checked. You are trying to compare a mistake by intelligence resulting in a war with many percieved benefits for the US [and no benefits whatsoever for the Iraqi government] with a deliberate attempt to deceive a nation into taking action to your own advantage based on false information you manufactured. Being both originator and beneficiary is no mean trick.

The two are not alike: Iraq had to do nothing but be suspicious in order to get itself invaded.

Irrelevant, as you're mixing OOC and IC actions. Does not matter in the least - certainly you know about Red Herrings?

IC actions should be adjusted to make the game enjoyable for all parties; the other player has a right to enjoy themselves here as much as you have a right to stomp them. This is why GRAAR DESTROY is bad RP.

I'm stating Sharina is investing in the technology and may come up with something - at which time, it will be displayed.

There is no value to weapons that do not exist. Sharina is decommissioning stockpiles of nuclear weapons before having anything to replace them with, with no guarantee anything ever will replace them!

Once again - who cares what nukes do, you use them you're dead. The point of this is "If you use conventional weapons, you're also dead". Deterrence.

No, insane overreaction that would leave you with no allies. No nation so unstable as to threaten massive strategic WMD attacks in reply to any conventional attacks would last long in a realistic scenario because its allies would start to wonder if they were next. Since you generally don't want that to happen, that nation would be quietly annexed and its government replaced with something more reasonable.

Repeat after me: "Deterrence".

Yes, I can see how 'if you try to do $scenario I'll destroy you and you won't be able to stop me, bwa ha ha' would deter people from playing with you. For anything else, biological weapons have no deterrent value.

Irrelevant statement.

Entirely relevant. Using your allies to avoid having a reasonable nation is terrible RPing. Since I assume Sharina doesn't want a reputation as a dreadful wanker, it's helpful to have a policy that doesn't involve brute forcing the enemy to death with a huge dogpile of allies.

Besides, what if those allies aren't there for them someday and this whole silly policy has to stand up by itself?

Red herring - obviously Sharina's defense includes her allies. As such, this deters against nuclear or conventional warfare. That being the point, it apparently works. Nice try though.

The red herring would be yours. This argument, if you remember, was about whether bioweapons could be an effective deterrent and could replace nuclear weapons in a nation's arsenal. You introduced the useless side-topic that it doesn't matter because Sharina has allies.

This is irrelevant to whether Sharina's own policies are effective; having thirty allies means you could use WW2 equipment, dress in Darth Vader costumes instead of uniforms, make up tactics on the spot and still win though sheer weight of numbers, but that does not make those tactics valid, effective or useful.

Sharina

31-05-2005, 06:04

I have stated before and will state once again. I will not be using bio / chem weapons aganist the enemy UNLESS two conditions happen.

Condition #1: The enemy launches a WMD attack aganist Sharina.

Sharina's Response: Launch a return WMD attack aganist the enemy.

Consquence: The international community and Sharina's allies would be far less likely to condemn / turn backs on Sharina if Sharina's enemy was the one who INITIATED the WMD attack, not Sharina.

Condition #2: Sharina is attacked and has its back up aganist the wall. Sharina's military is 90% - 95% destroyed. This from either a single nation or a coalition of nations. This is assuming Sharina's allies are also about to be eliminated or are already "defeated".

Sharina's Response: Launch every last WMD it has at all enemies in a last ditch attack, as it has no other option left in face of imminent defeat / destruction.

Consquence: The enemy or enemies would suffer ecosystem collapse as all animals, plants, crops, etc. die out or become contimanated. The enemy citizens would starve unless the enemy spends trillions of dollars to buy foreign food, clean up their ruined farming and mining industry, etc. Thus, their military would be under-funded, allowing other nations to take advantage, thus, resulting in the destruction of the enemy nation.

------------------------------------------

By the way... in case this was overlooked, I found a picture of the bio-weapon globes in the movie "The Rock" that I could adapt to ICBM's and other delivery vehicles to make bio-weapons more effective (in hitting targets and achieving desired objectives).

http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/vx/rockVx1.jpg

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 06:14

(After a conversation with someone infinitely more logical then I)

1. People do not work as individuals in a crisis situation - they work as a mob. Mobs are violent, emotional - and incredibly stupid. At critical mass with enough population being fed the same data in a close enough proximity, the individual becomes the mob and the mob becomes unruly and hard to abate.

One copy of data from Sharina's gas test areas, no big deal - to the government. Tens of millions of pieces of what seems to be a much larger puzzle all showing up all over the place - pictures which the "fringe" and mainstream can both seize on as DANGER TERROR REACT! information...

Consider what FOX news did with 9/11. Reality - not enough deaths to make a big blip in the death rate. But what happened? People stopped flying. They stopped travelling. Airplane stock fell, airlines couldn't get enough tickets to make flying worthwhile. Amusement parks had problems pulling anyone in - tourist attractions suffered. Even National Parks and Historic Monuments got closed, or their time open restricted badly.

You can still see the effects today. All this from two planes hitting two buildings. There isn't any other threat - nothing else happened. But every possible attempt - no matter how ridiculous, unsuccessful, or downright "what the hell" got and continues to get reported by the news.

Result - terrified people who have beaten arab-americans, mob scenes, gas mask sales blew through the roof - as did duct tape and plastic...

Heck, Sharina drops a completely harmless virus on you which causes nothing more then an allergic reaction – much like the common cold. An “accidental release” during a trade negotiation, to which governmental agencies declare “Completely Harmless” – yet the public has all this information in their grubby little paws about the SHARINAN DEATH BLOSSOM VIRUS…

And your people are going to react to this how? Logically? Like hell they are.

Tell me again how this isn't going to help Sharina as a deterrent?

2. How fast can you cure these things again? You have completely ignored the fact you have to identify the bugs being used, create an effective treatment and/or vaccine, administer said vaccine and/or cure - all of which is going to swallow resources.

That’s part one.

Part two – considering Sharina is using viruses, perhaps you will explain how you will create an effective cure against whatever she uses, considering your job is made that much more complex due to mutational transition. In other words, the bug is going to mutate – and what defended against strain A may not be effective at all against strain B – and isn’t going to do squat against strain C. All this will happen inside your country, without Sharina hitting the button again.

You’re going to have to deal with rampant mutations running through your nation.

Think about the Mongol empire, its effects on creating a singular trade route to China, and the plague bacillus suddenly appearing in port towns and borderlands both in the Balkans and Italy just less than two years later. That was a relatively ineffective bug, by modern bioweapon standards – and more so by what Sharina can dream up, in infectiousness.

3. ”Deterrent” doesn’t always just mean “You’ll all die”. Sometimes it means “Fighting me will be pointless”. Logistics necessary to keep fighting will be strained to prop up the economic resources - I mean citizens - under attack. Medical facilities will be flooded with “infected” – whether they are really infected or just believe they are, remember, people panic and do excessively stupid things. Pharmacies are going to be invaded by the “deathly ill” in riots – or flooded by people demanding the newest antibiotics (useless against viral agents, but people don’t care) which slows down the ability of pharmaceutical companies to deliver medication to the needy, takes from the actual supplies you have, uses up “human resources” as they treat your population rather then support your military…

Consider Hitler and his final solution on the Eastern front; instead of using the rail lines into the Soviet Union to supply the Wehrmacht with desperately needed oil, ammunition, and winter clothing he used those same resources to solve a the social "disease" of the Jewish race; put the dots together... it’s not a pretty picture.

Just as well, a single biotoxin could probably (at absolute worst using Plague as the archtype) infect perhaps 60% of a densely populated area; with proper hygiene, many could survive but the economic damage has been leveled – your logistics and economy is going to strain and bend, if not down and out break.

Now add that Sharina is not using just one biotoxin – but potentially hundreds of different biotoxins, all over your nation. Containment is not an option. Your logistics are suffering badly – unless you like people dying in the street. Identifying all those bugs – and supplying treatments – is not going to happen overnight, or next month. Potentially, because of mutational transition, you’re going to be dealing with thousands of variants all over the place. True, some will be neutral, some will burn out – but you’re trying to deal with all this fun at home and fight a war?

Deterrent. No one in their right mind is going to attempt to play with that fire – and if some fruitcake does, they’re handed more then they can handle, and quickly.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 06:34

I have stated before and will state once again. I will not be using bio / chem weapons aganist the enemy UNLESS two conditions happen. <snip>

Indeed, those are two fairly reasonable situations for WMD deployment. This is far better than Vastiva's attempts to wing conventional deterrence as well, though I'm still not sure why nuclear weapons would be inappropriate [or less effective] in either scenario.

By the way... in case this was overlooked, I found a picture of the bio-weapon globes in the movie "The Rock" that I could adapt to ICBM's and other delivery vehicles to make bio-weapons more effective (in hitting targets and achieving desired objectives).

You know, I never really thought it seemed that smart storing lethal nerve gas in really delicate glass balls rather than something a little more substantial [a thick glass cylinder... Or, hell, even a coffee jar might have survived being dropped from the height that one bad guy dropped it from near the start].

Also, bear in mind bioweapons are highly temperature-sensitive, meaning you'd need something more heavily insulated than a glass ball and a much thicker heat shield on the warhead than normal. Plus there's the classic MAD argument that since the reprisal strike is launched before the first strike hits, a non-nuclear ICBM would get you a nuclear reply nine times out of ten.

Tell me again how this isn't going to help Sharina as a deterrent?

Can you tell me what the US was deterred from doing by the 9/11 attacks? See, I saw it start a 'war on terror' that has so far removed two national governments from power. Is that really a good result?

Part two – considering Sharina is using viruses, perhaps you will explain how you will create an effective cure against whatever she uses, considering your job is made that much more complex due to mutational transition.

And the mutation rate is what, exactly? Most viruses don't mutate into strains particularly fast, given that the vast majority of mutations have no affect on the functioning of the virus [they are neutral].

Simply hoping that $virus will have a high mutation rate is silly, and also makes the virus less likely to be used for military applications, since it will be harder to inoculate your own people against it to prevent the prospect of your own killer disease coming back to you by infected people from neutral countries. After all, were a virus as effective and deadly as you want it to be, the prospect of your own people falling victim to it [or worse yet, your allies who you trust to defend you] would be all too real.

Now add that Sharina is not using just one biotoxin – but potentially hundreds of different biotoxins, all over your nation. Containment is not an option.

How? How would they be getting into the enemy nation when both Sharina's scenarios give an enemy ample time to lock down borders and prepare for a biochem attack, arrest all suspicious citizens and get a first strike in before anything kicks off? The crisis you are creating is utterly imaginary, since Sharina would be suffering the same problems already [and these would be interfering with ability to launch the reprisal strike].

Sharina

31-05-2005, 06:57

You know, I never really thought it seemed that smart storing lethal nerve gas in really delicate glass balls rather than something a little more substantial [a thick glass cylinder... Or, hell, even a coffee jar might have survived being dropped from the height that one bad guy dropped it from near the start].

I could possibly design stronger sphere / globes, perhaps not glass, but plastic, ceramic, or some sort of stronger material that would sustain vibrations and such, but shatter if impact force occurs.

Also, bear in mind bioweapons are highly temperature-sensitive, meaning you'd need something more heavily insulated than a glass ball and a much thicker heat shield on the warhead than normal. Plus there's the classic MAD argument that since the reprisal strike is launched before the first strike hits, a non-nuclear ICBM would get you a nuclear reply nine times out of ten.

Hmm... I could try to develop compressed heat shielding, or tempature regulation such as using cool liquid or gas (refrigation could be an option) to maintain tempature, while the ceramic or heat-resistant layers divert most of the heat.

As for the MAD thing, what about ICBM's with conventional warheads? IIRC, some nations in NS have used conventional warhead ICBM's and didn't get glassed in return. Also, the enemy can detect weird status in my ICBM's, like refrigation units or what-not, and immediately know they're not nukes.

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 07:05

As for the MAD thing, what about ICBM's with conventional warheads? IIRC, some nations in NS have used conventional warhead ICBM's and didn't get glassed in return. Also, the enemy can detect weird status in my ICBM's, like refrigation units or what-not, and immediately know they're not nukes.

Yes, I believe there's a thread linked in one of the stickies that states that nobody should use a conventional ICBM on any opponent that could potentially respond with a nuclear attack. Actually, in the two scenarios you detailed a non-nuclear ICBM isn't particularly obnoxious, since you will already have been the victim of a first strike in both cases anyway.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 07:05

I could possibly design stronger sphere / globes, perhaps not glass, but plastic, ceramic, or some sort of stronger material that would sustain vibrations and such, but shatter if impact force occurs.

How about a silicon-glass with a gel insert?

Hmm... I could try to develop compressed heat shielding, or tempature regulation such as using cool liquid or gas (refrigation could be an option) to maintain tempature, while the ceramic or heat-resistant layers divert most of the heat.

As for the MAD thing, what about ICBM's with conventional warheads? IIRC, some nations in NS have used conventional warhead ICBM's and didn't get glassed in return. Also, the enemy can detect weird status in my ICBM's, like refrigation units or what-not, and immediately know they're not nukes.

In scenario #2 the enemy can't nuke you without nuking their own troops.

In scenario #1 my scenario has spies working alongside ICBM or such assaults (multiple vectors of infection). Regardless of the security of the nation, someone is going to get through - and then starts the landslide.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 07:27

Gee, she just announced it. The propaganda campaign has far from begun - and you're already damning it as a complete failure. Tsk tsk.

Lovely flamebaiting. I suggest you chill.

She just announced the campaign and you’re saying it’s a failure. How can you assume that?

Pick a side, George. I'm not telling them about the agents, just as no other nation gives up all their agents.

You just said it didn't matter if they were compromised. It clearly does matter if they are compromised, and you have no deterrent from them because the enemy can't know they're there.

Irrelevant. If they’re there, they work for me. If the enemy attempts to compromise – as they do all agents – that’s part and parcel of the cold war. The object is not to have them have anything pertaining to that mission until it is necessary they do so. Beyond that, this is diversionary.

Irrelevant. The point is deterrence.

Wrong, the point is for both players in a given RP to enjoy playing Nationstates. Everything else is secondary.

Precisely. Sharina wants this defense – she has it – she’s happy. Some n00b shows up and tries to invade, she has her defense in place and need not deal with it. Everyone is happy.

If someone she wants to play war with attacks, they can discuss things and come to terms.

Where’s the problem? If this is your stance – “the point is for both players to enjoy playing NationStates” – then it doesn’t matter how realistic or not her defenses are. She’ll play with who she wants, on her terms, or she won’t.

All other arguments you have put forth are therefore irrelevant, as it is her playing the way she wants. Doesn’t matter if it’s “realistic” or not. Doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. This is what she is doing – if you don’t like it, don’t play with her. If you do, great, game on.

You really don't have any idea how disinformation works, or you're using simplistic commentary in an attempt to look snide. As you've shown a comprehension of how war - including cold war - works, I'll have to assume the latter. You know how disinformation and "we want them to know this" campaigns work. Enough silliness.

No disinformation campign using highly dubious sources such as internet boards would ever get far; the best you would ever hope for would be the enemy would investigate matters further, they'd certainly never take something so commonly faked by conspiracy websites as gospel. Your example was internet boards.

No, my example was “the internet” and “garnered from Sharina by hackers”. After that, it goes onto the internet and the meme “SHARINA BIOWEAPONS DANGEROUS” affects the public.

Yep, just like they wanted. Worked beautifully. In other words a disinformation campaign can cause a political unit to function exactly the way you want it to - whether they know you're pulling strings or not.

Iraq got invaded because of false intelligence information. Just as Sharina won't be because of false intelligence.

Iraq did not distribute that false intelligence in order to get itself invaded, last I checked. You are trying to compare a mistake by intelligence resulting in a war with many percieved benefits for the US [and no benefits whatsoever for the Iraqi government] with a deliberate attempt to deceive a nation into taking action to your own advantage based on false information you manufactured. Being both originator and beneficiary is no mean trick.

The two are not alike: Iraq had to do nothing but be suspicious in order to get itself invaded.

Iraq was not the one spreading the disinformation – those who wanted to invade spread it and encouraged its spread. It worked magnificently. Ergo, my comment is “Those who wanted war spread disinformation to create a public belief, by which an attack on Iraq was not only possible, it was required”.

And it worked.

Irrelevant, as you're mixing OOC and IC actions. Does not matter in the least - certainly you know about Red Herrings?

IC actions should be adjusted to make the game enjoyable for all parties; the other player has a right to enjoy themselves here as much as you have a right to stomp them. This is why GRAAR DESTROY is bad RP.

Once again – if Sharina wants to play, vunderbar. If they don’t, they have their IC reason, which the other side plays with – or doesn’t play.

I'm stating Sharina is investing in the technology and may come up with something - at which time, it will be displayed.

There is no value to weapons that do not exist. Sharina is decommissioning stockpiles of nuclear weapons before having anything to replace them with, with no guarantee anything ever will replace them!

Ah, but there’s that investment, she already has a nuclear umbrella – and she’s having fun playing NationStates her way. As she’s not playing with you, why the complaints about the “reality” of the situation – who cares???

Once again - who cares what nukes do, you use them you're dead. The point of this is "If you use conventional weapons, you're also dead". Deterrence.

No, insane overreaction that would leave you with no allies. No nation so unstable as to threaten massive strategic WMD attacks in reply to any conventional attacks would last long in a realistic scenario because its allies would start to wonder if they were next. Since you generally don't want that to happen, that nation would be quietly annexed and its government replaced with something more reasonable.

Strange. Vastiva will glass any nation attempting to glass Sharina – and we’ll pull in all our allies to help, as per treaty. We don’t worry at all about Sharina’s stability, and they are free to pursue whatever course of action they like.

Once again, you said it yourself – “realism” has nothing to do with it, it’s about “enjoying NationStates”. She’s enjoying it.

Repeat after me: "Deterrence".

Yes, I can see how 'if you try to do $scenario I'll destroy you and you won't be able to stop me, bwa ha ha' would deter people from playing with you. For anything else, biological weapons have no deterrent value.

Commented on elsewhere, proven false.

Irrelevant statement.

Entirely relevant. Using your allies to avoid having a reasonable nation is terrible RPing. Since I assume Sharina doesn't want a reputation as a dreadful wanker, it's helpful to have a policy that doesn't involve brute forcing the enemy to death with a huge dogpile of allies.

I believe Sharina’s reputation is other then “wanker”, so that’s not relevant. And NATO’s policy has remained “destroy those who attempt to destroy us”. Seems to work.

As we’ve also seen in this debate she is going about it “reasonably”, and appears to be using RP protocol to do so… irrelevant statement.

Besides, what if those allies aren't there for them someday and this whole silly policy has to stand up by itself?

She seems to be researching and stacking it up quite well, thank you.

Red herring - obviously Sharina's defense includes her allies. As such, this deters against nuclear or conventional warfare. That being the point, it apparently works. Nice try though.

The red herring would be yours. This argument, if you remember, was about whether bioweapons could be an effective deterrent and could replace nuclear weapons in a nation's arsenal. You introduced the useless side-topic that it doesn't matter because Sharina has allies.

She has her bioweapons – or is developing them – and she’s enjoying playing NationStates. What else matters?

This is irrelevant to whether Sharina's own policies are effective; having thirty allies means you could use WW2 equipment, dress in Darth Vader costumes instead of uniforms, make up tactics on the spot and still win though sheer weight of numbers, but that does not make those tactics valid, effective or useful.

Quite the contrary. Vastiva has remained out of many wars because of the ‘we have allies’ line. Because of this, we can concentrate our resources elsewhere – and I’m having a wonderful time playing NationStates this way.

So it appears my playstyle is valid, effective, and useful for me. So is Sharina’s for her.

Vastiva

31-05-2005, 07:28

On to a few more nails in the coffin of “It’s not a Deterrent”.

#1: Airplane industry lost at least one week's worth of revenues. Many of the American national carriers are now in the middle of or are applying for bankruptcy. The general economy at the same time has taken severe hits; the NYSE, FTSE, Nikkei, and all other international stock markets are now just beginning to recover the losses incurred from the attacks. 4 years is a long time to go back to the status quo.

And we’re not suffering plague on our homeland.

#2: Mutation rate varies as per the virus replication rate. Consider the common cold; if it didn't have a rapid mutation rate then why do we keep acquiring the symptoms if our immune responses hold protein markers of every invasive strain of disease we've ever been exposed to? There is no evidence to state Sharina could not drastically increase the replication rate, resulting in statistically significant mutation rates – and real trouble for your nation. Mutations occur naturally in genetic replication, the critical factor is the incubation period. As for the no effect in the functioning of the virus you are right; it does effect the structure of the virus in some instances (and thus its method of cellular coupling and further replication). Think of it as a convicted criminal getting plastic surgery and a new wardrobe; same sleazeball with unrecognizable characteristics (to the pertinent authorities), and same internal components. Or consider the variants of Ebola as an example – or AIDS; if it mutates so slowly and has the same universal impact on the functions of those it infects, why haven’t we found a universal cure for it?

#3: You sure the Bad Guys didn’t win?. Afghanistan is once again the world's largest supplier for heroin. Granted the Taliban was about the worst invention of "culture" ever created by humanity (how they could do so much damage in the name of Islam will never allow me to look at the religion as the "religion of peace"), but their one (and I mean only one) redeeming factor during the 90's was their reduction of the poppy crop to global lows. Now, we have once again massive pipelines – and huge incomes going where?

Are Islamic terrorists really any more deterred since our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Last I heard from reliable US and UN statistics, last year's deaths attributed to terrorist activities was MORE than what occurred in 2001 (WTC included). If anything, the US has been deterred from using rational thought and diplomatic procedure and using "blunt fist" tactics in the face of a hidden and often unrecognizable enemy. We may have disrupted and reformed these two nations, but at what diplomatic cost to our allies in Europe? In what costs to our clout in preventing the development of Iranian and North Korean nuclear arms? At what cost to our economy and political stability?

In historical terms, think of the effects localities had from the British Empire; are South Africa, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of the other multitude of nations really more stable or better off than they were beforehand?

South Africa alone – apartheid and highest murder rate in the known world! How did their efforts at local "Democratization" and "Nationalization" (coupled with other Euro nations) really "help" the modern geopolitical scene? Is our intervention really that much different; will it actually break the tried and true cycle of violence seen from such efforts?

I think not. The deterrent is not in the immediacy of the events, but in the long term impacts.

Simply hoping that $virus will have a high mutation rate is silly, and also makes the virus less likely to be used for military applications, since it will be harder to inoculate your own people against it to prevent the prospect of your own killer disease coming back to you by infected people from neutral countries. After all, were a virus as effective and deadly as you want it to be, the prospect of your own people falling victim to it [or worse yet, your allies who you trust to defend you] would be all too real.

This is why bioweapons are a last-ditch weapon Sure, it will spread like wildfire. And the chance of Sharina – or her allies, or heck the whole world – being infected is very great. Any reasonably RP’er – such as Sharina– would play the part and infect her citizenry as well. Though, of course, she has a massive headstart on you, as she knows what bugs she’s dropped, their chemical and genetic composition. Perhaps she has vaccines or cures in her nation for the original bugs… then again, mutational transition is going to affect the bugs affecting her as well, which will make for all sorts of fun all over the place….

About this not being a deterrent… are you sure about that?

GMC Military Arms

31-05-2005, 08:22

She just announced the campaign and you’re saying it’s a failure. How can you assume that?

Easily:

[1] Sharina is decomissioning nuclear stockpiles without yet having anything to replace them with. This is a bad idea as, no matter how briefly, there will be no national-level deterrant.

[2] We aren't actually talking about that here; rather, this is mostly about Sharina's OOC assertations about the effectiveness of biological warfare and its ability to replace nuclear weapons. My argument is that biological warfare is ineffective as a replacement; while it damages straightforward manpower, nuclear weapons also destroy physical objects like tank depots and industrial areas.

Damaged manpower reduces industrial output, but destroying industrial centres themselves not only removes the enemy's productivity, it also ties up more productivity in rebuilding and dealing with cleanup. This is exactly the same 'advantage' you have been touting for bioweapons, with the additional bonus that the nuclear weapon does not continue detonating unpredictably for weeks or months afterwards.

There are situations where biological warfare is more useful, just as there are some situations where a handgun is more useful than a howitzer, but the two systems are too dissimilar in effect and applicable tactics for one to ever really replace the other.

Broadly, bioweapons are if you want to cause panic, nuclear weapons are if you want to cause damage.

[3] A more wise method of announcing this development would be to slowly phase out the nuclear stockpile in favour of a bioweapon stockpile [not that I would say such a decision is wise], with the final changeover only coming when the bioweapon stockpile is in a good enough state that the nuclear deterrent can be totally phased out [again, I say this is 'never,' but meh].

Therefore, the campaign is a failure because it was executed in a rather odd manner and its goals are almost certainly impossible.

Irrelevant. If they’re there, they work for me. If the enemy attempts to compromise – as they do all agents – that’s part and parcel of the cold war. The object is not to have them have anything pertaining to that mission until it is necessary they do so. Beyond that, this is diversionary.

You expect regular agents to carry this out? You've previously said they were fanatics. Fanatics are, unfortunately, fundamentally unpredictable other than that they are dangerous. Having such people taking on more delicate missions would be a very bad idea.

Where’s the problem? If this is your stance – “the point is for both players to enjoy playing NationStates” – then it doesn’t matter how realistic or not her defenses are. She’ll play with who she wants, on her terms, or she won’t.

Correct, and had Sharina stated he would ignore all criticism of the concept I would have left him to it; however, not only has he taken an active interest in this thread, he has also stated in the other thread that

I [think] it [is] an interesting debate, which [will be] great information for me to use IC'ly later on.

The minute Sharina declares he's not going to bother with this thread anymore, game over. Until then, we have a debate, and game on.

To be honest, you should stop trying to think for Sharina, he seems perfectly capable of doing so himself.

Iraq was not the one spreading the disinformation – those who wanted to invade spread it and encouraged its spread. It worked magnificently. Ergo, my comment is “Those who wanted war spread disinformation to create a public belief, by which an attack on Iraq was not only possible, it was required”.

So? They managed to spread disinformation to their own governments. It's hardly difficult to do that from a position of influence: the trick is doing it to someone else's government.

Ah, but there’s that investment, she already has a nuclear umbrella – and she’s having fun playing NationStates her way. As she’s not playing with you, why the complaints about the “reality” of the situation

Actually, Sharina decomissioned their nuclear umbrella with the original statement. And since the player in question has stated they find this debate useful, I see no harm in continuing it. Were I making these statements in an IC thread [as opposed to a thread that had turned badly OOC and has now been split for that reason] there would be grounds for complaint.

There are not.

She seems to be researching and stacking it up quite well, thank you.

A policy of purely biological and chemical deterrence is unworkable. Were Sharina to find themselves without allies, this would soon come out.

Quite the contrary. Vastiva has remained out of many wars because of the ‘we have allies’ line. Because of this, we can concentrate our resources elsewhere – and I’m having a wonderful time playing NationStates this way.

Whether of not you have allies is totally irrelevent to the point a hand, which is whether this is an effective policy for a nation to employ. Sharina claims it is, regardless of other factors. Your endless sidetracking isn't particularly impressive.

#1: Airplane industry lost at least one week's worth of revenues. Many of the American national carriers are now in the middle of or are applying for bankruptcy. The general economy at the same time has taken severe hits; the NYSE, FTSE, Nikkei, and all other international stock markets are now just beginning to recover the losses incurred from the attacks. 4 years is a long time to go back to the status quo.

So? Did this stop the US military from being deployed overseas not once but twice since and as a direct result? There was no deterrence in 9/11 at all, all that happened was the nation took damage, got angry as all hell and started stomping. The fact that it took damage is not alone an indication of anything; the attack on Pearl Harbour did a huge amount of damage to US Navy warships, but did not in any way deter the US from carrying out a campaign in the Pacific.

#2: Mutation rate varies as per the virus replication rate. Consider the common cold; if it didn't have a rapid mutation rate then why do we keep acquiring the symptoms if our immune responses hold protein markers of every invasive strain of disease we've ever been exposed to? There is no evidence to state Sharina could not drastically increase the replication rate, resulting in statistically significant mutation rates – and real trouble for your nation.

Ah, your favourite 'no evidence means yes' fallacy, the argument from ignorance. Have you noticed that most viruses do not mutate like the common cold? And, again, that a virulent and deadly bioweapon that was as infectous and prone to mutation as the common cold would be so horrifically dangerous no sane nation would stockpile it?

What if it was released accidentally in an earthquake or as the result of deliberate sabotage? With a slow mutating virus you could rely on inoculations to protect your citizens, assuming you'd been smart enough to develop them parallel, otherwise you'd get to watch your own weapon destroy you.

How is this BETTER than a nuclear missile, again?

I think not. The deterrent is not in the immediacy of the events, but in the long term impacts.

Nonsense. A deterrent is meant to deter an enemy from aggressive action against your nation; the 9/11 terrorist attacks had no deterrent function since they led to attacks on two nations which now do not have their old governments. It is absolutely not supposed to deter the enemy from rational thought. By that definition, the Soviet 'deterrent' should have stayed in Cuba and deterred John F Kennedy from not pushing the button!

This is why bioweapons are a last-ditch weapon

Sorry, weren't you claiming they should be used to respond to conventional attacks?

In any case, by this definition a doomsday bomb that shatters the Earth's crust is a 'deterrent.' But there's a problem; nobody in their right mind would detonate such a weapon, and anyone out of their mind would be stopped by their own countrymen. Therefore, the threat is nonsensical and would be ignored.

The same is true of this; it's unlikely anyone would seriously consider a nation would be so suicidal as to unleash a weapon that would turn the whole world against it. Better to live under occupation than to have your country scoured so thoroughly there wouldn't even be ashes left.

And even if they were, it's unlikely a nation that would consider such a strategy valid would be allowed to exist for long enough to put such a plan into action. Nations have this thing about not letting deranged tinpot states destroy the world on their watch. Seriously, this is starting to sound like the next James Bond film.

So again, back down to a weapon capable of creating panic but not really detering anything, or a silly magic doomsday virus. Oh well.

The Most Glorious Hack

31-05-2005, 08:51

Since the last time I solidly deconstructed a post here it was ignored, I'll keep this reasonably short, and just focus on one glaring hole in the plan.

Employing bio-weapons adds more fear and terror throughout the populace as opposed to conventional bombs. [...]

I have never said that I would be the one who fires the WMD's first. The enemy will be the one who does it first, and thus, the fault shall lie with the enemy, not me.

Everything falls apart when you consider this two viewpoints (even without Vastiva's silly sleeper agents). Now, glossing over the logistical problems of delivering bioweapons via ICBM, the biggest question here is "why"?

Let's use America and China in our example. America decides that nukes are overrated and switches to bioweapons. China keeps nukes. Now, to make things more NS-Like, let's multiply America's population by 10, and give China an extra billion. That puts them at about the same population, however China's population density is much higher (which is supposed to make things good for bioweapons). We also equalize their medical abilities.

So we've got two multi-billion population nations glaring at each other. China gets sick of America's shit and launches their nukes. America responds with its bioweapons.

Big explosions and high doses of radiation are pretty effective killers. Furthermore, nuked areas are uninhabitable for quite awhile (no where near 24,000 years, but even 30 years will be a pain). Population centers are nuked and hundreds of millions of people die. Instantly.

Bioweapons, on the other hand, are less effective (natural immunity, more affected by wind, etc). Even with a higher population density, you fatality percentages are much, much lower. People can be treated (because the hospitals haven't been destroyed), and the long term lingering effects of illnesses are much less severe than of radiation poisoning. Also, if you're using Ebola-style diseases, it's an "all or nothing" affair. Ebola pretty much kills you or does nothing. It's not like, say, polio, which can leave you paralyzed.

If you're the nation with nukes and are looking at a situation like this, bioweapons will not be much of a deterrant. The casualties would be horrific, but wouldn't come close to the effects of nukes.

As for Vastiva's, the lack of deterrance can be explained with a simple monolgue:

"Shit! They're launching nukes! Start the 20 year bioweapon plan!"

EDIT: My nation has no nukes and has its population in two megalopolises. Nukes scare me far more than chem/bio weapons ever possibly could.

Sharina

31-05-2005, 09:10

Easily:

[1] Sharina is decomissioning nuclear stockpiles without yet having anything to replace them with. This is a bad idea as, no matter how briefly, there will be no national-level deterrant.

[2] We aren't actually talking about that here; rather, this is mostly about Sharina's OOC assertations about the effectiveness of biological warfare and its ability to replace nuclear weapons. My argument is that biological warfare is ineffective as a replacement; while it damages straightforward manpower, nuclear weapons also destroy physical objects like tank depots and industrial areas.

Damaged manpower reduces industrial output, but destroying industrial centres themselves not only removes the enemy's productivity, it also ties up more productivity in rebuilding and dealing with cleanup. This is exactly the same 'advantage' you have been touting for bioweapons, with the additional bonus that the nuclear weapon does not continue detonating unpredictably for weeks or months afterwards.

This is why I wanted bio-weapons and chem-weapons. Nuclear weapons destroy infrastructure, but with bio and chem weapons, I can occupy and put the enemy's infrastructure to use aganist the enemy.

This would help shorten logistics, and help me more quickly bolster my war machine once I capture enemy infrastructure intact. However, if I keep nukes then I nuked the enemy, I suffer two consquences.

Consquence #1: I get nuked in return. Both nations get glassed over. Nuclear winter ensues, cancer rates go through the roof, and human / animal / plant mutations happen from radioactivity.

Consquence #2: Even if only several nukes were used by both sides, I wouldn't be able to occupy the enemy city, or use the enemy's factories to manufacture my own stuff. I'd still have long supply lines, as I'll still have to rely on my factories easily 10,000+ miles away (assuming we are RP'ing in NS Earth, not the Earth Series like Earth I, II, XXXX, etc.).

So you can see, bio-weapons would allow me to capture and use enemy factories, cities, bases, etc. for my own military, and perhaps even capture enemy hardware like tanks, planes, etc. With nukes, you can't do that as everything is either destroyed or pumped full of radiation, rendering the bases, factories, land, etc. useless for decades or even centuries.

There are situations where biological warfare is more useful, just as there are some situations where a handgun is more useful than a howitzer, but the two systems are too dissimilar in effect and applicable tactics for one to ever really replace the other.

Broadly, bioweapons are if you want to cause panic, nuclear weapons are if you want to cause damage.

I'm banking on the panic and fear amongst the enemy populace to help my war effort. When the enemy's populace panics, the economy and logistics would be significantly affected, helping my war effort somewhat.

In addition, if I do decide to invade or annex someone, it is far preferable to keep as much as his / her nation infrastructure intact as possible. This way, rapid rebuilding and reconstruction of "conventional-weapon" damaged infrastructure, and re-equipping of my military would be quicker and more efficient than trying to rebuild a nation by using factories 10,000+ miles away.

[3] A more wise method of announcing this development would be to slowly phase out the nuclear stockpile in favour of a bioweapon stockpile [not that I would say such a decision is wise], with the final changeover only coming when the bioweapon stockpile is in a good enough state that the nuclear deterrent can be totally phased out [again, I say this is 'never,' but meh].

Therefore, the campaign is a failure because it was executed in a rather odd manner and its goals are almost certainly impossible.

Therein lies the beauty of fluid time. I can RP the next phase of WMD stuff next month in RL, and in NS time, it could be 1 or 2 days or a week after my announcement.

In addition, I believe I haven't said I disbanded my biological and chemical weapons. Thus, this could mean I actually have them already prepared before the "nuclear disbanding" happens. All I have to do is write up some IC stuff along the lines of...

"1 Week Before Announcement"

then

"2 Weeks After Announcement"

Cleans / ties up all the loose ends, yes?

A policy of purely biological and chemical deterrence is unworkable. Were Sharina to find themselves without allies, this would soon come out.

Ah, but in NS RP'ing, I could call on a few allies, which is perfectly acceptable without the dog-piling nonsense. I could call upon 2 or 3 allies, a quite reasonable number, instead of 20+ nations.

Also, should the war RP actually take off and work, the RP can wait for all sides to post responses. For example, me and the "enemy" post our actions, then we both call for allies for help. Then our allies post their actions. Afterwards, we take "turns" posting and counter-posting.

Even if an ally doesn't post quickly, we can wait for the ally to post, then move on.

So? Did this stop the US military from being deployed overseas not once but twice since and as a direct result? There was no deterrence in 9/11 at all, all that happened was the nation took damage, got angry as all hell and started stomping. The fact that it took damage is not alone an indication of anything; the attack on Pearl Harbour did a huge amount of damage to US Navy warships, but did not in any way deter the US from carrying out a campaign in the Pacific.

That is true. However, if I remember correctly, the Pearl Harbor thing delayed the US war effort in the Pacific as the US had to build brand new ships to replace the ones lost at Pearl Harbor. If Pearl Harbor didn't happen, or if the US didn't take terrible losses at Pearl Harbor, the war aganist Japan would have be quicker, as the US would have been able to field its full Pacific Navy, or 90% of it, right in 1941 and 1942, and be attacking Japan mainland by 1943 or so.

If Japan had more resources, then it might have actually held a stalemate aganist the USA. I'm not sure if this was true or not, but Japan was looking into nuclear weapons development during the later parts of WW II. If Japan had played its cards right and delayed declaring war aganist USA until 1942 or 1943, and do Pearl Harbor on Dec. 1942 or 1943, then Japan would have successfully delayed the USA war effort just enough to develop Japan's own nuclear weapons. I may be wrong on Japan starting a nuclear program in RL, though.

Sometimes delaying the enemy would mean the difference between victory and defeat. It has happened in the past.

Ah, your favourite 'no evidence means yes' fallacy, the argument from ignorance. Have you noticed that most viruses do not mutate like the common cold? And, again, that a virulent and deadly bioweapon that was as infectous and prone to mutation as the common cold would be so horrifically dangerous no sane nation would stockpile it?

What if it was released accidentally in an earthquake or as the result of deliberate sabotage? With a slow mutating virus you could rely on inoculations to protect your citizens, assuming you'd been smart enough to develop them parallel, otherwise you'd get to watch your own weapon destroy you.

How is this BETTER than a nuclear missile, again?

Sane nations, perhaps. However, if a nation is threatened with complete and utter annilihation, sanity can go out of the window. Suppose a 500 million population nation is threatened by invasion from a 6 billion nation like Praetor, along with Praetor's 2, 3, or 4 allies.

The 500 million nation wouldn't have much of a chance, thus, it would employ any and all cheap tactics and such to destroy as much of Praetor and allies as possible before the 500 million nation is wiped out. If this includes bio-weapons with the mutation rate of common colds, along with lethality of Ebola, then that nation would probably use it as a "last-gasp" attack in hopes of wrecking all the invaders.

However, if odds were even (a 1 billion nation going aganist another 1 billion nation) or slightly un-even (1 billion fighting 1.5 billion or 2 billion), then I can see the "lethal common cold" bio-weapon not being used.

The same is true of this; it's unlikely anyone would seriously consider a nation would be so suicidal as to unleash a weapon that would turn the whole world against it. Better to live under occupation than to have your country scoured so thoroughly there wouldn't even be ashes left.

And even if they were, it's unlikely a nation that would consider such a strategy valid would be allowed to exist for long enough to put such a plan into action. Nation have this thing about not letting deranged tinpot states destroy the world on their watch. Seriously, this is starting to sound like the next James Bond film.

So again, back down to a weapon capable of creating panic but not really detering anything. Oh well.

Yes, this is true. However, in NS, there are nations like AMF that massacre civilians with his Sentinels soldiers. Nations who are about to be destroyed or fully occupied by nations like AMF would be more likely to try to self-destruct, trying to destroy as much AMF soldiers as possible by nuking and bio-weapon'ing itself.

Scorched Earth Policy, like what was done in Ancient Roman times versus Carthage. Salting the soil and the like.

In addition, there are nations who would go like this...

"I am about to be destroyed. I'm about to be killed 100%. Fuck the invaders!"

"Okay, fuck this. If I'm to die, fuck the world, I'll take them down with me."

"The world doesn't deserve to live if they take me down."

Thus, the destroying of the world. There lies the possibility of people capable of such evil thoughts and actions, even in RL (probably not the action part, but thought part is possible).

Der Angst

31-05-2005, 11:51

Employing bio-weapons adds more fear and terror throughout the populace as opposed to conventional bombs. The impact on morale would be more significant than conventional bombs.Evidence?

Oh. right, there is none. You're just claiming it without having any means to verify it.

There would also be millions of civilians rushing to get vaccines and inoculations, thus, making traffic a nightmare. There would be huge grid-locks, thus, making movement of war-material like guns, ammo, etc. extremely slow as the supply trucks would have to deal with the extreme traffic and grid-locks.You're of course supposing that there are no emergency plans to organise countermeasures, having things run in non-chaotic ways, plans every developed nation has.

I have never said that I would be the one who fires the WMD's first. The enemy will be the one who does it first, and thus, the fault shall lie with the enemy, not me. Thus, I would be in the "right" for attacking enemy civilian centers as the enemy would have attacked my own civilian centers first.1. Attacking logistics requires you to attack with them, though. 2. Attacking logistics also means that you're attacking the hinterland. 3. Vastiva's scenario explicitly mentioned weakening the populace during peacetime.

So, three times: You're the first.

.. Well, I will be fair. Two times you're first, and one time vastiva goes completely insane.

(Mind, assuming the sane casuality expectations I'm advocating, you know, the 0.1% or less, I wouldn't count bioweapons as a WMD, and personally, I wouldn't consider a nuclear strike to answer it. However, 0.1%+ claims and Vastiva's scenario are pretty much something that results in glassing).

Can hospitals in a mega-city handle 200 million citizens all at once? Doubtful. Even if the hospitals were large, they'd still need days or even weeks to inoculate their home-city's entire population. This is assuming that the enemy already has the vaccine before the bio-weapons are used for the first time. If the enemy doesn't have the vaccine, good luck. They'd need 6 months minimum to research any effective cures, rather than "OMG! Magic Cure In 1 Week or 1 Day!" god-mods.1. Ever heard the term 'Incubation time'?

2. You would be surprised what medical infrastructure can manage. Vaccination within a day? Hard, but doable. Granted, it is a problem to create the vaccine in the first place, but that's what antibiotica and the likes are for. No horrorscenario for me.

Getting from Point A to Point B in dense urban areas would be quite problematic at best if the city was under both conventional AND bio-attack at the same time. The streets, subways, etc. would be filled with rubble, creating lots of obstacles for civilians to get across / around.If it is under conventional attack, the opponent has lost air superiority and thus, has already lost the war. Why the hell are you attacking with bioweapons, especially seeing as you will soon move into the city, thus exposing your soldiers to the disease?

Furthermore, while big cities are indeed crowded, this is for a good part due to individual traffic. In an emergency situation, this traffic would be restricted. And given the extensive infrastructure in such a city, you wouldn't believe just how free the strets would be.

You're forgetting emotions. Panic and fear. This would deprive many civilians of rational thought and action, as they'd be literally screaming and running for their lives. They wouldn't stop for a minute and think "Okay, how do I get around this pile of rubble blocking the street?". They'd just run around, trying to hide or hurry to shelter.You would be surprised. Given a sufficient military/ police presence, such problems can and will be controlled. yes, there would be annoying problems, eventually shooting your own people... But a disaster scenario can quite easily be prevented.

There are always people who *will* panic or submit to fear, no matter how well trained or fanatical they are. Thus, the impossibility of perfect fear-proof armies or civilian populations.Yes. But those will be the vast minority, and considering an entire nation, they are negligible.

And nukes aren't?Well, actually, they are. But if I want to create deterrence, well... What is better? The capacity to eradicate a million people and a good portion of industry with a single, clean megaton-yield weapon or using a bioagent that will manage to kill perhaps a thousand people and leaves the industry working?

Well, in NS, we have to suspend several realistic things, namely Jupiter Size NS Earth and 2 billion populations living on a land area the size of Japan or Hawaii (in the various Earth Series, like Earth I, II, III, etc.) So why not suspend believability with bio-weapons or whatever else?'Cause the first is a necessary plotdevice to make NS work to begin with, while the second is the WMD equivalent of claiming that a single APC can do the job of a hundred MBTs?

I would employ a mix of bio-weapons AND conventional weapons aganist the enemy if he/she attacks my civilian centers with bio-weapons or nukes. Basically, if the enemy WMD's me first, I can WMD him back and not be shunned by alliances and the international community.Generally speaking, if I can kill off 90% of $target with nuclear weapons,a nd $Target can kill 0.1% of me with its bioweapons... Assuming that i'm a fanatical regime that doesn't care about a few million casualities due to diseases...

Deal.

I don't care if they know about the sleepers ahead of time. All I care about is that they take the threat seriously.Errr... Ok, we covered that your plan is not, and cannot be deterrence. We covered that you using your plot is 1. a great risk, since it can be discovered. We covered that deliberately weakening a population's capacity to withstand diseases is an act of war.

Thus, we can conclude that mutual defence clauses don't count.

Thus, we can conclude that you're either 1. standing alone, thus ending up being glassed or 2. Have a good amount of allies itching for war, with your plot effectively preparing said aggressive war. Since there is obviously no chance for the target nation to evade the war, or to keep its sovereignity, or, heck, even a decent standard of living for its citizens, you're again glassed.

Tell me, is this really a smart idea?

Once again - who cares what nukes do, you use them you're dead. The point of this is "If you use conventional weapons, you're also dead". Deterrence.I must figure out what Sharina's foreign policy is. For, you see, this means that the very moment Sharina threatens military force, or tries to help its allies, its opponent is forced to start an all out strike.

Not a smart thing to do.

I could employ cruise missiles, aircraft, or large artillery shells to release bio-agents, or chemical gas weapons.Going to be shot down, going to be shot down, tactical range.

In neither case deterrence.

What's worse, given NS distances, ground based resources will be useless, as they will likely be incapable to reach the target. Carriers/ Arsenal ships & subs are your only chance. And when they are in range to hit the target nation, they will be horribly outnumbered.

While your opponent ICBMs you to death long before you're there.

Sure, a few biochems will possibly make it through. But that's about as deterring as ten twenty kiloton nukes delivered by bombers are in NS. Which is to say, not at all.

Or I could develop ICBM's that explode above the target while still in the air so to release bio-agents or chemical gases.ICBMs to deliver GAS? The missile costs more than the damage the gas does.

Far more.

This is why I wanted bio-weapons and chem-weapons. Nuclear weapons destroy infrastructure, but with bio and chem weapons, I can occupy and put the enemy's infrastructure to use aganist the enemy.

This would help shorten logistics, and help me more quickly bolster my war machine once I capture enemy infrastructure intact. However, if I keep nukes then I nuked the enemy, I suffer two consquences.But this means using bioweapons as a tactical weapon.

Granted, not everyone would respond to this kind of attack with an all out nuclear strike (For example, I wouldn't. It's all fair game to be. With this nation, anyway. Others... ), but it takes time, and your own soldiers will be hit as well.

So, a bad choice, really.

Chemical weapons are marginally better, but the tactical implications, as well as methods to protect from the effect, make them a bad choice, too. In the end, blowing shit up, then replacing it with your own shit gives you better results. Especially seeing as the two nations are most likely having vastly different standards when it comes to equipment, be it the width of rails, the calibre of weapons, the size of fuel tanks, whatever, so keeping their infrastructure would still pose problems.

Yes, this is true. However, in NS, there are nations like AMF that massacre civilians with his Sentinels soldiers. Nations who are about to be destroyed or fully occupied by nations like AMF would be more likely to try to self-destruct, trying to destroy as much AMF soldiers as possible by nuking and bio-weapon'ing itself.No doubt. This is the very point of having nuclear arsenals, though, to prevent total war. And, as explained above, nuclear weapons are a vastly preferable deterrence.

Sharina

01-06-2005, 02:10

Evidence?

Oh. right, there is none. You're just claiming it without having any means to verify it.

Lets take a look at this.

Dying quickly from conventional bombs would be merciful and relatively painless (even if pain was present, it wouldn't matter much as the person would die instantly, or within 30 seconds or so from blood loss). In the rare instance that citizens actually survive the bomb explosion and losing limbs or whatever in the process, and his / her life manages to be saved...

However, with biological and chemical weapons, pain and death would be extruicating and full of suffering. Dying would be prolonged, as the citizens would watch their own bodies slowly but surely detioriate from the virus or chemical weapons.

To echo Vastiva, slowly choking to death, feeling pain as your guts are shredded from the inside out from acid weapons, or become a virtual prisoner in your body as you slowly die as your motor functions stop working... Those types of deaths are far worse than dying from a gunshot, an instant death from bomb explosions, or even bleeding to death.

Gruesome and terrifying "slow-deaths" would instill far more fear and terror in a populace than quick and merciful deaths. Common sense.

You're of course supposing that there are no emergency plans to organise countermeasures, having things run in non-chaotic ways, plans every developed nation has.

Even in RL, the USA and other "top-level" nations have already admitted that they cannot prevent death and destruction from a biological and chemical attacks. Even civil services aren't 100% or even 75% effective in combatting such situations.

Even small scale biological and chemical attacks would be enough to cause panic and fear throughout the populace. People would be going "The next attack might hit my town / city. Then again maybe not?" Uncertainty would settle into the populace, reducing their effectiveness.

Granted, nukes can have the same effect, but biological and chemical weapons can cause more fear, panic, and uncertainty than nukes, as the nuke's damage is instant, while the bio-chem weapons do their damage over a substantial period of time.

1. Attacking logistics requires you to attack with them, though. 2. Attacking logistics also means that you're attacking the hinterland. 3. Vastiva's scenario explicitly mentioned weakening the populace during peacetime.

So, three times: You're the first.

.. Well, I will be fair. Two times you're first, and one time vastiva goes completely insane.

(Mind, assuming the sane casuality expectations I'm advocating, you know, the 0.1% or less, I wouldn't count bioweapons as a WMD, and personally, I wouldn't consider a nuclear strike to answer it. However, 0.1%+ claims and Vastiva's scenario are pretty much something that results in glassing).

Once again, I will not be attacking logistics directly, or any logistics convoys or depots. Rather, I would be indirectly attacking logistics, as the enemy would have to use MORE logistics to combat my bio-chem weapon attacks.

I don't need to attack the logistics trucks, trains, convoys, bases, depots, etc. to have a significant effect aganist the enemy logistics system. I can simply attempt to OVERLOAD it, rather than destroying it outright.

1. Ever heard the term 'Incubation time'?

2. You would be surprised what medical infrastructure can manage. Vaccination within a day? Hard, but doable. Granted, it is a problem to create the vaccine in the first place, but that's what antibiotica and the likes are for. No horrorscenario for me.

You cannot vaccine your entire nation within a day or even a week. Not even a sizable NS type of city of 100 - 200 million. Otherwise, it'd be either a Post-MT or FT society with magical Star Trek style "Replicators" that poof vaccines into existence, or in MT times be called cheating / god-modding.

In addition, there are viruses and chemicals that normal antibotics won't be effective aganist.

If it is under conventional attack, the opponent has lost air superiority and thus, has already lost the war. Why the hell are you attacking with bioweapons, especially seeing as you will soon move into the city, thus exposing your soldiers to the disease?

I can bio-engineer weapons and such, by modifying viruses and such to kill populaces within 10 days at most, then once 10 days passes, the viruses would dissolve or fall apart. Ditto for chemicals, after 10 days, the moisture in the air or whatever would help bio-degrade the chemicals.

Problem solved.

However, I can launch virus or chemical weapons again and again if the enemy populace or military is persistent and survives the 10 day period. I could also introduce longer lifespan viruses / chemicals that can stay in the area for 1 month or even a year.

Also, I could create a counter-agent. Once the enemy city is pretty much devoid of life, I can launch counter-agent to neutralize virus or chemicals inside the city, thus making it safe for my guys to move in.

Problem solved.

Furthermore, while big cities are indeed crowded, this is for a good part due to individual traffic. In an emergency situation, this traffic would be restricted. And given the extensive infrastructure in such a city, you wouldn't believe just how free the strets would be.

You would be surprised. Given a sufficient military/ police presence, such problems can and will be controlled. yes, there would be annoying problems, eventually shooting your own people... But a disaster scenario can quite easily be prevented.

I repeat myself.. the more complex and extensive things are, the easier it is to disrupt and throw monkey wrenches into them.

Shooting your own people would instill fear and possibly riots as your own people would hate your police and military forces, and thus, take action aganist your government. Committing atrocities aganist your own people won't sit too well with the rest of your populace.

Well, actually, they are. But if I want to create deterrence, well... What is better? The capacity to eradicate a million people and a good portion of industry with a single, clean megaton-yield weapon or using a bioagent that will manage to kill perhaps a thousand people and leaves the industry working?

Nukes would ruin the area to be annexed, thus, rendering the entire occupation a moot point. However, if you employ bio-chem weapons, then you stand a good chance of capturing enemy industry and infrastructure intact, allowing for better logistics and quicker rebuild times after the war.

More stuff coming later as I gotta go.

Omz222

01-06-2005, 03:10

In the chaos of the discussion, I would still like to add something about the delivery systems. Regardless of the many beliefs about ICBMs in NS, biological and chemical weapons are still best to be used on the tactical scale, as there are many disadvantages when you use strategic weapons such as ICBMs to deliver it. You can be absolutely guarenteed that regardless of how much of this thermal shieldings you are going to put into a warhead, the giological agents will still die of heat. Even if it does survive, you have no way of effectively dispersing it (so that many would get sick at one time), except to allow it to somehow land on a concrete ground in the middle of the city. Further, another disadvantage about biological weapons is that if /anyone/ vunlnerable is in contact with the agent, he or she would get infected. Yes, it can mean a foreigner from a neutral nation, or even from a friendly nation. And then guess what? You'll have people going elsewhere, and in turn infecting others. This cycle can repeat itself until you'll have people outside of the country infected. Nasty stuff happens to diplomatic relations.

With chemical weapons, it's more or less a similar affair. Pretty much the only way to disperse chemical weapons strategically is through the use of ICBMs and "gas bombs", in which explosives would be used to disperse the agent. The good thing about this is that it can disperse more of the agents at a longer range, but their /major/ disadvantage is that the method is much less efficent when you consider that a considerable amount of the agents will be gone (aka no longer existing in its original form) because of the explosion. An alternative is the use of non-explosive canisters, but each cannot cover a distance as great as the distance covered by the method mentioned above. A third method is called aerodynamic dispersion, but this is often done from aircraft and are relatively difficult to engineer when compared to the previous two.

Again, I am far from being an expert on this, and feel free to correct me. However, regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of each method, the inevitable fact is that there's simply no effective method in dispersing bio weapons through the use of long-range weapons. The effects may be devastating, but it's an undeniable fact that delivery is another matter that must be considered before all this hype about how effective it would be against a city's population and infrastructure in concept.

Sharina

01-06-2005, 04:57

Back, so 2nd half of my debate shall commence.

Well, actually, they are. But if I want to create deterrence, well... What is better? The capacity to eradicate a million people and a good portion of industry with a single, clean megaton-yield weapon or using a bioagent that will manage to kill perhaps a thousand people and leaves the industry working?

Regarding "clean" nukes. "Clean" nukes are an impossibility, as there will be radiation from uranium fission, and long term effects like cancer rates and such.

If there exists a WMD weapon out there in MT times that has the following characterstics...

1. Absoutletely no gamma and neutron radiation whatsoever.

2. Does not destroy infrastructure, while killing a good number of military personnel and civilians.

3. Easy to clean up, and / or reconstruct the affected areas.

4. No long term damage such as long radiation decay (1000's of years to disappear).

5. Effective in delivery and action.

6. Able to be mounted on ICBM's or other long range MT delivery vehicles.

7. An effective deterrent.

If those conditions are all met, I'd be one of the first persons in line to acquire that weapon. However....

Nukes meet conditions 5 and 7, but fails conditions 1 - 4. Bio - Chem weapons meet conditions 1 - 4, fails conditions 6 - 7, and condition 5 is under dispute (for bio-chem weapons, that is). I'm seeking a WMD / deterrant that can do ALL 7 conditions, not fail any of them.

'Cause the first is a necessary plotdevice to make NS work to begin with, while the second is the WMD equivalent of claiming that a single APC can do the job of a hundred MBTs?

Yes. This is why I'm starting to not like playing MT era, because people wank their tanks, planes, navy ships, etc. to hell and back. Tanks having 4000 mm RHA armor, ships mounting 30+ inch guns, planes engaging in dogfights and combat at Mach 3+, etc.

I've been trying to develop my own flavor of weapons and such, with reasonable stuff.. for example, my tanks would have 1000 mm RHA armor, ships having 20 inch guns (at the very max), planes only travel at Mach 1 - 2, etc. while retaining Sharina "flavor" like Sharina names, designs, etc.

However, if I try to play in NS wars, my enemies would simply wank their way to victory, refusing to take reasonable losses and such by saying "OMG! My 4000 mm thick tank armor deflects 95% of your weapons! Post high losses now or I'll IGNORE you!!!"

That kind of bullshit pisses me off and turns me off from RP'ing. Hence this is one reason why I don't participate in RP's in NS unless its a reasonable one.

Errr... Ok, we covered that your plan is not, and cannot be deterrence. We covered that you using your plot is 1. a great risk, since it can be discovered. We covered that deliberately weakening a population's capacity to withstand diseases is an act of war.

Thus, we can conclude that mutual defence clauses don't count.

I won't be the one who launches first strike. Even if I did employ spies and sabtoeurs, I would only "activate" them after I've been attacked. Keep in mind, I might or might not use spies and sabtoeurs. This point was raised by Vastiva, not me.

Thus, the declaration of war will be done by the enemy, not by me. Consquently, the international community would be far more forgiving of me than my enemy.

Thus, we can conclude that you're either 1. standing alone, thus ending up being glassed or 2. Have a good amount of allies itching for war, with your plot effectively preparing said aggressive war. Since there is obviously no chance for the target nation to evade the war, or to keep its sovereignity, or, heck, even a decent standard of living for its citizens, you're again glassed.

Tell me, is this really a smart idea?

I do have friends who would happily nuke the enemy, glassing it if the enemy glasses me. The enemy loses as well, while my friends / allies help me re-settle a new landmass or whatever.

I would engage in conventional war first, but if the enemy tries dirty tricks like trying to WMD me... Or is about to 100% destroy me (Meaning all my major cities are taken or destroyed, my factories are ruined, 90% - 95% of my military killed, etc.) in which case, I'd have NOTHING LEFT to lose, thus launch an all out WMD attack, in hopes of taking down as many invaders or enemies with me before I'm wiped out.

What I'm saying is... I have allies, and 99% of the time any war with Sharina would be a defensive one, as Sharina is not an aggressive war-mongering nation. If enemy nations invade me, there's a high probability I'd enjoy the support of allies not only in NATO but independent allies (not affiliated with any organization).

Even if the RP is limited to 2 allies per side, my 2 allies would have enough nukes to glass over the enemy side. Thus, I'll have deterrant, but from a different source, namely allies.

I must figure out what Sharina's foreign policy is. For, you see, this means that the very moment Sharina threatens military force, or tries to help its allies, its opponent is forced to start an all out strike.

Not a smart thing to do.

Again, 99% of any wars aganist Sharina would be an invasion of Sharina, and I'd be fighting a defensive war. That means 99% of the time I won't be the one who threatens military force.

As for the other 1%, it could be invasions or aggressive action aganist n00bs, or counter-invasions of anybody who tries to invade me (and fails).

Going to be shot down, going to be shot down, tactical range.

In neither case deterrence.

I won't need to have deterrance if I have allies with nukes, they can be my deterrant.

What's worse, given NS distances, ground based resources will be useless, as they will likely be incapable to reach the target. Carriers/ Arsenal ships & subs are your only chance. And when they are in range to hit the target nation, they will be horribly outnumbered.

While your opponent ICBMs you to death long before you're there.

I have several solutions to those problems.

1. Space weapons platforms.
2. Design subs that can carry one or two ICBM's.
3. Boost my SDI and ABM systems to take care of enemy ICBM's.
4. I do not need to worry about ground distances if I'm the one being invaded, as I'll be easily able to deal with enemy navys bombing my shores.

Problems solved.

Sure, a few biochems will possibly make it through. But that's about as deterring as ten twenty kiloton nukes delivered by bombers are in NS. Which is to say, not at all.

Bombers can be easier to deal with than ICBM's. Fighters can take care of them, or multi-sensor (combo of 3+ different sensor systems like Radar, Lidar, SQUID, Ladar, Infrared, etc. all working together) aided AA defenses.

ICBMs to deliver GAS? The missile costs more than the damage the gas does.

Far more.

Price in money, perhaps. However, this can pay off as these can inflict fear, paranoia, and uncertanity in the enemy populace as they would be worrying non-stop of where my next gas ICBM will strike.

Fear, paranoia, and uncertainty among the enemy can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Morale is part of the military equation, like it or not.

In the end, blowing shit up, then replacing it with your own shit gives you better results. Especially seeing as the two nations are most likely having vastly different standards when it comes to equipment, be it the width of rails, the calibre of weapons, the size of fuel tanks, whatever, so keeping their infrastructure would still pose problems.

Metric system? International Standard system?

It wouldn't be much of a problem converting enemy factories to start producing my own brand of stuff. If the enemy guns use smaller ammo than I do, I can convert the machines to produce bigger ammo. Or if the enemy uses different rails, I can use the enemy's locomotive factories to produce locomotives to use on the rails.

Then once the war is over, and if I emerge victorious, I can begin the process of 100% conversion to my nation's standards.

No doubt. This is the very point of having nuclear arsenals, though, to prevent total war. And, as explained above, nuclear weapons are a vastly preferable deterrence.

I might lose my deterrance factor, but I can put the serious hurt on the enemy if they try to invade me, as my allies can take care of the nuclear threat while I can take care of the conventional one (and possibly bio-chem ones if enemy does use them aganist me).

What's more, I am a member of NATO, and AMF is a member of it as well. Therefore, enemy nations would think twice before invading me, deterrant or no deterrant as I have some well known and feared nations on my side, like AMF, Samtonia, etc.

Deterrant by "association" works for me as well.

Omz222

01-06-2005, 05:11

Price in money, perhaps. However, this can pay off as these can inflict fear, paranoia, and uncertanity in the enemy populace as they would be worrying non-stop of where my next gas ICBM will strike.

Fear, paranoia, and uncertainty among the enemy can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Morale is part of the military equation, like it or not.

ICBMs are far from phantom weapons, and can be detected, tracked, and successfully engaged with technologies in the near future IRL; coupled with the impracticability of ICBMs as a chemical agent delivery system in general, the point about gas ICBMs in general is invalid. In fact, looking from multiple perspectives, cruise missiles will just be effective in inflicting "paranoia" and "fear". True, it will cause uncertainity and fear, but nowhere as you are implying. if they are really as fearsome as you claim given the defences of many NS nations, then the people of England and Belgium should've had panicked and ran on the streets of cities because of some random V-1s or V-2s that had not been countered (in the case of the V-1) or had not veered off to somewhere else (in the case of the V-2)

Sharina

01-06-2005, 05:16

ICBMs are far from phantom weapons, and can be detected, tracked, and successfully engaged with technologies in the near future IRL; coupled with the impracticability of ICBMs as a chemical agent delivery system in general, the point about gas ICBMs in general is invalid. In fact, looking from multiple perspectives, cruise missiles will just be effective in inflicting "paranoia" and "fear". True, it will cause uncertainity and fear, but nowhere as you are implying. if they are really as fearsome as you claim given the defences of many NS nations, then the people of England and Belgium should've had panicked and ran on the streets of cities because of some random V-1s or V-2s that had not been countered (in the case of the V-1) or had not veered off to somewhere else (in the case of the V-2)

While it may be true that there are going to be effective anti-ICBM defenses in near-future in RL, there lies the possibility of improving and enhancing the ICBM's. I could try to develop ICBM-2 or ICBM-3, better, cheaper, and effective than original ICBM's.

Aircraft have evolved to deal with better and better anti-aircraft defenses, so why can't ICBM's and missiles?

Also by your reasoning, I can defend aganist enemy nuke ICBM"s just as effectively as they defend aganist my bio-chem ICBM's. However, I might be able to defend aganist the enemy ICBM's somewhat better with enhanced SDI + ABM budgets / increased resources.

I'm going for a fortress type of nation instead of a war-monger nation.

Omz222

01-06-2005, 05:28

While it may be true that there are going to be effective anti-ICBM defenses in near-future in RL, there lies the possibility of improving and enhancing the ICBM's. I could try to develop ICBM-2 or ICBM-3, better, cheaper, and effective than original ICBM's.
It doesn't matter, as it is the characteristics of the missile that won't allow an efficent chemical agent delivery method (forget about bio), not the performance. You could try to build a better and faster Mach 10 scramjet missile, and I can guarentee you that it still won't be able to hit the window of a building. In this case, being better doesn't necessarily magically grant you some new capabilities, when the general characteristics of the ICBM and its warhead directly prohibits the possibility of an efficent chemical agent delivery.

Also by your reasoning, I can defend aganist enemy nuke ICBM"s just as effectively as they defend aganist my bio-chem ICBM's. However, I might be able to defend aganist the enemy ICBM's somewhat better with enhanced SDI + ABM budgets / increased resources.

I'm not talking about your defences, and I wouldn't be surprised by the first sentence of your statement. Increased spending towards ABM can go both ways for your budget, as you'd always have to make a compromise and sacrifices.

Sharina

01-06-2005, 05:37

It doesn't matter, as it is the characteristics of the missile that won't allow an efficent chemical agent delivery method (forget about bio), not the performance. You could try to build a better and faster Mach 10 scramjet missile, and I can guarentee you that it still won't be able to hit the window of a building. In this case, being better doesn't necessarily magically grant you some new capabilities, when the general characteristics of the ICBM and its warhead directly prohibits the possibility of an efficent chemical agent delivery.

Understood. However, take the common gun for example.

A musket from 1700's would be cumbersome, ineffective, slow, and inaccurate as compared to a pistol or rifle of 2010. Characterstics such as wood material, iron balls, gunpowder, etc. in musket would contribute to its weaknesses compared to ceramics, pointed bullets, chemical propellant, etc. in a modern gun.

Now, if that musket were improved in some ways, like adding a sight scope, better hand grips, or a bullet magazine to dipense the iron balls into the barrel, then the musket would go a long way in improving its characterstics. closing the gap between it and modern guns.

I'm not talking about your defences, and I wouldn't be surprised by the first sentence of your statement. Increased spending towards ABM can go both ways for your budget, as you'd always have to make a compromise and sacrifices.

The sacrifice you're talking about...

I sacrifice my nuclear weapons to "transfer" the money, resources, and manpower towards my SDI / ABM systems to make it more effective / extensive than standard NS ones.

My biological and chemical weapon programs remain intact at their previous funding levels, just no change in them. I've been debating with the guys in here that those bio-chem programs I still do have would serve as good weapons to use aganist the enemy, yet people appear to think these weapons are near-useless things, or not give bio-chem weapons enough credit.

Omz222

01-06-2005, 05:45

It's the characteristics of the ICBM as a concept that makes it a poor chemical agent delivery system, and the comparison between the missile and the musket is irrelevant (though regardless of what gizmos you add onto it, a smoothbore, muzzle-loaded gun is obsolete and will be always obsolete in the future as a military weapon), as the two are still distinctively different machines. In this case, it is primarily the reentry of the ICBM's warhead and the temperature that the warhead experiences that makes ICBMs a poor platform for chemical agent delivery; even if the agents are kept intact (in the example of VX), the warhead will have no way of efficiently delivering and dispensing the agent effectively.

I sacrifice my nuclear weapons to "transfer" the money, resources, and manpower towards my SDI / ABM systems to make it more effective / extensive than standard NS ones.
That'd be true, and I never denied the fact that the sacrifices being made could be in the form of getting rid of nuclear weapons.

I've been debating with the guys in here that those bio-chem programs I still do have would serve as good weapons to use aganist the enemy, yet people appear to think these weapons are near-useless things, or not give bio-chem weapons enough credit.
It's not useless; however, it is the incorrect deployment of them and irrational assumptions of their capabilities that makes them less than being very useful.

Sharina

01-06-2005, 06:19

It's the characteristics of the ICBM as a concept that makes it a poor chemical agent delivery system, and the comparison between the missile and the musket is irrelevant (though regardless of what gizmos you add onto it, a smoothbore, muzzle-loaded gun is obsolete and will be always obsolete in the future as a military weapon), as the two are still distinctively different machines. In this case, it is primarily the reentry of the ICBM's warhead and the temperature that the warhead experiences that makes ICBMs a poor platform for chemical agent delivery; even if the agents are kept intact (in the example of VX), the warhead will have no way of efficiently delivering and dispensing the agent effectively.

Thanks for clearing that up. I understand your point better with that explaination, and I appreciate it.

It's not useless; however, it is the incorrect deployment of them and irrational assumptions of their capabilities that makes them less than being very useful.

Understood.

The debates go about on biological / chemical weapons VS nukes, and bio-chem weapons as deterrant. However, I would really like to listen to various players opinions on what would be considered effective use / deployment of those weapons.

Towards this end, I would like to hear your opinions and thoughts on effective usage / deployment on bio-chem weapons.

Vastiva

01-06-2005, 06:22

I'm rather curious to hear how a properly designed MIRV isn't an effective method of rapid and widespreak dispersement...

For the peanut gallery - I'm talking about one which takes the heat factor into it's calculations, and we'll assume 60% to 70% of the cargo load is going to arrive unfried.

GMC Military Arms

01-06-2005, 08:07

This is why I wanted bio-weapons and chem-weapons. Nuclear weapons destroy infrastructure, but with bio and chem weapons, I can occupy and put the enemy's infrastructure to use aganist the enemy.

This would help shorten logistics, and help me more quickly bolster my war machine once I capture enemy infrastructure intact.

Except your deployment scenarios are defensive, remember? They were 'if I had already lost' and 'if I was attacked first.' In both cases you aren't advancing, so leaving enemy infrastructure intact to use yourself is not an objective.

4. No long term damage such as long radiation decay (1000's of years to disappear).

Sharina, seriously. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today 60 years after the explosions. Check out the horrible results and utter desolation:

http://apike.ca/images/japan/hiroshima/hiroshima_buscenter.jpg

It looks like they weren't listening to that stuff about thousands of years of deadly fallout.

And this doesn't compare well to Gruinard Island in Scotland being quarantined for 48 years after being contaminated with Anthrax spores in 1942, does it?

I'm rather curious to hear how a properly designed MIRV isn't an effective method of rapid and widespreak dispersement...

For the peanut gallery - I'm talking about one which takes the heat factor into it's calculations, and we'll assume 60% to 70% of the cargo load is going to arrive unfried.

Let's try to work out why biological material released from a white-hot canister travelling downwards at thousands of miles per hour won't be effectively dispersed, shall we?

Could it be because it's travelling straight down at thousands of miles per hour and would have to be released through a white-hot canister, maybe? Regardless of how well the heat shield is designed, the material is still going to have to come out of the warhead eventually.

Der Angst

01-06-2005, 09:49

Dying quickly from conventional bombs would be merciful and relatively painless (even if pain was present, it wouldn't matter much as the person would die instantly, or within 30 seconds or so from blood loss). In the rare instance that citizens actually survive the bomb explosion and losing limbs or whatever in the process, and his / her life manages to be saved...

However, with biological and chemical weapons, pain and death would be extruicating and full of suffering. Dying would be prolonged, as the citizens would watch their own bodies slowly but surely detioriate from the virus or chemical weapons.

To echo Vastiva, slowly choking to death, feeling pain as your guts are shredded from the inside out from acid weapons, or become a virtual prisoner in your body as you slowly die as your motor functions stop working... Those types of deaths are far worse than dying from a gunshot, an instant death from bomb explosions, or even bleeding to death.

Gruesome and terrifying "slow-deaths" would instill far more fear and terror in a populace than quick and merciful deaths. Common sense.1. Given that conventional bombardements tend to include refugees in cellars suffocating or being fried alive, other victims needing hours, even days to die from their injuries (Of particular interest would be the option of having most of your skin charred) and the likes... No. Conventional weapons can be just as horrifying.

2. Given that gas weapons were in common use during ww1, and the soldiers still fought... Falsified.

Even in RL, the USA and other "top-level" nations have already admitted that they cannot prevent death and destruction from a biological and chemical attacks. Even civil services aren't 100% or even 75% effective in combatting such situations.

Even small scale biological and chemical attacks would be enough to cause panic and fear throughout the populace. People would be going "The next attack might hit my town / city. Then again maybe not?" Uncertainty would settle into the populace, reducing their effectiveness.

Granted, nukes can have the same effect, but biological and chemical weapons can cause more fear, panic, and uncertainty than nukes, as the nuke's damage is instant, while the bio-chem weapons do their damage over a substantial period of time.Well... I will admit that the panic effect of biochem weapons is indeed significant, given the effect a few dozen cases of SARS had on the media

However, such effects are not lasting. Ever noticed how we got used to AIDS? How Malaria in Africa doesn't seem to be worth a single headline? We get used to such things, and we get used to them, quickly. This, together with the horrifying inefficiency of bioweapons, results in the overall effects being, well, negligible.

You cannot vaccine your entire nation within a day or even a week. Not even a sizable NS type of city of 100 - 200 million. Otherwise, it'd be either a Post-MT or FT society with magical Star Trek style "Replicators" that poof vaccines into existence, or in MT times be called cheating / god-modding.

In addition, there are viruses and chemicals that normal antibotics won't be effective aganist.
Not an entire nation, true (Note that I mentioned 'A City'. And for a city, it is possible, given the already existing logistics). This isn't even necessary. All I need to do is to vaccine enough people in enough areas to create an overall, population-wide immunity of about, uh, 75%. With three out of fur people being incapable of transmitting the disease, the rest will be more or less protected, as well, simply because the disease cannot reach them, thanks to a lack of transmission sources (I believe the term is 'vector').

Oh, and as GMC mentioned before, you really don't want to create a disease antibiotica aren't effective against. Collateral damage could hit your own nation.

Mind, given the rarity of diseases we're helpless against, creating such a critter wouldn't be all that easy to begin with.

Finally I never claimed that antibiotica are effective against chemicals. That's what gasmasks or wastewater treatment plants are for.

I can bio-engineer weapons and such, by modifying viruses and such to kill populaces within 10 days at most, then once 10 days passes, the viruses would dissolve or fall apart. Ditto for chemicals, after 10 days, the moisture in the air or whatever would help bio-degrade the chemicals.You wish. There will be survivors. This survivors will infect your people. Except of course that the disease is indeed easy to cure, which, given the already apparent breakdown of the enemy, would for once result in actually significant casuality figures (I'm thinkiing about 1%, here).

However, care to explain how the hell your administration would survive such a blatant attempt at genociding an already defeated enemy? Civil rights: Superb. Political Freedoms: Superb. Your own people would remove the regime that is responsible for this kind of atrocity.

Or, given your apparent desire to pre-emptively accuse $Possible_Opponent of pulling godmodes with fearless citizens... Are your own people such hyperloyal Übermenschen that they just stand by, applauding your leaders?

Also, I could create a counter-agent. Once the enemy city is pretty much devoid of life, I can launch counter-agent to neutralize virus or chemicals inside the city, thus making it safe for my guys to move in.As mentioned countless times, biochem weapons are not sufficient to kill off all life. Or even 10% of it.

Shooting your own people would instill fear and possibly riots as your own people would hate your police and military forces, and thus, take action aganist your government. Committing atrocities aganist your own people won't sit too well with the rest of your populace.Reality disproves you (Again). Berlin 1945 had SS squads shooting civilians who didn't fight against the russians. What did the civilians do? They fought.

The very idea of such a move is to instill fear in order to keep the masses at home, which they would do, as riots and the likes can only develop against a weak regime. Otherwise, the Sovjet Union would have fallen apart instantly. We wouldn't have North Korea. The Culture Revolution in China wouldn't have happened.

This kind of measures aren't nice, true. But they work.

Nukes would ruin the area to be annexed, thus, rendering the entire occupation a moot point. However, if you employ bio-chem weapons, then you stand a good chance of capturing enemy industry and infrastructure intact, allowing for better logistics and quicker rebuild times after the war.And this isn't deterrence. This is the strategy of a conqueror. Big difference.

Of course, it is kinda hard to conquer without destroying, seeing as the people will still produce guns to be used against you, and they will still live, simply because, as entioned before, you wont even killa single percentage of the enemy with biochem weapons. Chaos doesn't ensure, either, given a not completely incapable leadership for your opponent.

So, well, you lose.

Regarding "clean" nukes. "Clean" nukes are an impossibility, as there will be radiation from uranium fission, and long term effects like cancer rates and such.Care to explain why clean thermonuclear weapons exist, then? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terribly inefficient weapons with amounts of fallout that would make a modern nuclear engineer cringe with horror.

Yet, both cities are inhabited, with cancer/ birth defect rates... Well, higher than normal, yes. Terribly and insufferably high? No. Not by a long shot.

1. Absoutletely no gamma and neutron radiation whatsoever.Gamma radiation results in the actual blast. It does not result in long term fallout, nor can it irradiate other materials (Like beta/ alpha radiation do). The other two kinds of radiation can, indeed, be minimised. Such bombs exist.

What does result in long term fallout is the original radioactive material in the bomb. Namely, the radioactive material that isn't actually used in the original explosion. Modern nuclear weapons use up almost all the material, thus reducing fallout to the absolute minimum, vastly lower than, say, Hiroshima/ Nagasaki.

2. Does not destroy infrastructure, while killing a good number of military personnel and civilians.Neutron bomb. IIRC, without lasting radiation. All it does is managing the initial radiation 'pulse', and that's it. Incidentally, unlike biochem weapons, it would actually manage a high (Near total) fatality rate.

4. No long term damage such as long radiation decay (1000's of years to disappear).Exists. Heck, even the very first nuclear weapons detonated count as such, given the hundreds of thousands of people inhabiting two fairly well-known japanese cities.

Bio - Chem weapons meet conditions 1 - 4I think the major point I'm having a beef with is that biochem weapons do not meet condition #2.

I won't be the one who launches first strike. Even if I did employ spies and sabtoeurs, I would only "activate" them after I've been attacked. Keep in mind, I might or might not use spies and sabtoeurs. This point was raised by Vastiva, not me.

Thus, the declaration of war will be done by the enemy, not by me. Consquently, the international community would be far more forgiving of me than my enemy.Certainly true. Please note that this particular point was raised against Vastiva's hilarious plot, not against your 8Still odd, but vastly more reasonably) scenario.

I do have friends who would happily nuke the enemy, glassing it if the enemy glasses me. The enemy loses as well, while my friends / allies help me re-settle a new landmass or whatever.

I would engage in conventional war first, but if the enemy tries dirty tricks like trying to WMD me... Or is about to 100% destroy me (Meaning all my major cities are taken or destroyed, my factories are ruined, 90% - 95% of my military killed, etc.) in which case, I'd have NOTHING LEFT to lose, thus launch an all out WMD attack, in hopes of taking down as many invaders or enemies with me before I'm wiped out.

What I'm saying is... I have allies, and 99% of the time any war with Sharina would be a defensive one, as Sharina is not an aggressive war-mongering nation. If enemy nations invade me, there's a high probability I'd enjoy the support of allies not only in NATO but independent allies (not affiliated with any organization).

Even if the RP is limited to 2 allies per side, my 2 allies would have enough nukes to glass over the enemy side. Thus, I'll have deterrant, but from a different source, namely allies.
Again, true. Again, I was referring to Vastiva, not you.

I won't need to have deterrance if I have allies with nukes, they can be my deterrant.I take this as acknowledging that biochem weapons cannot be effective deterrence. Yay. Makes you look a good deal more reasonable, that, for biochem weapons can be a nice flavour. Just not deterrence.

have several solutions to those problems.

1. Space weapons platforms.
2. Design subs that can carry one or two ICBM's.
3. Boost my SDI and ABM systems to take care of enemy ICBM's.
4. I do not need to worry about ground distances if I'm the one being invaded, as I'll be easily able to deal with enemy navys bombing my shores.2. 'Tis kinda the point of an SSBN.

Well, not true ICBMs, but close enough. But yes, your subs are your best chance.

3. Given energy requirements, this does, oddly enough, require you to have nukes. Furthermore, your opponent will, of course, have the same capacities (First to shoot, first to win). Finally: Money money money.

4. For deterrence, you have, given that you need to get your stuff to the enemy. But given that you conceded the 'deterrence' point, you're of course right.

Mind you, using biological weapons on your own soil?

Doesn't sound terribly smart to me...

Bombers can be easier to deal with than ICBM's. Fighters can take care of them, or multi-sensor (combo of 3+ different sensor systems like Radar, Lidar, SQUID, Ladar, Infrared, etc. all working together) aided AA defenses.Errr... Yes. 'Tis my point, really...

Price in money, perhaps. However, this can pay off as these can inflict fear, paranoia, and uncertanity in the enemy populace as they would be worrying non-stop of where my next gas ICBM will strike.Hummm.

"SHIT! If they fire ICBMs, this entire city ends in a mushroom cloud! lets make peace!"

or

"Well... Yeah, they're firing gas- ICBMs, again. Nevermind the sheer impact doing more damage than the gas. Kills a block or two. Well... *yawn* Once the war is over, we'll take care of that." (Attitude of London, 1944/ 45)

I believe scenario 1 is kinda... More efficient.

Metric system? International Standard system?

It wouldn't be much of a problem converting enemy factories to start producing my own brand of stuff. If the enemy guns use smaller ammo than I do, I can convert the machines to produce bigger ammo. Or if the enemy uses different rails, I can use the enemy's locomotive factories to produce locomotives to use on the rails.

Then once the war is over, and if I emerge victorious, I can begin the process of 100% conversion to my nation's standards.I was kinda referring to industrial standards. Screws, paper, nails, tubes, operating systems, the likes. There are thousands of them in every nation, covering, wel, everything.

And it isn't easy to convert a factory. It's outright impossible. The only thing you can do is throwing out all of their machines and putting your own in.

Or use their machines, in which case you're dependent on their supplies, which you don't have.

Well, doesn't work, does it?

Towards this end, I would like to hear your opinions and thoughts on effective usage / deployment on bio-chem weapons.For bioweapons, none. There are a few shiny things you can do with them, but all of them (Destroying agriculture, preparation for genocide, the likes) require your opponent to be vastly inferior to yourself, being incapable of intercepting delivery (Requires absolute air superiority and/ or unguarded borders) and incapable of developing countermeasures, medicaments, vaccines, proper organisation, the likes.

This kind of opponent is almost unextant in NS (I have a puppet, Freedom exterminated, which would be such an opponent, but it is, well, an exception).

For chemical weapons, artillery shells. Missiles are too expensive, planes require absolute air superiority (And, given that dropping bombs wuld be pointless, I'm including ground-to-air defences, here. No SAMs for your opponent). The artillery is cheap, and given a chemical agent staying long enough to work as an effective area denial system, make some sense in a defensive war.

Other than that, forget it.

The Most Glorious Hack

01-06-2005, 10:41

Just to put this silly 10,000 year nonsense to bed...

As of 2003, the city [Hiroshima] has an estimated population of 1,136,684 and the density of 1532.44 persons per km². The total area is 741.75 km². (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#Demographics)

As of 2004 the population of the city [Nagasaki] is 447,419 and its size in square kilometres is 338.72 or about 130 sq.mi making it a fairly large city by Japanese standards in relation to its population level. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki)

Can we now all admit that if a primative nuclear weapon didn't make land uninhabitable for 10,000 years, modern ones most certainly won't (unless designed to on purpose)?

And how about here?

As of the census of 2000, there are 35,582 people, 13,704 households, and 9,729 families residing in the city. The population density is 710.0/km² (1,839.0/mi²). There are 15,920 housing units at an average density of 317.7/km² (822.8/mi²). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamogordo%2C_New_Mexico)What's this? Why, the site of the first American atomic test.

Omz222

01-06-2005, 15:15

With the exception of some non-volatile persistant agents, you can be guarenteed that many chemical agents will most certainly boil. Even then, if it does survive, assuming that the warhead uses explosives to disseminate the chemical agent (as outlined in one of my previous posts), it still won't be as near as effective. This is accounting the speed of the warhead. This is possible with smaller, short-range tactical ballistic missiles (with VX and in some cases sarin), but strategic delivery certainly isn't a possibility.

Sharina

02-06-2005, 04:24

1. Given that conventional bombardements tend to include refugees in cellars suffocating or being fried alive, other victims needing hours, even days to die from their injuries (Of particular interest would be the option of having most of your skin charred) and the likes... No. Conventional weapons can be just as horrifying.

2. Given that gas weapons were in common use during ww1, and the soldiers still fought... Falsified.

Well... I will admit that the panic effect of biochem weapons is indeed significant, given the effect a few dozen cases of SARS had on the media

The panic would give me the delay I need to rebuild my military, press on my attack, or re-deploy my units to better effect.

Delays can mean the difference between victory and defeat, thus, the panic and fear aspects would give me what I need. The enemy would have problems trying to quell the panic and fear, reducing their offensive power somewhat, granting me a re-prieve.

However, such effects are not lasting. Ever noticed how we got used to AIDS? How Malaria in Africa doesn't seem to be worth a single headline? We get used to such things, and we get used to them, quickly. This, together with the horrifying inefficiency of bioweapons, results in the overall effects being, well, negligible.

Neligible or not, the enemy would be forced to burn up more money and resources dealing with the after-effects of the bio-chem attack, the clean-up, vaccines, inoculations, etc.

That means those money and resources would *NOT* be going into the enemy nation's war machine, or towards combat stuff. Even if the enemy only uses $100 billion to deal with bio-chem effects, that means their combat sector would be $100 billion short. Or another equally vital sector, like, say, education or law + order.

Essentailly, the enemy would be forced to divert funds and resources from somewhere, depriving it of effectiveness in the now under-funded sector / area.

Not an entire nation, true (Note that I mentioned 'A City'. And for a city, it is possible, given the already existing logistics). This isn't even necessary. All I need to do is to vaccine enough people in enough areas to create an overall, population-wide immunity of about, uh, 75%. With three out of fur people being incapable of transmitting the disease, the rest will be more or less protected, as well, simply because the disease cannot reach them, thanks to a lack of transmission sources (I believe the term is 'vector').

Even 75% of a large city, of say, 100 million would mean 75 million vaccines / inoculations. That can NOT be done in a day or even a week in one city. No way a city, even a MegaCity, can do that.

In RL, New York City wouldn't be able to fully inoculate its own populace within a day or a week. We're talking 10+ million people in RL in a confined space. Now, scale that up to NS population and density figures... everything is apparently proportional in NS as far as populations and cities go.

Oh, and as GMC mentioned before, you really don't want to create a disease antibiotica aren't effective against. Collateral damage could hit your own nation.

If my nations is overrun and on the verge of being eliminated 100%, what do I have to lose? Nothing.

If it is in an aggressive action aganist the enemy nation (who WMD'ed me first, or sponsors terrorist cells who bio / nuke / chem attacks my cities), the humongous distances in NS Earth would slow down the spread of disease considerably as opposed to RL.

Also, to use a page out of your own reasoning from a while ago... if we go by your reasoning, you also stated that biological effects would be minimal, only to several hundred or thousand cases per huge-MegaCity.

Mind, given the rarity of diseases we're helpless against, creating such a critter wouldn't be all that easy to begin with.

It can be possible to bio-engineer viruses and such feasibly within 2015 - 2020, which is a timescale where most "Modern Tech" RP's take place in between 2000 - 2020. We have already done rudimentary engineering as demostrated by genetic therapy. Tack on another decade of medical advances, and we can reverse the genetic therapy process to serve as a genetic weapon.

If that can be done, surely engineering deadly viruses or bacteria can be made possible.

Finally I never claimed that antibiotica are effective against chemicals. That's what gasmasks or wastewater treatment plants are for.

Care to explain how you can equip 100 million people with gas masks within a MegaCity or "state" / "province" in just 30 - 60 minutes? They'd all have to have their own gas masks, which would cost the government a significant sum of money.

Even if a nation decides to equip every one of its citizens with gas masks, the logistics and expenses involved would be considerable. 2 billion people times $100 per half-decent gas mask = $200 billion. That is $200 billion less money that could have been used towards building more guns, tanks, planes, etc. Also all the plastics, ceramics, velcro, glass, etc. involved in such an endaveour would mean that there would be less of those resources for guns, tanks, planes, etc.

You wish. There will be survivors. This survivors will infect your people. Except of course that the disease is indeed easy to cure, which, given the already apparent breakdown of the enemy, would for once result in actually significant casuality figures (I'm thinkiing about 1%, here).

I would have already had the antidote, as any sane-minded nation would have antidotes for its own bio-weapons before actually employing them. Failing that, my scientists would be quicker to develop an antidote than the enemy, as my guys would already have the exact blueprints with all the info about the germ / virus in question, while the enemy has to do it all from scratch.

However, care to explain how the hell your administration would survive such a blatant attempt at genociding an already defeated enemy? Civil rights: Superb. Political Freedoms: Superb. Your own people would remove the regime that is responsible for this kind of atrocity.

I never said I'd massacre or genocide the defeated enemy. Please point to me where I said that.

Or, given your apparent desire to pre-emptively accuse $Possible_Opponent of pulling godmodes with fearless citizens... Are your own people such hyperloyal Übermenschen that they just stand by, applauding your leaders?

Once again, I wouldn't genocide a defeated enemy. In addition, I wouldn't be the one who pre-emptively attacks nations, as I am not an aggressive war-monger.

However, if the enemy has invaded me, and about to eliminate me 100%, I would have nothing left to lose. My people are as good as dead, thus, I launch all out WMD aganist enemy, hoping to take as much of the enemy down with me.

Then, there won't be much of anything left for any rebellions or riots or whatever to take place, as everybody on both sides would be 99% or 100% dead.

Don't forget, my allies would glass over the invader's homelands if I am eliminated 100%. Then the enemy's allies glass my allies, then the allies of my allies glass back. The cycle continues until there's no nation left standing.

Everybody loses. Me, my enemy, my allies, and my enemy's allies.

As mentioned countless times, biochem weapons are not sufficient to kill off all life. Or even 10% of it.

I am not expecting my bio-weapons to kill all life quickly (The virus kinds of weapons).

If I plan on killing all life, I would use lots and lots of nerve gas like VX or Sarin. Kill all animal life, thus destroying target nation's ecosystem. Kills all people who don't own a gas-mask in 30 seconds. Poisons plants, as they take within themselves the chemicals, thus rendering them un-eatable, causing starvation.

Care to explain why clean thermonuclear weapons exist, then? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terribly inefficient weapons with amounts of fallout that would make a modern nuclear engineer cringe with horror.

Yet, both cities are inhabited, with cancer/ birth defect rates... Well, higher than normal, yes. Terribly and insufferably high? No. Not by a long shot.

This is directed towards Der Angst, GMC Military Arms, and Glorious Hack...

Hiroshima + Nagaksi were wussy nukes compared to NS's "OMG! 50 MT nukes! 100 MT nukes!".

The bigger the nukes, the more radiation released. Add in the customary NS wankery of "OMG! I possess 15,000 nuclear weapons!". Once those weapons are launched and hit the target, the target would be super-saturated with radiation.

15,000 times more radiation than just one nuke weapon.

"SHIT! If they fire ICBMs, this entire city ends in a mushroom cloud! lets make peace!"

or

"Well... Yeah, they're firing gas- ICBMs, again. Nevermind the sheer impact doing more damage than the gas. Kills a block or two. Well... *yawn* Once the war is over, we'll take care of that." (Attitude of London, 1944/ 45)

I believe scenario 1 is kinda... More efficient.

Yes, this may be so. However, if I do get nuked, no mater if its just 1 nuke or 1000 nukes, I will retialate with full bio-chem weapons, including millions of gallons of VX and Sarin gas. On top of that, my allies would add their nukes to my retaliation attack.

So I won't be intimidated by a nuke attack as many people would think.

I was kinda referring to industrial standards. Screws, paper, nails, tubes, operating systems, the likes. There are thousands of them in every nation, covering, wel, everything.

And it isn't easy to convert a factory. It's outright impossible. The only thing you can do is throwing out all of their machines and putting your own in.

Or use their machines, in which case you're dependent on their supplies, which you don't have.

I can simply build stuff to enemy's specifications. All I have to do is to bring in the raw resources like metal ore, plastic goo, etc. Then have the captured enemy factories produce enemy units that are actually crewed and controlled by me.

Suppose the enemy builds a tank called "Hammer-100". By capturing the enemy factories, I can build my own "Hammer-100" tanks, then I can send these tanks in, creating chaos and confusion amongst the enemy ranks as their own tanks begin firing upon their supposed "friendlies".

Chaos, confusion, panic... perfect.

Omz222

02-06-2005, 04:36

Yes, this may be so. However, if I do get nuked, no mater if its just 1 nuke or 1000 nukes, I will retialate with full bio-chem weapons, including millions of gallons of VX and Sarin gas. On top of that, my allies would add their nukes to my retaliation attack.

Still depends on the relative distance between your nation and their nation geographically. As outlined before, you can forget about biological agent delivery through long-range systems, and this "millions of gallons of VX and sarin" may not be near as effective as you might expect when deployed from something like an ICBM (as sarin especially will just boil, thus rendering the agent ineffective). At a shorter range, where tactical weapons can be used, this is another matter - but since many NS nations assumes thousands - if not tens of thousands - of KMs between each other, it's very difficult to achieve much from a mass chemical and biological attack, other than wasting precious money in firing those ICBMs, which should be better used in the roles that they were actually designed for.

I can simply build stuff to enemy's specifications. All I have to do is to bring in the raw resources like metal ore, plastic goo, etc. Then have the captured enemy factories produce enemy units that are actually crewed and controlled by me.

Suppose the enemy builds a tank called "Hammer-100". By capturing the enemy factories, I can build my own "Hammer-100" tanks, then I can send these tanks in, creating chaos and confusion amongst the enemy ranks as their own tanks begin firing upon their supposed "friendlies".

Chaos, confusion, panic... perfect.

As if the capture of a mere factory along with its production line would automatically and magically grant you the full technical specifications of the particular weapon. However, dream is different from reality, as there are still many difficulties in acquiring the full technical informations let alone setting up your own production lines to produce them. Further, you are apparantly forgetting about battlefield logistics. Using the enemy's own designs may be all good and nice, but it would take a large amount of time to actually allow your units to fully adopt the enemy's design (i.e. training your crews, readjusting your tactics and supply lines, and so on). This has been proven in history, as the Soviets didn't just magically produce MiG-15s based on original German designs, they examined it and adjusted their production lines accordingly, and it would still take a large amount of time to actually train their crew to operate it and readjust their supply lines to support the new units. True, it can still be accomplished in a short amount of time, just don't expect it to be really practicable.

EDIT: Another question. How would your units identify those "enemy" tanks as friendly? It would be pretty disasterous if you have a column of these "Hammer-100s", painted with the enemy's own insignia and equipped with the enemy's own communication system, firing at enemy Hammer-100s, but only to be fired on by other friendly units.

Sharina

02-06-2005, 04:54

Still depends on the relative distance between your nation and their nation geographically. As outlined before, you can forget about biological agent delivery through long-range systems, and this "millions of gallons of VX and sarin" may not be near as effective as you might expect when deployed from something like an ICBM (as sarin especially will just boil, thus rendering the agent ineffective). At a shorter range, where tactical weapons can be used, this is another matter - but since many NS nations assumes thousands - if not tens of thousands - of KMs between each other, it's very difficult to achieve much from a mass chemical and biological attack, other than wasting precious money in firing those ICBMs, which should be better used in the roles that they were actually designed for.

I can solve this problem.

Build a sizable submarine fleet, then have them launch their cruise missiles or submarine-designed ICBM's. This could reduce the distance problem significantly.

Also, I can come up with several ultra-low and nasty plans with this submarine idea, such as sailing towards another nation, stay out of its territorial waters, and then fire away. Make my enemy believe that the other un-involved nation is actually launching pre-emptive attacks aganist the enemy.

However, this plan would only go into effect if I'm about to be 100% destroyed. It wouldn't matter if the un-involved nation finds out I did it, because I wouldn't have anything left to lose.

When a nation has nothing left to lose, it can do a good number of extremely dirty, under-handed, and ultra-cheap tricks without worrying about the consquences.

I'm aware this may be way out there, but I'm throwing some ideas around to fuel the debate. :p

As if the capture of a mere factory along with its production line would automatically and magically grant you the full technical specifications of the particular weapon. However, dream is different from reality, as there are still many difficulties in acquiring the full technical informations let alone setting up your own production lines to produce them. Further, you are apparantly forgetting about battlefield logistics. Using the enemy's own designs may be all good and nice, but it would take a large amount of time to actually allow your units to fully adopt the enemy's design (i.e. training your crews, readjusting your tactics and supply lines, and so on). This has been proven in history, as the Soviets didn't just magically produce MiG-15s based on original German designs, they examined it and adjusted their production lines accordingly, and it would still take a large amount of time to actually train their crew to operate it and readjust their supply lines to support the new units. True, it can still be accomplished in a short amount of time, just don't expect it to be really practicable.

True, I do not expect this process to happen overnight.

However, the factories would already be "ready" to produce units and such, because of their machines and tools. Those machines + tools would be arranged or set up to produce the enemy stuff.

I can also capture blueprints and plans for production of these units. Each factory should have a blueprint somewhere so that if things go wrong, the workers and fore-men can look over the blueprints to fix up machinery or the units being produced.

Finally, training time could be considerably less for re-training to use enemy hardware. Your troops would only have to learn how to flip switches, use different pedals, or hardware related stuff. Your guys would already have discpline, survival skills, accuracy training, etc. already, and is not necessary to re-train discpiline, survival, etc. with enemy equipment. Consquently, the training times for re-training to use enemy stuff can be a fraction of the time needed for initial / actual training of raw recruits into your army.

EDIT: Another question. How would your units identify those "enemy" tanks as friendly? It would be pretty disasterous if you have a column of these "Hammer-100s", painted with the enemy's own insignia and equipped with the enemy's own communication system, firing at enemy Hammer-100s, but only to be fired on by other friendly units.

That is a risk I am willing to take.

I could have my planes and artillery continue firing at those columns of "false" tanks, but instead of using live rounds, they could use blanks. Or I could use live rounds but delibarately be in-accurate with them. There are several other ways to overcome this difficulty of friendly-arms fire and such.

Omz222

02-06-2005, 05:09

I can solve this problem.

Build a sizable submarine fleet, then have them launch their cruise missiles or submarine-designed ICBM's. This could reduce the distance problem significantly.

Once again, it's not the type of the ICBM that makes the deployment of chemical and biological agents impractical, it is the general characteristics of a long-range ballistic missile that prohibits the effective deployment of chemical and biological weapons. Cruise missiles might do a better job of deploying the chemical agents, but deploying biological agents over a wide area would still require you to use shorter-range systems.

Also, I can come up with several ultra-low and nasty plans with this submarine idea, such as sailing towards another nation, stay out of its territorial waters, and then fire away. Make my enemy believe that the other un-involved nation is actually launching pre-emptive attacks aganist the enemy.

Apparantly you are only putting yourself in the enemy's shoes. It would be completely logical to assume that the missile launches are not from the particular nation, regardless of the distance between the missile launch and the nation, as the chance's next to nil to have a nation randomly fire missiles at a nation when it does not expect to gain anythiong. Lemme ask you this, would you fire your missiles near your waters if you were attacking the enemy?

However, this plan would only go into effect if I'm about to be 100% destroyed. It wouldn't matter if the un-involved nation finds out I did it, because I wouldn't have anything left to lose.

When a nation has nothing left to lose, it can do a good number of extremely dirty, under-handed, and ultra-cheap tricks without worrying about the consquences.
You do. The further and complete annihilation of the remaining assets of your navy outside of your waters. It wouldn't be too long before both the enemy and the neutral nation catches you.

However, the factories would already be "ready" to produce units and such, because of their machines and tools. Those machines + tools would be arranged or set up to produce the enemy stuff.
As if the enemy will not actually fortify their position (thus forcing you to take it and doing the damage to the factory in the process) and defend it until they can no longer to, in which they will just attempt to destroy the machines and plans (however effective the attempts may be)? And as if your mission planners in the Air Force and Navy will magically ignore the presence of a factory there?

I can also capture blueprints and plans for production of these units. Each factory should have a blueprint somewhere so that if things go wrong, the workers and fore-men can look over the blueprints to fix up machinery or the units being produced.
They burn and destroy things for a reason.

Finally, training time could be considerably less for re-training to use enemy hardware. Your troops would only have to learn how to flip switches, use different pedals, or hardware related stuff. Your guys would already have discpline, survival skills, accuracy training, etc. already, and is not necessary to re-train discpiline, survival, etc. with enemy equipment. Consquently, the training times for re-training to use enemy stuff can be a fraction of the time needed for initial / actual training of raw recruits into your army.

You are sadly mistaken, as training itself will not only consist of teaching your men how to operate a distinctively different (read: different in operation) system, but will also take valuable time from your men's hours and schedule, which is actually much more counter-productive. Adapting your supply system is an even tricker process, as you'd have to revamp almost your entire supply line and support personnel to ensure that they can deliver the spare parts, repairs, and technical assistance. If it's so easy as you describe, then why shouldn't the USAF be able to field the F/A-22s into service so quickly and painlessly?

That is a risk I am willing to take.

I could have my planes and artillery continue firing at those columns of "false" tanks, but instead of using live rounds, they could use blanks. Or I could use live rounds but delibarately be in-accurate with them. There are several other ways to overcome this difficulty of friendly-arms fire and such.
...and why in the world would you waste valuable fuel and risk yoru aircraft to only fire blanks from your guns and duds/training rounds for your missiles at the enemy. Remember, you don't know which is which. Maybe soldiers around the world should just use rubber bullets and flashbangs as complete replacements for live ammunition and frag grenades, since there's always a chance of friendly fire.

Otagia

02-06-2005, 05:32

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but why not disseminated bio-weapons by covert insertion of an aerosol into a population center (what most would call a terrorist action). This keeps preparation low, and exposure high. Admittedly, against military targets this is rather difficult, but against soft civilian targets, this method of dispersal can be extremely effective, especially with agents such as Pale Rider Arms' Generation Disease, smallpox, and some forms of weaponized anthrax.

Sharina

02-06-2005, 05:36

Once again, it's not the type of the ICBM that makes the deployment of chemical and biological agents impractical, it is the general characteristics of a long-range ballistic missile that prohibits the effective deployment of chemical and biological weapons. Cruise missiles might do a better job of deploying the chemical agents, but deploying biological agents over a wide area would still require you to use shorter-range systems.

The ICBM's I had in mind would not go into space. The "Submarine-designed" ICBM's would be nothing more than an extreme long range cruise missile flying through the sky.

Those ICBM's would fly through the air for 10,000 - 20,000 miles, in the exact same way cruise missiles fly for 200 - 1,000 miles.

I envision two different ICBM's... one that does go into space and does the whole re-entry thing. The other would act exactly like a cruise missile, but with 10x the range and consquently, 10x the weight and size.

Apparantly you are only putting yourself in the enemy's shoes. It would be completely logical to assume that the missile launches are not from the particular nation, regardless of the distance between the missile launch and the nation, as the chance's next to nil to have a nation randomly fire missiles at a nation when it does not expect to gain anythiong. Lemme ask you this, would you fire your missiles near your waters if you were attacking the enemy?

What I meant was that I park my subs a few miles outside of a neutral nation's territorial waters, preferably a large sized neutral nation.

Then launch missiles from that position aganist my enemy, in hopes of creating chaos and confusion. This would be planned to make my enemy think the neutral nation is launching missiles aganist him / her. There would be accusations and perhaps actual war, as my enemy would think that the neutral nation actually has underwater missile silos when actually that nation doesn't.

Keep in mind, there have already been underwater missile silos in NS. Remember the whole "Underwater Nuclear Missile Silos" resolution by the UN (which I'm very thankful I'm not a member of the UN), and there are several other underwater defenses. I remember AMF saying he had underwater turrets or something. Underwater weapons are quite feasible in NS's world, so this could be used to my advantage, as one word explains it all.

Deception.

You do. The further and complete annihilation of the remaining assets of your navy outside of your waters. It wouldn't be too long before both the enemy and the neutral nation catches you.

I wouldn't have any nation left to support my navy, so my navy would be sent on a suicide "last-ditch" run. What's the point of having a navy after my home nation is destroyed? No base of support, no food, no supplies, etc. In short, game over.

So why not try to get a slam bang out of my navy along with me getting "game over"?

As if the enemy will not actually fortify their position (thus forcing you to take it and doing the damage to the factory in the process) and defend it until they can no longer to, in which they will just attempt to destroy the machines and plans (however effective the attempts may be)? And as if your mission planners in the Air Force and Navy will magically ignore the presence of a factory there?

They burn and destroy things for a reason.

This is assuming I use conventional weapons, and if I'm laying siege to industrial centers.

Sarin or VX nerve gas can take care of fortified defenders, any civilians working in the factories, and so forth. You can't exactly burn or destroy stuff if you're dead from nerve gas, can you?

You are sadly mistaken, as training itself will not only consist of teaching your men how to operate a distinctively different (read: different in operation) system, but will also take valuable time from your men's hours and schedule, which is actually much more counter-productive. Adapting your supply system is an even tricker process, as you'd have to revamp almost your entire supply line and support personnel to ensure that they can deliver the spare parts, repairs, and technical assistance. If it's so easy as you describe, then why shouldn't the USAF be able to field the F/A-22s into service so quickly and painlessly?

A wheel is a wheel, a bullet is a bullet, a gun is a gun...

If I remember correctly, nations usually use similiar equipment, like 5.5 mm NATO rounds. Or if the enemy and I use similiar diameter cannons, like a 120 mm tank cannon for instance... In those instances, the resupply, re-training, etc. would be significantly less than if things were more different. For example, if enemy uses 5 mm bullets and I use 7 mm bullets, or if my tanks use 120 mm tank cannon while the enemy uses 140 mm tank cannons, training and logistics would be more problematic.

Sowing confusion and chaos within enemy ranks if I use his own stuff aganist him would cause problems for the enemy, stalling his war effort, and causing him to expend even more resources on counteracting my sneaky actions. Stuff like increased patrols, more intensive radios, etc.

Even if the war effort is stalled for just 1 or 2 days with this tactic, I could gain a reprieve of sorts, as my troops can consolidate positions, bring in fresh stuff, re-deploy planes, etc.

...and why in the world would you waste valuable fuel and risk yoru aircraft to only fire blanks from your guns and duds/training rounds for your missiles at the enemy. Remember, you don't know which is which. Maybe soldiers around the world should just use rubber bullets and flashbangs as complete replacements for live ammunition and frag grenades, since there's always a chance of friendly fire.

Maintain the appearance of illusion. Make the enemy believe my "fake" tanks are actually enemy units retreating or something. If I hold off attacking the "fake" tanks, the enemy would know something's up, thus the need to maintain an illusion.

Omz222

02-06-2005, 05:58

Those ICBM's would fly through the air for 10,000 - 20,000 miles, in the exact same way cruise missiles fly for 200 - 1,000 miles.

Unless I see the exact characteristics, I'll still have some doubts about your claim of a sub-launched intercontinental range cruise missile, though if it is noot ballistic, it isn't an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Reentry will be a major problem for the ICBM, and for the long-range cruise missile, you are actually looking at reduced range and payloads as it would be relatively difficult to engineer a cruise missile that can go such a long range without being easily intercepted (this was done with the Snark before it was retired very shortly after it was deployed).

What I meant was that I park my subs a few miles outside of a neutral nation's territorial waters, preferably a large sized neutral nation.

Then launch missiles from that position aganist my enemy, in hopes of creating chaos and confusion. This would be planned to make my enemy think the neutral nation is launching missiles aganist him / her. There would be accusations and perhaps actual war, as my enemy would think that the neutral nation actually has underwater missile silos when actually that nation doesn't.
Read my post again. You cannot assume that the enemy will be as stupid as you might think, as only an idiot would think that the nation closest to the origin of the missile launch is responsible. Like I said, put yourself into the shoe of the enemy. Would you just accuse a neutral nation of attacking you just because somehow there's a few missiles launched from international waters near them?

Keep in mind, there have already been underwater missile silos in NS. Remember the whole "Underwater Nuclear Missile Silos" resolution by the UN (which I'm very thankful I'm not a member of the UN), and there are several other underwater defenses. I remember AMF saying he had underwater turrets or something. Underwater weapons are quite feasible in NS's world, so this could be used to my advantage, as one word explains it all.
Just because that it had been talked about doesn't mean that it's actually feastible, especially in deeper waters where the water itself is not claimed by a nation. Even a submarine has difficulty in launching missiles from anything less than a relatively shallow depth, even with the developments throughout the Cold War.

Deception.
An extremely ineffective form of deception that may actually get the neutral nation angered, thus getting one more nation onto your tail.

This is assuming I use conventional weapons, and if I'm laying siege to industrial centers.
So you are just going to launch an artillery barrage and air strikes against the defences of the fortified factory, risking it to be destroyed?

Sarin or VX nerve gas can take care of fortified defenders, any civilians working in the factories, and so forth.
VX is a persistant agent, that is, it will remain there for days before it is rendered ineffective, whereas sarin is not a persistant agent. Why do you want to use a persistant agent if you want to take over the objective?
As for the latter statement about "being gassed". Only an idiot would start preparing against chemical weapon attacks and start burning the documents when the enemy is already going through their front door.

In those instances, the resupply, re-training, etc. would be significantly less than if things were more different.
Uh... It's exactly the opposite, unless of course, you did not intend to contradict your very own statement.

Sowing confusion and chaos within enemy ranks if I use his own stuff aganist him would cause problems for the enemy, stalling his war effort, and causing him to expend even more resources on counteracting my sneaky actions. Stuff like increased patrols, more intensive radios, etc.
In this instance, it would be pretty quick before the enemies themselves identifies you (or for the matter, being bombed to death by friendly assets) and starts to take measures themselves. At best the effect would be a long-term effect, though it's in no way as large as you had exaggerated.

Even if the war effort is stalled for just 1 or 2 days with this tactic, I could gain a reprieve of sorts, as my troops can consolidate positions, bring in fresh stuff, re-deploy planes, etc.
...just as your planes and troops are bombarding your own forces? Cool, let's just make a kamikaze unit, but with the difference being your friendlies actually helping you to commit suicide!

Maintain the appearance of illusion. Make the enemy believe my "fake" tanks are actually enemy units retreating or something. If I hold off attacking the "fake" tanks, the enemy would know something's up, thus the need to maintain an illusion.
Why would they still be maintaining an illusion and just tricking themselves when they know something is wrong?

Sharina

02-06-2005, 06:34

Unless I see the exact characteristics, I'll still have some doubts about your claim of a sub-launched intercontinental range cruise missile, though if it is noot ballistic, it isn't an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Reentry will be a major problem for the ICBM, and for the long-range cruise missile, you are actually looking at reduced range and payloads as it would be relatively difficult to engineer a cruise missile that can go such a long range without being easily intercepted (this was done with the Snark before it was retired very shortly after it was deployed).

Okay. Lets call it ERCM, or "Extreme Range Cruise Missile" instead.

In NS Earth, the Snark would be more of a necessity due to the extreme distances involved. Whereas, in RL Earth, or those "Parallel Universe Earths" like Earth I, II, III, etc. I wouldn't need the Snark as distances would be small enough for most cruise missiles (100 - 2000 miles).

Read my post again. You cannot assume that the enemy will be as stupid as you might think, as only an idiot would think that the nation closest to the origin of the missile launch is responsible. Like I said, put yourself into the shoe of the enemy. Would you just accuse a neutral nation of attacking you just because somehow there's a few missiles launched from international waters near them?

If you detect an missile launch from practically in a neutral nation (1 - 2 miles away from territorial waters is infintiesmal on a NS Earth where oceans can be 30,000+ miles wide), what would your first instinct tell you?

"Is it a nation suddenly allying with Sharina, and launching a pre-emptive attack?"

Abrupt turn-arounds in national policy has been known to happen.

This would raise doubt and possibly strain relations between my enemy and that neutral nation. However, it is worth a try if I have nothing left to lose.

Just because that it had been talked about doesn't mean that it's actually feastible, especially in deeper waters where the water itself is not claimed by a nation. Even a submarine has difficulty in launching missiles from anything less than a relatively shallow depth, even with the developments throughout the Cold War.

Granted, in RL, underwater silos and guns probably don't exist.

However, I've seen them in NS, and in the NS version of UN... remember the buzz last year when the NS UN proposed "Underwater nuclear silos to be built off shores of each UN member" or something similiar to that effect.

An extremely ineffective form of deception that may actually get the neutral nation angered, thus getting one more nation onto your tail.

Worth a try when I have nothing left to lose. My nation is already or just about to be destroyed, so what else is there to do with a Navy that have / will lose logistics and supply, as there would be no more food, ammo, etc. coming into my Navy.

Once again, this attempt is only a last-ditch effort. I wouldn't do this if I actually had a chance of winning or forcing a stalemate in a war.

So you are just going to launch an artillery barrage and air strikes against the defences of the fortified factory, risking it to be destroyed?

You misunderstood. I meant your arguement of fortifications and damage would assume that I launched conventional attacks aganist the factories I want to capture. However, I would not, as I would be using "anti-organic" weapons to kill all organics, such as nerve gas or bio weapons, while keeping factory infrastructure 90% - 99% intact.

VX is a persistant agent, that is, it will remain there for days before it is rendered ineffective, whereas sarin is not a persistant agent. Why do you want to use a persistant agent if you want to take over the objective?
As for the latter statement about "being gassed". Only an idiot would start preparing against chemical weapon attacks and start burning the documents when the enemy is already going through their front door.

Persistant agents can attack the enemy if they take off their bio-suits (or even open a zipper) to urinate / excrete bodily wastes. Or the gas could seep through the gaps under doors and / or through ventilation ducts.

My forces can afford to wait a few days while the guys in the factory either die from nerve gas, or from water + food deprivation. Then once they are dead either way, I can move in and capture the factory.

As for the burning / destroying of documents. VX nerve gas kills within 30 seconds, I believe. The factory people might not even know they'd be gassed, as VX nerve gas doesn't have to hit the factory directly. The gas bomb or missile could hit the ground 2 miles away, and the gas wafts over the factory, doing its damage. Or if the factory people see the missile coming, they may just think it's a conventional bomb missile.

Even teaspoons of VX and Sarin gas can kill thousands of people over areas the size of a metropolitan area.

Uh... It's exactly the opposite, unless of course, you did not intend to contradict your very own statement.

What I meant by that statement is this...

If me and my enemy equipment are considerably different in scale, size, etc. then it would be more difficult on logistics, supply, and training.

For example...

Situation A:

I employ 120 mm tank cannon.
Enemy employs 120 mm tank cannon.

Situation B:

I employ 120 mm tank cannon.
Enemy employs 125 mm tank cannon.

Situation C:

I employ 120 mm tank cannon.
Enemy employs 140 mm tank cannon.

The logistics, training, etc. during factory production / converting in Situation C would be more problematic than in Situation A, but at a lesser degree between Situations A and B. That was what I was trying to say, I apologize if it was confusing earlier.

In this instance, it would be pretty quick before the enemies themselves identifies you (or for the matter, being bombed to death by friendly assets) and starts to take measures themselves. At best the effect would be a long-term effect, though it's in no way as large as you had exaggerated.

Friendly bombing aganist my "illusion" force would be using blanks so not to damage my guys, but at the same time, make it appear to the enemy that these "illusion" units are real. After all, the Mark-One eyeball can be fooled (the deception probably would be discovered more quickly via electronic sensors and satellite photos).

However, this "self-bombing" was only one idea how to go about the deception. There are other ways besides this to decieve the enemy.

...just as your planes and troops are bombarding your own forces? Cool, let's just make a kamikaze unit, but with the difference being your friendlies actually helping you to commit suicide!

See above.

The Most Glorious Hack

02-06-2005, 08:12

This is directed towards Der Angst, GMC Military Arms, and Glorious Hack...

Hiroshima + Nagaksi were wussy nukes compared to NS's "OMG! 50 MT nukes! 100 MT nukes!".

The bigger the nukes, the more radiation released. Add in the customary NS wankery of "OMG! I possess 15,000 nuclear weapons!". Once those weapons are launched and hit the target, the target would be super-saturated with radiation.

15,000 times more radiation than just one nuke weapon.

Please to be learning about what you're talking about.

First of all, you can't assume that everyone's going to launch 15,000 nukes at each target. Seriously, you're being silly with that.

Now, once again, modern nuclear warheads are more efficient and create less radiation than the ones used in WWII. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this here.

Much like automobiles can have both bigger engines and better fuel efficiency, modern nuclear weapons have larger explosions and less ambiant radiation.

You don't have to be a military genius to do war stuff here (lord knows I'm not), but please... do a little bit of research.

GMC Military Arms

02-06-2005, 08:13

Hiroshima + Nagaksi were wussy nukes compared to NS's "OMG! 50 MT nukes! 100 MT nukes!".

They were also extremely primative nukes that have very high fallout rates compared to modern ones. As has been pointed out to you several times already.

The bigger the nukes, the more radiation released.

Categorically wrong. The monumental 50 megaton 'Tsar Bomba' nuclear weapon test was one of the cleanest nuclear detonations in history. Fallout is material not reacted and modern nuclear weapons have much less for any given size, because unless you're building a dirty bomb on purpose you don't want huge amounts of unreacted fissile material being thrown all over the place..

Raem

02-06-2005, 08:42

I feel the need to point out that nuclear and biochemical agents serve two different purposes. Nuclear and thermonuclear devices are meant, primarily, as a deterrent. Sure, they make a proper big flash and create massive destruction, but that's secondary. They do that so nobody would think of using them, or of taking war too far. It's not coincidence that modern, nuclear powers don't engage in total war anymore. Total war would erase humanity from the pages of history. Nuclear weapons are strategic weapons in this respect.

Though biochemical weapons can be effective against civiliian targets, they're more effective on battlefields. Most are meant to wound, not annihilate. The more enemy soldiers you can put in a MASH, the fewer of them are standing up and shooting back. Plus you put a strain on the enemy's capability to deal with further casualties. Biochemical agents are tactical weapons.

That said they'd be better off used one after the other. Consider the effect of even a small exposure to some highly infectious agent - say, smallpox - on a population whose hospitals glow at night, and whose immune systems are ravaged by radiation poisoning.

Sharina

02-06-2005, 09:17

Okay, I stand corrected in regards of nuclear weapon radiation.

However, that still doesn't encourage me to re-instate my nuclear weapons program. I'm plain sick of nuke weapons, and I'd prefer to use other weapons and tactics.

I'm seriously thinking of building just one type of Post-MT WMD to replace nukes, like "Plasma Bomb" or "Organic Distinegrator" WMD, so I can have my "kill organic life, but keep infrastructure intact" without any of the side-effects of nukes, and without the sticky issues of bio-chem weapons that we've been debating for the past week.

I do not want nukes, period. They're way overrated in my opinion, and in most war RP's nukes and / or WMD's lead to IGNORES. Ah, well.

Please pardon my frustration, but every time I try to break the mold, or try to do something different, I can't seem to make it work. I'm not the world's best debater, nor do I know what a red herring, strawman, or whatever terms you guys use. I post my ideas and opinions based off common sense and from what I learned on Discovery Channel, Science Channel, and History Channel. I also am not the kind of person to pore through 100's of webpages daily in meticulous research of every new MT tech or experimental stuff.

Vastiva

02-06-2005, 09:36

GMC Military Arms

02-06-2005, 10:04

Well, that is a problem - many here are FAR more likely to "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" then to use their intelligence for some purpose which might be useful - such as a "well, you might..." pointer or direction.

"Lack of help", so to speak.

...Said Vastiva, who's spent the entire debate arguing for the sake of arguing. Oh, and trolling, like you're doing right here.

There is a very simple pointer to be followed; if you want the same effects as nuclear weapons, use nuclear weapons. Biological warfare can never replace them in any useful sense; indeed the only biological warfare scenarios seriously considered in real life involve non-secondary-infectous tactical deployments rather than fantastically unlikely feats of city-killing.

If you want a weapon that kills people but leaves infrastructure intact, that's what neutron bombs are for; they do the job excellently and are far less random and more difficult to defend against.

The Most Glorious Hack

02-06-2005, 10:24

However, that still doesn't encourage me to re-instate my nuclear weapons program.I've never attempted to get you to reinstate it. I simply was trying to point out logical holes with the biological plan, and factual errors in other places.

I'm plain sick of nuke weapons, and I'd prefer to use other weapons and tactics.As someone who's never had a nuclear (or chemical or biological) arsenal, I can sympathise with this.

I'm seriously thinking of building just one type of Post-MT WMD to replace nukes, like "Plasma Bomb" or "Organic Distinegrator" WMD, so I can have my "kill organic life, but keep infrastructure intact" without any of the side-effects of nukes, and without the sticky issues of bio-chem weapons that we've been debating for the past week.As mentioned elsewhere, use a neutron bomb for that.

I do not want nukes, period. They're way overrated in my opinion, and in most war RP's nukes and / or WMD's lead to IGNORES. Ah, well.I've only seen them used a couple times (not counting n00b wars) and they never lead to an ignore or insane wank. This may be an artifact of the threads you read, or a simple urban legend. I notice lots of people complain about how nukes "ruin RP", but they're almost never used in serious role-play.

Please pardon my frustration, but every time I try to break the mold, or try to do something different, I can't seem to make it work.Just takes practice. The fact that you didn't say "fuck it" and storm off is a good start.

I'm not the world's best debater, nor do I know what a red herring, strawman, or whatever terms you guys use.If you're interested:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://datanation.com/fallacies/
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

I also am not the kind of person to pore through 100's of webpages daily in meticulous research of every new MT tech or experimental stuff.Neither am I. I simply make liberal use of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). It's not like I know the current population of Hiroshima. I just searched Wiki for it. Wiki's not perfect, but it's a good start.

Der Angst

02-06-2005, 11:05

The panic would give me the delay I need to rebuild my military, press on my attack, or re-deploy my units to better effect.Note that I said *media*. Business was still running. The actual, monetary effects were rather negligible.

Granted, so are your own expenses, but overall, really... It's so excessively minor that it is barely worth mentioning.

In RL, New York City wouldn't be able to fully inoculate its own populace within a day or a week. We're talking 10+ million people in RL in a confined space. Now, scale that up to NS population and density figures... everything is apparently proportional in NS as far as populations and cities go.Care to scale up not only the population, but also the actually existing risk of biologial weapons being used? One would assume that NS nations tend to be a little better prepared than RL nations, given the higher risks.

Care to explain how you can equip 100 million people with gas masks within a MegaCity or "state" / "province" in just 30 - 60 minutes? They'd all have to have their own gas masks, which would cost the government a significant sum of money.
Well... I wouldn't do that to begin with, given that the actual area of effect would be insignificant. I was kinda referring to frontline soldiers.

I never said I'd massacre or genocide the defeated enemy. Please point to me where I said that.Here:

I can bio-engineer weapons and such, by modifying viruses and such to kill populaces within 10 days at most, then once 10 days passes, the viruses would dissolve or fall apart. Ditto for chemicals, after 10 days, the moisture in the air or whatever would help bio-degrade the chemicals.[size=1]Bold by me.[/b]
Lets remember that you're doing this with an opponent that has already lost (Otherwise you're kinda incapable of doing serious conventional damage to a civilian target), in a frontline city whose supplies are quite easy to cut off with bombardements. This is needless slaughter.

If I plan on killing all life, I would use lots and lots of nerve gas like VX or Sarin. Kill all animal life, thus destroying target nation's ecosystem. Kills all people who don't own a gas-mask in 30 seconds. Poisons plants, as they take within themselves the chemicals, thus rendering them un-eatable, causing starvationYou do know the sheer amount of ordinance this would require, yes? (Personally, I would consider HCN dropped into rivers to be vastly more efficient) This is less possible than killing off your target with area-effecting conventional bombardements. The sheer amount of gas you would need makes the whole thing, well, impossible.

It can certainly work in a trench war. It would (Though inefficiently so) work with a single, medium-sized city. It would never work with an entire nation.

I can simply build stuff to enemy's specifications. All I have to do is to bring in the raw resources like metal ore, plastic goo, etc. Then have the captured enemy factories produce enemy units that are actually crewed and controlled by me.Not exactly. You have one factory building tanks.

What you don't have is the factory building the spare parts for the machines building the tanks.

You do not have the factory producing the screws.

You do not have the factory producing the engines.

You do not have the Factory producing the guns.

You do only have the one factory where the final product is created. (Or, alternatively, some other piece within the production chain), and it is utterly, completely useless.

Those ICBM's would fly through the air for 10,000 - 20,000 miles, in the exact same way cruise missiles fly for 200 - 1,000 miles.ICCMs, if anything. More to the point, 10- 20k miles, subsonic (As cruise missiles tend to be), against an opponent who (Unlike Iraq) has not lost air superiority.

Well... This things will sure make nice fireballs when they are shot down like ducks.

If I remember correctly, nations usually use similiar equipment, like 5.5 mm NATO rounds. Or if the enemy and I use similiar diameter cannons, like a 120 mm tank cannon for instance... In those instances, the resupply, re-training, etc. would be significantly less than if things were more different. For example, if enemy uses 5 mm bullets and I use 7 mm bullets, or if my tanks use 120 mm tank cannon while the enemy uses 140 mm tank cannons, training and logistics would be more problematic.... Well, in the RL equipment world, you would be correct.

But, lets assume me, with a less wanky (I.e. beatable for a MT nation) techbase... There would still be vastly different standards (Since I'm a KE fanatic, I base my calibres on projectile weight + muzzle velocity. This does, in turn, result in very odd calibres, I.e. 11.xxxxcm tank guns, 6.xxxxmm for infantry rifles... And given NS' sheer size, this would be the case... well, rather often. And boom, you don't have the supplies you need to run them.

If you detect an missile launch from practically in a neutral nation (1 - 2 miles away from territorial waters is infintiesmal on a NS Earth where oceans can be 30,000+ miles wide), what would your first instinct tell you?

"Is it a nation suddenly allying with Sharina, and launching a pre-emptive attack?"I would go "Hrm. They are entirely neutral and have nothing to do with this. They are $Regime (In the case of a democracy, a sudden attack without warning is kinda impossible), and the submarine has been invented a good while ago. I ought to talk to them, they might have sharks near their waters... Should get rid of them."

However, that still doesn't encourage me to re-instate my nuclear weapons program. I'm plain sick of nuke weapons, and I'd prefer to use other weapons and tactics.This is, of course, your own perogative, and I certainly wont disagree with personal preferences.

I do not want nukes, period. They're way overrated in my opinion, and in most war RP's nukes and / or WMD's lead to IGNORES. Ah, well.Well... Overrated as a strategic, and underrated as a tactical weapon. And personally, I manage to use nuclear artillery reasonably enough, without risking ignorefests (Admittedly, it is a civil war and I am nuking myself, but...).

Omz222

02-06-2005, 15:16

If you detect an missile launch from practically in a neutral nation (1 - 2 miles away from territorial waters is infintiesmal on a NS Earth where oceans can be 30,000+ miles wide), what would your first instinct tell you?

"Is it a nation suddenly allying with Sharina, and launching a pre-emptive attack?"
My first instinct tells me that "it's quite possible that an enemy platform is in that area". If said turn-arounds is actually happening, I would already receive warnings and percautions, and see policy changes in the neutral nation and preparation for a military conflict. You are still assuming your enemy is an idiot where he would just point and accuse someone of being an enemy without factual basis.

However, I've seen them in NS, and in the NS version of UN... remember the buzz last year when the NS UN proposed "Underwater nuclear silos to be built off shores of each UN member" or something similiar to that effect.
Yeah... And remember that issue where we can now suddenly down children's kites with anti-aircraft guns?

You misunderstood. I meant your arguement of fortifications and damage would assume that I launched conventional attacks aganist the factories I want to capture. However, I would not, as I would be using "anti-organic" weapons to kill all organics, such as nerve gas or bio weapons, while keeping factory infrastructure 90% - 99% intact.
Why would you use bio weapons on a target that you actually want to take over quickly? You would use non-persistant chemical agents, such as sarin, but not bio weapons or persistant agents such as VX.

My forces can afford to wait a few days while the guys in the factory either die from nerve gas, or from water + food deprivation. Then once they are dead either way, I can move in and capture the factory.
And lose the tactical advantage, where the enemy will just get better prepared and more moves into the strategic location? Why, let's not invade the city right now, let's invade it 50 days later just for the heck of it! /sarcasm off

As for the burning / destroying of documents. VX nerve gas kills within 30 seconds, I believe. The factory people might not even know they'd be gassed, as VX nerve gas doesn't have to hit the factory directly.
They will know when they know that an attack is going to happen, assuming that you are going to use chemical agents on them (as the scenario you describe takes place already on the verge of invasion). Unless if this is a first strike, though you can also be sure that the enemy will reply in kind. Period.

Friendly bombing aganist my "illusion" force would be using blanks so not to damage my guys, but at the same time, make it appear to the enemy that these "illusion" units are real. After all, the Mark-One eyeball can be fooled (the deception probably would be discovered more quickly via electronic sensors and satellite photos).
And why in the world are you shooting blanks and consequently wasting valuable jet fuel and ammunition, while risking a shoot-down? You are correct that eyeballs cannot be fooled, but keep in mind at that stage you still don't know which is the enemy's unit and which is the friendly unit, thus eliminating the possibility of friendly air and artillery support. Counterproductive.

However, this "self-bombing" was only one idea how to go about the deception. There are other ways besides this to decieve the enemy.
Why, let's just deceive the enemy by throwing this grenade at our feet! /sarcasm

Sharina

02-06-2005, 19:02

Omz222

03-06-2005, 00:15

Hmm.

If I develop a neutron bomb that radiation can dissipate 100% within a week then would this be plausible?

However, I'm concerned that if I do use neutron bombs to kill off D-Day type of invasion beach-heads, or in an effort to capture cities or infrastructure, then the enemy would use those irriating nukes to carpet-nuke my nation.
You can be assured that nuking anything as a first strike /will/ guarentee very angry and devastating responses. Amphibious operations (or at least, some of its effects) can be countered (with various effectiveness levels) with conventional tactics and strategies in both the short-term and long term. Even if you are nuking your own beach (though it's still pretty illogical when you also have defenders in the area) it's very likely that the enemy battleships will begin switching to nuclear and chemical shells for their guns.

Sharina

03-06-2005, 00:58

You can be assured that nuking anything as a first strike /will/ guarentee very angry and devastating responses. Amphibious operations (or at least, some of its effects) can be countered (with various effectiveness levels) with conventional tactics and strategies in both the short-term and long term. Even if you are nuking your own beach (though it's still pretty illogical when you also have defenders in the area) it's very likely that the enemy battleships will begin switching to nuclear and chemical shells for their guns.

If I do develop neutron weapons, they won't be as destructive as nukes. They'd just kill off organic life, leaving the area "clean" and intact for re-use within 1 week or so.

If I'm facing a 1 million man invasion army landing on my own beaches, and I only have 50,000 troops in that area, neutron weapons would be quite useful in eliminating most of the enemy's 1 million man D-Day invasion beach-head.

Then, having eliminated the "OMG! I Number-Wank0rz" army, I can finally fight on equal terms, with 50 / 50 odds or so, instead of a 20 / 1 odds. I'd also employ neutron weapons if I'm the victim of a dogpile... cutting down 100 / 1 odds to 1 / 1 odds.

Perhaps I could try developing non-WMD neutron weapons. I could try developing neutron cannons that can target small areas, like 1 to 4 acre area. Or build neutron bombard weapons to be mounted on naval vessels. I could even try to build infantry neutron "launchers" to irradiate fortresses and the like.

This would allow me to ward off nations that number-wank their armies, and allow me to fight off dog-piles effectively *WITHOUT* having to resort to god-modding or firing IGNORE cannons aganist the dog-pilers or number-wank0rz.

I am not looking to becone an invinicble army / nation, but rather, a nation that would be extremely difficult to destroy without lots and lots of casaulties (which in turn, opens up the invaders to their other enemies, as much of invader army would be dead from my neutron weapons).

Omz222

03-06-2005, 01:03

If I'm facing a 1 million man invasion army landing on my own beaches, and I only have 50,000 troops in that area, neutron weapons would be quite useful in eliminating most of the enemy's 1 million man D-Day invasion beach-head.
The problem with your analysis is that you won't face a 1 million man invasion, at least not 1 million troops along with all the combat support and support elements landing within a month of time on your beaches. Said invasion would be extremely difficult to engineer, considering logistical problems and tactical and strategic concerns. Even Operation Overlord AKA D-Day (with about 326,000 troops in land by five days after the initial landings), would be very difficult to engineer today considering the much greater logistical and supply demands, and the simple fact that massing 1 million men infantry armies with relatively few artillery and armour support is a very flawed move, both strategically and tactically.

Perhaps I could try developing non-WMD neutron weapons.
Regardless of what scale it is on and what type it is, a tactical nuke is a WMD, and thus will guarentee devastation in some form.

Sharina

03-06-2005, 01:37

The problem with your analysis is that you won't face a 1 million man invasion, at least not 1 million troops along with all the combat support and support elements landing within a month of time on your beaches. Said invasion would be extremely difficult to engineer, considering logistical problems and tactical and strategic concerns. Even Operation Overlord AKA D-Day (with about 326,000 troops in land by five days after the initial landings), would be very difficult to engineer today considering the much greater logistical and supply demands, and the simple fact that massing 1 million men infantry armies with relatively few artillery and armour support is a very flawed move, both strategically and tactically.

I'm perfectly aware of that. However many NS war RP'ers don't take logistics into account during their war RP's.

In addition, it becomes very easy for large NS nations to wank their military, saying "My 5 billion population currently has a 2% draft. This means I have 100 million troops to employ, and using a generous 8 : 1 logistics ratio, I can employ 20 million combat active troops while maintaining equal skill and power as an USA type of army!"

In those situations, those kinds of nations wouldn't hestiate to send 1 million troops invading other lands at once. I've seen this happen a lot last summer, especially with the n00bfests back then. Also, don't forget Operation Brimstone, where many nations claimed to invade with 1 million man armies, either along with AMF or aganist AMF. Aust's claim of his whole 2 billion population turning into militia to fight off AMF is among one of those examples.

My hat goes off to the "real" NS players who use reasonable numbers, realistic war stuff, and don't go overboard with stuff. I'd be honored to RP with those kinds of people who actually know what they're doing.

Regardless of what scale it is on and what type it is, a tactical nuke is a WMD, and thus will guarentee devastation in some form.

I find it extremely difficult to believe a neutron weapon only targeting 10 tanks, or a 1 acre tract of land would be considered a WMD in the same category as a 50 - 100 MT nuke leveling 10,000 acres or Sarin gas killing 10 million people.

Omz222

03-06-2005, 02:21

Well, with the problems aside, I'll agree with you on the fact that it is indeed unrealistic (though to be frank if one has a good backing from their's air force mobility commands and their navy, 1 million troops is still possible if enough ports and airports are captured intact, thus I very slightly and /partially/ retract my "one month" statement). Normally I wouldn't accept it at all, unless the opponent gives a solid backing of the feastibility of his actions with logical and factual reasonings.

The Most Glorious Hack

03-06-2005, 02:52

I'm perfectly aware of that. However many NS war RP'ers don't take logistics into account during their war RP's.So don't play with those people. I've been here over two years and have never been involved in a military action that I didn't want to take part in.

In addition, it becomes very easy for large NS nations to wank their military, saying "My 5 billion population currently has a 2% draft. This means I have 100 million troops to employ, and using a generous 8 : 1 logistics ratio, I can employ 20 million combat active troops while maintaining equal skill and power as an USA type of army!"There is a massive difference between having 20 million combat active troops, and deploying 20 million combat active troops. You can't land a million troops on a beachhead for numerous reasons, the least of which being physical limitations. Such as finding enough room for them to stand.

And, seriously, if your opponent is landing a million troops, they'll be packed so tight next to each other, a single airstrike will largely eliminate them. You won't need WMD. Napalm will suffice.

In those situations, those kinds of nations wouldn't hestiate to send 1 million troops invading other lands at once. I've seen this happen a lot last summer, especially with the n00bfests back then.Why are you worried about n00bfests? You don't have to acknowledge every single thing that happens in this forum you know. If some n00b claims that he's "OMG N00KED J00!!!!!1 LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!111 :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: " you can freely ignore his worthless ass. Again, just because some people wank enough to go blind, it doesn't mean you need to worry about it. Just ignore them.

Also, don't forget Operation Brimstone, where many nations claimed to invade with 1 million man armies, either along with AMF or aganist AMF. Aust's claim of his whole 2 billion population turning into militia to fight off AMF is among one of those examples.Maybe it's just some blend of NS-snobbishness, but at that point, I'd ignore. Also, if he claimed his entire population, you could kill about half of them instantly (babies and old women on their death-bed make shitty fighters). Also, they're horribly untrained.

But, really, if someone's going to be that blindingly stupid, I'd have nothing to do with them. If someone wants to be a moron, let them. Don't validate their insanity by altering your nation.

My hat goes off to the "real" NS players who use reasonable numbers, realistic war stuff, and don't go overboard with stuff. I'd be honored to RP with those kinds of people who actually know what they're doing.Quit paying attention to the idiots then. If you respond to a "real" player by using tactics that are better for an idiot, the "real" player is likely to decide it's not worth his time. Again, ignore the idiots and stick to realism (such as it is... NS is rarely "realistic")

I find it extremely difficult to believe a neutron weapon only targeting 10 tanks, or a 1 acre tract of land would be considered a WMD in the same category as a 50 - 100 MT nuke leveling 10,000 acres or Sarin gas killing 10 million people.Why would you use a neutron weapon on 10 tanks? 10 RPGs or LAWs or $anti-tank_weapon would be far cheaper, and more practical. Neutron weapons are used to wipe out cities. They're called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason.

Sharina

03-06-2005, 03:07

So don't play with those people. I've been here over two years and have never been involved in a military action that I didn't want to take part in.

There is a massive difference between having 20 million combat active troops, and deploying 20 million combat active troops. You can't land a million troops on a beachhead for numerous reasons, the least of which being physical limitations. Such as finding enough room for them to stand.

And, seriously, if your opponent is landing a million troops, they'll be packed so tight next to each other, a single airstrike will largely eliminate them. You won't need WMD. Napalm will suffice.

Why are you worried about n00bfests? You don't have to acknowledge every single thing that happens in this forum you know. If some n00b claims that he's "OMG N00KED J00!!!!!1 LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!111 :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: " you can freely ignore his worthless ass. Again, just because some people wank enough to go blind, it doesn't mean you need to worry about it. Just ignore them.

Maybe it's just some blend of NS-snobbishness, but at that point, I'd ignore. Also, if he claimed his entire population, you could kill about half of them instantly (babies and old women on their death-bed make shitty fighters). Also, they're horribly untrained.

But, really, if someone's going to be that blindingly stupid, I'd have nothing to do with them. If someone wants to be a moron, let them. Don't validate their insanity by altering your nation.

Quit paying attention to the idiots then. If you respond to a "real" player by using tactics that are better for an idiot, the "real" player is likely to decide it's not worth his time. Again, ignore the idiots and stick to realism (such as it is... NS is rarely "realistic")

I understand completely. I haven't had much experience with actual war RP's myself, as I have yet to see any good war RP's that I'd like to join in.

I'd hate to use IGNORE cannons every time someone messes up or snafu's.

Why would you use a neutron weapon on 10 tanks? 10 RPGs or LAWs or $anti-tank_weapon would be far cheaper, and more practical. Neutron weapons are used to wipe out cities. They're called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason.

LAW's and AT weapons would work, but aganist conventional MT tanks like M1-A1 Abrams, Challenger-II, etc. They are less effective aganist NS tanks, and I'm not a genius at weapons design, so I don't know how or what kind of LAW's or AT's to use aganist NS tank+1's popping up every week.

However, lately NS tanks have been employing mega-armor that would render current LAW's and AT weapons somewhat ineffective. I've seen some people front tanks with 2000+ RHA armor, and tanks with carbon armor, buckyballs, nanotubes, etc.

So aganist those massively armored tanks, neutron radiation would be a better weapon, I believe.

The Most Glorious Hack

03-06-2005, 05:39

I understand completely. I haven't had much experience with actual war RP's myself, as I have yet to see any good war RP's that I'd like to join in.Well, that makes worrying about over-the-top war situations less necessary.

I'd hate to use IGNORE cannons every time someone messes up or snafu's.I never said to use an "ignore cannon". Personally I hate them. If it's something minor, discuss it OOC and reach a compromise. If it's too over the top, ignore them. Don't shoot an "IGNORE Cannon", literally ignore them.

LAW's and AT weapons would work, but aganist conventional MT tanks like M1-A1 Abrams, Challenger-II, etc. They are less effective aganist NS tanks, and I'm not a genius at weapons design, so I don't know how or what kind of LAW's or AT's to use aganist NS tank+1's popping up every week.True, but there's plenty of things more efficient that using a neutron bomb. And if it's simply a Tank+1, make a LAW+1.

However, lately NS tanks have been employing mega-armor that would render current LAW's and AT weapons somewhat ineffective. I've seen some people front tanks with 2000+ RHA armor, and tanks with carbon armor, buckyballs, nanotubes, etc.That's post-moder / futertech wankery. If you're solidly modern, ignore it. Or smack it with a really large cannon. Or use an airstrike. Tanks tend to be quite weak against aircraft. And as mentioned before, if you've lost air superiority over your own beachhead, tanks are the least of your concerns.

So aganist those massively armored tanks, neutron radiation would be a better weapon, I believe.Still overkill.

Sharina

03-06-2005, 06:28

True, but there's plenty of things more efficient that using a neutron bomb. And if it's simply a Tank+1, make a LAW+1.

I don't know how to design or develop a realistic LAW+1 without going overboard or god-modding. I'm not good at the technical specs, but I can grasp the concepts and principles, then "pratical application" the stuff.

That's post-moder / futertech wankery. If you're solidly modern, ignore it. Or smack it with a really large cannon. Or use an airstrike. Tanks tend to be quite weak against aircraft. And as mentioned before, if you've lost air superiority over your own beachhead, tanks are the least of your concerns.

I've built a cannon to deal with such matters. Have you heard of my Colossus Artillery platform? If not, here's the link to it....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7986009&postcount=1

Still overkill.

Sometimes in the world of NS, what you may consider overkill might be barely enough to get the job done, as in NS things are much larger, extensive, and tougher than in RL life. Also, sometimes overkill is needed to "get the point across" to invading warmongers.

All this aside, I want to let ya know I appreciate your feedback, and patience with me the past few days. If you could give me any other pointers or tips, I'm game. :)

Vastiva

03-06-2005, 06:33

1. Talk to your allies. A lot. You'd be amazed what they know - and can help out with. There are plenty who just enjoy talking out a new project for the hell of it.

2. Adhere to the sandbox rule. If you don't like what's going on, and the other side won't budge, change sandboxes. No point in arguing with the ridiculous.

3. If you're not having fun, you're doing something wrong. If it's too technical and you hate technical, change it. There's plenty of room here for everyone and most every play style. Don't worry if x or y don't like "your" style - oh well, there's several thousand players. You'll find a niche.

GMC Military Arms

03-06-2005, 08:50

LAW's and AT weapons would work, but aganist conventional MT tanks like M1-A1 Abrams, Challenger-II, etc. They are less effective aganist NS tanks, and I'm not a genius at weapons design, so I don't know how or what kind of LAW's or AT's to use aganist NS tank+1's popping up every week.

This is the fallacy of NS tanks having stupid armour; you would only design a tank have that much armour if it needed that much armour for some reason; having twice the armour of any other tank might seem a good idea, but if nobody gets halfway through your armour then half your armour is unnecessary and adds to the tank's weight while doing nothing to protect it. Therefore, you should assume because a tank with that armour was built in the first place that weapons are available or can be created in a relatively short timeframe that can penetrate that level of armour.

However, lately NS tanks have been employing mega-armor that would render current LAW's and AT weapons somewhat ineffective. I've seen some people front tanks with 2000+ RHA armor, and tanks with carbon armor, buckyballs, nanotubes, etc.

So aganist those massively armored tanks, neutron radiation would be a better weapon, I believe.

The problem with those tanks is that they are generally stupid applications of technology for the sake of having technology that would spend more time off the battlefield broken down than on it fighting.

Take a look here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8932677&postcount=148

Most of these tanks would be so difficult to deploy in useful numbers that you could beat them without using any special technology at all. Or, for those who are whimsical idiots [raises hand] the path to the Ground Battleship is a tempting one.

1. Talk to your allies. A lot. You'd be amazed what they know - and can help out with. There are plenty who just enjoy talking out a new project for the hell of it.

Um, actually you should talk to anyone who can help you out, not just the people who happen to be on your side.

Der Angst

03-06-2005, 10:06

If I develop a neutron bomb that radiation can dissipate 100% within a week then would this be plausible?

However, I'm concerned that if I do use neutron bombs to kill off D-Day type of invasion beach-heads, or in an effort to capture cities or infrastructure, then the enemy would use those irriating nukes to carpet-nuke my nation.IIRC, seconds should be manageable (But I wont *bet* on it). I suggest checking here (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html) for more details. 'Enhanced radiation weapons'.

Mind you, it is more or less impossible to face a numerically superior opponent when being invaded on your shores. I simply... can't see a scenario between two NS nations in the billions where such can happen.

Perhaps I could try developing non-WMD neutron weapons. I could try developing neutron cannons that can target small areas, like 1 to 4 acre area. Or build neutron bombard weapons to be mounted on naval vessels. I could even try to build infantry neutron "launchers" to irradiate fortresses and the like.Nope, since Neutrons, being the electrically neutral particles they are, are a serious bitch to, well, get into a coherent beam. Or to aim. Or to accelerate (Disregarding the possibility of having a nuclear blast to do that).

Now, electrons/ protons, that works... The damage would be kinetic damage (In more detail: You would accelerate the electrons to 0.999something c, they would hit the target, and vaporise pieces of it) though, and as such, material damage.

And of course, the thing would be very postmodern. Particle Beam 'Cannons' (Well, experimental devices) exist, but singledigit joules wont do much damage, so you would require things with about a million times the energy we manage in laboratories...

I'm perfectly aware of that. However many NS war RP'ers don't take logistics into account during their war RP's. <snip>And you care about them... why?

I find it extremely difficult to believe a neutron weapon only targeting 10 tanks, or a 1 acre tract of land would be considered a WMD in the same category as a 50 - 100 MT nuke leveling 10,000 acres or Sarin gas killing 10 million people.Quite so. Contrary to popular belief, a tactical nuke is a tactical nuke, and answering a military target being hit by a nuke with a complete annihilation strike is... Silly.

And while it *is* silly to waste, say, a neutron bomb on a dozen tanks, well... if it's an entire division... It's game.

Hence why as far as I am concerned (And disregarding plot necessities like *wanting* a major battle without WMDs for sheer epicness, for which i would generally be game, logic be damned) the excessive numbers you mentioned don't make much sense... One gets out the WMD hammer. As a result, sane engagements would likely be a vast number of smaller engagements trying to take over strategically important targets, strictly avoiding numbers that would make WMD use an economically viable option.

Sharina

03-06-2005, 19:51

IIRC, seconds should be manageable (But I wont *bet* on it). I suggest checking here (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html) for more details. 'Enhanced radiation weapons'.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

Mind you, it is more or less impossible to face a numerically superior opponent when being invaded on your shores. I simply... can't see a scenario between two NS nations in the billions where such can happen.

I've seen some ridiclious stuff.

Operation Brimstone for example. In that war, nations mobilized millions of troops, and I remember when Aust declared that his entire civilian population of 2 billion would become militia to ward off AMF's invasion.

In other wars, I've seen people land 500,000+ troops on invasion beach-heads. Several examples include the Hataria Mammalia war which happened as I first came to NS... it was between HM, Communist Mississippi / DA / VE, Nazi Weaponized Virus, ITD, etc.

There are several war RP's that use those kinds of numbers and throw them around like its a natural number.

Nope, since Neutrons, being the electrically neutral particles they are, are a serious bitch to, well, get into a coherent beam. Or to aim. Or to accelerate (Disregarding the possibility of having a nuclear blast to do that).

Now, electrons/ protons, that works... The damage would be kinetic damage (In more detail: You would accelerate the electrons to 0.999something c, they would hit the target, and vaporise pieces of it) though, and as such, material damage.

And of course, the thing would be very postmodern. Particle Beam 'Cannons' (Well, experimental devices) exist, but singledigit joules wont do much damage, so you would require things with about a million times the energy we manage in laboratories...

I understand that.

However, wouldn't it be feasible to install a pebblehead nuclear reactor in a somewhat large vehicle (the size of a German MAUS tank or larger) and a particle beam cannon on it?

As far as I know, pebblehead nuiclear reactors is a 2005+ tech, and wouldn't it be possible / feasible to install a pebblehead nuclear reactor in a ground unit by 2030'ish or 2040'ish at the max, considering progress in miniaturization technology efforts?

By then, it might be possible to do a small scale particle beam weapon, not those "OMG! Uber-Cannons of Star Wars Doom!"

And you care about them... why?

Logistics can help me explain why I'm able to do stuff I can do, if the enemy accuses me of god-modding or whatever.

Also, if the enemy has poor logistics, by having much bigger armies than mine, then I'll have to explain / use logistics to explain why I'll be able to defeat the enemy's much larger army.

Quite so. Contrary to popular belief, a tactical nuke is a tactical nuke, and answering a military target being hit by a nuke with a complete annihilation strike is... Silly.

And while it *is* silly to waste, say, a neutron bomb on a dozen tanks, well... if it's an entire division... It's game.

Hence why as far as I am concerned (And disregarding plot necessities like *wanting* a major battle without WMDs for sheer epicness, for which i would generally be game, logic be damned) the excessive numbers you mentioned don't make much sense... One gets out the WMD hammer. As a result, sane engagements would likely be a vast number of smaller engagements trying to take over strategically important targets, strictly avoiding numbers that would make WMD use an economically viable option.

Gotcha again.

However, with those nations who throw around 500,000+ man invasion armies like its natural, then drastic measures are necessary. Also, I was referring to a single weapon taking out 10 tanks, then multiply it by 10 weapons, means 100 tanks dead.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Biological Weapons Discussion [Split From Sharina Thread]