NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that many nations in NS have adopted a strict escalation policy when dealing with WMDs. In the real world, no nation has a similar policy and I have to question the thought behind one.

The only possible reason for targeting civilian centers in a nuclear attack is total destruction; such retaliation is NEVER proportional to any attack and can ONLY lead to the Mutually Assured Destruction of the two nations. What’s the point? I can see that the use of strategic nuclear weapons bear the burden of a proportional response against government and military centers but strategic weapons are not the Only Weapons of Mass Destruction available.

Tactical nukes are part of most nuclear powers policy in the real world and have many military applications including strategic air defense (defense against bomber formations) Tactical Naval defense (defense against Super Dreadnaughts and Battleship fleets) and as broad spectrum anti missiles (defense against Arsenal Ship style missile barrages) These uses do NOT target civilians or ANY non military persons or resources. So WHY target civilians in retaliation? Only a psychotic Dictator or mass murder could possibly see the sense in that.

If your WMD retaliation against a tactical defensive strike is to nuke a city, then why doesn't this reflect in other scenarios? If they destroy the bombers conventionally, why don't you nuke the city? It's the same scenario only the weapons have changed, the results haven't. A nuclear missile probably costs more than the fighters that would be expended to defeat the bomber raid or the anti missile missiles used to stop the missile barrage so why encourage the enemy to economize my promising to target innocents if they go with the more expensive option? Why assure your destruction to 'save face' for the destruction of an expensive warship? There is such a thing as Proportional response.

If an enemy uses a nuclear weapon to destroy the prize of your navy, use one of your own to destroy his naval colossus, if he doesn't have one, target his ship repair facilities. Don't target his civilians, even if you survive the response from the target the international outcry and subsequent attacks would kill you so why escalate? The enemy didn't force your hand, you could have responded reasonably with tactical strikes against military targets of your own, but instead you take the easy way out.

A well RPed thread with strategic weapons can be just as fun (if not more so) than one without any nuclear weapons at all, but once a well RPed tactical strike is countered by "OMG!!!! I can't believe you used a nuke you newb! I'm not going to play with you any more" or "It is a well known fact that the Nation of Wankerstan's foreign policy on WMD is a strict one of Escalation. To enforce this policy, an LOLHuge number of nuclear missiles have been launched at the dastardly and really bad nation of reasonablia" then the RP ends real fast and with bad feelings all around.

There is no good argument for an Escalatory policy, I challenge you to come up with one, just ONE good reason why nuclear escalation is okay and tactical strikes against military targets are not.

I'd say to break civilian morale is the purpose of targeting civilian centers. Even if it is a totalitarian state, even the THREAT of having millions of civilians wiped off the earth is probably going to get the populace pissed that the brass even got them into the war. The purpose of war isn't necessarily to destroy the army, it's to break their morale and take away their will to fight. A nuclear strike might just solve that or break a stalemate in battle, when the troops opposing you get the message that one of their urban centers has just been turned into smoking glass.

Or it will unite all of the citizens in the country against you, making you and any invasion force you have in there F-U-C-K-E-D. Hell hath no fury like a pissed off populace.

I think the idea behind escalation is just the threat of being glassed if you try and pull a cheapshot like a nuke. If you're guaranteed ten nukes for every one you send, you'd think mighty hard about whether to send them nukes, wouldn't you?

I haven't even tried to read it because of one reason, paragraphs. You need to edit in paragraphs badly.

I'll do the paragraph thing, I just don't like not having my trusty shift key for paragraphing, have to go through and use return instead. bah!

Why would you fire ten missiles for every one used against you when your assured ten more for every one YOU use? Targetting civilian centers should NEVER be resorted to. If you think being targetted by neclear weapons will end support for the war in your enemy then you should see what effect the fact that your government actively and willingly participates in wholesale slaughter of innocents does to YOUR popularity. You don't meet the destruction of a tank with the destruction of a house so why should the destruction of a ship or plane formation be met with the destruction of a city which can only be retaliated against with the destruction of a city in YOUR country. Nobody wins the game of Mutual Destruction unless nobody plays.

I'll do the paragraph thing, I just don't like not having my trusty shift key for paragraphing, have to go through and use return instead. bah!

Why would you fire ten missiles for every one used against you when your assured ten more for every one YOU use? Targetting civilian centers should NEVER be resorted to. If you think being targetted by neclear weapons will end support for the war in your enemy then you should see what effect the fact that your government actively and willingly participates in wholesale slaughter of innocents does to YOUR popularity. You don't meet the destruction of a tank with the destruction of a house so why should the destruction of a ship or plane formation be met with the destruction of a city which can only be retaliated against with the destruction of a city in YOUR country. Nobody wins the game of Mutual Destruction unless nobody plays.

Again, the idea between the "escalation" theory is deterrance. If you're thinking about firing five missiles at an enemy, and you know that he's going to fire back fifty, you're going to be wiped off the earth unless you're a massive nation. Even then you're probably going to lose most, if not all, major urban centers and thus your production capacity, unless for some unexplicable reason they're in the middle of the boondocks.

The answer to your own popularity is simple: don't let them know. Or play it up with propaganda saying that we launched pre-emptive strike and that they were going to attack first. It's much harder with democratic nations to do this, though.

Again, war relegated to only military targets is a nice idea, but is rarely achieved in practice. The destruction of all military targets is NOT the purpose of war, it's to make the enemy bend to your will. Clausewitz said this. The war would be futile if you simply tried to wipe out all military targets and all military targets. Even if we're not talking about direct fire, but accidental fire, i.e., stray rounds, badly aimed artillery, etc., civilians are going to get killed.

And, in many cases of war, killing civilians and destroying non-military targets is a valid action in war. Look at Tecumsah (sp?) Sherman's March to the Sea. He basically devastated all of the Confederate land he came across, whether it belonged to the Confederate government or private owners. That brought the North a long way to winning the war because it demoralized civilians.

Truth is the quickest way to win a war is to get the civilians not to want it. If you just destroy your enemy, he can raise more troops if his civilians are willing to sign up or not revolt. And the threat of nuclear war is a big deterrant to the war.

You're enemy may take your own stance. No escalation. Therefore, either your civilian populace doesn't hear about it or is crushed in morale after one of their major urban centers was glassed.

The arguement comes down to this: The threat of escalation is meant to stop nuclear war, and attacks on non-military targets are meant to crush civilian morale and bring a quick end to war.

Agreed. A nuclear deterrent worked well during the Cold War, and I see no reason it should not here. In addition, the utter destruction of German industry by American and British bombers during World War II achieved the same thing a nuclear weapon would have. Look at the Firebombing of Dresden by B-17 bombers, in 1943, if I am not mistaken.

The destruction of non-military but industrial and sometimes civilian targets is justified. If the German industry was not crippeled by massive bombings of civilian factories, the war could have turned out differently.

At the expense of your own life? I'm not talking about all out nuclear war, I'm talking about the TACTICAL application of small yield nuclear weapons as a defensinve measure. The only reason given this strategy too launch five weapons is in the event of being massively out numbered.

What sense does escalation make in the case of tactical weapon? like I've said, The same damage is possible using conventional assets, so if I do the same thing with conventional weapons that I could do with a nuke then why don't you escalate from there, say I destroy your superdreadnaught using say an Arsenal ship style barrage of conventional missiles. No nukes, Would you then Nuke one of my cities or ten of my cities? Why not? I just unleashed the force of a nuclear weapon against you, doesn't that mean that you should escalate by using the force of ten nuclear weapons against me? (perhaps wrapped in the convenient package of ten nuclear weapons?)

If having five missile met by fifty is meant as a detterent, then wouldn't fifty missile being met but five hundred equally deterring? As much destruction as fifty nuclear missiles will wreck, they won't do it until the enemy has detected them and fired a counter attack. If you're going down, wouldn't you feel better that your enemy went with you?

And as for popularity, even if you kept it from your own people (not likely as long as international news is viewed) the international scene would quickly descend on you.

I agree that targetting inncoents is an unfortunate side effect of war but it is one that should be minimized. You can make all the arguments to the contrary you want but if you target an enemies civilians with nuclear weapons, you will most likely not only unify your enemy, but you will unify his allies and random passersby against you and this time 'you started it' if your enemy didn't intentionally target civilians and you did then any international court or opinion poll will find you guilty of war crimes, whether you agree with them or not they will attack you.

Agreed. A nuclear deterrent worked well during the Cold War, and I see no reason it should not here. In addition, the utter destruction of German industry by American and British bombers during World War II achieved the same thing a nuclear weapon would have. Look at the Firebombing of Dresden by B-17 bombers, in 1943, if I am not mistaken.

The destruction of non-military but industrial and sometimes civilian targets is justified. If the German industry was not crippeled by massive bombings of civilian factories, the war could have turned out differently.

Even outside of strictly industrial war-related targets, the right attack can severely damage morale. Take the firebombing of Tokyo, where over 100,000 civilians were killed and much of Tokyo was torched. It probably brought the US that much closer to winning the war.

At the expense of your own life? I'm not talking about all out nuclear war, I'm talking about the TACTICAL application of small yield nuclear weapons as a defensinve measure. The only reason given this strategy too launch five weapons is in the event of being massively out numbered.

"The only reason given this strategy too launch five weapons is in the event of being massively outnumbered." -- I'm not quite sure I understand that. Could you rephrase it?

What sense does escalation make in the case of tactical weapon? like I've said, The same damage is possible using conventional assets, so if I do the same thing with conventional weapons that I could do with a nuke then why don't you escalate from there, say I destroy your superdreadnaught using say an Arsenal ship style barrage of conventional missiles. No nukes, Would you then Nuke one of my cities or ten of my cities? Why not? I just unleashed the force of a nuclear weapon against you, doesn't that mean that you should escalate by using the force of ten nuclear weapons against me? (perhaps wrapped in the convenient package of ten nuclear weapons?)

You're oversimplifying the matter. A nuclear blast just isn't THERE and it's gone, there's fallout and radiation and envornmental damage. Unleashing the power of of "a nuclear weapon" isn't the same as actually dropping one. Sure, you can concentrate fire on something, but it still wouldn't do the damage a nuclear weapon would do, ever. Unless you used an odd sort of weapon that splattered the area with radiation.

Plus, a nuclear weapon, no matter the situation, unless a nation has it's back to the wall, is always seen as overkill. It's an overall different emotional response from a person to see that his new superdreadnought was just sunk from a few torpedos, than from a thermo-nuclear device, no matter how small it was.

Not to mention that actually DESTROYING the ship isn't releasing the power of a nuclear weapon. There are many ways a ship can be destroyed, and just because you destroy it doesn't mean that the power of a nuclear weapon has been launched. I could shoot a single bullet into the main magazine of a super dreadnaught and split the ship in two with the explosion. Have I released the power of a nuclear weapon? No. Just a well placed single round. The same goes for torpedos, shells, and aircraft. Just because they can sink a ship that can be sunk with a nuclear weapon doesn't mean that they have released the power of a nuclear weapon themselves.

If having five missile met by fifty is meant as a detterent, then wouldn't fifty missile being met but five hundred equally deterring? As much destruction as fifty nuclear missiles will wreck, they won't do it until the enemy has detected them and fired a counter attack. If you're going down, wouldn't you feel better that your enemy went with you?

Not if the enemy attacked you first. If the enemy attacked you first and was aware of the retaliatory procedures you'd go through, he'd either..

A- Just attack.

B- Target the center of your military command.

C- Make you unable to launch your nukes in retaliation.

If he attacked first and your own were launched in retaliation, it's no longer a matter of deterrance, but rather one of all out war. It's assumed that when a nuclear weapon is launched and/or detonated, that the nation responsible is fully aware of the escalation policy of the target nation.

Plus, deterrancy only works when the two nations abstain to use the weapon for fear of another. Once one nation uses it, it is, by definition, no longer deterrance.

And as for popularity, even if you kept it from your own people (not likely as long as international news is viewed) the international scene would quickly descend on you.

If you launched the first attack, and only one attack, the international scene MAY get on your back. But, if it was determined that the attack was needed and necessary to end the bloodshed, and it was confined only to that, the international community would come down much lighter.

Take Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example, the only live targets hit by a nuclear weapon. There wasn't some massive backlash against the United States, even after many nations got the atomic bomb.

I agree that targetting inncoents is an unfortunate side effect of war but it is one that should be minimized. You can make all the arguments to the contrary you want but if you target an enemies civilians with nuclear weapons, you will most likely not only unify your enemy, but you will unify his allies and random passersby against you and this time 'you started it' if your enemy didn't intentionally target civilians and you did then any international court or opinion poll will find you guilty of war crimes, whether you agree with them or not they will attack you.

It's sorta "innocent" to think that the targeting of civilians will necessarily unite them against you. It's just as likely to crush their morale. I think you're overestimating the international community's compassion. I very much doubt that you'd have an international coalition going against you because you nuked something. Even if you did, it probably wouldn't be very large. Nations have themselves to look out for too, and their enemies.

Passerby's wouldn't see the nuclear cloud and cry "OMGWARONU." If they did, they'd be looking for a conflict, and they'd get a coalition on THEIR ass for attacking a nation that it had absolutely no casus belli against.

"War criminal" is really another name for "loser." Notice how no Americans, British or Russians were tried for War Crimes after WWII, even though many of them had commited many atrocities? (See the Firebombing of Tokyo, Air raids over German Cities, Soviet executions of Nazi supporters, the list goes on..) It's unlikely that a nation would be tried for warcrimes if it won.

If a civilian center is nuked, many of the civilians in other urban centers will be afraid that unless their government surrenders, they'd be dead next. So, they push for peace and safety.

For the upteenth: A war is won by crushing civilian morale, NOT by destroying armies and military targets. Everything ends up with the weakened morale of civilians. Take Rome for example. They got entire armies wiped out in the Second Punic War. But their civilian morale was high, so they kept on fielding armies against Hannibal. If their civilian morale was crushed, they'd surrender. Meanwhile, Hannibal lost only one battle at Zama, and Carthage waved the white flag.

Though personally I do not deploy such policies (mainly for political and military reasons, since both the policies and deterrence capabilities of my nation prohibits me from launching OMG ICBM STORM), you must keep in mind that this 'escalation' policy you speak of is a legitimate method of deterring the usage of nuclear weapons - and to some extent, other weapons of mass destruction as well - from the start. Porportional response would only work if the policies of both nations permits the usage of only tactical nuclear weapons as part of their nuclear deterrence policy; otherwise, since the borderline between tactical and strategic nuclear weapon and their usage are sometimes blurred, it will sooner or later escalate to the full use of nuclear weapons by itself. Like it or not, regardless of the endless amounts of justifications and refuting points, one must expect and be ready for a full nuclear retaliation if one chooses to employ tactical nuclear weapons. Failure to do so means putting yourself at a disadvantage.

You can justify the usage of tactical nukes all you want, but it isn't going to change the fact at the end, the usage of nukes (except if it's all preplanned by both sides as part of an elaborate storyline) will result in annihilation of both sides. Similarily, while tactical nukes will deter the use of say, SDs and massive bomber raids, the threat of strategic nuclear weapons will deter the usage of tactical nukes from the start as well. With porportional response, once again, shall we get started on how one nation shouldn't send a fleet of ships as a show of force in response to terrorist threats from the mouths of belligerent NS dictators?

You're oversimplifying the matter. A nuclear blast just isn't THERE and it's gone, there's fallout and radiation and envornmental damage.Modern nuclear weapons are clean until designed not to be.

Plus, a nuclear weapon, no matter the situation, unless a nation has it's back to the wall, is always seen as overkill. It's an overall different emotional response from a person to see that his new superdreadnought was just sunk from a few torpedos, than from a thermo-nuclear device, no matter how small it was.
The SD people brought it upon themselves. You go on about how your stuff has OMG NEAR-PERFECT defences, people will use easy means to get rid of them.

It's sorta "innocent" to think that the targeting of civilians will necessarily unite them against you. It's just as likely to crush their morale.This has been disproven in... Lemme check... Germany (1941- 45), Japan (1944- 45), Korea (1950), Vietnam (Very long time).

Essentially, always.

And no, replacing conventional bombs with nukes wont change the result, until you just kill 'em all.

For the upteenth: A war is won by crushing civilian morale, NOT by destroying armies and military targets.Except, of course, that the opposite is true. Standing armies actually inflicting damage on $Opponent tend to boost morale, too.

Take Rome for example. They got entire armies wiped out in the Second Punic War. But their civilian morale was high, so they kept on fielding armies against Hannibal.You never really noticed how all this battles weren't sufficient to actually destroy the roman military, did you? They just had more.

---

This said...

Apart from me agreeing entirely with the first post in this thread..

I really fail to see somethign very important. I dunno, anyone ever noticed this thing called civilian protests and entire legislatures voted out of office in the eighties? One huge topic being the OMG NUKES in the cold war?

Oddly enough, civilians in nations with high civil rights (And even more so with high political freedoms) tend to dislike the idea of them and their children suffering BURNING NUCLEAR DEATH just because a few thousand of their sailors got nuked.

And personally, I fail to see something like:

'The Praetonian mother waved the flag of the Imperium, frantically cheering on as the soldiers marched through the streets, parading the missiles, the pride of her nation. Her young son and her daughter standing next to her, all three of them cheered with joy, applauding, knowing that their government would ensure the complete destruction of their nation, their city, their home, of her life and the lifes of her children, as soon as the fleet was lost.'

(And yes. Praetonia was rather explicit in the past, noting that whenever Praetonias fleet would be destroyed (And no, he didn't even specify 'Destoyed by nukes'), Praetonia would immediately use a full scale nuclear strike (Rather than, say, offering 'We see your point and wont continue resisting you. Just don't invade, or we nuke yah.').

What I would expect is along the lines of:

'Maria screamed, her two children next to her, throwing eggs and cheese in the general direction of the Marshall and the president. "Don't kill my children! Proportional response now!"'

But apparently, the so-called 'democracies' with all their shiny Civil Rights in NS seem to be hiveminds full of superloyal citizens who don't mind being sacrificed.

For some reason, I don't really respect this, tho.

Modern nuclear weapons are clean until designed not to be.[QUOTE]

Are you saying that there is absolutely no fallout or radiation or residual damage from a nuclear weapon blast? If so, I'd REALLY like to see where you found that out.

[QUOTE]The SD people brought it upon themselves. You go on about how your stuff has OMG NEAR-PERFECT defences, people will use easy means to get rid of them.

The point wasn't whether the SD people's ships were invincible or whether it really WAS overkill or not. The point was that people will generally THINK overkill when a nuclear weapon has been detonated just for a single ship.

This has been disproven in... Lemme check... Germany (1941- 45), Japan (1944- 45), Korea (1950), Vietnam (Very long time).

Essentially, always.

Not always. Civilians were targeted in the first, second, and third Punic Wars, all of them by Rome. It didn't unite the civilians against Rome, it rather made them seek a quicker end to the war.

Sherman's March to the Sea targeted civilian structures and holdings, even if they weren't government owned. And while it did gain resentment from the south, it did severely injure civilian morale and paved the way for the end of the American Civil War.

The American nuclear attacks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't PROLONG World War II, but rather brought it to a quicker end than invading mainland Japan.

There are many instances where attacking civilians and civilian targets have brough a quicker end to the war via depleting morale and destroying production capacity.

Except, of course, that the opposite is true. Standing armies actually inflicting damage on $Opponent tend to boost morale, too.

While standing armies inflicting damage on enemy forces can increase morale, it isn't really a truth. American soldiers during the Vietnam war inflicted severe losses to Vietnamese during the Tet Offensive, and eventually pushed them back, especially at Hue. While the Tet Offensive was a military victory in the US's favor, it still didn't increase morale for the war at home.

Even that eventually goes back to the people, the core of the war. Inflicting damage on the enemy damages his civilian's morale and boosts your own, if your statement is a constant truth. So, again, the power of civilian morale is paramount.

You never really noticed how all this battles weren't sufficient to actually destroy the roman military, did you? They just had more.

Had more from where? The Roman Army during the Punic Wars wasn't professional, and relied on civilian conscripts. Without the promise of money, and the fact that they had to supply their own equipment, Romans signed up for the military because they had high morale, especially for the defense of Rome.

to: Emmitia

I'm not entirely sure you understand the differences between Modern tactical nuclear weapons and 1980's style strategic nuclear weapons.

A tactical Nuclear weapon (tacnuc) usualy yields between 1 and 20 kilotons, in contrast to the yield of strategic weapons which spans the scale from 5 to 100 megatons (a megaton is roughly an order of magnitude greater that a kiloton) Such low yields, coupled with the lack of 'enrichment' of the blast tend to negate nasty side affects like 'residual radiation' and 'fallout' that you would find normally as results of a strategic nuclear detonation (espescially in the 50s-70s when weapons were 'enriched' to enhance the fallout) also, I'm not talking about using these weapons that differ from conventional weapons only in price and public opinion in their effects, against population centers, military centers, your homeland, or any such things. they simply don't have the yield for it, using a tacnuc in a strategic attack would be like firing a firecracker in your hand, sure it will hurt but not much damage is done. I'm talking about using tacnucs in the role they were designed for, use against tactical objectives such as large ships and bomber formations.

Even in the famed cold war, tacnucs were recognized by both sides as fully acceptable weapons, both sides recognized that in the event of a war, both would use tacnucs and that it wouldn't escalate any further.

In nationstates, the reasons for going to war are many and varied and mostly stem from a nation being bored, if you believe that retaliating to a tacnuc strike with a full exchange of nuclear weapons would not result in a retaliatory attack from nations claiming a U.S. like moral superiority or that those self same nations would be set upon by even another level of retaliators that happened to be powerful enough to stop the first retaliators completely then you should read more international incidents.

Maybe you missed when I said 'As much damage as fifty nuclear missile will deal, it won't deal it until after the enemy has detected and retaliated to your attack' (not in so many words, but close) unless you're smuggling your nukes in, the enemy will be able to appropriately respond to your attack before it affects them, that means launching any kind of strategic attack is suicide.

Are you saying that there is absolutely no fallout or radiation or residual damage from a nuclear weapon blast? If so, I'd REALLY like to see where you found that out.
Oh, there is radiation. It's what makes the bomb detonate. The thing is, this radiation (Gamma rays) isn't fallout. Fallout (The one thign actually responsible for logn term problems) is the fissionable material that isn't used up in the detonation.

Modern nuclear weapons use essentially all of it. Really, what's so hard to understand about it?

The point wasn't whether the SD people's ships were invincible or whether it really WAS overkill or not. The point was that people will generally THINK overkill when a nuclear weapon has been detonated just for a single ship.How can it be overkill if it is the most eficient way to kill the target? If there is no other quick way to do it, it isn't overkill. And whoever claims it is is just plain dumb.

(a megaton is roughly an order of magnitude greater that a kiloton)Three orders of magnitude.

A generalised NS example here.

I forget what conflict this was in, but it was not long ago. Nation A invaded Nation B, which was smaller. Nation A committed a huge stratigic conventional bomber raid upon Nation B to cripple them as fast as possible, and Nation B responded with a single (or was it a pair?) of low yeild tactical nuclear missiles. Now this is understandable when you realise Nation B was less then 1/3rd the size of the very militaristic Nation A. However, Nation A then imediatly threatened and prepared a full scale Stratigic Nuclear strike upon Nation B.
You know what happend at this point? The international community watching the situation jumped in, and Nation A had at least 15 Nations of equal or larget size offering to dump their entire Stratigic Nuclear stockpiles onto Nation A if it acted upon this plan.

I see that as proof that tactical nuclear weapons are accecptable when used CORRECTLY.

My nation uses a proportional response docterine regarding tactical nuclear weapons, and a MAD style docterine regarding stratigic. This is possible because the two are very clearly defined as seperate in my armed forces. Personally I find this option to be MUCH better then the totally proportional, or escalational (MAD) style tactics you're talking about.

If you nuke my carrier, I'll nuke yours. If you nuke one of my cities, I'll glass your nation. This works great for me. It acts as a deterrant to the killing of mu civillians, and lets me strike in adequate response to military targets.
Really people, this isn't a black and white strategy, use some creativity when you come up with your nations nuclear policy.

If you think being targetted by neclear weapons will end support for the war in your enemy then you should see what effect the fact that your government actively and willingly participates in wholesale slaughter of innocents does to YOUR popularity.


Just a note it might improve the popularity of your government if you show that your actions are saving the lives of your nations soldiers. Just look at not only the Atomic Bombing of Japan but the wholesale mass bombings of both Japan and Germany. The average civilian was happy what was done.

After the nukes were detonated, Americans were estatic cause they thought the war was going to end soon and when it did after the second bomb was dropped they were dancing in the streets not rioting over the use of a WMD.

Just a note it might improve the popularity of your government if you show that your actions are saving the lives of your nations soldiers. Just look at not only the Atomic Bombing of Japan but the wholesale mass bombings of both Japan and Germany. The average civilian was happy what was done.

After the nukes were detonated, Americans were estatic cause they thought the war was going to end soon and when it did after the second bomb was dropped they were dancing in the streets not rioting over the use of a WMD.

that was then, in the sixty+ years since WW2 the normall civilians perception of nuclear weapons has changed drastically and on nationstates where the governments are run by normal civies, the change in perception is even more prevalent.

Dostanuot Loj - Still, such a response against a huge bomber raid would still most likely spawn some kind of nuclear incident - and regardless of porportional strike or not, Nation A still has a legitimate reason to attack Nation B with nuclear weapons (even though for this instance I agree that it shouldn't be strategic). In the end, it is my opinion that the use of all nukes, especially tactical, should be kept at a pre-planned level where both sides OOCly plan out the storyline and the consequences. In an open RP, it's almost guarenteed that even the use of tactical nuclear weapons will result in the use of strategic nuclear weapons - for various reasons, including the fundamental fact that as part of nuclear deterrence, strategic nuclear weapons are capable of deterring the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon. In RL, regardless of the fact of whether the reply will still be in the form of tactical weapons or not, tactical nuke usage will still run a possibility of escalating into something larger - and this is the reason for the reluctance among the nuclear bunker-buster idea drafted by the Americans recently.

For us, since our capabilities and policies won't allow an escalation style strike, we adopt a more porportional one that avoids first strikes - and this is especially important since our nation do maintain a huge conventional strategic bombing force. I also feel that many, nation are forgetting about another way to deploy tactical nuclear weapons - ballistic missile interceptors. By countering nuclear ICBMs with both land and space-based ballistic missile interceptors with medium-yield nukes exploding during their midcourse as opposed to employing ludicrously expensive "UBER SDI 95% INTERCEPTION" systems (i.e. lasers and small KV vehicles on satellites) or rather ineffective KV vehicles (would a mass ICBM strike with decoys be easy to intercept?), you have an economical solution against strategic nuclear threats without provoking angry responses (at least, not rational angry responses).

Yea, I was specificly stating an event that did happen. Many of the larger and more prominent nations in I.I were involved in it. I just forgot who the main contenders were.
Yes, I agree that Nation A would have been justified in a nuclear response, it's only fair. But the full out "I will fire every ICBM I have at you!" response that happened was countered by a large number of nations saying "If you fire your ICBM's like that, I will fire every ICBM I have at you!".
And this is where I'm saying that tactical nuclear weapons, even in open RP's can be used correctly so that they don't invoke the "OMG IM GUNNA NUKE U COMPLETELY!!" response that is MAD. In person, I would see thestratigic attack of one of my nations cities with a nuclear weapon in retaliation to me using a few tactical nukes on my enemys fleets as more then fair. However, as the IC nation itself, I take a different stance. Which is where my dual stance policy on nuclear warfare comes in. Tactical nuclear weapons are fine when you use them correctly, and I agree, it has to at least be agreed upon by the parties involved (as with everything major in an RP I believe), but stratigic level nuclear deployment will inevitably mean the end of that nation, and should be countered with the "If I go down you're comming with me!" attitude.
I just think it makes things alot simplier.

EDIT: As for anti-ballistic missile useage for tactical nukes, I have been planning on that type of system for my Missile Sheild type system for a while. As of now my nation has no such defence against ICBM's, which is odd for a nation of my size I believe. But I plan to move into specific devlopment of that upon completion of my Project Deluge, which will be central to my missile defence.

As it goes I believe the best and most effective ways to deploy tactical nukes are in artillery shells, nuclear mines, torpedoes, and air to air missiles. I classify cruise missile systems as stratigic.

I quite agree that tactical nukes can have their place in RP, If you use some thought, like having a spec ops team hide a .25 kiloton device in a garbage truck a few hours before it's scheduled to pick up from a military headquarters.

I'd say the real problem people have with tac nukes in II is that they don't want people blowing up their shiny toys without recourse. :rolleyes:

Frankly I have to agree with Der Angst on this one, many nations completely and utterly ignore the fact that an automatic escalation from someone using a tactical nuclear weapons to take out a military target to all out mutual destruction in one quick step is quite simply put a complete lack of respect for both their own citizens lives as well as the lives of millions of other people around the world.

Of course, as a threat, it makes for a good incentive not to use a tactical nuclear weapon... but frankly it's would disgust my nation as an actual policy. Iuthia has always seeked a peaceful solution to a situation and worked in the best interest of saving lives. We respect the lives of our people and occasionally the lives of other nations people. Iuthia itself doesn't bother with WMD now that it has a fairly reliable SDI system (yes, in such cases I would not be on the same tech level as a MT nation, but I never start fights so it's rather moot) and even when it did use WMD for mutually assured destruction perposes it was a last option, never the first responce even to a tactical nuclear weapon.

Basically, it's about priorities... if your so crazed that the use of a single tactical nuclear weapon would have to result in the assured destruction of both nations then fuck, your priorities are odd, and lets face it, a threat is only any good if you are 100% commited to fulfilling it. If your nation was being invaded and they used tactical nuclear weapons then I could probably understand going to strategic nuclear weapons, but in a skirmish I find it hard to beleive any nation is so crazed that they would threaten the lives of all their own people as well as the attackers to stop the enemy from using a low yield nuclear weapon to take out a military target to acheive their political objectives. I wouldn't be surprised if nuclear heavy nations like Belem called your bluff and you would be forced to either go full out and risk total destruction (and you can be assured, Belem who loves his nukes will have more) or you can accept that in some circumstances, it's simply not worth having such a crazy policy which assumes you and your people are willing to put their lives down for a SD.

My opinion of course, but I see the whole "all out nuclear war" thing to be stupid.

that was then, in the sixty+ years since WW2 the normall civilians perception of nuclear weapons has changed drastically and on nationstates where the governments are run by normal civies, the change in perception is even more prevalent.

True but Im sure now if a major nation got into a real war of survival(such as what WWII) was peoples viewpoints would change quickly and drastically.
"You killed 300 thousand civilians? but by destroying that city you probably saved 50 thousand of our soldiers? Ok thats good."

Also the NS world is more nuclear tolerant in some respects, they are viewed more as really big bombs with practical purposes rather then last resort weapons. The view for NS is more of a 1950s military approach rather then a 1970s MAD approach.

In 1949 when the Military planned for a war against the SU they said nuclear weapons would play a vital role but would not be the main focus of the war. They would primarily be targetted against large sectors of industry and enemy troops. The reason for this is because then it took hours to deploy a nuclear weapon. In the 60s and 70s when ICBMs entered the stage all out nuclear destruction became a hair trigger response. Of course even if the U.S. did go to war with the Soviets after the invention of ICBMs military planners believed that neither side would completely expend its nuclear arsenal unless its back was to the wall and was on the verge of defeat.

Thats the thing though, the NS view of nuclear weapons is exactly like the MAD one of the seventies, nuclear weapons are only used by the majority as last ditch weapons and suicidal escalation policies are aimed to keep it that way, if they viewed them as just really big bombs then escalation wouldn't exist, there would be no differentiation between a conventional strike and a nuclear one, the fact that this thread even exists and that people are arguing against it proves that this isn't the caseon NS.

Actually, I think it's rather easy to see the problem:

Group 1: Cares about where the damage is inflicted. A military target is a military target, a civilian target is, well, a bad thing.

Group 2: Gives a fuck about legitimate targets and illegitimate targets, and just cares what kind of weapon is used. Throwing a thousand tons of conventional explosives on $Target (Be it civilian or not) is absolutely legitimate, but GOD FORBID that someone actually tries it with a single 1 kt mininuke. Because, ya'know, modern nuclear weapons where aftereffects are minimised to almost nothing are still A VERY BAD THING because IRL MY PRESIDENT SAID SO. Nevermind that NS is not the real world.

Now, this could lead to a few problems when members of both groups clash.

Fortunately, Group 2 seems to consist of hiveminded societies who applaud their leaders when they lead group 2 to extinction, due to their full escalation policies. As such, we can gather that their populations, as human as they look like, are actually closer to bee hives, anthills, the likes. Barely sentient at all.

And, well, who cries over a few insects burning?

And, well, who cries over a few insects burning?

Do you mean just loving care, or does this also include the "enjoument of the destruction/suffering" care?

But yea, you're right. And that is the problem with freeform role play. You can try and recreate the world realisticly here all you like, but it will never be perfict. Gravity, science, people, cultures, and everything else that makes a civilization simply don't exist here. It's nothing more then a game where the only rules are ones you impose uppon yourself. Usually everyone agrees on a set of basic rules here, but some things people just can't agree on. Wether it be because they're sore loosers, or because they're ignorant, or because they believe whatever the thing is to be a waste or simply a godmode and act of stupidity.

Nuclear weapons only have a place in RPs if pre-agreed. And even this only because people out there exist who do not wish to have to deal with nuclear weapons. It's just the same with mixing tech levels, which is also a taboo around here, and also happens alot.