NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sure that at some point in NS history, a thread like this has occured before concerning the use of WMD in RPs, but I have never seen it. So, what I'm gonna do here is ask everybody who has an opinion on the use of WMD, in the positive or negative, to speak out about why they believe as they do, and what brought about their reasoning.

This is not intended to single out any nation, nor is it intended to cause difficulties for any nation.

Nations who flame, etc., will be warned, then asked to leave, then reported, I want this to be a civil debate.

Start your arguing(in a civil manner).

Are we arguing OOCly or ICly? Meaning, I don't use WMDs because it ruins a potential role play, unless it's actually part of the storyline, in which case it does have use (OOC dislike of WMDs). (IC dislike)Franky, I dont want to go through a retaliation process, and I don't want to lose millions of my people.


[EDIT: I accident voted no - that should "if poorly used".]

If used poorly then yes, WMD's don't have to create poor RP's but it's kind of uniteneresting when the entire RP is "I launch n00k."

"I launch conter n00k."

"BOOM Where all dead."

"us to."

No one uses it. That's why I don't waste money on them anymore. I've destroyed my entire stockpile. Who wants to lose their entire country and people for no reason?

Well, I have only used them once, and it was durring my civil war. The now-in power Jewittist Faction used it to end the war perminately (a massive invasion, like in WW2, was planned, but it would destroy both armies, millions of men and women) while the Jewittist Faction was at the lowest end of their economic health and the Enzoist Faction was at the height and not falling any time soon.

Actually, no one even remembers that...caused a lot of people to hate my regime (thinking I would do the same if I started to lose a war, as the Jewittists were doing), but most have either forgotten or stopped posting.

That was it for me...and I belive it is up to the politicans and militants in charge, and your RPed characteristics of them. Of coruse, now a days people just post them making a hard (or sometimes easy! ridiculous!) decision, a missile firing off, and then BOOM, Hirroshima in the atlantic or some other stuff like that.

So yeah, kind of ridiculous on how some RP it, and for the record, that is why my Chancellor's death count is some 80,000,000 people, probably more.

Are we arguing OOCly or ICly? Meaning, I don't use WMDs because it ruins a potential role play, unless it's actually part of the storyline, in which case it does have use (OOC dislike of WMDs). (IC dislike)Franky, I dont want to go through a retaliation process, and I don't want to lose millions of my people.


[EDIT: I accident voted no - that should "if poorly used".]

OOC, regarding our IC choices.

I voted if used poorly, because I think that a well RPed nuke\KEW strike\plague, can give you alot of RP opportunities, both when it's happening and in the future.

No one uses it. That's why I don't waste money on them anymore. I've destroyed my entire stockpile. Who wants to lose their entire country and people for no reason?

That is facetious, many nations still have nuclear, KEW(in FT), biological, and chemical weapons arsenals, and are quite willing to use them(at least nukes, people seem to be insanely afraid of pkagues in comparison... I wonder why? :rolleyes: )

That is facetious, many nations still have nuclear, KEW(in FT), biological, and chemical weapons arsenals, and are quite willing to use them(at least nukes, people seem to be insanely afraid of pkagues in comparison... I wonder why? :rolleyes: )

No one has used it or will. But actually I do have a small arsenal that is just made of ICBMs to deter.

The risks of Nuclear and Enhanced Radiation weapons are greatly exaggerated. Chemical Weapons, depending on what type of chemical weapon they are, are themselves exaggerated to varying degrees. There are very few rational uses for biological weapons, control after being released is a big problem.

Generally speaking, death is death, whether in a nuclear or conventional attack. Chemical, maybe, the specifics of such deaths can be equivalent to as slow and deliberate a torture as the Chemists wish to manage.

There really should be some war factor that accurately reduces populations. Of course, al the less militant states would be left rather vulnerable.

No one has used it or will. But actually I do have a small arsenal that is just made of ICBMs to deter.

No one has used a nuclear arsenal, I know I've dropped KEWs on quite a few targets, and nuked a couple others, so I must disagree with you on that score.

The best instance that I know of the use of nuclear weapons was during the Amerigo Slave War, also referred to as WWIV - don't ask me what WWIII was. It's not exactly known (ICly) who placed the nuclear bomb, and I don't remember OOCly, but regardless, it had to do with the storyline - so I think as long as it makes a good storyline, it's the proper use of WMDs. But mutual assured destruction works both for the nations and their subsequent role play.

I've used bioweapons once (a terrorist attack, admittedly, but it was on another nation, Romandeos), and plan to use bio and chemical weapons again when he invades me for it. As long as they are used well, and with the consent of the victim, they work just fine.

Have I gassed my own people? Yes.
Have I gassed others? I've tried.
Have I succeeded? Now and then someone slips up and I get the chance to.
Have I been called cheap? Sometimes.
Have I felt the other ends of WMDs? Of course.

It's all to your experiences with these things. For people who can vote 'Yes', possibly had some bad experiences with WMDs and couldn't find a way out to recuperate. Also, many people assume that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are cheap, and easily used to destroy certain things. It, to my experience, has been able to open up an avenue of new attacks.

For example, my sister is a powerful strategist. She's damn good at first strikes. She's nuked my silos, with quite well RPing, I might add, causing seismic disruption so that cities nearby will have loosened foundations, making bombardment easier for her.

If anybody wants, they can check out the thread that technically showed how WMDs and nuclear devices could be used to a quite broad extent, but still hold to conventional warfare.

The risks of Nuclear and Enhanced Radiation weapons are greatly exaggerated. Chemical Weapons, depending on what type of chemical weapon they are, are themselves exaggerated to varying degrees. There are very few rational uses for biological weapons, control after being released is a big problem.

Generally speaking, death is death, whether in a nuclear or conventional attack. Chemical, maybe, the specifics of such deaths can be equivalent to as slow and deliberate a torture as the Chemists wish to manage.

There really should be some war factor that accurately reduces populations. Of course, al the less militant states would be left rather vulnerable.

That is quite possibly the most well reasoned aopproach to WMD I have ever heard, I salute your reasoning prowess in a morass of limited thought.(no offense to anybody in the morass, but this guy has it just about on the head in my opinion)

No one has used a nuclear arsenal, I know I've dropped KEWs on quite a few targets, and nuked a couple others, so I must disagree with you on that score.

Your FT, not MT. No one in the right mind will use nukes in RP because they 99% of the time, kill the RP.

Have I gassed my own people? Yes.
Have I gassed others? I've tried.
Have I succeeded? Now and then someone slips up and I get the chance to.
Have I been called cheap? Sometimes.
Have I felt the other ends of WMDs? Of course.

It's all to your experiences with these things. For people who can vote 'Yes', possibly had some bad experiences with WMDs and couldn't find a way out to recuperate. Also, many people assume that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are cheap, and easily used to destroy certain things. It, to my experience, has been able to open up an avenue of new attacks.

For example, my sister is a powerful strategist. She's damn good at first strikes. She's nuked my silos, with quite well RPing, I might add, causing seismic disruption so that cities nearby will have loosened foundations, making bombardment easier for her.

If anybody wants, they can check out the thread that technically showed how WMDs and nuclear devices could be used to a quite broad extent, but still hold to conventional warfare.


This incident illusatrates the reason I am glad my family is not on NS.

This incident illusatrates the reason I am glad my family is not on NS.

Yes, she's stemming all her personal hatred of me into her RPing. That's not a good thing from where I'm standing. :rolleyes:

WMD stands for World Movement for Democracy, right?

Your FT, not MT. No one in the right mind will use nukes in RP because they 99% of the time, kill the RP.

I used to be MT, I have nuked people as such, well RPed they did a very good job of evening the odds against my April 05 nation, and made it a very good RP.

That nation has been deleted for about 5 months now though.

WMD stands for World Movement for Democracy, right?

I REALLY hope that's sarcasm...

Here's a thread discussing use of WMD. Hasn't seen much activity for a while (largely because I've been busy dealing with a family emergency), but there's a lot of commentary that might be useful.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416536

IMO, using WMD isn't necessarily the death-knell of an RP- but it usually ends up that way because few people bother to RP it properly.


TEO

Well, chemical and biological agents can really make an roleplay very interesting, especially terrorist attacks and in urban warfare situations, however a nuclear device can really ruin a urban warfare situation, or and entire war. I think if the attacker roleplays it right it can be a very interesting war, or if they do it wrong it can blow major dog chunks.

Bump