NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I want to know: what are the non-violent ways your country handles things?

For me, I use a sleeping gas that is corrosive to petrolum-based, synthetic, or once-alive solid materials like rubber, some types of clothes, leather, plastic, dead leaves and petrol. It hangs around afterward for a few hours before going away.

I use it to put down rebellions and peacefully invade other places.

There is no such thing as a non-violent tactic for war.

I mean, technically, AKA, without many casualties, psychological warfare, etc.

Psychological warfare does in fact inflect casualties because it can make the person insane. Also, what's 'many casualties'?

Lynion is right - War is always violent.

I do something like this

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StSZ383UCX4&feature=related)

Enter the new Fiesta Mk 5 Beach Assault Vehicle!

I have an strategy of Attack by Stratagem. However, it requires a very specific set of circumstances, like for example a shared cultural identity with the people of ruled by the enemy government and some real dirt to be uncovered that would be sufficient to incite hundreds of thousands to fight against their government.

Load bombers with propaganda rather than bombs, use privileged Intelligence to reveal the dirty side of an enemy government to its own inhabitants and soldiers, have spies ready to incite mass uprisings when the opportunity comes. Not much else that could be done. Unfortunately there is no way to avoid the collateral damage done to commissars killed by the soldiers they were supposed to control, or in the firefights between guerrillas and cops.

What happens when the sleeping gas eats all of your car tires?

I mean, technically, AKA, without many casualties, psychological warfare, etc.
Diplomacy, espionoge, blackmail/deterance, "international law" of some sort*, and propoganda.

That about it...

Non-lethal weapons, erm... why?
Then it becomes just a rich-man's game...
And we all know how peaceful the world is when in those frames of mind...

*On NS, there really isn't a definitive authority or set of int'l laws to abide by...
So, for example, the Kravan Corp, gets nice big and bored, he can develop a malevolent supercomputer that plans to lead a cultural revolution across the globe, and there isn't a law against killing every single meatbag to achieve that...

Likewise, if KC has a god enough internal propoganda machine, his citizens will happily sacrifice their lives to achieve their "father's" ambitions...

Course... if enough fellows are abhored to the idea that a super-authortarian computer has decided that all organic life is obsolete, they tend to make a stand...
----------
Ohhhhh! You said "non-violent", not "Non-lethal", in that case, slip the mothers some rufies and abort all babies of enemy nation in their sleep...

No sign of struggle that way...

Better still, steralize the whole population...

Lynion is right - War is always violent.

I do something like this

LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StSZ383UCX4&feature=related)

Enter the new Fiesta Mk 5 Beach Assault Vehicle!
It took me awhile to find out what that was supposed to mean (http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Top-Gear-Season-12-6-Part_204044.htm)
*Last 4 minutes.

"Well, the windscreen is heated. But not bulletproof."

Hrm. Well, I suppose that Geletian highlanders have a pretty unnerving habit of not falling down when shot, as well as being two metres tall and looking more than that with spiked hair or horned or otherwise adorned helmets, daubing in warpaint, being more likely to wear swords into battle than pants, sounding trios of carnyx war trumpets at the start of a confrontation, electing heroes to challenge enemy officers to single combat, and turning up with the heads of past enemies strung to glacis plates et cetera are all tactics deployed to unsettle enemies, but since they lead to bayonet/bladed charges and head-taking their non-violence is up for debate.

Plus, Soviet forces will typically invite the enemy's enlisted men to save themselves by turning on thier officers, and cite expamples of it happening, sometimes sending forward men who did just that and now live in Soviet utopia and take the heads of class enemies abroad. Even if it just makes one officer look sideways at his men, it can be a worthwhile distraction that didn't cost anything to create, and especially effective if the men realise that their officers distrust them.

In other situations it doesn't appear to work at all, but the sheer audacity and self-righteousness of the Geletians is not entirely unlikely to draw enemies who may be similarly arrogant (and less able to admit it) into attacks they may otherwise have avoided for either tactical or strategic reasons.

It's kinda 50/50 whether the Geletians are typically trying by making him feel inferior to cause the enemy to be submissive or rashly combative on Geletian terms.

Then there's things like the fact that the Beddgelen manpower reserve is exceedingly high due to being in the top 1% of largest nations in the multiverse and having a fairly young population with world-class healthcare et cetera, and the Commonwealth Guard Militia Auxiliary may be the largest fighting organisation in history. The use as infantry of 'wildmen' such as the Pitovirii, the fact that many tribesmen still engage in prize-fighting and other ridiculously punishing 'sports', and heavy intoxication at the time of battle all have their propagandic merits (and practical pitfalls).

The Otagian military has a habit of using various chemical weapons as force multipliers, and they occasionally include less-than-lethal agents (PoWs make good bargaining chips), but it's more coincidence than anything. For every kolokol gassing, there's nine or ten blister or nerve gas attacks, not to mention the fun stuff like BZ.

Really though, attempts to make actual war (not putting down riots or revolts, actual honest-to-god warfare) more humane is just silly. Dead soldiers don't come back or take up your own resources as captives, so maiming and killing (preferably maiming) as many enemy combatants is the best way to win a war.

I just bomb cities out of existence with vacuum bombs.

It's worked fine so far.

The world is bloody in war, no such thing as a Non-Violent war. Also your "sleeping gas" is wank....Sleeping Gas is used for knocking out a person, Not eating away Rubber and Plastic.

As ardent questioners of the very point for prisons to exist Third Spanish States never takes POWs, as in their world view, killing is more humane than denying to people their freedom so whenever they manage to take some enemy soldiers without any chance to escape, they are given three choices: "Desert, defect to our side or die.". Likewise, they never surrender when possible to avoid getting caught through suicide, and cyanide pills are standard issue to every military personell.

I just bomb cities out of existence with vacuum bombs.

It's worked fine so far.

Yes, but it is particularly uninspiring and dull compared to the thrill of urban warfare. That is something the Confederacy would never do. Their primary doctrine is to convince the people of an enemy government to rebel and(later) to accept the idea of anarchism, and bombing civilian targets certainly won't help doing so.

Diplomacy - war by nonviolent tactics.

And I have to agree with Casscadia - a sleeping gas that is acidic enough to eat way rubber and plastic will invariably eat away lung tissue.

Now maybe a nano swarm programmed for such, but thats definitely NOT a sleeping gas.

I just bomb cities out of existence with vacuum bombs.

It's worked fine so far.

Vacuum bombs <3

There's no such thing as a non-violent war, unless you're talking about a cold war, which isn't a "war" in the traditional sense.

You can "fight" diplomatically by applying pressure, recalling ambassadors, imposing sanctions, etc. But if you're in a declared state of war against another nation, there really isn't much you can do non-violently unless you're talking about engaging your propaganda machine against the enemy country's population.

However, THAT only works with some nations. Doomingsland was able to use that to great effect against my nation during our involvement in the Inkanan Civil War. If I'd tried it against his nation, it would not have worked.

Usually I do diplomacy to achieve my goals. I have bases strategically stationed around the world, so in a rping sense I have a short term delivery of small fleets and soldiers. Due to that, and depending on the base size and military contingent, I usually get what I desire by either giving away technology or currency, or by threatening war.

If that doesn't work, I just nuke'em for fun. Cause nukes are prrreeeetttyyyyy....

For Future Tech, its basically the same. If THAT doesn't work I usually nuke them too...or use a Genesis Device to terraform their planets and kill all sentient life off. Or something with explosions...pretty booms... *drool*

Yes, but it is particularly uninspiring and dull compared to the thrill of urban warfare. That is something the Confederacy would never do. Their primary doctrine is to convince the people of an enemy government to rebel and(later) to accept the idea of anarchism, and bombing civilian targets certainly won't help doing so.

Oh, but it does help in getting the people all pissed off and ready to rebel. You see... I wipe one city out, disperse the footage and make a simple statement. 'This is what we shall do to all of your cities, until you capitulate.' This makes the people of the enemy really want the war to end, before bombers darken the skies over their city.

I've used the tactic eight times. The enemy capitulated very, very quickly when they were faced with such force. The last time I used it, I got the enemy to sign over half their nation to me in return for not wiping them out completely.

Third Spanish States never wages wars for conquest, but for liberation*. Their goal is not to assume control of a territory, but to literally make it under the control of no central authority and pave the way for another Anarchist Confederacy to be formed, which then may or not become a potential ally. The act of threatening a people into surrendering is considered by them an act of terrorism and tyranny, and repeating it would be enough for an all-out nuclear retaliation.

*As nihilists however, in some cases, particularly those of Brave New World inspired Lab-bred drones unable to ever be free, liberation means total annihilation. They consider to be doing a favor whenever they kill a "government zombie".

A non-violent tactic? Surrender. Can't guarantee your opponents will accept, though.

Well, I want to know: what are the non-violent ways your country handles things?

For me, I use a sleeping gas that is corrosive to petrolum-based, synthetic, or once-alive solid materials like rubber, some types of clothes, leather, plastic, dead leaves and petrol. It hangs around afterward for a few hours before going away.

I use it to put down rebellions and peacefully invade other places.

I know it's already been pointed out, but chemically if your gas is able to eat through organic materials as you claim, it will eat through people too. Which turns it from non-lethal to worse then the Xenomorph blood in Aliens. Not to mention it's likely impossible to do chemically anyway.

In response to such an attack on any serious scale, I would very likely make liberal use of every agent I feel like (I'm a huge fan of Mustard-Lewisite right now) on whatever I feel like, notably in type-proportion to what you gassed (You gas my troops, I gas yours), but very disproportionate in volume. If you used it on civilians, well, I'd scatter a few nuclear weapons in there on carefully picked targets to press my point.

As to non-violent war fighting? Stupid way to approach a war really. So I ignore it. If diplomacy doesn't work then I have to fight, and if I have to fight I intend to make it as painful, bloody, and stressful as I can on the enemy in every way. To put it simply, by harsh, rapid, and brutal application of force, many enemy casualties (Both dead and wounded), and careful planning I hope to break their morale. And if I can't break their morale, I hope to seriously f*** up their technical and logistical ability to keep fighting me. Non-violent leads to defeat when the shooting starts.

I nuke neighbors, but I do so as non-violently as possible :p

Well, when dealing with a democratic neighbor, you slowly migrate enough of your citizens into their nation, they become citizens, and elect your candidates, and over time, through a series of complicated treaties, unnoticeably slowly, the two nations become one.

You might find the following excerpt from a text on the laws of the Eternal Republic of some relevance.

The Doctrine of Legal Ghostliness

As early as the twelfth century attempts had been made to reduce the infrequent incidence of fatal judicial duels in Xirnium. An early answer was the introduction of the statutory duel, which survives in obscurity in certain municipal jurisdictions. Where it has not been outlawed it often involves strict rules, secret meetings steeped in ritual, distinctive and elaborate uniforms and great prestige.

Rather than settle quarrels or decide impersonal questions by single combat with swords, disputants would draw playing cards from a standard 52-card deck, although a sheathed sword would be worn as part of the costume. Generally the statutory duel occurred in the presence of a court and judicial officers. Before commencing, each participant would solemnly affirm that his or her cause was just, plead his or her case, and declare that no cheating was to be engaged in, either by trickery or recourse to magical aids. The disputant who drew the lower playing card could ask for mercy, but if he or she did not then the participants would continue to draw from the deck, with the best out of three winning. Statutory duels could be complicated by the involvement of friends or seconds.

Since it is a legal fiction of judicial duels that the defender of the right could not be worsted, a loser who had been given mercy and only drawn one playing card was dealt with according to law. The loser who had drawn the lower card in two out of three tries, however, became a legal ghost, which meant that the law would consider him or her deceased. The winner became the trustee of his estate, and all debts, bets and obligations passed to him or her. The political question at the heart of the statutory duel was also answered by its outcome.

An excerpt from Klarr Viletooth's Big Book 'o Fightin':

Ultimately there are only really two 'proper' ways to engage in battle - a challenge of skill, and a challenge of will.

The former is more of a contest than a battle, as each participant seeks to better himself and educate his opponent simultaneously, and is analogous to the human concept of 'wargames', or the Charrian tradition of mock civil wars. While to the outside observer it may appear as a brutal affair, it is on these occasions that the Charr must contain the natural rage that lies within himself and refrain from significantly injuring his opponent. For one cannot learn anything if one is dead. These challenges occur all the time, and though violent, the lack casualties. It is these that you shall see pups engaged in seemingly every five minutes.

A challenge of will cannot have these restraints. This is the type of battle waged when you witness another assaulting a cripple, a retard, a female or a pup. It is when you witness the defilement of another's mate by a stranger. It is when you see the theft of another's hard-earned property. It is about honour, glory, and imposing your will - and thus, by extension, that of the Fiery Gods themselves - onto your opponent, and it is the duty of every Charr to uphold this honour. And for this to succeed, there can be no doubt in their minds that you are right and that you intend to emerge victorious no matter the cost. For no amount of material wealth can equal honour, and lives lost in its pursuit find great rewards in the afterlife.

So honour is to be maintained, but restraint is relaxed. A Charr's battleroar must shake the very bones of his enemy, his gaze must burn deep into their soul, and most importantly, his weapon - be it blade or bullet - must penetrate their heart. Should their will be broken simply at the sight of a thousand angered, roaring Charr stampeding towards them unflinching, more the better, but psychological victory is no victory at all. Once combat has begun there can be no holding back nor mercy, no civility nor courtesy, only victory, absolute and indisputable. For the Gods demand nothing less, and your survival depends upon it.

After all, when your enemy lies in a pool of his own blood and bile, engulfed by a cacophony of blood-curdling screams, his will defeated and your point made, would it be more merciful to leave him to the slow and agonising death that awaits him, or stomp on his head?

This is not to say that dishonours should be committed, for defying the will of the Gods to enforce the will of the Gods condemns all. Bodies of the slain must be returned to their people upon victory, prisoners of good health should be repatriated to their homes, and it should be unthinkable for a warrior, even in his state of enraged bloodlust, to mortally wound a female, a pup, or any other non-combatant in his rampage.

Of course, the easier way is to correct the errors of your opponent before conflict even starts. Afterall, the Gods gave us intelligence for a reason, not just to invent ale. But where's the fun in that?

- Klarr Viletooth is Leader of Clan Zukatha and an influential member of the Council of Clans. He also has no sense of restraint or formality.

Well, when dealing with a democratic neighbor, you slowly migrate enough of your citizens into their nation, they become citizens, and elect your candidates, and over time, through a series of complicated treaties, unnoticeably slowly, the two nations become one.

That's basically the strategy behind Vetalian enclaves. First small, independent settlements that slowly muscle their way in to the regional economy and grow larger. Eventually, our culture begins to dilute the existing one until they're so totally Vetalianized that annexation is an easy goal. After all, they've lost all but traces of their past culture, and any anti-Vetalian elements that remain will be effortlessly eradicated.

Of course, during wartime, our armies are fond of biological weapons, primarily diseases that target crops as well as non-lethal infections. The goal is not to trigger starvation but rather civil disorder that leads to collapse; once the enemy has surrendered, our forces arrive and begin distributing aid in exchange for loyalty.

Of course, during wartime, our armies are fond of biological weapons

I did not know this...

These assimilation ideas seem to me ever so slightly at odds with this 'logic' thing I've been hearing about. I invite proponents to try them on the Commonwealth and see how far it gets them.

I gots fifty trillion on absolutely nowhere, ever.