NationStates

Allanea wrote:If only we somehow could control our prison population.

If only there were large buildings with thick stone walls we could put them in.

But that is beyond us.

Don't even need to be buildings in some places:



They'll just dig under them.

Doesn't anyone find it hilarious how using riot control agents on civilian populations is A-OK but using them in a war is banned?

Kouralia wrote:So, what alert or vigilance or threat levels are there in your nation?

Kouralia uses a system of 'Imminent', 'Substantial', 'Heightened' and 'Unremarkable'.

Not publicly.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Doesn't anyone find it hilarious how using riot control agents on civilian populations is A-OK but using them in a war is banned?

Which agents are these then?

Kouralia wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Doesn't anyone find it hilarious how using riot control agents on civilian populations is A-OK but using them in a war is banned?

Which agents are these then?

CS gas for example

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Kouralia wrote:Which agents are these then?

CS gas for example

Is CS gas outlawed in warfare?

Kouralia wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
CS gas for example

Is CS gas outlawed in warfare?

CWC If I understand correctly all chemical weapons are banned, and riot control agents are considered chemical weapons.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Kouralia wrote:Is CS gas outlawed in warfare?

CWC If I understand correctly all chemical weapons are banned, and riot control agents are considered chemical weapons.

CS gas is outlawed as a blanker ban on all chemical weapons, due to the likelihood of over-escalation if it's used (e.g. Bigtopia uses CS gas, Maxtopia uses Mustard gas, Neighbouringnationistan uses nerve agents). There is no serious risk of rioters suddenly deploying chemical weapons, thus its effectiveness outweighs the theoretical disadvantages.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Doesn't anyone find it hilarious how using riot control agents on civilian populations is A-OK but using them in a war is banned?

meh its the same issue as with"expanding" small arms ammunition. Its not hilarious just one of those odd artifacts of international politics.

Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

Allanea wrote:Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

Ineffective? Even against properly equipped and trained militaries acting accordingly, it's still a pain in their ass and an extra thing to worry about. Take gas masks for example - they have to be available in the first place, and even when they are they can still be a nuisance by being uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time and/or in hot weather , restricting vision, etc.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Allanea wrote:Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

Ineffective? Even against properly equipped and trained militaries acting accordingly, it's still a pain in their ass and an extra thing to worry about. Take gas masks for example - they have to be available in the first place, and even when they are they can still be a nuisance by being uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time and/or in hot weather , restricting vision, etc.

Doesn't mean that they are particularly useful. Guys in vehicles generally don't need to worry anyway because of NBC protection.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Allanea wrote:Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

Ineffective? Even against properly equipped and trained militaries acting accordingly, it's still a pain in their ass and an extra thing to worry about. Take gas masks for example - they have to be available in the first place, and even when they are they can still be a nuisance by being uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time and/or in hot weather , restricting vision, etc.

well the thing is that generally all the inconveeinces they force on the enemy they also force on you.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Allanea wrote:Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

Ineffective? Even against properly equipped and trained militaries acting accordingly, it's still a pain in their ass and an extra thing to worry about. Take gas masks for example - they have to be available in the first place, and even when they are they can still be a nuisance by being uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time and/or in hot weather , restricting vision, etc.

Yeah. That's ineffective.

Effective is 'oh, fuck, where the HELL has the 3rd Armoured gone?!', not 'bugger, let's take a minute to put on protective gear'

Allanea wrote:Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

It's OK they do this also.

>Sea Dart
>Challenger 2
>Entire Dutch Army
>F-22
>F-35
>FGR.2 Phantom
>Ark Royal
>CVA-01
>NIGS
>LCS

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Allanea wrote:Chemical weapons are also practically ineffective in warfare. Banning them allows politicians to look humane while not depriving their country of a meaningful defensive tool.

Ineffective? Even against properly equipped and trained militaries acting accordingly, it's still a pain in their ass and an extra thing to worry about. Take gas masks for example - they have to be available in the first place, and even when they are they can still be a nuisance by being uncomfortable to wear for prolonged periods of time and/or in hot weather , restricting vision, etc.

They require just as much if not more caution on the part of the force deploying them as they do for the enemy trying to weather the chemical barrage. You need the right weather conditions (never a given), along with enough security and mobility to protect them and constant vigilance to catch any potential leaks. And if an enemy air or artillery strike happens to hit your chemical storage facilities, now you have a gas attack behind your own lines.

On top of that, the political costs of using such a weapon are rather disproportionate to its effectiveness.

In addition to the above, military research suggests that dropping an equivalent weight of conventional shells on the opponent will typically cause more casualties than a given amount of chemical shells... but I think we are diverting the non-military realism thread.

Allanea wrote:In addition to the above, military research suggests that dropping an equivalent weight of conventional shells on the opponent will typically cause more casualties than a given amount of chemical shells... but I think we are diverting the non-military realism thread.

Chemical weapons would reduce casualties on both sides, because both sides cannot maneuver or operate as fast without their hazmat suits.

The same goes for a rain storm on a battlefield.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Donutmobile, I like how it sounds

What do you think about smaller vehicles such as an SUV or station wagon with the stuff in the trunk? They could have small freezers/coolers to keep food and drinks in, and perhaps a microwave or coffeemaker, or other small appliances. The idea would be that cops on foot patrol could stop by to have a drink and a bite, or it could move around and drop off stuff, or it could be deployed to smaller events.

Beat cops should have a vehicle nearby that got them to their patrol area, if not an actual small police sub-station in the area where they can grab stuff from the office cooler. As for moving around other stuff, any regular police SUV should be able to do it. Just put a cooler in it when you need it, and take it out when you don't.

Beat cops and meter maids drive Go-4 motorcycles in my country.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Beat cops should have a vehicle nearby that got them to their patrol area, if not an actual small police sub-station in the area where they can grab stuff from the office cooler. As for moving around other stuff, any regular police SUV should be able to do it. Just put a cooler in it when you need it, and take it out when you don't.

Beat cops and meter maids drive Go-4 motorcycles in my country.

Do you even panda car?

Costa Fierro wrote:

Rich and Corporations wrote:Beat cops and meter maids drive Go-4 motorcycles in my country.

Do you even panda car?

i'm not a tea drinker.

i'm a gas guzzler by birthright.

Do you even Crown Victoria, then?

Costa Fierro wrote:Do you even Crown Victoria, then?

Go-4 has a turning radius of 10 feet, and perhaps the fuel efficiency close to that of a prius.

It also costs as much as a Prius as well.

Besides, Crown Victorias make me nervous.

====

RnC random number generator

384-bit hash of entropy pool, 384-bit number is shift right by one (divided by two) to equal a 383-bit number. It is then hashed using ChaCha8 and the bytes are fed into a buffer. When the buffer runs low, the internal state is incremented by adding 9 ("1001" in binary).

I'd rather have separate "pure" on-foot and vehicular patrols rather than having cops drive to their patrol area and patrolling of foot there. Has to do with my ocd. It wouldn't be really efficient anyways because patrols will logically be based around stations/precincts and sub-stations. So for on-foot patrols cops simply take off from their respective station, do their patrol duty and then come back. Using cars to get them there wouldn't really be much of an improvement as it would increase costs without any significant performance or time benefits.

Just my 2 cents anyways.

And as far as patrol cars are concerned I'd obviously either get a full size car with the smallest available engine or a smaller vehicle, or a mix of the above.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:Do you even Crown Victoria, then?

Besides, Crown Victorias make me nervous.

why lol