New Imperialism - AH RP v 2.1 [OOC, Signup]

[Senkaku]

Not sure many nations will sign that.

Chemical warfare absolutely shouldn't exist in any practical form yet.

*Modern* chemical warfare.

[The Industrial States of Columbia]

Ever heard of greek fire, that was chemical warfare

That was an early form of napalm? I think?

Comparable to napalm, I beleive a combination of naphta and pigs fat made it burn hot and long.

Don't worry, I am only considering primitive chlorine shells. Not the massive attacks performed in the first great war

[Carathon]

Chemical warfare absolutely shouldn't exist in any practical form yet.

Ever heard of greek fire, that was chemical warfare

Using a chemical reaction to produce a flame which burns your enemies does not equal chemical warfare, otherwise all gunpowder weapons would be considered chemical warfare.

[Marsisian]

That was an early form of napalm? I think?

Comparable to napalm, I beleive a combination of naphta and pigs fat made it burn hot and long

Hot and long. Yeah... hot and long. If you get my drift.

[Carathon]

Chemical warfare absolutely shouldn't exist in any practical form yet.

*Modern* chemical warfare.

That what I was implying, yes.

[The Industrial States of Columbia]

Comparable to napalm, I beleive a combination of naphta and pigs fat made it burn hot and long

Hot and long. Yeah... hot and long. If you get my drift.

[Marsisian]

Ever heard of greek fire, that was chemical warfare

Using a chemical reaction to produce a flame which burns your enemies does not equal chemical warfare, otherwise all gunpowder weapons would be considered chemical warfare.

Well actually it's using a chemical reaction to propel a projectile at supersonic speeds to an enemy which causes severe wounding or death.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Just gonna drop this link here

Tbh I don't see all the fuss over Chemical Warfare. It appears to have gotten a historical foothold in 1854, which was then increased during the American Civil War.

As long as Columbia follows a semi-historical path to chemical weapons, such as artillery shells, whatever I don't really see the issue tbh. Let capitalism take its course similar to how it actually did. I don't see why we should restrict it bc it is so immoral and awful. We allow a whole lot of other crap into many RPs we partake in that are a lot less realistic than that.

[Carathon]

Using a chemical reaction to produce a flame which burns your enemies does not equal chemical warfare, otherwise all gunpowder weapons would be considered chemical warfare.

Well actually it's using a chemical reaction to propel a projectile at supersonic speeds to an enemy which causes severe wounding or death.

I wasn't saying that gunpowder weapons using a chemical reaction to produce a flame - that was referring to Greek Fire - I was saying that both use chemical reactions to facilitate the primary cause of injury, the flame and the projectile respectively.

[Marsisian]

Well actually it's using a chemical reaction to propel a projectile at supersonic speeds to an enemy which causes severe wounding or death.

I wasn't saying that gunpowder weapons using a chemical reaction to produce a flame - that was referring to Greek Fire - I was saying that both use chemical reactions to facilitate the primary cause of injury, the flame and the projectile respectively.

Oh, I see.

[Carathon]

Just gonna drop this link here

Tbh I don't see all the fuss over Chemical Warfare. It appears to have gotten a historical foothold in 1854, which was then increased during the American Civil War.

As long as Columbia follows a semi-historical path to chemical weapons, such as artillery shells, whatever I don't really see the issue tbh. Let capitalism take its course similar to how it actually did. I don't see why we should restrict it bc it is so immoral and awful. We allow a whole lot of other crap into many RPs we partake in that are a lot less realistic than that.

I personally don't care if it's immoral, awful etc etc - it just doesn't make sense for some scientists and army brass in the nation wake up one day and decide to implement using chemical shells widely within their military forces. The example you just linked was the result of a military situation that necessitated the use of such weapons to be invented and implemented, not anything developed within a time of peace.

What I'm trying to say is that (modern) chemical warfare should only be actualized when there is a war and a stalemate or some-such situation requires them.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

I personally don't care if it's immoral, awful etc etc - it just doesn't make sense for some scientists and army brass in the nation wake up one day and decide to implement using chemical shells widely within their military forces. The example you just linked was the result of a military situation that necessitated the use of such weapons to be invented and implemented, not anything developed within a time of peace.

What I'm trying to say is that (modern) chemical warfare should only be actualized when there is a war and a stalemate or some-such situation requires them.

For all you and I know there was a situation in Columbia's nation's history that could call for the foundation of chemical warfare. Whether it be a civil war, war with a neighboring nation, whatever.

I mean a chemist working would chlorine looking to make a quick buck could also in theory (I suppose) work with chlorine and discover its potential use in artillery shells.

And no fear, the immoral and awful bit wasn't aimed at you. More so at all the people who are just "Your nation's people will hate you bc it is so awful, the world will condemn you, etc. etc." bc no they won't lmafo. Yeah there was outrage over mustard gas, but at the time it was seen as justified due to the world being at war, and whatever opposition there was really wasn't given the chance to make their opinion known. You know what else was immoral and awful? Slavery. Do you know how many centuries it took people to realize that? A few more than it should have. We really shouldn't see a condemnation of chemical weapons until 1899 like we did with the Hague Conference or until after we have a world war, similar to how we did with one of the Genevas.

Tbh I think people are just angry someone else beat them to the idea of just gassing your enemies on the battlefield and now need to justify said anger with useless rants about how immoral things are. #subtweet

[The Industrial States of Columbia]

Just gonna drop this link here

Tbh I don't see all the fuss over Chemical Warfare. It appears to have gotten a historical foothold in 1854, which was then increased during the American Civil War.

As long as Columbia follows a semi-historical path to chemical weapons, such as artillery shells, whatever I don't really see the issue tbh. Let capitalism take its course similar to how it actually did. I don't see why we should restrict it bc it is so immoral and awful. We allow a whole lot of other crap into many RPs we partake in that are a lot less realistic than that.

I personally don't care if it's immoral, awful etc etc - it just doesn't make sense for some scientists and army brass in the nation wake up one day and decide to implement using chemical shells widely within their military forces. The example you just linked was the result of a military situation that necessitated the use of such weapons to be invented and implemented, not anything developed within a time of peace.

What I'm trying to say is that (modern) chemical warfare should only be actualized when there is a war and a stalemate or some-such situation requires them.

My nation is essentially in the mindset of victory at all costs. In our history, we essentially have never won a war using conventional means, and thus chose to use weapons that will break the enemies spirit as well as ranks.

[Fortunagen]

Plz invest...

[Carathon]

I personally don't care if it's immoral, awful etc etc - it just doesn't make sense for some scientists and army brass in the nation wake up one day and decide to implement using chemical shells widely within their military forces. The example you just linked was the result of a military situation that necessitated the use of such weapons to be invented and implemented, not anything developed within a time of peace.

What I'm trying to say is that (modern) chemical warfare should only be actualized when there is a war and a stalemate or some-such situation requires them.

My nation is essentially in the mindset of victory at all costs. In our history, we essentially have never won a war using conventional means, and thus chose to use weapons that will break the enemies spirit as well as ranks.

Hmm. You both make good points, I suppose.

I mean, as-long as it's handled logically I'm fine. I just don't like the idea of a entire military completely equipped with chlorine shells Great War style over-night, you know?

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Hmm. You both make good points, I suppose.

I mean, as-long as it's handled logically I'm fine. I just don't like the idea of a entire military completely equipped with chlorine shells Great War style over-night, you know?

Of which I entirely agree.

As long is it is historically based and can logically occur, it should be a non-issue.

[Marsisian]

Were bolt-action rifles a thing at this time? Or did it start with the Lebel?

[Paketo]

Were bolt-action rifles a thing at this time? Or did it start with the Lebel?

Mauser-Norris Model 67/69 Rifle[edit]
Between 1867 and 1869, the Mauser brothers and Samuel Norris developed a single shot bolt-action rifle. The caliber and number produced are not known. Ludwig Olson wrote that an example had at one time been on display at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.[10] The rifle was patented in Austria by Samuel Norris on 24 December 1867. The bolt head did not rotate, a feature chosen by Paul Mauser to "protect the heads of paper cartridges from friction and possible damage while locking the bolt, and to provide a non-rotary seat for the extractor when metallic cartridges were used."[10]

An improved version of the rifle used a coil spring wrapped around the firing pin and a safety and a cocking piece attached to the rear of the firing pin.[10][11] This rifle was shown to the Prussian government, and after some design changes to the safety, was accepted for service as the Infantry Rifle Model 71 on 14 February 1872.[10] Often considered a close relative of the Chassepot rifle, and borrowing Dreyse's turning-bolt action lock, still the most innovative features of the new weapon were the work of Peter Paul Mauser

so yes

[Marsisian]

Were bolt-action rifles a thing at this time? Or did it start with the Lebel?

Mauser-Norris Model 67/69 Rifle[edit]
Between 1867 and 1869, the Mauser brothers and Samuel Norris developed a single shot bolt-action rifle. The caliber and number produced are not known. Ludwig Olson wrote that an example had at one time been on display at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.[10] The rifle was patented in Austria by Samuel Norris on 24 December 1867. The bolt head did not rotate, a feature chosen by Paul Mauser to "protect the heads of paper cartridges from friction and possible damage while locking the bolt, and to provide a non-rotary seat for the extractor when metallic cartridges were used."[10]

An improved version of the rifle used a coil spring wrapped around the firing pin and a safety and a cocking piece attached to the rear of the firing pin.[10][11] This rifle was shown to the Prussian government, and after some design changes to the safety, was accepted for service as the Infantry Rifle Model 71 on 14 February 1872.[10] Often considered a close relative of the Chassepot rifle, and borrowing Dreyse's turning-bolt action lock, still the most innovative features of the new weapon were the work of Peter Paul Mauser

so yes

Ah. But single-shot weapons aren't really that good in my opinion, you have to reload them every time you take a shot. I hear some had tubular magazines.

[Paketo]

Mauser-Norris Model 67/69 Rifle[edit]
Between 1867 and 1869, the Mauser brothers and Samuel Norris developed a single shot bolt-action rifle. The caliber and number produced are not known. Ludwig Olson wrote that an example had at one time been on display at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.[10] The rifle was patented in Austria by Samuel Norris on 24 December 1867. The bolt head did not rotate, a feature chosen by Paul Mauser to "protect the heads of paper cartridges from friction and possible damage while locking the bolt, and to provide a non-rotary seat for the extractor when metallic cartridges were used."[10]

An improved version of the rifle used a coil spring wrapped around the firing pin and a safety and a cocking piece attached to the rear of the firing pin.[10][11] This rifle was shown to the Prussian government, and after some design changes to the safety, was accepted for service as the Infantry Rifle Model 71 on 14 February 1872.[10] Often considered a close relative of the Chassepot rifle, and borrowing Dreyse's turning-bolt action lock, still the most innovative features of the new weapon were the work of Peter Paul Mauser

so yes

Ah. But single-shot weapons aren't really that good in my opinion, you have to reload them every time you take a shot. I hear some had tubular magazines.

mausers had 5 round clips by the 1880's

[Marsisian]

Ah. But single-shot weapons aren't really that good in my opinion, you have to reload them every time you take a shot. I hear some had tubular magazines.

mausers had 5 round clips by the 1880's

Huh. I didn't know.

[Kryskov]

Of which I entirely agree.

As long is it is historically based and can logically occur, it should be a non-issue.

I mean I just don't want to be at the constant end of a gaseous barrel that's gonna fire once tables are turned. So, naturally, I have a reason to, OOCly and ICly, lobby for its prohibition.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Of which I entirely agree.

As long is it is historically based and can logically occur, it should be a non-issue.

I mean I just don't want to be at the constant end of a gaseous barrel that's gonna fire once tables are turned. So, naturally, I have a reason to, OOCly and ICly, lobby for its prohibition.

And bias really shouldn't be a reason why someone should be prohibited from doing something entirely historically reasonable and not entirely illogical

[The Holy Dominion of Inesea]

I mean I just don't want to be at the constant end of a gaseous barrel that's gonna fire once tables are turned. So, naturally, I have a reason to, OOCly and ICly, lobby for its prohibition.

And bias really shouldn't be a reason why someone should be prohibited from doing something entirely historically reasonable and not entirely illogical

Chlorine gas isn't economical until someone invents the chloroalkali process, which should be in another decade.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

And bias really shouldn't be a reason why someone should be prohibited from doing something entirely historically reasonable and not entirely illogical

Chlorine gas isn't economical until someone invents the chloroalkali process, which should be in another decade.

Whether or not it is economical or not just impacts how much someone is welling to spend on chlorine. At least that is what I assumed you meant by economical, as in it costs too much.