[DRAFT] Their Assured Destruction

[South Olpen]

Hello! This draft is based of a real world problem that the US of A is having with China, where China is worried about the possibility that some in the states no longer see nuclear war as an issue do to America's strong anti missile tech. I'm open to criticism (God knows I need it), but please try to keep it constructive.

Premise: After your armed forces announced that your nation now has the capability to shoot down incoming missiles, and paired it with a video of the device destroying a satellite, Bigtopia stated their worries with the idea that Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies to you.
Validity: High Defense Forces, has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Option 1:"Not that we will attack @@NAME@@, we're just worried that you will attack us," says Bigtopian diplomat @@randomname@@, "Science shows that if you believe you're not in danger of WMDs you'll be more likely to use them. So come to your senses and let MAD apply to you."
Effect: The nation is littered with nuclear wastelands after @@leader@@ dismantled anti rocket systems.

Option 2: "We all know that there is only one reason they want to get rid of our defenses; they want to be able to attack us." says your newest general, while simultaneously planning an attack. "And guess what, they can't if we do first. I say that any nation who doesn't want us to win should lose."
Effect: The nation is always at war due to foreign diplomats not kissing @@leaders@@ feet.

Option 3: "There should be no MAD!" screams activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, while strapping themselves to your potted plant "Nukes are a danger to Earth and we should get rid of every single one!"
Effect: Nuclear warheads are being turned into modern art exhibits
Policy: Policy "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is cancelled

This was the first to second version. I removed a line someone thought was dumb, and fixed a spelling mistake I saw.
Premise: After your armed forces announced that your nation now has the capability to shoot down incoming missiles, and paired it with a video of the device destroying a satellite, Bigtopia stated their worries with the idea that Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies to you.
Validity: High Defense Forces, has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Option 1:"Not that we will attack @@nation@@, we're just worried that you will attack us." says Bigtopian diplomat @@randomname@@, suspiciously holding a gun at you, "Science shows that if you believe your not in danger of WMD' you'll be more likely to use them. So come to your senses and let MAD apply to you"
Effect: The nation is littered with nuclear wastelands after @@leader@@ dismantled anti rocket systems.

Option 2: "We all know that they'res only one reason they want to get rid of our defenses; they want to be able to attack us." says your newest general, while simultaneously planning an attack. "And guess what, they can't if we do first. I say that any nation who doesn't want us to win should lose."
Effect: The nations is always at war do to foreign diplomats not kissing @@leaders@@ feet.

Option 3: "There should be no MAD!" screams activist @@name@@, while strapping themselves to your potted plant "Nukes are a danger to Earth and we should get rid of every single one!"
Effect: Nuclear warheads are being turned into modern art exhibits

Policy: Policy "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is cancelled

[Minskiev]

Has anti-aircraft just not existed in @@NAME@@? Also "suspiciously holding a gun at you"...what?

[Cappedore]

Adding onto Minskiev's reply, please decipher the differences between "there", "their" and "they're".

[South Olpen]

Has anti-aircraft just not existed in @@NAME@@? Also "suspiciously holding a gun at you"...what?

Now, ill admit that it was a bad joke, but it was a joke because that he said he doesn't want to attack you. And, you could say the same about almost any issue. That the problem must've come up with a previous leader, besides AA and Anti rocket systems are different.

[South Olpen]

/bump

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Quite good, except for spelling mistakes.

[South Olpen]

Quite good, except for spelling mistakes.

Yes I know there are mistakes, I just can't find em.

[Ko-oren]

I'd split the premise into two sentences.

It's an interesting premise. The spelling mistakes a bit jarring, though, and the inconsistent capitalisation make it look a bit sloppy. Here's a list of things I found:

Option 1: @@Nation@@ -> @@NAME@@
attack us." -> attack us,"
"suspiciously readying themselves to attack you" -> how are they doing this?
your -> you're
WMD' -> WMD or WMDs
apply to you -> apply to you.

Option 2: in the effect line: the nations -> the nation
do -> due
@@leaders@@ -> @@LEADER@@'s

Option 3: @@name@@ -> @@randomname@@

[South Olpen]

I'd split the premise into two sentences.

It's an interesting premise. The spelling mistakes a bit jarring, though, and the inconsistent capitalisation make it look a bit sloppy. Here's a list of things I found:

Option 1: @@Nation@@ -> @@NAME@@
attack us." -> attack us,"
"suspiciously readying themselves to attack you" -> how are they doing this?
your -> you're
WMD' -> WMD or WMDs
apply to you -> apply to you.

Option 2: in the effect line: the nations -> the nation
do -> due
@@leaders@@ -> @@LEADER@@'s

Option 3: @@name@@ -> @@randomname@@

I believe I fixed them! Thanks for the help!

[South Olpen]

/Bump, I really want to submit so I need suggestions.

[Verdant Haven]

/Bump, I really want to submit so I need suggestions.

A good drafting process usually takes several weeks - I know it's tough, but please have patience and take your time. This topic is an interesting one and I think it can be worthy of an issue, but a rushed submission won't accomplish anything.

Premise: After your armed forces announced that your nation now has the capability to shoot down incoming missiles, and paired it with a video of the device destroying a satellite, Bigtopia stated their worries with the idea that Mutually Assured Destruction no longer applies to you.
Validity: High Defense Forces, has Weapons of Mass Destruction

For the premise, consider if there is a way to to introduce the dilemma without ascribing quite so many specific and consequential actions to the player. Telling them that they publicly announced this system and provided a video of a satellite shoot-down might be a bit much, and opens the door for people to be annoyed and say "Why would I do that?" Instead, see if there is a way for that same information to be released that doesn't involve informing the player how they have handled their diplomacy. If the capability has been developed, and a test has been performed, perhaps a video of that test found its way to your neighbors through espionage? Maybe an officer involved in it was overheard speaking in a hallway by the wrong set of ears. Perhaps somebody else's satellites detected the test and they found out directly. It's ok to inform the player they've taken certain actions sometimes, but try to limit it to ones that don't have massive international diplomatic consequences.

Separately, consider the possible confusion here between ABM and ASAT systems. ASAT can actually be considered A-ABM as much as anything, and since one would have to assume that the nation didn't start off by testing against somebody else's satellite, such a statement also implies that the recipient must have a space program. I'd probably drop mention of satellites and focus more on just saying the system was successfully tested.

Option 1:"Not that we will attack @@NAME@@, we're just worried that you will attack us," says Bigtopian diplomat @@randomname@@, "Science shows that if you believe you're not in danger of WMDs you'll be more likely to use them. So come to your senses and let MAD apply to you."
Effect: The nation is littered with nuclear wastelands after @@leader@@ dismantled anti rocket systems.

The diplomat should probably be clearer about what they're saying you should do. They want you to dismantle the ABM system, right? Simply saying "let MAD apply to you" isn't particularly clear.

I don't think having a random issue option result in being told your entire nation got repeatedly nuked is the right direction here. Scared people building fallout shelters might be logical and humorous, but telling people that they just got turned to glass probably isn't. We have a very deep and complex issue chain already surrounding the question of nuclear warfare... this kinda cuts straight to a result even that chain doesn't have.

Option 2: "We all know that there is only one reason they want to get rid of our defenses; they want to be able to attack us." says your newest general, while simultaneously planning an attack. "And guess what, they can't if we do first. I say that any nation who doesn't want us to win should lose."
Effect: The nation is always at war due to foreign diplomats not kissing @@leaders@@ feet.

Similar to above on both counts. What is the speaker actually asking you to do? The implication seems to be that the general wants to launch a preemptive nuclear attack simply because another nation suggested you not build an ABM system. Would it be more reasonable to up the production of ABM gear, or fund additional nukes in preparation, or something like that? Nuclear war shouldn't be the casual result of a single issue option.

Option 3: "There should be no MAD!" screams activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, while strapping themselves to your potted plant "Nukes are a danger to Earth and we should get rid of every single one!"
Effect: Nuclear warheads are being turned into modern art exhibits
Policy: Policy "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is cancelled

This is fairly straightforward. As a general FYI, you don't need to suggest policy or stat results. Focus on writing a clear issue, so that the policy changes you think it should cause are obvious. If you do that, they'll be added backstage during editing, should the issue make it to the game.

[Dabarastan]

Mutual assured destruction is a theory that can influence military strategy, but it is not some sort of philosophy that an already-nuclear state must opt-in to before it will allegedly apply to them. The theory of MAD posits that two or more nuclear states will withhold a first-strike because of an intuitive fear of retaliatory (and thus mutual) destruction. The theory doesn't suggest that both states need to buy-into the concept for it to still apply. So phrases like "let MAD apply to you" don't make too much sense, as MAD is not really something you "let apply to you" - you either subscribe to the theory or you don't.

[South Olpen]

Mutual assured destruction is a theory that can influence military strategy, but it is not some sort of philosophy that an already-nuclear state must opt-in to before it will allegedly apply to them. The theory of MAD posits that two or more nuclear states will withhold a first-strike because of an intuitive fear of retaliatory (and thus mutual) destruction. The theory doesn't suggest that both states need to buy-into the concept for it to still apply. So phrases like "let MAD apply to you" don't make too much sense, as MAD is not really something you "let apply to you" - you either subscribe to the theory or you don't.

On that count, if no one can attack them (I know that no anti missile system is 100% accurate but some population would think that and its a game where there a millions of countries so ) then it really doesn't. The question is that if they have a populace who thinks they're invincible, then they would possibly attack first. Basically; I understand that no side chooses MAD as a political doctrine, its just a truth of nuclear weapons, but that doesn't much change the issue because if you can just shrug off nukes it doesnt apply to you because there isn't any risk.