NationStates

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:13 pm**

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Kouralia wrote:Because you police by the consent of the populace and thus don't need permanently armed police.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm suggesting that if you're like Britain you don't need a semi-totalitarian regime of gunmen on every corner. This is mere hear-say, but when I first told my dad what degree I wanted to do, he remarked on the difference between British and US cops - he was physically restrained by a friend when pulled over by a cop. He'd tried to get out of the car and explain the situation to the policeman, and the friend had restrained him in his seat as the officer walked up out of (he says) honest-to-god fear he would be shot.

From speaking to ex-cops, the ASP is capable of breaking bones with a correctly executed strike - you don't need a pistol when you're unlikely to get a gunman, and the average response time for a trio of what are basically SWAT is something like 5 minutes across all of the largest city in the nation.

There isn't enough of a reason to hand every police officer in Britain with a deadly weapon for the purposes of killing. Not only that, but it would reduce police numbers in the UK, as (obviously) not every UK cop has to pass marksmanship tests.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:35 pm**

The Nuclear Fist wrote:Thanks to Krazakistan, who has been generously helping me with my ground forces (and who linked me to a page showing the breakdown the Soviet ground forces), I can safely say I'm about done with them.

Mainly because I'm carbon copying said graphs, but still.

I think you may have posted on the wrong thread.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:48 pm**

As a USSR inspired state, what kind of economy should I expect if Gorbachev-esque reforms where pushed through much earlier? I have my population and GDP more or less equal to the US's at the moment, with my GDP per capita a small bit lower. Politically, my nation is similar to what Gorbachev initially wanted. Although the communist party is the only legal party, multiple candidates are allowed to run against each other during elections. Official voting blocs have been formed inside the communist party, which had it's power over the government removed in 1985. My nations economy has followed a mixed model since the 1960's, with most forms of private business legal. The government does regulate the market to a degree and all banks are nationalised, but anything else is fair game (Expect for armaments manufacturing, which is government controlled to protect national security).

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:02 pm**

Vorkova wrote:As a USSR inspired state, what kind of economy should I expect if Gorbachev-esque reforms where pushed through much earlier? I have my population and GDP more or less equal to the US's at the moment, with my GDP per capita a small bit lower. Politically, my nation is similar to what Gorbachev initially wanted. Although the communist party is the only legal party, multiple candidates are allowed to run against each other during elections. Official voting blocs have been formed inside the communist party, which had it's power over the government removed in 1985. My nations economy has followed a mixed model since the 1960's, with most forms of private business legal. The government does regulate the market to a degree and all banks are nationalised, but anything else is fair game (Expect for armaments manufacturing, which is government controlled to protect national security).

To some extent, China is an example. But again, it all depends on a lot of factors, not all of which have been enumerated, including culture itself, resource availability, the availability of export partners, and the like.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:15 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm suggesting that if you're like Britain you don't need a semi-totalitarian regime of gunmen on every corner. This is mere hear-say, but when I first told my dad what degree I wanted to do, he remarked on the difference between British and US cops - he was physically restrained by a friend when pulled over by a cop. He'd tried to get out of the car and explain the situation to the policeman, and the friend had restrained him in his seat as the officer walked up out of (he says) honest-to-god fear he would be shot.

Yeah, you don't sound very impartial :lol:

"a semi-totalitarian regime of gunmen on every corner" - This might surprise you but armed police (in significant numbers) are not exclusive to countries with what you'd call "lax gun laws" , if that's what this is about.

American cops are right to be afraid. There are countless videos on the Internet showing traffic stops turned homicides or attempted homicides, with or without a gun. An individual interacting with a police officer should always pay attention and do what the cop tells him to do (in reasonable limits of course) or behave according to commonly known norms for the safety of them both.

Regardless of this, your dad's friend was knowingly or unknowingly exaggerating. No one will shoot you for exiting your vehicle, you'll simply be asked to step back inside. Between you and me, as far as officer safety is concerned, this isn't really such a safe procedure as a cop could easily be shot (or even stabbed) when approaching the crook's window. IMO best practice would be to ask the driver to exit the vehicle through the cop car's PA system. This way his hands are always visible and in case SHTF the officer can effectively return fire.

From speaking to ex-cops, the ASP is capable of breaking bones with a correctly executed strike - you don't need a pistol when you're unlikely to get a gunman, and the average response time for a trio of what are basically SWAT is something like 5 minutes across all of the largest city in the nation.

It's common sense that something like a telescopic baton is capable of breaking bone. Hell, I managed to fracture (crack) my kneecap (stable fracture) simply by falling onto it (granted, I only fell on one knee or fell on that knee first, can't remember). I can't imagine there's a whole lot of theory behind a "correctly executed strike" apart from hitting as hard as you can on the most exposed (little muscle or fat) and thinnest part of a bone, assuming you want to break it. But really, unless you're preventing death or serious injury to yourself or others I don't think intentionally breaking someone's bones is justifiable. Also, have fun trying to average 5 minutes in actual cities.

There isn't enough of a reason to hand every police officer in Britain with a deadly weapon for the purposes of killing. Not only that, but it would reduce police numbers in the UK, as (obviously) not every UK cop has to pass marksmanship tests.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Connagh wrote:
Police here (Ireland) tend to get on fairly well without any firearms or tasers. The last report I seen, which was quite a while ago, stated there was on average around two attacks per day on gardaí (police) officers. They have an option to wear stab proof vests, which most do.

Also, I'm sure some extra training in self defence and effective use of the baton/hand to hand would cancel most of the need for a taser. How would the 21 ft rule apply here? It only proves that a holstered gun or taser would be useless at any distance less than 20 feet.

BTW, 21 ft is approx. 6.5m for reference.

It doesn't mean a gun or taser is useless at 21 ft, it means that at 21 ft you could say that you're arguably "leveling the playing field" for guns vs melee weapons, so to speak. Also, the rule assumes that the attacker is already wielding a melee weapon whereas the police officer does not have his ranged weapon (e.g. pistol, taser) unholstered & isn't aiming down sights. Another thing: I don't know if the rule assumes that the attacker starts running to the cop at the distance of 21 ft or if he's in the process of running when he reaches 21 ft. The latter will be undoubtedly quicker. This is obviously a subtle difference, but nonetheless one to be taken into account.

If a police officer has his weapon ready to fire before the attacker enters the 21 ft zone, it's IMO (highly) unlikely the attacker will ever reach him.

I was trying to emphasize how quickly even an average attacker wielding a blunt or bladed weapon can go for, say, an officer's head or throat (or not necessarily those body parts, but you get what I'm talking about) . The point behind having a ranged weapon is that you can at least have the chance of neutralizing said target before it gets within 21 ft . Or, if the attacker has a gun, at least stand a chance unless you're within 21 ft of him (but even then, you can't count on that) . Or, to have better chances against multiple attackers (in the case of guns as this doesn't apply to tasers that much because AFAIK the Taser X3 is the highest capacity [as in number of "shots"] taser and it only has 3 cartridges, and even then follow up shots will be awkward and not as quick because of how tasers work) .

As you can see, ranged weapons (gun, taser, etc.) have multiple advantages even when there aren't a lot of gun-armed crooks around (but even then, you never know) which simply cannot be matched by batons or other types of melee weapons. So it's good to have that capability on hand as it's a question of when, not if, you will need it assuming you're a career cop. Even if your country has strict gun/weapon control.

You could argue that pepper spray is a (mildly) ranged weapon, but still, it doesn't compare.

Couple quality training with well-thought out guidelines (which among others, means to worry for the safety of the officer and the public before worrying about the safety of the one being targeted, btw) and harsh penalties for abusive/reckless cops, and you should have nothing to worry about, but rather to the contrary, worry less as you know your officers and population are that little bit safer.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:29 pm**

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Kouralia wrote:I'm suggesting that if you're like Britain you don't need a semi-totalitarian regime of gunmen on every corner. This is mere hear-say, but when I first told my dad what degree I wanted to do, he remarked on the difference between British and US cops - he was physically restrained by a friend when pulled over by a cop. He'd tried to get out of the car and explain the situation to the policeman, and the friend had restrained him in his seat as the officer walked up out of (he says) honest-to-god fear he would be shot.

Yeah, you don't sound very impartial "a semi-totalitarian regime of gunmen on every corner" - This might surprise you but armed police (in significant numbers) are not exclusive to countries with what you'd call "lax gun laws" , if that's what this is about.

No... because, you know, the gunmen are kinda the police, because it's the 'regime'.

American cops are right to be afraid.

I wonder why?

There are countless videos on the Internet showing traffic stops turned homicides or attempted homicides, with or without a gun. An individual interacting with a police officer should always pay attention and do what the cop tells him to do (in reasonable limits of course) or behave according to commonly known norms for the safety of them both.

No shit, but it didn't reach that point.

Regardless of this, your dad's friend was knowingly or unknowingly exaggerating. No one will shoot you for exiting your vehicle, you'll simply be asked to step back inside. Between you and me, as far as officer safety is concerned, this isn't really such a safe procedure as a cop could easily be shot (or even stabbed) when approaching the crook's window. IMO best practice would be to ask the driver to exit the vehicle through the cop car's PA system. This way his hands are always visible and in case SHTF the officer can effectively return fire.

How does he return fire while his weapon is holstered in an awkward position and he is constrained by the vehicle?

From speaking to ex-cops, the ASP is capable of breaking bones with a correctly executed strike - you don't need a pistol when you're unlikely to get a gunman, and the average response time for a trio of what are basically SWAT is something like 5 minutes across all of the largest city in the nation.

It's common sense that something like a telescopic baton is capable of breaking bone. Hell, I managed to fracture (crack) my kneecap (stable fracture) simply by falling onto it (granted, I only fell on one knee or fell on that knee first, can't remember). I can't imagine there's a whole lot of theory behind a "correctly executed strike" apart from hitting as hard as you can on the most exposed (little muscle or fat) and thinnest part of a bone, assuming you want to break it. But really, unless you're preventing death or serious injury to yourself or others I don't think intentionally breaking someone's bones is justifiable.

ngl, you're probably trying to neutralise the threat as quickly as possible. Breaking a knife-wielding mad-man's arm is probably one of the best ways of doing this.

Also, have fun trying to average 5 minutes in actual cities.

Have you heard of London? It's fucking big. It's a fucking city. It has streets and traffic and buildings in it: in fact, London is pretty god-damned city-like a far as cities go. The point you attempt to bring forth is therefore a non-entity.

There isn't enough of a reason to hand every police officer in Britain with a deadly weapon for the purposes of killing. Not only that, but it would reduce police numbers in the UK, as (obviously) not every UK cop has to pass marksmanship tests.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:*snip

If the Officer has before the man reaches the 21ft zone notice, chances are they went into the situation knowing there was an edged weapon in the equation, or there was some axe wielding cider drinker screaming and running across the (very wet) somerset levels towards them. If not, then the pistol will do fuck-all, and the officer shouldn't be reaching for it.

For someone who seems continualyl convinced of how police are totalitarian and are oppressive or being bad, you seem to want the tyramny!levels to rise considerably in our little slice of 'can trust and speak to the more approachable police without having to fear them'.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:53 pm**

Kouralia wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

How does he return fire while his weapon is holstered in an awkward position and he is constrained by the vehicle?

By also exiting his vehicle?

ngl, you're probably trying to neutralise the threat as quickly as possible. Breaking a knife-wielding mad-man's arm is probably one of the best ways of doing this.

Yeah, if you've got a knife-wielding guy close enough to be able to use your baton on him then that certainly falls under "preventing death or serious injury" .

Have you heard of London? It's fucking big. It's a fucking city. It has streets and traffic and buildings in it: in fact, London is pretty god-damned city-like a far as cities go. The point you attempt to bring forth is therefore a non-entity.

I don't know what you're going on about here. I wasn't mocking London or Brit cities in general, I was emphasizing traffic. Especially with such a not-so-common/non-regular unit. Unless you have a whole lot of them and have a lot of substations or they're all scattered around town as opposed to responding from a central HQ or station. Or if you have peculiarly barren cities.

If the Officer has before the man reaches the 21ft zone notice, chances are they went into the situation knowing there was an edged weapon in the equation, or there was some axe wielding cider drinker screaming and running across the (very wet) somerset levels towards them. If not, then the pistol will do fuck-all, and the officer shouldn't be reaching for it.

Again, I can't quite make out what you're going about here. Although I'm getting the impression you're being deliberately dense. Do ranged weapons hold a certain amount of advantages unique to them , even against targets not armed with guns, yes or no?

For someone who seems continualyl convinced of how police are totalitarian and are oppressive or being bad, you seem to want the tyramny!levels to rise considerably in our little slice of 'can trust and speak to the more approachable police without having to fear them'.

I don't know what makes you believe this. It doesn't have anything to do with tyranny. As long as police serve the people and uphold the law through their actions, they should be given as much power as it is necessary to ensure their safety and that of the general population. I don't oppose power or force, I oppose incorrectly and unjustifiably using them.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:09 pm**

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Vorkova wrote:As a USSR inspired state, what kind of economy should I expect if Gorbachev-esque reforms where pushed through much earlier? I have my population and GDP more or less equal to the US's at the moment, with my GDP per capita a small bit lower. Politically, my nation is similar to what Gorbachev initially wanted. Although the communist party is the only legal party, multiple candidates are allowed to run against each other during elections. Official voting blocs have been formed inside the communist party, which had it's power over the government removed in 1985. My nations economy has followed a mixed model since the 1960's, with most forms of private business legal. The government does regulate the market to a degree and all banks are nationalised, but anything else is fair game (Expect for armaments manufacturing, which is government controlled to protect national security).

To some extent, China is an example. But again, it all depends on a lot of factors, not all of which have been enumerated, including culture itself, resource availability, the availability of export partners, and the like.

Resources are available in large quantities like in Russia. I should be able to get some export partners when I start RPing.

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:47 am**

Best healthcare model for a nation?

Posted: **Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:22 pm**

Alfegos wrote:Best healthcare model for a nation?

Basic stuff such as emergency care and what not to be paid for through mandatory taxation (people who cannot afford it are still covered) ; additional coverage is optional and can be sourced from either the public or private sector.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:12 pm**

Regular Police Uniform and Equipment

Uniform:

Equipment:

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:48 pm**

Would it make sense to have most civilian cars powered by steam? Like, with water boilers or some such? Or maybe wood burners? My justification is that petrol is rationed so frequently and personal civilian use ration cards get so little.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:50 pm**

The Nuclear Fist wrote:Would it make sense to have most civilian cars powered by steam? Like, with water boilers or some such? Or maybe wood burners? My justification is that petrol is rationed so frequently and personal civilian use ration cards get so little.

y u no ethanol

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:51 pm**

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
The Nuclear Fist wrote:Would it make sense to have most civilian cars powered by steam? Like, with water boilers or some such? Or maybe wood burners? My justification is that petrol is rationed so frequently and personal civilian use ration cards get so little.

y u no ethanol

*shrugs*

I don't know, I guess I just like the idea of everyone running around with steam powered cars and tossing logs into little furnaces to keep moving.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:59 pm**

The Nuclear Fist wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
y u no ethanol

*shrugs*

I don't know, I guess I just like the idea of everyone running around with steam powered cars and tossing logs into little furnaces to keep moving.

sounds pretty cool actually. but not as cool as everyone driving around drunk

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:08 pm**

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:sounds pretty cool actually. but not as cool as everyone driving around drunk

Drunk driving is a highly punishable offense that can land you in a rehabilitation camp. And do you know what happens to folks into rehabilitation camps during or near war time?

They get press ganged into an 'honourable service' in a punishment unit or get to work in factories for 12 hour shifts.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:25 pm**

I suppose computerized systems mitigate this to a large extent but I'm not comfortable enough with the level of idiot resistance of steam engines to want them in private cars.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:28 pm**

The Nuclear Fist wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:sounds pretty cool actually. but not as cool as everyone driving around drunk

Drunk driving is a highly punishable offense that can land you in a rehabilitation camp. And do you know what happens to folks into rehabilitation camps during or near war time?

They get press ganged into an 'honourable service' in a punishment unit or get to work in factories for 12 hour shifts.

Have you ever had to work 12 hour shifts in a factory?

That's not scary, just boring.

If you do it for three days a week only...

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:49 pm**

Gallia- wrote:Have you ever had to work 12 hour shifts in a factory?

That's not scary, just boring.

If you do it for three days a week only...

It's not meant to be scary.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:53 pm**

The Nuclear Fist wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Have you ever had to work 12 hour shifts in a factory?

That's not scary, just boring.

If you do it for three days a week only...

It's not meant to be scary.

Presumably it's meant to be some form of deterrent.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:59 pm**

Gallia- wrote:Presumably it's meant to be some form of deterrent.

Being sent to rehabilitation camp is supposed to be a deterrent, prisoners being press ganged into factory work less so.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:07 pm**

The Nuclear Fist wrote:Would it make sense to have most civilian cars powered by steam? Like, with water boilers or some such? Or maybe wood burners? My justification is that petrol is rationed so frequently and personal civilian use ration cards get so little.

They use woodburners for trucks in North Korea. But that's because the vehicles are large enough to have not only the boilers on board but also enough fuel. Cars I don't think would work.

Natural gas would be a viable alternative assuming your nation has enough to keep the fleet fueled.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:00 pm**

Costa Fierro wrote:
The Nuclear Fist wrote:Would it make sense to have most civilian cars powered by steam? Like, with water boilers or some such? Or maybe wood burners? My justification is that petrol is rationed so frequently and personal civilian use ration cards get so little.

They use woodburners for trucks in North Korea. But that's because the vehicles are large enough to have not only the boilers on board but also enough fuel. Cars I don't think would work.

Maybe that's because North Korea is a pre-tertiary, industrial economy stuck in the mid 1930s?

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:15 pm**

Gallia- wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
They use woodburners for trucks in North Korea. But that's because the vehicles are large enough to have not only the boilers on board but also enough fuel. Cars I don't think would work.

Maybe that's because North Korea is a pre-tertiary, industrial economy stuck in the mid 1930s?

No, it's because they don't have enough petrol imported per year. The majority of it goes to Pyongyang.

Posted: **Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:53 pm**

Costa Fierro wrote:
Gallia- wrote:
Maybe that's because North Korea is a pre-tertiary, industrial economy stuck in the mid 1930s?

No, it's because they don't have enough petrol imported per year. The majority of it goes to Pyongyang.

Hey, look, I'm right!

NationStates

Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4