Argument Thread OOC Modern Tech Only

[Allemande]

In the same spirit as we created an "argument" thread for FT, I'm going to create one for MT.

To make sure we use this thread properly, I'll quote Balrogga from the FT thread, hoping we follow the same principles here (as relevant to the MT milieu):

I made this Thread to contain arguments about ship size, nation size, and other FT arguments that frequently pop up in threads, disrupting the RP.

Anyone who wants to use this to move a hyjack out of their thread are welcome and invited to do just that. Just remember, as the OP, I have the right to tell someone abusive to move on because these debates get heated at times (the JOLT Thread did) and I would rather not bring in Moderation if we can work things out ourselves. No trolling or flaming allowed.

Now, let us get onto business.

---

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_m ... MD_program

Trust me, the US has these things, and we're even bigger than they are, so therefore, should be more advanced.

Clamparapa, did you actually read the article you linked to, and the articles it cited?

In the 1990s and early 21st century, the stated mission of NMD has changed to the more modest goal of preventing the United States from being subject to nuclear blackmail or nuclear terrorism by a so-called rogue state. The feasibility of this more limited goal remains somewhat controversial. Under President Clinton some testing continued, but the project received little funding despite Clinton's supportive remarks on 5 September 2000 that "such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving peace" (emphasis mine - Allemande).

IOW, the goal is to deal with a very limited nuclear attack or an unauthorized launch (a so-called "NUCFLASH"), not a full-scale attack by a well-armed nuclear power. Indeed, note the next paragraph:

The current NMD system consists primarily of ground based interceptor missiles and radar in Alaska which would intercept incoming warheads in space. A limited number of interceptor missiles (about 10) are operational as of 2006. These would possibly be later augmented by mid-course SM-4 interceptors fired from Navy ships and by boost-phase interception by the Boeing YAL-1 (emphasis mine - Allemande).

Ten ABMs? This isn't an operational program - it's a pilot, nothing more.

Further down in the article, we see a list of technical criticisms of its viability that - at the very least - should completely shoot down the idea that this is anything like a functional system built around weapons that actually work.

As for the specific systems Birkaine says he's deployed:

YAL-1/A-60 - Per the Wikipedia article:

The ABL was designed for use against tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). These have a shorter range and fly more slowly than ICBMs. The MDA has recently suggested the ABL might be used against ICBMs during their boost phase. This could require much longer flights to get in position, and might not be possible without flying over hostile territory. Liquid-fueled ICBMs, which have thinner skins, and remain in boost phase longer than TBMs, might be easier to destroy.

If the ABL achieves its design goals, it could destroy liquid-fueled ICBMs up to 600 km away. Tougher solid-fueled ICBM destruction range would likely be limited to 300 km, too short to be useful in many scenarios, according to a 2003 report by the American Physical Society on National Missile Defense (emphasis mine - Allemande).

Well, I'm sure that the Queendom will have no problem whatsoever with allowing Birkaine's boost phase interceptors to fly across its airspace, shooting down its ICBMs. And why on Earth would the Queendom have transitioned from less effective liquid-fueled ICBM's to solid-fueled ones, right?

Oh, but it gets better:

The ABL uses chemical fuel similar to rocket propellant to generate the high laser power. Current plans call for each 747 to carry enough laser fuel for about 20 shots, or perhaps as many as 40 low-power shots against fragile TBMs. The ABL aircraft must land to refuel the laser. Preliminary operational plans call for the ABL to be escorted by fighters and possibly electronic warfare aircraft. The ABL aircraft would likely orbit near potential launch sites for long periods, flying a figure-eight pattern that allows the aircraft to keep the laser aimed toward the missiles. The aircraft can be refueled in flight, enabling it to stay aloft for long periods (emphasis mine - Allemande).

40 shots per plane at best? So how many of these things will Birkaine have loitering around the skies, anyway? Enough to deal with, say, a 2,000-missile launch? Remember that they can't all be deployed at once, because Birkaine doesn't know when the attack is going to occur. The standard rule used to determine station-keeping numbers is that, for every vehicle on station, there must be two others in service. That's 150 aircraft to deal with a 2,000 missile launch - assuming everything is deployed over (not near) the Gynocracy and no shots miss.

As for operational costs:

In an 6 April 2009 press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is recommending the cancellation of the planned second ABL aircraft and that the program return to a Research and Development effort. "The ABL program has significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role is highly questionable," Gates said in making the recommendation (emphasis mine - Allemande).

GBI - I won't quote the article; read it and you'll see that this is a system still in testing - and way over budget.

From the NMD article, notice that only 10 such missiles had been deployed by 2006; the same article claims that it would take over 1,600 GBI to deal with a nuclear attack from such nuclear midgets as North Korea or Iran. Gee, I wonder how many would be needed to stop, say, a full nuclear strike by Russia? A quarter million? More?

Orbital Low-Energy Laser - Who has these, Birkaine? This was an idea from SDI, back in the 1980's, that never flew.

Orbital Nukes - And they're just going to happen to be in the right place at the right time? Do you understand orbital mechanics, Birkaine? You'd have to have hundreds in place just to have a few where you want them, when you want them there. And won't the fratricidal effects of those weapons pretty much wipe out all your other assets?!?

Brilliant Pebbles - Never deployed; you can't say this technology exists today, because it doesn't. Beyond that, you've got the same problem here as with orbital nuclear weapons: The number of "pebbles" you need to deploy is vast, because orbital mechanics will guarantee that most of them are out of position (e.g., on the other side of the world) when the enemy attack comes.

They're a great ASAT system, mind you - but for missile defense, they're far too expensive and far too limited to be useful.

HELLADS - I won't go past the first paragraph:

The High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS), is a defensive weapon system under development that will use a powerful (150kW) laser to shoot down missiles, rockets, and artillery shells. The initial system will be demonstrated from a static ground based installation, but in order to eventually be integrated on an aircraft, design requirements are maximum weight of 750 kg (1,650 lb) and maximum envelope of 2 cubic meters (70.6 cubic feet) (emphasis mine - Allemande).

"Under development" means its not available today.

S-400 - Ah, terminal ABM's. The first systems ever developed, and the least effective:

According to Russian sources, the S-400 is capable of detecting and engaging targets out to a range of 400 km (250 miles), including aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, including those with a range of 3,500 km and a speed of 4.5 km/s (emphasis mine - Allemande).

Those are TBMs and maybe some IRBMs, not ICBMs. ICBMs come in at much faster velocities, and - with MARVed buses and countermeasures - can easily overwhelm an ABM system.

Nuclear SAMs - These are no different than ABMs - beyond being even less effective, mind you. In fact, part of America's 1970's-vintage Safeguard ABM system employed the Spartan missile, which began life as the Nike Zeus, successor to the widely deployed Nike Hercules.

Kinetic Bullets - What, are you saying that you have railgun defenses?!? I direct your attention to the Wikipedia article on railguns:

Rail and insulator wear problems still need to be solved before railguns can start to replace conventional weapons.

The main problem the Navy has had with implementing a railgun cannon system is that the guns wear out due to the immense heat produced by firing.

IOW, they're not available as field weapons yet.

On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it shot a shell at 2,520 m/s with an energy of 10.64 MJ. Its expected performance is over 5.8 km/s muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 250 nautical miles (463 km) away while shooting at 10 shots per minute. It is expected to be ready during the period 2020 to 2025 (emphasis mine - Allemande).

As I said, not yet ready for prime time.

Which pretty much means that your entire practical NMD approach, once we scratch everything that is still in development, is ABM point defence.

Let me direct your attention to the Wikipedia article on ABMs, and - in particular - to the section on defence against MIRVs:

ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.

Conditions changed dramatically with the introduction of Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. The defense would still require a rocket for every warhead, as they would be re-entering over a wide space and could not be attacked by several warheads from a single antimissile rocket. Suddenly the defense was more expensive than offense; it was much less expensive to add more warheads, or even decoys, than it was to build the interceptor needed to shoot them down (emphasis mine - Allemande).

In the meantime ta public debate over the merit of ABMs began. Even before the MIRV problem made ABM effectiveness non-workable during the late 1960s, some technical difficulties had already made an ABM system questionable for a large sophisticated attack. One problem was the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that would give little warning to the defense. Another problem was high altitude EMP (whether from offensive or defensive nuclear warheads) which could degrade defensive radar systems (emphasis mine - Allemande).

IOW, setting off nuclear weapons over your own country will effectively blind your air defence radar systems. This is a great offensive tactic and a problem the defence can not escape (and one I alluded to in my IC post, BTW).

Trust me, the US has these things, and we're even bigger than they are, so therefore, should be more advanced.

As seen above, the U.S. really doesn't have these things; it's been playing with them for over 40 years and still not come up with a militarily effective system that it can afford.

Now, being bigger, your nation may be able to afford what the U.S. could not (although that wouldn't make such boondoggles any better from a cost-effectiveness P.O.V.); what you can not say is that you're more advanced than the U.S., because that violates the whole premise of MT (IOW, that MT means we fight with what exists today, not what will exist tomorrow).

OOC: COUNTER POINT! If you're agreeing that MT is 2015-2020 and you're using CT, everyone here can use up to MT equipment, since the OP says so (it's in the title).

Sorry, but the OP is invading another country. The defender (i.e., the Gynocracy) gets to decide what weapons get used, not the invader. Otherwise, I'll invade Belkaine and Ralkovia both with one of my FT puppets (the Kafers) and end the whole matter right here and now.

So - again - I'll assert that effective NMD is a PMT technology, not an MT one. No present-day nation - including the United States - has the capacity to deal with anything more extensive than a theater-level threat (e.g., Iraq's use of TBM's during Desert Storm) or a very immature ICBM program (e.g., North Korea's current program). Stopping a major counter-force or counter-property strike by a large nuclear power is simply out of the question.

---

EDIT: In my next post, I'll discuss why it is so very important that MAD be a part of MT wars, even while it almost certainly will not be part of PMT conflicts.

[Allemande]

MAD has been a crucial part of the military-political matrix of the late 20th Century; while there are indications that it may fail in the early 21st, that is no reason to discard it right now in anticipation of that event. Indeed, if a major scientific breakthrough were to make effective NMD feasible (in not a reality), it would probably be a good idea for the NS community to invent a new period, which I will tentatively call CWT (Cold War Tech) in which to capture this period and its diplomatic, political, and military intricacies.

The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you

And you probably thought that last quote was original, didn't you?

Kruschchev saw the cold war as a race between two athletes, one in which each would be tested against the other in every possible way - militarily, diplomatically, economically, scientifically, socially, and culturally. In this context, what happened in Cuba or Berlin was no more or less important than what happened in space or on the stage at the Bolshoi; in the Premier's view, Communism would triumph over Capitalism because it would outperform its rival in every possible way.

He was right, of course - save in one minor detail. He backed the wrong horse.

It turned out that, as important as Cuba, Berlin, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were, Gemini and Apollo meant more than Sputnik and Vostok, and Shea Stadium and the Ed Sullivan Show proved more important than the Bolshoi. Masaru Ibuka and Gordon Moore may have done more to win the Cold War than any number of Afghan mujaheddin, and the quiet opposition of Russia's dissidents certain proved more lethal to the Soviet Union than any number of bombs set off by the Weathermen. There has never, as far as I know, been a conflict between two power blocs that was waged on so many levels and won (or lost) in so many ways.

Part of what made this possible - indeed, inevitable - was the effect that nuclear weapons had on the strategic matrix. Once both the United States and the Soviet Union had sufficient nuclear force to wipe each other off the face of the planet, direct action became impossible; once direct action became impossible, indirect methods were all that remained.

This was the great paradox of nuclear weapons, and it remains their great paradox today. The most powerful offensive ordnance in history confers absolutely no offensive advantage to its owner on the strategic level. Rather, the one and only reason for having nuclear weapons is to provide oneself with an absolutely unshakable defence.

Consider two nations facing one another with nuclear weapons, and ask yourself this: When would either be willing to risk their use? Barring the highly unlikely possibility of one pulling off a successful counterforce strike on the other - the strategic equivalent of drawing to an inside straight - each is confronted with the reality that to use such weaponry is death.

Thus, under ordinary circumstances, neither will.

But what about extraordinary circumstances?

Consider the nation that faces certain defeat, and is utterly convinced that defeat would be as bad - or worse - than death. Suddenly, the prospect of a nuclear strike - a suicide pact with one's mortal enemy - becomes not only thinkable, but downright likely.

Thus, the defensive value of nuclear weapons: They provide nations with what a broker might call a "stop loss" option. A loser, faced with the prospect of being overrun and subjugated, can draw a "line in the sand" that its enemies absolutely must respect.

The effect of this on the strategic matrix is profound. It means that nations can only be pushed so far, that wars - however successfully they may prove should fortune turn one's way - must be limited in scope. We dare not push our enemies to the point where defeat becomes unpalatable; we must always leave them a graceful way out, a chance to achieve "peace with honor" (irony intended).

Now, I can hear many of you objecting mightily to this. Why must it be this way? What's the fun of that? The answer is that it really depends entirely on how you see the game being played. If you want the chance to fight and win total wars, then perhaps MT (or, should the suggested redefinition of modern milieus be accepted, CWT) is not for you. Maybe PMT (Post-Modern Tech) or GWT (Great War Tech [World Wars I & II, as well as the Interwar Era) is where you ought to be playing.

IOW, there's a place and a time for everything, including different play styles. Rather than race to get rid of deterrence in MT, perhaps we should be embracing it instead, so as to be able to enjoy a different kind of conflict, one that more closely resembles a chess game than a sword fight.

[Birkaine]

Orbital Laser never flew, is still plausible. There's nothing PMT about a laser strapped to a nuclear reactor.

HELLADS uses existing tech. MT.

Also, isn't it a tad obvious that I would have most of the ABM assets in the ready when attacking a nuclear-capable nation?

Not railgun defense, but scramjet shells.

Brilliant pebbles (what makes them PMT? Just the fact they were never deployed?) and orbital nukes can still engage the ICBMs as they take off, not in midcourse or terminal. Seeing Gynocracy doesn't mind me having the equivalent of entire NASA above her orbit, doesn't .

S-400: Both the 96L6E radar and the 9M96 missile have been built already and are well within today's tech capabilities.

I'll invade Belkaine and Ralkovia both with one of my FT puppets (the Kafers)

You'd have to attack our FT versions...

[Rosdivan]

Birkaine, Brilliant Pebbles, like all orbital systems, suffers from a major issue with absentee ratio. If memory serves, it's something like a 60:1 ratio of systems in orbit to systems in position to intercept an ICBM. Lasers are extremely large assets with a limited ability to attack. Prime ASAT bait. They also really don't work effectively once the missile has finished boosting and that can, theoretically, be done within atmosphere.

Scramjet shells are PMT. Scramjets are extraordinarily hard to make work, there's only been one or two programs with positive net thrust demonstrated in flight to my knowledge. Miniaturization and mass production into a shell is a long, long way off.

[Birkaine]

Well, seeing people pass off ETC guns and particle beam guns as MT, I figured the AAFB scramjet shells would also be in the radius.

To be sincere, I always ask permission when using the more outlandish systems, which I didn't do now. Looking at it I'm still not a PMT nation but probably an MT +1 state. I guess I declared war on a nation believing it had the same technology level as mine. I guess I'll have to retcon.

[The Zoogie People]

I think some liberties can be taken with modern tech. Not too many, mind you, but a decent amount of imagination to make things more interesting. MT in NS has mostly been generally a "little in the future" and of course it's very debatable what that actually entails. IMO, some wild technology is not out of the question at all...think of all the fiction set in or around current day, in books or in movies, that has some wacky planes or systems that we obviously don't have the funding or desire to go after in the real world. It adds some flavor, and more importantly, it's cool. I think it's good for RP.

This makes it hard to draw the line, but for me, "But it doesn't exist right now, it hasn't been funded" is a weak argument. There's something inherently unreal about NS, after all.

MT, in my mind, exists in that stretch of imagination between what we've got and before mechas, robots, and mach 10 airliners. I like to go a little conservative here, but to each his own.

[Otagia]

Well, seeing people pass off ETC guns and particle beam guns as MT, I figured the AAFB scramjet shells would also be in the radius.

Someone's trying to pass weaponized particle beams off as MT? ETC guns are at least reasonable, with working prototypes in production, but particle beams?

[Allemande]

Brilliant pebbles (what makes them PMT? Just the fact they were never deployed?)...

The fact that they were never developed. That means that were really don't know if the concept would have worked with contemporary technology, or if the original feasibility assessment (as with all other things SDI-ish) was overly optimistic.

From my perspective, they're analogous to gamma-ray detonation lasers: These were also proposed as part of SDI, but never developed. Does that make them MT, too?

... and orbital nukes can still engage the ICBMs as they take off, not in midcourse or terminal.

Sorry, both orbital nukes and Brilliant Pebbles are mid-course systems, not boost phase. You might be able to make a case for using orbital nukes being used in the late boost phase (if they're basically part of a FOBS system being used to lay down nuclear "pinning" fire), but there is absolutely no way Brilliant Pebbles can enter the atmosphere: They can't survive reentry.

Seeing Gynocracy doesn't mind me having the equivalent of entire NASA above her orbit, doesn't .

Please don't tell me you so utterly lack an understanding of orbital mechanics as to make that statement. Your assets aren't in orbit over Gynocracy; they're in orbit over the entire world, or they're not in orbit at all (unless you're enough of a fool to station them in GEO, in which case they'll be too far away from the atmosphere to be any use at all).

Objects in orbit move. People here in NS think that satellites are like aircraft; that they "fly" over enemy territory, loitering, circling, hanging, and doing other equally improbable things. They don't. They orbit. Read a book on orbital mechanics if you're intent on using space-based weaponry, if only just to keep from embarrassing yourself.

Your assets are scattered all over LEO, some over your country, some over the Gynocracy, some over my country, and some elsewhere. Every few minutes an asset moves into place and another glides out of position, all in accordance with the cosmic clockwork of spaceflight; after all, in LEO, the rule is "Around the World in 90 Minutes". As for them "letting you hang out overhead", most of us don't shoot down each other's satellites just because space is like international waters and because blowing satellites away is rude. Don't assume that the Gynocracy will just leave your assets in place if the balloon goes up, because they most certainly won't.

S-400: Both the 96L6E radar and the 9M96 missile have been built already and are well within today's tech capabilities.

How many are operational, Birkaine? Why ... none. Experimental systems and prototypes under development don't count.

I'll invade Belkaine and Ralkovia both with one of my FT puppets (the Kafers)

You'd have to attack our FT versions...

And if you didn't have FT versions of your countries, or didn't wish to use them? Don't ignore the point: You can not force the Gynocracy to play in an environment where your NDM systems - systems that are not yet operational IRL - can be used to take away her ability to draw that line in the sand and say: "Fascist? No thanks. I'll die first ... and so will you."

If you don't like the realities of contemporary war, stick to the World Wars or PMT. In contemporary war, nuclear nations don't get conquered.

[Clamparapa]

Ever heard of THEL? The Israelites used them to shoot down missiles, and even an artillery shell. Plus I would like to reiterate Zoogie's comments:

I think some liberties can be taken with modern tech. Not too many, mind you, but a decent amount of imagination to make things more interesting. MT in NS has mostly been generally a "little in the future" and of course it's very debatable what that actually entails. IMO, some wild technology is not out of the question at all...think of all the fiction set in or around current day, in books or in movies, that has some wacky planes or systems that we obviously don't have the funding or desire to go after in the real world. It adds some flavor, and more importantly, it's cool. I think it's good for RP.

This makes it hard to draw the line, but for me, "But it doesn't exist right now, it hasn't been funded" is a weak argument. There's something inherently unreal about NS, after all.

MT, in my mind, exists in that stretch of imagination between what we've got and before mechas, robots, and mach 10 airliners. I like to go a little conservative here, but to each his own.

This isn't real life. We aren't the US. We are different nations. MT simply means we need to use weapons "that are available or will become readily available within the next 5-10 years." At least that was the explanation I was fed

[Allemande]

MT in NS has mostly been generally a "little in the future" and of course it's very debatable what that actually entails. IMO, some wild technology is not out of the question at all...think of all the fiction set in or around current day, in books or in movies, that has some wacky planes or systems that we obviously don't have the funding or desire to go after in the real world. It adds some flavor, and more importantly, it's cool. I think it's good for RP.

This makes it hard to draw the line, but for me, "But it doesn't exist right now, it hasn't been funded" is a weak argument. There's something inherently unreal about NS, after all.

MT, in my mind, exists in that stretch of imagination between what we've got and before mechas, robots, and mach 10 airliners. I like to go a little conservative here, but to each his own.

Stretching things a little? Yes, that's acceptable. But - for a whole host of reasons that I think I've summarized quite well in my second post - I think that NDM cannot be.

Let me come back to this point: While I understand that a lot of people absolutely hate the logic of strategic deterrence and are determined to assert that their MT nation isn't subject to it, I think we need to define a milieu in which it is the order of the day ("CWT" or whatever).

Why? Because NS is NS: A world ruled by fascist bastards who destroy countries at the drop of a hat, and communists who would do the same if the fascists weren't even tougher than they are. Unless you want to be one of either gang, survival can be a grim proposition. Nuclear deterrence represents one of the few ways that a nation that isn't one of the big ideological blocs of mass murderers can hope to limit the downside of war.

I like the clean separation of saying "All that stuff you read about in Popular Mechanics? That's PMT. If it's in Jane's or Brassey's, it's MT. And that's that." Otherwise it just gets too muddy, and the world gets too fierce for survival.

EDIT: Instead of calling it "GWT" (Great War Tech), "WWT" (World War Tech) would probably be better. For too many people, the "Great War" was WW I. "World War Tech" suggests that it belongs in either conflict.

[Allemande]

Finally, when the orbit would be wiped clean of Gynocracy space-based, the Icon-class satellites would be rerouted, to attack Gynocratic ICBM silos. After all, they were not the only ones to know the location of enemy silos.

Oh, please. Don't tell me those are MT, too?!?

I call BS.

EDIT: If there's no greater proof of my assertion that MT means "It exists and is operational today," then I have no idea what that proof could possibly be. Otherwise, none of us will ever have any idea of what the ground rules are.

[Clamparapa]

I'm in no alliance and I've faired quite well. (Forget the fact that I have almost 10 bil people) Why don't we call it "TTWHNANL" : The Tech We Have Now And No Later.

We should go in terms of ages, not these vague techs.

Ex. Modern Age was end of WWII up to the end of the Cold War, while we are currently in the Information Age. After that we can make up our own ages and set certain years that these happen.

[The Parthians]

Hmm. An interesting discussion, nonetheless, one which deserves a bit of a stab.

Certainly, a particularly effective anti-ICBM defensive system is pretty much a long way off, but there's other pieces of not quite as exotic technology which are pretty widely accepted as MT by most people on NS, mostly electro-thermal cannons and terminal diving scramjet weapons.

Yes, while they aren't deployed, the technology to make them certainly exists, and with countries like myself and others with multitrillion dollar defense budgets, it's not unreasonable to assume bigger, more economically powerful nations on NS can bankroll projects like that to a point where even advanced industrial nations like the US would find impossible to do.

Certainly, given that, there should be a bit more leeway on what is and is not MT in the NS world.

[Clamparapa]

Also, to PROVE Zoogie's point, here it is right here in black and white:

3.5) Example: 'Ok, I'm going after your major cities with cruise missiles.'
'Aha! My EMP defenses short out your missiles and defeat you!'
'But...Don't they destroy every electronic device in your cities, too?'
'No, because they're...Shielded. Yeah.'
'But then why couldn't I just send a spy to buy, say, a calculator or trouser press which would allow me to learn your secrets?'

Why This is Godmoding: EMP isn’t magic. If you're a nation which has EMP devices and uses them regularly, it'd be ridiculous to think that in all that time nobody would have come up with an effective defense. Same goes for most technology, in fact: you should at least allow for the possibility that a nation which has faced your mighty ubertech on the battlefield has gone off and built something to counter it.

Here's your link: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=435202#p435202

[Allemande]

I've read that one, and I don't buy it. What's the effective defence against bullets? Combat armor and bulletproof vests aren't impervious, so should we be allowing people to wank up new forms of combat armor that stop bullets cold and require us to "balance" our MT forces with swords or lasers or something else?!? No, that's just silly.

We have all grown up in a world in which nuclear weapons exist and have the strategic effects that I have cited. It's not like there is'nt a rich literature out there on the problem of fighting wars in a nuclear world, leaving people without the means to figure out how to deal with the situation. Your EMP analogy is a bad one, because it's a case of someone trying to wank up a weapon that gives them an "I win" button when no such button exists IRL. Nuclear weapons, OTOH, are not an "I win" button so much as they're a "We Both Lose" button - one that creates a natural limitation in the modern (which means MT) strategic environment whose effect is to force all sides to operate with restraint.

There have been other periods in history when such limits existed, when some reality or another meant that wars couldn't be expected to end in the slaughter and occupation of the loser's homeland by the winner (e.g., the early 18th Century). This is the nature of warfare: The strategic advantage slides back and forth between offense and defence, between eras in which decision is within everyone's grasp to eras in which wars are indecisive and must be fought for limited ends. The MT era is one of the latter; deal with it, or play in another.

(BTW, I've neglected the other obvious answer: If you don't want to deal with enemy nuclear weapons, try RP'ing a massive counterforce strike. That is the textbook "loss limiting" response to the threat of massive retaliation. To be sure, as I said earlier, it's the strategic equivalent of trying to draw to an inside straight, but poker players have drawn to an inside straights before and won the kitty. NS is big enough that I won't say no one's ever tried to stage an effective "first strike" before, but I've never seen one myself. It would be something unique and challenging to watch an intelligent and competent player try to do so, rather than see one more incompetent player wank up yet another boringly predictable nonexistent (and yet utterly impervious) NMP system to prevent them from having to face the strategic consequences of putting some other nuclear-armed player's back to the wall.)

[Clamparapa]

That wasn't me that said that. Read the stickies. It's all there.

[DaWoad]

I've read that one, and I don't buy it.

you . . .don't buy . .. the stickies? What are you doing here?

What's the effective defence against bullets? Combat armor and bulletproof vests aren't impervious, so should we be allowing people to wank up new forms of combat armor that stop bullets cold and require us to "balance" our MT forces with swords or lasers or something else?!? No, that's just silly.

What are you on about? People don't "Wank up" Anything, they simply use the resources available in modern tech in order to counter your Ubertech. if you wan't a cold war era RP then create one but in Standard Modern Tech we are gonna go with the stickies.

We have all grown up in a world in which nuclear weapons exist and have the strategic effects that I have cited. It's not like there is'nt a rich literature out there on the problem of fighting wars in a nuclear world, leaving people without the means to figure out how to deal with the situation. Your EMP analogy is a bad one, because it's a case of someone trying to wank up a weapon that gives them an "I win" button when no such button exists IRL. Nuclear weapons, OTOH, are not an "I win" button so much as they're a "We Both Lose" button - one that creates a natural limitation in the modern (which means MT) strategic environment whose effect is to force all sides to operate with restraint.

Face . . .. Palm. Oh my god. First most II nations are many times larger (pop. wise)than ANY RL nation. Second, II nations are not restricted by things like ABM treaties we are free to develop and built as many ABM sites (or Sats) as we want and we do. So yes an effective defense does not exist in large numbers in rl why? It doens't make financial sense and there are treaties in place. In II we don't worry bout either of those things. II (even mt) =/= RL . . .Get this through your head.

There have been other periods in history when such limits existed, when some reality or another meant that wars couldn't be expected to end in the slaughter and occupation of the loser's homeland by the winner (e.g., the early 18th Century). This is the nature of warfare: The strategic advantage slides back and forth between offense and defence, between eras in which decision is within everyone's grasp to eras in which wars are indecisive and must be fought for limited ends. The MT era is one of the latter; deal with it, or play in another.

Or? maybe you should deal with the fact that everyone is playing in a way that doesn't' let you use your "we both lose" button when you're in a stickie situation.

(BTW, I've neglected the other obvious answer: If you don't want to deal with enemy nuclear weapons, try RP'ing a massive counterforce strike. That is the textbook "loss limiting" response to the threat of massive retaliation. To be sure, as I said earlier, it's the strategic equivalent of trying to draw to an inside straight, but poker players have drawn to an inside straights before and won the kitty. NS is big enough that I won't say no one's ever tried to stage an effective "first strike" before, but I've never seen one myself. It would be something unique and challenging to watch an intelligent and competent player try to do so, rather than see one more incompetent player wank up yet another boringly predictable nonexistent (and yet utterly impervious) NMP system to prevent them from having to face the strategic consequences of putting some other nuclear-armed player's back to the wall.)

[/quote]
i've done it, twice in situations where another nation was under threat. (using conventional Weapons BTW.) if thats the kinda thing your looking for write up an intrest thread. Don't try to impose your position on ALL of MT. (especially not when the stickies don't back you)

[Allemande]

you . . .don't buy . .. the stickies? What are you doing here?

I don't buy that the sticky you reference supports your argument. It doesn't.

What that particular sticky does is address a particular problem that you see constantly in RP, especially with that particular phenomenon (i.e., EMP): The creation of a "wonder weapon" that turns into a "I win" button. The gist of it is that there are no "I win" buttons. You'll have to work for your lunch.

What are you on about? People don't "Wank up" Anything, they simply use the resources available in modern tech in order to counter your Ubertech. if you wan't a cold war era RP then create one but in Standard Modern Tech we are gonna go with the stickies.

Look at the world around you: The defences you claim will stop massive strategic nuclear attacks don't exist. You think I'm wanking up some "ubertech" in having a sizable nuclear deterrent while you're being reasonable relying on that which does not exist in the world around you to say that nukes don't work?!? Who's being reasonable here, and who isn't?

Face . . .. Palm. Oh my god. First most II nations are many times larger (pop. wise)than ANY RL nation. Second, II nations are not restricted by things like ABM treaties we are free to develop and built as many ABM sites (or Sats) as we want and we do. So yes an effective defense does not exist in large numbers in rl why? It doens't make financial sense and there are treaties in place. In II we don't worry bout either of those things. II (even mt) =/= RL . . .Get this through your head.

I see you've never studied the history of arms control. Let me clue you into a little secret that any reasonable political scientist or historian can easily confirm for you: Effective weapon systems seldom get banned. People agree to ban weapon systems of dubious effectiveness because they don't want to have to waste money on them. Why do you suppose the U.S. isn't going along with bans on things like land mines and cluster bombs? Because we're evil? Or because those weapons work well and are thus too valuable to get rid of?

The ABM Treaty came about because everybody realized that ABM systems could never be effective enough to prevent a massive nuclear attack, but that they might just be effective enough to pick up the stragglers after a nuclear first strike. IOW, ABMs didn't make us safe from nuclear war - they increased the likelihood of nuclear war.

Any nuclear power with a large arsenal can saturate an ABM system and inflict enough damage on the defender to effectively shatter his national economy and leave him devastated for a generation. If an ABM system is 95% effective in stopping incoming warheads and 3,000 missiles with 10,000 warheads come in, over 500 warheads will still hit. Game definitely over.

But if a nation with an ABM system launches an effective first strike that can take out, say, 95% of enemy nuclear assets while they're still in the ground, then the remaining 150 missiles with their 500 warheads might only be able to hit 25 targets. That might be survivable ("acceptable damage", in the parlance of nuclear strategists).

The U.S. and U.S.S.R entered into an ABM Treaty on that basis. Neither wished to find itself in a position where the other would be strongly tempted to launch a BOOB ("Bolt Out of the Blue"); that was considered to be inferior to a world in which neither side had enough ABMs to do anything decisive.

Limitations on poison gas and biological weapons come from the same logic: Not idealism, but the cold, hard calculation that if everybody has them and starts using them, then we're all going to be stuck wearing rubber suits, and that's just no d-mn-d good.

Pragmatism is always the driver behind arms control, whatever the people carrying the painted signs might think. When you see a weapon people want to ban, ask yourself: "Is it any d-mn-d good, really?" If so, it'll never be banned. If not, well, it probably will be.

Or? maybe you should deal with the fact that everyone is playing in a way that doesn't' let you use your "we both lose" button when you're in a stickie situation.

Which I will argue is destructive. Ask yourself: Do dogpiles make this a better game? Is it a better game when people can get conquered? Considering that a lot of folks ignore the effects of conquest or retcon it out of their history, what good does conquest do, anyway? Why not just be honest, and let matters end naturally, short of total conquest, in negotiated settlements?

i've done it, twice in situations where another nation was under threat. (using conventional Weapons BTW.) if thats the kinda thing your looking for write up an intrest thread. Don't try to impose your position on ALL of MT. (especially not when the stickies don't back you)

Your belief that the stickies don't support me is incorrect. I say that you've misread the stickies in such a way as to assert that nuclear weapons don't work because you don't want them to work.

[Clamparapa]

I referred to the Sticky, because it brings to light the fact that there are counters to everything you have. You can't have an unstoppable weapon that can't be countered.

[Allemande]

You can't counter nuclear weapons by striking at the enemy nuclear arsenal first?

Again, isn't it like countering bullets? You counter bullets not by wanking up a perfect bullet-proof combat armor suit, but by shooting the enemy before he shoots you.

[The Parthians]

You can't counter nuclear weapons by striking at the enemy nuclear arsenal first?

Again, isn't it like countering bullets? You counter bullets not by wanking up a perfect bullet-proof combat armor suit, but by shooting the enemy before he shoots you.

Basically, that's our theory. Why else do you think we invested billions of rials putting nuclear weapons in orbit? So we can wipe out an entire enemy nation in about the time it takes for the weapons to pass through the earth's atmosphere, offload massive 10 warhead MIRVs and proceed to wipe an entire country out of existence without worrying too much about a counter-strike since we could probably win a first strike.

Of course, there's always the risk of retaliation... and we're very secretive about that particular issue... probably more secret than some of our nasty things SAVAK does.

[Allemande]

I've never tried to RP a counterforce strike, but I've read the literature. Being an island nation that fought against the Japanese in WW II, we've emphasized submarine warfare for almost 70 years. That's where our nuclear counterforce strategy begins.

SLBMs can be hurled along shallow ("grenade lob") trajectories that allow them to travel several hundred kilometres inland in a couple of minutes. Virtually no C&C system can respond to a massive nuclear barrage originating from just offshore in a couple of minutes; the effect is that - unless you're in a "launch-on-warning" posture (which means your national leader is out of the command loop - not something most countries will accept) - those missiles will go off before you can launch anything in retaliation.

The first wave of missiles are targeted on enemy communications, radar systems, anti-missile systems, and command infrastructure (C3I). In essence, what you're going for is a "decapitation strike", but even if you fail to kill the enemy leadership, you will leave his defences and deterrent in chaos. Your primary target in this wave of strikes are the radar systems and communication systems, to blind the enemy and keep him from sending a "launch" command.

A second wave of SLBMs are launched seconds after the first, but along high ("mortar round") trajectories. These are massively MIRVed (actually, so are the first wave). The U.S. Poseidon SLBM is our model for both rounds - 22 RVs per bus, ranging in size from 50-150KT. This second round of warheads are popped off in different trajectories to allow for different fall rates: Some are lobbed very high and some are shot almost straight down. The goal is to produce a near-constant rain of nuclear warheads over a period of several minutes, each warhead coming down a few minutes after the previous one in any given target zone. The target zones are hundreds of kilometres apart to avoid fratricidal effects.

All of these warheads are set to go off as high-airbursts. This is "nuclear pinning fire", and it has two purposes. First, it blinds surviving ABM radar systems; second, it subjects any enemy missiles that do get launched to EMP in the boost phase, which will usually be fatal. The idea is not to destroy most enemy missiles; the idea is to force the enemy to hold his missiles in their silos in order to preserve his deterrent. In essence, the enemy is pushed into a strategy of "riding out the storm", whether he wants it or not.

After about 20 minutes of "pinning fire", the first ICBMs will begin arriving. These are "rolled" in, with the first few waves detonating in the upper atmosphere to keep enemy ABM radar systems blinded. The ones that follow are targeted on silos, usually with the MIRV warheads employing earth penetrators to set up earthquake effects. The goal is "silo smashing" - to destroy as many silos as possible in order to take away the enemy's ability to launch a retaliatory strike.

ICBMs are cold launched, and silos are reloaded for repeat fire. Some of the incoming ICBM fire is staggered to continue the "pinning fire" between nuclear volleys. Spy satellites are tasked to overfly enemy territory and evaluate damage, so that subsequent volleys can be directed at enemy silos that are still intact instead of those that are destroyed.

The strategy does not envision a single spasm strike, with all warheads exhausted in 30-45 minutes; the strategy envisions a continuous nuclear barrage over enemy territory lasting hours if not days, with volley after volley after volley landing on enemy nuclear silos until they are all effectively destroyed.

In such a scenario, strikes on enemy cities are not contemplated. The fallout from the counterforce strikes will have enough of an effect on the enemy population without having to deliberately target them.

EDIT: This is pretty much the strategy envisioned by U.S. war planners for a nuclear first strike against the U.S.S.R. The reason why the introduction of the Trident SSBN/SLBM combination in the 1980's was so provocative is because the combination of CEP and throw-weight in a Trident III missile made it an effective silo-smasher, and - with the older Posiedon-armed boats still in service at that time along with either the Minuteman III or Peacemaker (MX) ICBM backing them up - the U.S. certainly had both the sheer number of missiles and the necessary technology to pull it off (even without adding the SAC's B-1, B-2, and B-52 assets into the mix). In contrast, the U.S.S.R. never really had a credible first strike capability, even thought American war planners liked to pretend that they did.

The American interest in SDI could therefore be seen - quite rightly, I might add - by Soviet war planners as an attempt to create an effective "clean-up" defence against those few Soviet warheads that might actually make it through such a rain of nuclear destruction. This fits in with what I've been saying all along: That NDM is not really effective in stopping a massive enemy nuclear strike, but that it could be very useful in providing its owner with an effective first strike capacity. Allemande does in fact have something like the old U.S. Safeguard ABM system in place, and its people are told this is for nuclear defence - but that's a sham, because such a system would never be enough to stop a massive nuclear attack.

It's there to give us an effective first strike capability, nothing more.

[Allemande]

In another thread, the question arose: Why would you have puppets that were allied to one another?

Now, this is entirely separate from the standard "puppetwanking" problem (creating a bunch of puppets and having them pool their strength in order to be more powerful than would otherwise be the case); everyone agrees that such play is poor form. But there are situations (at least in MT) where puppets might be expected to come to each others' aid.

I create puppets for several reasons:

1. A puppet could be created to serve as an actor in one or more RPs.
   
   
2. A puppet could be created as a dissociated, alternate actor in one or more RPs (for "branding" purposes).
   
   
3. A puppet could be created to provide a scene or set for RP action.
   
   
4. A puppet could be created to prevent someone else from creating that puppet and using it to produce an undesirable situation within an RP.

This list is hardly exhaustive.

I'll use Allemande and its puppets as an example, although I will not necessarily name the puppets in question (if you don't know who my puppets are, then I probably haven't made the fact that a particular nation is my puppet public knowledge, I which case I won't do so now).

Allemande is itself an example of #1, above: A nation that is used as an actor in one or more RP's. It has a certain form of government, a certain history, and a certain recognizable style. All in all, perfectly ordinary.

Now, let's suppose that I wanted to create a puppet that would function in an entirely different fashion, doing things that Allemande would never dream of doing. The sorts of things I'm thinking of aren't at all hard to imagine: Allemande is, after all, a (deliberately) stereotypical, cookie-cutter Western-style democracy, with all of the cultural and political baggage that such a thing entails. If I wanted to play, say, an evil terrorist group bent on world domination, I could hardly play it under Allemande's moniker - that would be absurd. Instead, I'd create an entirely separate "nation", dissociated from Allemande, and use that for all of my evil schemes. This would be a perfect example of #2, above.

Let me take a second here to explain the concept of "branding": It's an important part of the reason why Allemande has so blasted many puppets (over two dozen at last count). In marketing, "branding" is the method by which a product or line of products are "positioned" in the market so as to be readily identifiable to the customer as having well-known and well-defined characteristics.

A typical use of branding would be the company that wants to manufacture two different kinds of products: A "low-end", "economy" product (or product line) and a "high-end" or "premium" product (or product line). Let's assume absolutely no duplicity on the part of the manufacturer: The two products or product lines are not identical; they are manufactured according to different standards of consumer acceptance and quality control, so "economy" and "premium" aren't just a matter of slapping a different wrapper on something and charging different prices for it (I had to say that because some people - hard-core socialists out there, mainly - will simply assume that's what's being doing, because all corporations are evil, right?).

No, the "economy" product really is cheaply made, and the "premium" product really is made using better (and more-expensive) methods and materials; the assumption of honesty is crucial to an understanding of what's going on here.

If both products appear in public under the same brand-name, confusion might easily result: People who tried the "economy" product and found it wanting, in particular, might associate its lack of quality with its "premium" counterpart, and no amount of advertisement might be sufficient to dissuade them from the belief that the failings of the former must be manifested in the latter. No, the proper solution to the problem is to slap an entirely different label on the second product and sell it as an entirely different brand, so as to break the association between the two in the mind of the consumer. That way, nobody's going to look at the one and think of the other.

The use of puppets as a means of "branding" here is no different. I don't want people thinking that my stereotypical Western democracy is engaging in evil, nasty terrorist plots on the side just because I am; I want a clean division in peoples' minds between what the democracy says, does, and believes, and what the terrorists say, do and believe. Hence, the need for #2, above: Different puppets as different "brands" for different RP actions.

(BTW, the same applies to playing in different milieus: I don't want people confusing my FT play with my MT play, or - on those rare occasions when I play in fantasy settings, thinking that I have wizards running around in MT or FT. Again, "branding" by creating multiple puppets creates different expectations on the part of other players as to my role, likely actions, and capabilities, making everything run smoother and more cleanly).

This brings us to #3, above: Control of setting. Surprisingly, Allemande was actually created to function as #3, not to serve as a prime actor. It was only after using it in several RPs that it evolved into what it is. Originally, my "main" was a stereotypical "Third World" country; I wanted a generic "First World" location from which my "Third World" country and its neighbors (also my puppets) could buy arms, send their sons and daughters to college, have their immigrant expats live and work, supply them with generic multinational bosses and investors, serve as someone against whom radicals could rail as desired, and otherwise fill in all the functions a "First World" country might serve from a "Third World" perspective without either (a) having to argue with people over whether "France" and "the United States" actually existed to sell me military hardware or invest in my country, etc., or (b) having to be constantly negotiating with another player for the their consent to use their nation for all of these things.

IOW, as a writer I wanted control of the setting in order to write proper stories with a minimum of muss and fuss.

#3 can actually be used in a surprising number of ways. Allemande was actually one of a series of creations - ten in all, including my initial nation - all instantiated with the span of about three days. One was meant to be my prime; seven were meant to be neighboring countries, historical rivals or enemies, etc.; and two were meant to be "faraway" lands (like Allemande) that might serve as plot devices, remote locations, or the other purposes I have mentioned thus far. The entire set was meant to serve a single purpose, that of creating a reasonable storytelling environment against which a rich assortment of tales could be told.

It is here that a player is most likely to get into trouble with "puppetwanking". You have to have an iron determination to use your puppets, not to make each other stronger, but to make each other more realistic. I didn't invent Allemande to make my original "main" a tougher nation in war; I created Allemande to make my life easier by allowing me to write stories in a natural and realistic way that didn't require me to constantly negotiate or argue with people - and thus detract from the stories I was telling.

Of course, with the act of "collective creation" come issues: My "main" was a Muslim nation, and Muslim nations aren't popular. If someone invaded my "main", would Allemande - being so heavily invested in it, politically and economically - stand by and watch, or intervene? I had (and continue to have to) face the possibility of the latter event. Consequently, I was forced to come up with the rule I now use to handle situations where lines get crossed, and which I will summarize as a "law":

---

Allemande's Law of Safe Puppeteering - If multiple puppets belonging to the same player fight side by side in the same war, the sum total of all resources committed and all power employed by the puppets collectively may not exceed the resources and power available to any one of them individually.

---

IOW, if you invade my original "main" and Allemande sends troops to assist, then you may find yourself fighting forces from both countries at once, but their combined strength may not exceed what either my original "main" or Allemande might deploy to a fight, were they doing so alone.

Some people might still object; let them. I think this rule is infinitely preferable to unrealistically pretending that no relationship exists between two nations that were, in fact, designed from the get-go with a close relationship in mind - IOW, that one would completely sit back and let the other get devoured, in spite of its interests, without good reason. Of course, if there's a reason for such isolation, that would be fine - but absent any such obstacle, realistic behaviour in self-limited fashion seems better by far than nonsensical behaviour just for the sake of a convention that was, after all primarily designed to keep people from abusing matters, not from engaging in quality RP.

This brings is to #4, above. I have been forced, from time to time, to create puppets "defensively", the most recent of which was The Island of Hyskos. This usually happens in a situation where I have reason to be concerned about the possibility that somebody else will create a fictional people or location that has arisen in a story and try to manipulate it against me. In the case of Hyskos, an island that had been invaded by Tezdrian and was subsequently liberated, its creation as a nation under my control prevented Tezdrian (or anybody else) from suddenly creating Hyskos as a nation and - by virtue of their subsequent assumed control over Hyskos' people - godmodding a local popular revolt against my liberation effort and in favor of annexation by the original invaders, or some other equally idiotic nonsense. I can think of several other cases where I have been tempted (or forced) to do something similar, ranging from preventing people from trying to form rebellious factions within a country or movement I control without my consent to people trying to engage in the most outrageous sort of "dynamic geographical wizardry" imaginable.

Again, with this last kind of puppetry, the same rules apply: Should someone invade the Island of Hyskos (or any other puppet I've created for "tactical" purposes), the Law of Safe Puppeteering would apply.

I'll now open the floor to questions, comments, and criticisms from others, especially the FT crowd who first raised this issue.

[Wraithtoria]

You can't counter nuclear weapons by striking at the enemy nuclear arsenal first?

Again, isn't it like countering bullets? You counter bullets not by wanking up a perfect bullet-proof combat armor suit, but by shooting the enemy before he shoots you.

Technically you can, but that is assuming the opposing nation is just sitting its nuclear weapons right out for you to hit.

This is why nations put their missiles in missile Silos and aboard Submarines, so even if you are struck by nuclear weapons, you can still retaliate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

[Allemande]

No, it doesn't. Silos are not uncrackable, although they do require some effort.

Submarines are the best place for a nuclear deterrent, but they can be tracked and sunk by enemy attack submarines. This would be the first move in the game: An order to track enemy "boomers", get ready to take them down, and then do it in one fell swoop. Much dicier than the strike at a nation's ICBM silos, but not out of the question.