OOC: On The Topic Of Nukes

[Gracefall]

Hello, everyone. I notice the threat of nukes being tossed around like nothing, despite the fact that this would be a very big deal in the real world. Maybe it's just me, but these unsubstantiated (is that how you spell it?) claims can get a bit annoying. I know there's a standard rule of 100 million before creating your own nukes, but what about maintaining ones that were sold to you? Also, why are even some good uses of nukes ignored? What would you say is the proper use for nukes, and the proper use for threatening the use of them?

Anyway, I think this is where we should establish some ground rules involving nukes.

I'll update this whenever.

1. 100 Million Or More before Creating Nukes

[The Master M]

Obviously, a nation should have a decent economy rating before it can produce or maintain nuclear weapons, because they entail a large cost.
So... i'm thinking an economy rating of strong or above?

[Gracefall]

That's a possibility, but also what about countries of pure war? Sometimes there are countries with crap economy because they're spending it all on nuclear weapons. There should be a limit, I agree... but I'm not sure if "strong" is the best one.

[Beth Gellert]

There are no hard and fast rules about how many people a nation must have, or how strong its economy must be, before it can develop or maintain nuclear weapons, and there never will be.

Sometimes use of nukes is ignored because the user is n00bing it up, or because the target is being a bit of a wuss.

There's nothing that can be done about either. There will always be n00bs, and, like it or not, everyone has the right to ignore anyone.

[Chetssaland]

I think it should be higher than 100 mil. I know its not realistic for the real world, but in the game you only have to wait like 3, 4 weeks to reach 100. It should be 500 or even 1billion before you can maintain nukes. That would make it much more deadly to have nukes.

[Gracefall]

We shall see what other people think, Chet.

To Gellert: Yes, we understand this. But what do you think the ideal use of a nuke is, that generally shouldn't be ignored?

[The Master M]

Good point. But there must be some limit, because a country with a basketcase economy surely could not maintain even an existing nuclear weapons system.
there is sort of a stigma attatched to the use f nuclear weapons in NS, no matter how legit the use is. The question should be how can one USE nuclear weapons without other nations breaking out the all persuasive ignore cannon.

[Gracefall]

Good point. But there must be some limit, because a country with a basketcase economy surely could not maintain even an existing nuclear weapons system.
there is sort of a stigma attatched to the use f nuclear weapons in NS, no matter how legit the use is. The question should be how can one USE nuclear weapons without other nations breaking out the all persuasive ignore cannon.

There has got to be a limit, I agree. Maybe a little above average, because just about everyone has average.

How could, if possible, this stigma be removed? And how can we stop the ignore cannon being broken out?

[Jimanistan]

Politics should probably also be taken into account...

A country chock full of lefties and pacifists (Jimanistan, for example) is unlikely to have much of a nuclear program, if one at all, due to public opposition to such programs...

Of course, that's sort of a generalization...

[Gracefall]

That is a point. However, government does have to be taken into count too.

If a government is corrupt and bastardized, while trying to run a good face (I.E. Me) they'll have nukes even if there is opposition.

[Fictions]

As someone who is very anti-nuke (I am anti-nuke because they are hardly ever RPed well and with proper thought and research gone into it) I feel that a nuclear attack should not be done unless agreed upon by both the nuker and the nukee. I would add that posts have to be well thought out and the proper effects both visible and psychological are at least explored.

[Gracefall]

On the same token, Fictions, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would deny simply because of the stigma regarding the use of nukes. Perhaps we should start a thing for training nukes, where people would learn how to use nukes properly in roleplay?

[Beth Gellert]

Again, there isn't a limit, and there never will be.

It is not for anyone else to tell another player about their nation.

It doesn't matter how long you go on about this, or how many threads dance around the topic, it's just not going to change. This is free-form role-play. You absolutely can not achieve this aim of imposing limits, so it really would make sense for you to stop trying.

As to reasonable use of nukes and what should not be ignored... again, this is free-form role play, and I don't know what's so hard to grasp about that. Every situation is different, or will be in any RP worth its salt. It's up to the involved players. What are you trying to do? It's not like you'll be able to butt into someone else's thread in which use of a nuke has/hasn't been ignored and say, 'ah ha! according to our standards, that's wrong!' because you'll just end up on a lot of ignore lists yourself.

If you're just looking for a bit of general advice for yourself, well, I'd say that nuclear weapons can be used as a plot device, probably, but I've never had the desire to do so. It's all just about the context of each individual RP. If someone nukes you, and you don't see any good reason to ignore it, don't. If someone says, "I'm going to nuke you" and you don't consider it to be worthwhile RP, ignore it. It's free form, you just go with the context, get to know your RP partners, there's no rule.

[Chetssaland]

What should be done is have refs for RP's. They dont have to be hired or nothing, just people that volunteer to ref. That way someone smart can make sure everything is in line.

[Gracefall]

Gellert, no offense meant, but I do believe you're slightly missing the point. This is to establish what is generally good usage for nukes. Like you say, there is exceptions, but generalization is really our only hope, and if people have to ask if they're an exception, they're not an exception.

What I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of people clueless about nukes, think that they can maintain them at a population of twelve hobos, and thus need a bit of steering in the right direction.

[Tyrrin]

I think a "good" economy could be enough. I know there are exceptions, but it seems like economy should be an important factor.

[Havensky]

Nukes make for terrible storytelling. Part of what made the great war threads so good is that the writers took the time to develop characters and amp up the drama involved in such massive conflicts.

With nukes it's just... BOOM - it's over!

There are very few 'good' ways to use nukes for storytelling purposes.

[L3 Communications]

What should be done is have refs for RP's. They dont have to be hired or nothing, just people that volunteer to ref. That way someone smart can make sure everything is in line.

Terrible, stupid and awful idea. I'm sorry, but it just wouldn't work.

[Fictions]

What should be done is have refs for RP's. They dont have to be hired or nothing, just people that volunteer to ref. That way someone smart can make sure everything is in line.

Terrible, stupid and awful idea. I'm sorry, but it just wouldn't work.

Yea, I think is a bad idea too

[Lucifeles]

Agreed, Havensky.

However, as for the development and maintaining of nukes, the political, defensive and economic situation of a country should have more force than the gameplay population estimates. For example, a neutral democratic city-state with a booming economy which has no enemies whatsoever has no reasons for nukes; a paranoid militarist nation with a rather struggling economy constantly under threat of foreign attack, has reason to.

Basically, which has more reasons for nukes; Vatican City or North Korea?

[Chetssaland]

What should be done is have refs for RP's. They dont have to be hired or nothing, just people that volunteer to ref. That way someone smart can make sure everything is in line.

Terrible, stupid and awful idea. I'm sorry, but it just wouldn't work.

I'm not saying have designated refs, I'm saying get someone you know to ref for god modding and stuff. I think its a good idea. Way to be nice about it too.

[TheCapitalWasteland]

I believe if your nation has 500 million, like the ones who are able to suggest issues, should have nukes. Even 100 million is pretty nooby. The only reason I have fat mans, mini nuke launchers, is because I'm a fallout nation.

[Third Spanish States]

Nukes make for terrible storytelling. Part of what made the great war threads so good is that the writers took the time to develop characters and amp up the drama involved in such massive conflicts.

With nukes it's just... BOOM - it's over!

There are very few 'good' ways to use nukes for storytelling purposes.

And virtually nobody in NS would be willing to go into them, and their consequences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz

[Jenrak]

Nukes make for terrible storytelling. Part of what made the great war threads so good is that the writers took the time to develop characters and amp up the drama involved in such massive conflicts.

That's a highly suggestive claim, and cannot be substantiated based on what we see here in the current II. A Nuclear Device is a good way to begin an espionage, a good way to build an otherwise impossible alliance and a good way to end the life of a nation that needs to die. Nuclear armaments in a proper RP are almost always predetermined by the players in question, and those that are 'acceptable' uses of a nuclear strike and used without previous deliberation are usually used with alot of buildup, which leads to alot of nations coming together against a common threat.

The proper phrasing on the subject of nuclear devices is that it generates a huge cliche, but it's workable and provide to be a fun, exciting RP if the players use them properly.

[Sorgan]

I say it determines if they are good at role playing or not. Or maybe they should get recommended for it. even those that sounds kind of strict idk.