NATION

PASSWORD

Unrestricted Warfare?

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]
User avatar
Kirhean Tribes
Envoy
 
Posts: 285
Founded: Feb 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Unrestricted Warfare?

Postby Kirhean Tribes » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:53 pm

What is your nation's definition of unrestricted warfare?


Are there any circumstances wherein it is not allowed?

Conversely...

Are there any circumstances wherein it is considered appropriate?



For the Commonwealth, unrestricted warfare is defined as:"any warfare utilizing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and/or authorizing the targeting of non-combatants in addition to combatants." (combatants are individuals who are associated directly with a combat force, or who have taken arms for one side or the other)

The Commonwealth generally prohibits it's military from engaging in Unrestricted Warfare. It is considered dishonorable to kill someone who does not intend to harm or kill you. (those who provide service to those who do are fair game, ie. medics/engineers/etc.)

Furthermore, the use of weapons that devastate the environment as well as the OpFor is classified as Unrestricted Warfare, and therefore prohibited. It is best to preserve infrastructure so that, at the very least, you can use it against your enemy.

That said...

If faced with a foe who clearly will fight to the last soldier, and against foes who enlist their entire society in the business of war...unrestricted warfare may be authorized. (classified as "intractable")

For example, if faced by an enemy such as the Zerg of the human game Starcraft...our policy would allow unrestricted warfare. We would target any installation, and utilize maximum force possible. If necessary, we would even be willing to wage nuclear warfare until the dirt was glowing.
"Live for honor and you will die with none."
-Kirhean Proverb
The Commonwealth Of Kirhean Tribes
GENERATION 30: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

User avatar
Nupin
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Jul 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Nupin » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:58 pm

We drop poison gas from our planes like we don't care.Planning to open up a chemical warfare germ breeding house




........in the far future
Not an Eastern Imperialist fanatic,just an Imperial Parodier ;)

User avatar
The Anglo-Saxon Empire
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13903
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Anglo-Saxon Empire » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:00 pm

What is your nation's definition of unrestricted warfare?
Warfare where certain rules of warfare are disregarded including but not limited to execution of POWs, no limits on use, as well as location of firepower (it is okay to bomb a school or a church), and no limits on attacking civilian targets.

Are there any circumstances wherein it is not allowed?
Usually when we are defending an ally, or another country during a war.


Are there any circumstances wherein it is considered appropriate?
When the survival of the nation is at stake, or when the enemy must be destroyed at all costs (ex. a terrorist leader is known to be in a village).
IC Nation Name: The Glorious Empire of Luthoria
Monarch: Emperor Siegfried XVI

User avatar
Victorious Decepticons
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8106
Founded: Sep 15, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Victorious Decepticons » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:02 pm

Just the idea of having any kind of restrictions on warfare made Leader Megatron check himself with his anti-virus before he could even believe he'd read that right.
Last edited by Victorious Decepticons on Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No war RPs; no open RPs.

Explosive .50 cal shells vs. Decepticons: REAL, IRL PROOF the Decepticons would laugh at them - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVTZlNQfPA
Newaswa wrote:What is the greatest threat to your nation?
Vallermoore wrote:The Victorious Decepticons.

Bluquse wrote:Imperialist, aggressive, and genociding aliens or interdimensional beings that would most likely slaughter or enslave us
rather than meet up to have a talk. :(

TurtleShroom wrote:Also, like any sane, civilized nation, we always consider the Victorious Decepticons a clear, present, and obvious threat we must respect, honor, and leave alone in all circumstances. Always fear the Victorious Decepticons.


The Huskar Social Union wrote: ... massive empires of genocidal machines.

User avatar
Fatatatutti
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10943
Founded: Jun 02, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Fatatatutti » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:08 pm

We don't put any restrictions on warfare. Every soldier is restricted only by his/her own conscience.

In the unlikely event that one of our soldiers did something like killing prisoners, he/she would be sent home immediately in disgrace and rehabilitated like any other murderer.

Under no circumstances would any Fatatatutian commander ever use weapons of mass destruction, even if we had any. Anybody with such a lack of honour woulfd never get to a position of command.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

User avatar
The Anglo-Saxon Empire
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13903
Founded: Nov 21, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Anglo-Saxon Empire » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:17 pm

Fatatatutti wrote:
Under no circumstances would any Fatatatutian commander ever use weapons of mass destruction, even if we had any. Anybody with such a lack of honour woulfd never get to a position of command.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

Really? So if a nation was invading your people, and destroying everything, literally driving your people to extinction, and you did have WMDs, you still would not use them?
IC Nation Name: The Glorious Empire of Luthoria
Monarch: Emperor Siegfried XVI

User avatar
Southland Sudan
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 58
Founded: Aug 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Southland Sudan » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:26 pm

Few restrictions exist here. Oh, we have laws within the Army, but most armed forces here are paramilitary militias which are raised locally. Plus, we recently fought a conflict with our Muslim neighbors which exceeded two decades. We are likely to be rebuilding from that one for a long time.

If professional soldiers killed prisoners, or did something else equally heinous, they would be arrested, placed on trial before a military tribunal and if found guilty, hanged.
Last edited by Southland Sudan on Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Leader: President Evander Maximillian

Member-Nation of the Alliance of Capitalism

Recruiting female soldiers...

User avatar
Akosha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: Feb 07, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Akosha » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:28 pm

It is generally considered ill-advised to permit acts of overt malevolence, as such exercises tend to be time-consuming, irrelivant to the persecution of the war, and detrimental to a soldiers mental-fitness.

That said, you could probably get away with about anything in the Akosh military provided you could make a convincing case for its necessity, "we weren't in a position to take prisoners" or "we estimated that a crude remark written with the intestines of their former comrades would have a deleterious effect on enemy moral," would both be perfectly valid.

Ultimately it comes down to, "will this action help win the war, or is this a waste of resources?"

In the sense that we do not permit the latter, Akosh warfare is restricted.
Czardas wrote:Every political group supports Jesus and opposes Hitler, after all.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:If she's asking the internet if she's stupid, then the answer is already obvious.

User avatar
Fatatatutti
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10943
Founded: Jun 02, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Fatatatutti » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:31 pm

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:So if a nation was invading your people, and destroying everything, literally driving your people to extinction, and you did have WMDs, you still would not use them?

That situation would never arise because we'd never have the WMDs in the first place.

It's all about premeditation. If somebody breaks into my house to do me bodily harm, I might try to fight him off with a knife that I happen to have for cooking. But would I keep a gun in the house for the exact purpose of killing him? No. That would border on mental illness.

It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

User avatar
Imeriata
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11250
Founded: Oct 02, 2009
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Imeriata » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:09 pm

We have a more relaxed “if it will help us win do it” doctrine which means that if it will help the war effort are the generals pretty left to do what they think is best.
embassy program| IIWiki |The foreign units of the royal guard |The royal merchant guilds official storefront! (Now with toys)


So what? Let me indulge my oversized ego for a moment!
Astralsideria wrote:You, sir, are the greatest who ever did set foot upon this earth. If there were an appropriate emoticon, I would take my hat off to you.

Altamirus wrote:^War! War! I want to see 18th century soldiers go up againist flaming cats! Do it Imeriata! Do it Now!

Ramsetia wrote:
Imeriata wrote:you would think that you could afford better looking hussar uniforms for all that money...

Of course, Imeriata focuses on the important things in life.

Willing to help with all your MS paint related troubles.
Things I dislikes: Everything.

User avatar
Rumbria
Minister
 
Posts: 2941
Founded: Aug 10, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Rumbria » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:18 pm

Rumbrians regard all warfare as unrestricted. That's why it's warfare.
So goddamned leet: Rumbria is ranked 6th in the region and 1,337th in the world for Most Godforsaken.
Incomplete National Factbook

User avatar
The chrisman union
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1665
Founded: Jun 13, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The chrisman union » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:25 pm

Unrestricted warfare is described in the Chrismanic dictionary as "The widescale use of strategic nuclear weapons, the targeting of civilian population centres and general ignorance of international rules of war." Unrestricted warfare, in all its forms, is just wrong. The whole point of warfare is to protect the citizens of your homeland. How does obliterating your opponent's country and family make you any better than him? It makes you just as worse as your aggressors, maybe even worse. The unrestricted slaughter of "enemy" civilians and non combatants is both dishonourable and immoral.
Embassy
The Allied Nations of the Chrisman Union (ANCU)
Leader: President Christian Veldt
Armed forces: 900,000
Population: 340,000,000
Government type: Liberal Social Democracy
Shebu wrote: 9 out of 10 times when you have a Ak47 pointed at you, you pay attention.

North Defese wrote:If I had a nickle and the head of everyone who called me [Defense], I'd be rich, and thrown in prison for all the mutliated corpses strewn about my house.

Tunizcha wrote:Never get in a staring contest with a cat. Even if you win, you still lose, because you just spent 5 minutes staring at a cat.

Canadai wrote:In Canadai, the vertically impaired are treated as equal citizens, and given ladders by the government.

Niur wrote:Lets all just get brain transplants to shark bodies.
Defcon: 1 2 3 4 [5]

User avatar
Akosha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: Feb 07, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Akosha » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:26 pm

Fatatatutti wrote:
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:So if a nation was invading your people, and destroying everything, literally driving your people to extinction, and you did have WMDs, you still would not use them?

That situation would never arise because we'd never have the WMDs in the first place.

It's all about premeditation. If somebody breaks into my house to do me bodily harm, I might try to fight him off with a knife that I happen to have for cooking. But would I keep a gun in the house for the exact purpose of killing him? No. That would border on mental illness.

It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

Alright then, say that the enemy was in the prossess of invading your nation and you just-so-happened to intercept a convoy of theirs which was carrying WMDs. Obviously these weapons were intended for use against your state, and it is probable that they have the will and ability to field more of them. Do you sit back and enjoy as they prepare to exterminate your people, or do you use their own weapons against them, claim them as yours, and threaten to do it again if they don't back off?
Last edited by Akosha on Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Czardas wrote:Every political group supports Jesus and opposes Hitler, after all.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:If she's asking the internet if she's stupid, then the answer is already obvious.

User avatar
Akosha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: Feb 07, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Akosha » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:30 pm

The chrisman union wrote:Unrestricted warfare is described in the Chrismanic dictionary as "The widescale use of strategic nuclear weapons, the targeting of civilian population centres and general ignorance of international rules of war." Unrestricted warfare, in all its forms, is just wrong. The whole point of warfare is to protect the citizens of your homeland. How does obliterating your opponent's country and family make you any better than him? It makes you just as worse as your aggressors, maybe even worse. The unrestricted slaughter of "enemy" civilians and non combatants is both dishonourable and immoral.


I detect a note of discord.

This:
The whole point of warfare is to protect the citizens of your homeland.

Has nothing at all to do with this:
How does obliterating your opponent's country and family make you any better than him?


With regard to the first point the citizens of your homeland will be well protected when your enemies lie dead in a sea of cinders. With regard to the second, it doesn't... but that's not the point of warfare is it?
Czardas wrote:Every political group supports Jesus and opposes Hitler, after all.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:If she's asking the internet if she's stupid, then the answer is already obvious.

User avatar
Fatatatutti
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10943
Founded: Jun 02, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Fatatatutti » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:32 pm

Akosha wrote:Alright then, say that the enemy was in the prossess of invading your nation and you just-so-happened to intercept a convoy of theirs which was carrying WMD. Obviously this weapon was intended for use against your state, and it is probable that they have the will and ability to field more of them. Do you sit back and enjoy as they prepare to exterminate your people, or do you use their own weapon against them, claim it as yours, and threaten to do it again if they don't back off?

You quote me and then you ignore what you quoted: It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour. How could we live with our own people knowing we had dishonoured them?

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

User avatar
Akosha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: Feb 07, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Akosha » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:33 pm

Fatatatutti wrote:
Akosha wrote:Alright then, say that the enemy was in the prossess of invading your nation and you just-so-happened to intercept a convoy of theirs which was carrying WMD. Obviously this weapon was intended for use against your state, and it is probable that they have the will and ability to field more of them. Do you sit back and enjoy as they prepare to exterminate your people, or do you use their own weapon against them, claim it as yours, and threaten to do it again if they don't back off?

You quote me and then you ignore what you quoted: It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour. How could we live with our own people knowing we had dishonoured them?

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina


How could you live with yourselves knowing that you could have saved your people from extinction, but chose not to?
Czardas wrote:Every political group supports Jesus and opposes Hitler, after all.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:If she's asking the internet if she's stupid, then the answer is already obvious.

User avatar
Sarzonia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5600
Founded: Mar 22, 2004
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Sarzonia » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:39 pm

As a general rule, Sarzonia does not believe in "limited warfare" owing to a history of problems when it has attempted to fight "limited wars" that has been RP'd.

As soon as Sarzonia declares war or has war declared on it, the government actually suspends the Constitution. In addition, it does not accept Geneva Convention-esque restrictions from the World Assembly or any other body.

If Sarzonia is fighting for its very survival, it will do whatever it takes to win.

User avatar
New Caldaris
Diplomat
 
Posts: 897
Founded: Jun 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby New Caldaris » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:43 pm

In the Imperial Commonwealth of New Caldaris the old saying basically says it all:

all is fair in love and war

User avatar
Amn Voss
Diplomat
 
Posts: 582
Founded: Jul 31, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Amn Voss » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:44 pm

"Unrestricted Warfare"; if it gets the job done, we'll do it. Simple.
"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
INTP:
67-75-75-33
E L/R: 8.25 | S L/A: -2.10
MC: 40.3,-34 (New Progressive)


User avatar
Fatatatutti
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10943
Founded: Jun 02, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Fatatatutti » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:45 pm

Akosha wrote:How could you live with yourselves knowing that you could have saved your people from extinction, but chose not to?

Would you care to think that through again? If my people were extinct, I'd be extinct too.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

User avatar
UAWC
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5045
Founded: Oct 24, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby UAWC » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:48 pm

Fatatatutti wrote:We don't put any restrictions on warfare. Every soldier is restricted only by his/her own conscience.

In the unlikely event that one of our soldiers did something like killing prisoners, he/she would be sent home immediately in disgrace and rehabilitated like any other murderer.

Under no circumstances would any Fatatatutian commander ever use weapons of mass destruction, even if we had any. Anybody with such a lack of honour woulfd never get to a position of command.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina


This is pretty much the same policy of the UAWC. Debate needs moar rails.
Last edited by UAWC on Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -9.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
Genderqueer political nihilist and misanthrope.
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
Ostronopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2658
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Ostronopolis » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:49 pm

Amn Voss wrote:"Unrestricted Warfare"; if it gets the job done, we'll do it. Simple.


^ This.
Most Noble Republican Union of Ostronopolis
“Mortici Touaente Antimia”
Ostronopolian Trading Company || Congburgers || Communique Guide || Factbook ||
Member of: || The Conglomerate || Sovereign Network
Observer of: || COMINTERN || IFA ||

Quotes:
<Amit:> Ostro
<Amit> Through your sheer force of character
<Amit> You could get a nation to work for you

User avatar
JJ Place
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5051
Founded: Jul 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby JJ Place » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:50 pm

Kirhean Tribes wrote:What is your nation's definition of unrestricted warfare?


Are there any circumstances wherein it is not allowed?

Conversely...

Are there any circumstances wherein it is considered appropriate?


JJ Place: Unrestricted Warfare:

When war has broken out in ever single corner of the country; all De Facto responsibilities and human rights are still in effect, all who do not recognize these Codes of Conduct will be punished severely. All major crimes are grounds for death at the hand of the being you have wronged if the Legal System has broken apart due to the war chaos.
The price of cheese is eternal Vignotte.
Likes: You <3

User avatar
Inabi
Envoy
 
Posts: 314
Founded: Feb 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Inabi » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:51 pm

You seem to be giving a lot of 'What-ifs' to Fatatatutti in order to mess him up.

And failing at it.
The Lord Protector's State of Inabi
DEFCON: 5 l [4] l 3 l 2 l 1
NSEconomy ll Pact with Vostria ll Inabi Factbook
Satellites: Parodoxial, Piral, and The Ignorant Peoples
Conflicts: Windica-Inabi War (Victory)

User avatar
Akosha
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: Feb 07, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Akosha » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:01 pm

Fatatatutti wrote:
Akosha wrote:How could you live with yourselves knowing that you could have saved your people from extinction, but chose not to?

Would you care to think that through again? If my people were extinct, I'd be extinct too.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

Ultimately yes, but there would, of course, be period of in which doom was merely inevitable and not yet manifest. During which you would have time to reflect on the choices you've made, and how they led the innocent lives, who were entirely dependant upon you for their defense, to certain slaughter.
Czardas wrote:Every political group supports Jesus and opposes Hitler, after all.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:If she's asking the internet if she's stupid, then the answer is already obvious.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], The Glass Oasis

Advertisement

Remove ads