DRAFT SUBMITTED: The Weapon That'll Win the War

[Panageadom]

Well, I've been mulling this idea o'er in my head for a while now, and I figured I'd finally put pen to paper (or bit to byte?) and get your thoughts on it. The validity thing, I imagine, is reasonably easy to do by creating a "space" of possible nations, and using planes to define spaces within in.

NAME: The Weapon that'll Win the War

Description: News of a landmark nuclear test carried out on a disused military installation in southern @@NAME@@ caused a stir amongst the popular press today. Journalists, generals and the electorate are clamouring for a response.

Validity: Only valid for nations that have high enough levels of political freedoms to have a press and an electorate, and score at least five points out of the following: military spending (high=4, medium=3), intelligence (very high=2, high=1), education spending (high=2, medium=1).

[option] "Finally, we can be taken seriously!" roars General @@RANDOMNAME@@, striding into your office with a folder in hand reading "Regional Targets in Megadeaths", "I cannot advise strongly enough how we must urgently begin a massive construction program to produce and develop this new weapon. Think about it, @@LEADER@@! No more ridicule for our military from abroad; no more aggression from bare city-states; no more war! If we're not going to be loved - and I tell you, we aren't - we must be feared. And if the worst comes to the worst, we'll at least be able to teach those pesky Maxtopians a lesson..."
[effect] regional neighbours watch in fear as @@NAME@@ begins its newest nuclear weapons development program
[stats] taxes rise, economy shrinks slightly, defence spending increases, uranium mining and arms manufacturing industries expand, most avoided rises, education spending rises very slightly, intelligence rises very slightly, environmental markers fall slightly

[option] "You know, @@LEADER@@, our military gentleman over there is really rather remarkably short-sighted," states research scientist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, with no records anywhere in @@NAME@@ and a grin that haunts you at night, "Merely building these bombs will only keep us ahead in the race for a small time. An instant. However, with proper funding for military and scientific projects we could finally create the ultimate weapon - something so great no other nation would dare to try to begin to think about building a bigger bomb. Not to downplay my colleagues' acheivement, but there's still a long road, paved in @@CURRENCY@@s, on the way to science for all those left alive."
[effect] nuclear physcists with plans for world domination form the core of @@NAME@@'s academic community
[stats] taxes rise significantly, economy contracts, defence spending rises massively, education spending rises massively, all other departments shrinks slightly, intelligence rises, environmental markers fall slightly, uranium mining and arms manufacturing industries expand, most avoided rises

[option] "I can no longer abide by the use and production of my own creation for petty national goals," reads a letter published in the @@CAPITAL@@ Times, written by @@RANDOMNAME@@, a particle physicist who has since gone into hiding, "I regret my involvement in what we joked was the "Apocalypse Project". However, nuclear weapons will form a part of our world - for good or for ill - for years to come. For that reason, I advocate the immediate surrender of all nuclear weapons facilities in @@NAME@@ to the World Assembly. Certainly, we will then be captive to the ebb and flow of international opinion and global mob rule, but surely we can settle on that lesser evil over the indolence, corruption and ignorance rife in @@NAME@@'s leadership."
[effect] the World Assembly has accepted a sudden donation of all of @@NAME@@'s fissile nuclear reserves and weapons
[stats] defence spending falls, uranium mining contracts massively, arms manufacturing industry shrinks, most avoided falls, government size falls slightly, environmental markers rise very slightly

[option] "The scourge of nuclear weapons must end!" declares prominent environmentalist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, speaking at a rally in southern @@NAME@@, "Not only have the so-called "testing" of these abominations already caused massive ecological damage, but they contain the capacity to end all life on this planet. All existing installations must be dismantled and destroyed, while all funds earmarked for further development must be used in an attempt to clean up the damage caused to the environment. We must lead by example, and if that means leaving us weak as kittens, so be it."
[effect] physicists leave military installations and ecologists are bussed to nuclear testing grounds in droves
[stats] defence spending falls, environment spending rises, environmental markers rise, education spending falls very slightly, most avoided falls sharply

[option] "I think you're all missin' the point," says theoretical physicst turned energy entrepreneur, @@RANDOMNAME@@, in a slow drawl, "This isn't about weapons and nations. It certainly isn't about some tree-huggin' hippy-types. It's about the new ways we've managed to split the atom, an' what that all means for the rest of us. Now, I haven't seen the files, but I'd wager a fair bet that those military folks have managed to get some more energy out of some process. An' that means a helluva lot to us energy people. I say you publish the results of those tests, and let universities across @@NAME@@ get some more juice into their courses. An' more importantly, that means folks like me can start work on more efficient reactors, which means cheaper electricity for the rest of y'all. After all, the only danger is some beatnik buildin' a nuclear reactor in their park garden. Pah."
[effect] physicists and energy companies are benefitting from newly published military research
[stats] economy grows, intelligence rises, education rises as a government priority slightly, economic freedoms rise slightly, crime rises slightly, most avoided rises very slightly, environmental markers falls slighlty, defence spending falls slightly

[Nation of Quebec]

There's a couple spelling and grammar mistakes. In option two I don't know if fissle is a typo of missile or it's a new thing entirely. In option four I've always thought hippy was spelt hippie and instead of newly published, recently published would sound more grammatically correct. I hope that doesn't sound too nitpicky.

Would the arms manufacturing industry shrink for option three? I'm assuming you're counting nuclear weapons as arms.

Other than that, I think it's good to go. Perhaps a more scientific option to create larger scale weapons that deal more damage?

[Panageadom]

There's a couple spelling and grammar mistakes. In option two I don't know if fissle (1) is a typo of missile or it's a new thing entirely. In option four I've always thought hippy was spelt hippie (2) and instead of newly published, recently published (3) would sound more grammatically correct. I hope that doesn't sound too nitpicky.

Would the arms manufacturing industry shrink for option three? I'm assuming you're counting nuclear weapons as arms. (4)

Other than that, I think it's good to go. Perhaps a more scientific option to create larger scale weapons that deal more damage? (5)

1: A fissile material is one that can undergo sustainable nuclear fission.

2: Quite possibly.

3: Alright then. (Where is this, though?)

4: I am. I appreciate that's not the way it's set up, but...

5: Will think about this.

[ZellDincht]

Quebecs idea about adding in another option is not bad, could be interesting. The only problem I truly found was a typo in option 4:

After all, the only danger is if some beatnik builds a nuclear reactor in their park garden. Pah."

Should if be added in , or did you purposefully leave it out for effect?

Speculating, would the uranium mining industry also shrink from option 3?

[Panageadom]

Quebecs idea about adding in another option is not bad, could be interesting. The only problem I truly found was a typo in option 4:

After all, the only danger is if some beatnik builds a nuclear reactor in their park garden. Pah."

Should if be added in , or did you purposefully leave it out for effect?

Typo, I'll get on it.

Speculating, would the uranium mining industry also shrink from option 3?

Yes, because nuclear enrichment for weaponry (and an implication for nuclear plants) has been outlawed

[Panageadom]

A scientific option added, together with yet more references.

[ZellDincht]

Only problem I found with option 2 is a minor sentence flow problem.

nation would dare to try think about building a bigger bomb.

I noticed you fixed the option 5 typo, nice addidition and in character.

[Panageadom]

Edited and thank you.

[Maurdohpia (Ancient)]

I'd personally like to see an option that does not advance your nuclear program, but rather, advances research in non-nuclear weapons.

[Panageadom]

Maybe. I do worry, though, about creating so many choices, that there's no real trade-off to make. You can have whatever you want.

In addition, seeing as this issue is about nuclear weapons, it seems to rather miss the point.

[Maurdohpia (Ancient)]

In addition, seeing as this issue is about nuclear weapons, it seems to rather miss the point.

Not at all.

[Panageadom]

Please explain.

Otherwise, I think this is pretty much ready.

[ZellDincht]

I think it looks ready. The options are all good. The focus should be on nuclear weapons.

[Mushet]

I don't know if that validity will work out, also when I read this issue I had the sudden urge to listen to 2 minutes to midnight

[ZellDincht]

I don't know if that validity will work out, also when I read this issue I had the sudden urge to listen to 2 minutes to midnight

Why do you think the validity will not work? I think it works out well, it covers the main aspects of the issue.

[Nation of Quebec]

I don't know if that validity will work out, also when I read this issue I had the sudden urge to listen to 2 minutes to midnight

Panageadom has his own unique way of handling validity and stats, but it still manages to work out given the subject matter of the issue.

Good new option. I think after a couple other people offer their own suggestions this issue will be good to go.

[Wamitoria]

How exactly would Option 1 cause a nation's economy to shrink?

[Panageadom]

I don't know if that validity will work out, also when I read this issue I had the sudden urge to listen to 2 minutes to midnight

Panageadom has his own unique way of handling validity and stats, but it still manages to work out given the subject matter of the issue.

You mean, I basically make up something that looks vaguely mathematical and shuffle it around until it works?

How exactly would Option 1 cause a nation's economy to shrink?

Because you're increasing taxes (which causes misallocation of resources) to fund something that doesn't do anyone any good. (Not saying that they aren't useful, but they don't save lives or make economic transactions more efficient).

[Communal Servitude]

However, nuclear weapons will form a part of our world - for good or for ill - for years to come.

That line (in option 3) sounds very out of place. I suggest putting in a different reason for giving your nukes to the WA.
Actually, I'm not sure that giving weapons to the WA is really a good option because not all nations are part of the WA and it would be weird for nations that aren't part of the WA to do that.

[Maurdohpia (Ancient)]

I'd personally like to see an option that does not advance your nuclear program, but rather, advances research in non-nuclear weapons.

I think this option should be there because the environmentalist just makes you abolish the nuclear program and decreases the Defence spending while spending more on the Environment. Focusing more on other kinds of WMD's is something I would personally want to do and I doubt I'm alone on that. Sure as hell makes a lot more sense than the WA option (also, what about nations not in the WA?).

No offence of course.

[Panageadom]

However, nuclear weapons will form a part of our world - for good or for ill - for years to come.

That line (in option 3) sounds very out of place. I suggest putting in a different reason for giving your nukes to the WA.
Actually, I'm not sure that giving weapons to the WA is really a good option because not all nations are part of the WA and it would be weird for nations that aren't part of the WA to do that.

Not at all. One might decide that some form of an international nuclear police force is a good idea without condoning the bulk of WA policy. I'm fairly sure that there are non-UN nations which have cooperated with the UN on certain issues. And I like the line. It ideologically distinguishes him from "naive" anti-nuclearists (?).

I'd personally like to see an option that does not advance your nuclear program, but rather, advances research in non-nuclear weapons.

I think this option should be there because the environmentalist just makes you abolish the nuclear program and decreases the Defence spending while spending more on the Environment. Focusing more on other kinds of WMD's is something I would personally want to do and I doubt I'm alone on that. Sure as hell makes a lot more sense than the WA option (also, what about nations not in the WA?).

No offence of course.

Non-taken. If I can't argue my points, then I shouldn't really be advocating them.

Yes, the environmentalist does advocate removing your nuclear program (the core debate of the issue), which would in turn lower military funding. The environmental clean-up idea is a secondary argument I decided to pollute the environmentalist's argument with, just to drive to NS radicalism.

By other WMDs...do you mean biological weapons? I don't mention these, because they aren't related to the problem set up by either side of the arguments ("Nuclear weapons are good for @@NAME@@'s foreign political aims" vs "Nuclear weapons are bad for the world"); in addition, there are distinct issues with biological weapons ("Is it fair to use an enemy's civilian population as the biggest weapon against them?") from nuclear ones. They are even more tangential than conventional weapons, in my view.

I've already responded to the W.A. point.

In general, though, as I've mentioned, I don't advocate overloading issues with precise nitty-gritty, because issues can't code for it, and NS isn't designed for it (where in hell is there any options for trimcameral parliamentary democracies?); so, increasingly, I've decided to write my issues to present debates of principle than policy. Perhaps you disagree.

[Panageadom]

This issue will be submitted soon, should no further criticism arise, so that I can put another issue on the forum without feeling like a bit-hog.

[Panageadom]

Submitted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I can't guarantee that the validity model will stay intact throughout the editing process. There technically isn't any strict guidelines for validity, but if it ends up being too complicated to script (I wouldn't know if it is -- I don't add the issues into the game), we might dumb it down a little bit. Something like having large defense and education budgets. Maybe a government priority on defense. This is all conjecture right now, though; the issue probably won't be looked at for quite some time, unfortunately!

[Panageadom]

Oh, well. I can hope.

I can't think that it would be too complicated, though. The games has to store quantative data of all those factors, so it can compare them in (e.g.) WA censuses (censes?). And once you have a the nunbers, it shouldn't be hard to create inequalities in the nth dimensional "space" of possible NS nations, in the same way that you could break the "Political Compass Scores" into regions of liberal and authoritarianian (or, libertarianism, New Liberalism, social democracy, or...) and authoritarianism using algorithms of the form:

IF: y>-x, [type]="liberal"
ELSEIF, [type]="authoritarian"

(...He said, hoping beyond hope such a problem would never fall in his lap)