10-04-2025, 02:51 PM
Contra Nukes.
Not taking away from what anyone has said, I see good arguments so far from everyone who has commented.
On the one hand: Yes, nuclear weapons technology is available. Hell, its also freely available in the real world. We could likely all pretty much give a cursory discussion on how it works, how it is made, what it does. That's fairly common knowledge and I am guessing none of us are even nuclear physicists. So is it realistic that we could RP a nuclear weapons development program? Sure.
On the other hand: Yes, just because you possess infinite amounts of "yellow cake" doesn't mean that everyone has the capacity to refine it into weapons grade plutonium. Even if you get decades of technical assistance from someone who supposedly knows how to do it, though the chances of "I have this nationality in my nation, and that nation at one point did this, and also that nationality also happens to be nuclear physicists and knows, on a genetic, cultural level, just how to do this, because their nation did this at some point in the distant past" are remarkably slim.
Point is, there is not only limited amounts of very specialized materials necessary to actually create nuclear weapons available that few make and almost nobody has, AND there is very limited amounts of technical know how available to know how to do it, and that number dwindles very rapidly over the years. You would need active support from an actively developing nuclear nation. If a nation developed their nuclear weapons two hundred years ago, and is just maintaining their stockpile now, the people who knew how to actually build the things, and the machinery used to do so, are probably long dead. If we're being completely realistic. Because active nuclear programs have not been played in a very long time.
This tends to suggest to me that nukes should be banned completely and when the few that were created are used up, they are gone.
Plus: there is the issue of RPing that these programs was done in complete secrecy, with no ability of any external player to stop it. Its a trick of the game that if we claim to have something, we have to develop it and be able to point to established RP to show that we did. It is, I think, "gaming the game" to be able to do that in things like ABU, but then claim that nobody knew about it at all until I decided to make it public, and say nobody the entire time had any way to respond to it, but then turn around and say that your "established RP" is fully contained in ABU which we treat as OOC knowledge, not IC knowledge. How can I IG acknowledge something I am not allowed to know about, but then be forced to accept something that I had no way to do anything about, but would have if I could have? That kinda feels like power gaming, like I am forced to accept something horrific, or I can't even RP a response.
This tends to suggest, based on the mechanics of the game, that nukes should be completely banned.
Plus: It kills any potential for military RP I think. We already have the power to say "No, I don't want to do military RP, therefore I don't consent to a war." We can do that with or without nukes. But if we have to accept being nuked as a consequence of a war RP, then there is literally no incentive for the war RP. But there is also no way for the international community, such as it exists IG, and for the game community OOC to sanction behavior that violates community norms. We just have to put up with it. In reality, war is the ultimate tool people have to force compliance. In our game we have to rely on community spirit to so do, but what happens when that community spirit is not present? Adding nukes to that conversation just muddies that all up completely.
This tends to suggest to me that nukes should be completely banned from the game.
I don't necessarily feel that all this applies to other WMDs. It is possible to build a mustard gas factory, for example, just normally. I have an industrial chemical factory, and in the corner over there, we also make mustard gas. If its not perfect, so what? We aren't detonating whole square miles if we screw up like we would if we had a nuclear accident. I can easily acquire the chemicals to do so. If one player one day says he has mustard gas, its way more believable to just say that. I don't like it, but I could even take a mustard gas hit on a battlefield and be relatively ok. Same with biological weapons: I can walk around in a field in South Dakota and kick up some anthrax. No problem. Its natural, and its easy to acquire and refine and even weaponize. And it doesn't stop me from engaging in a war RP to know that the other player might have weaponized anthrax. I just bring gas masks and mopp gear, bing bang boom, bob's somebody's uncle, and its on. Even getting sneak attacked by white phosphorous at night caused damage and mass death, but ultimately, it was over in a few days and gave us some stuff to RP.
Nuclear weapons, especially hydrogen bombs, (which is what a nuclear weapon is) are a different breed all together, and I think because of these factors they should be completely outlawed. I would draw the line at nuclear weapons, atomic weapons and "dirty bombs". I wouldn't outlaw peaceful nuclear energy, because you can theoretically proliferate that infinitely. I would NOT outlaw nuclear powered weapons, like subs or Aircraft carriers, just on the basis of their power source. Nuclear power I would argue should be easily obtainable, perhaps as Wu says, universally obtainable. Just tactical and strategic nuclear and atomic weaponry, and "dirty bombs". If you really want to blow pop machines up, just use three, instead of one...
Not taking away from what anyone has said, I see good arguments so far from everyone who has commented.
On the one hand: Yes, nuclear weapons technology is available. Hell, its also freely available in the real world. We could likely all pretty much give a cursory discussion on how it works, how it is made, what it does. That's fairly common knowledge and I am guessing none of us are even nuclear physicists. So is it realistic that we could RP a nuclear weapons development program? Sure.
On the other hand: Yes, just because you possess infinite amounts of "yellow cake" doesn't mean that everyone has the capacity to refine it into weapons grade plutonium. Even if you get decades of technical assistance from someone who supposedly knows how to do it, though the chances of "I have this nationality in my nation, and that nation at one point did this, and also that nationality also happens to be nuclear physicists and knows, on a genetic, cultural level, just how to do this, because their nation did this at some point in the distant past" are remarkably slim.
Point is, there is not only limited amounts of very specialized materials necessary to actually create nuclear weapons available that few make and almost nobody has, AND there is very limited amounts of technical know how available to know how to do it, and that number dwindles very rapidly over the years. You would need active support from an actively developing nuclear nation. If a nation developed their nuclear weapons two hundred years ago, and is just maintaining their stockpile now, the people who knew how to actually build the things, and the machinery used to do so, are probably long dead. If we're being completely realistic. Because active nuclear programs have not been played in a very long time.
This tends to suggest to me that nukes should be banned completely and when the few that were created are used up, they are gone.
Plus: there is the issue of RPing that these programs was done in complete secrecy, with no ability of any external player to stop it. Its a trick of the game that if we claim to have something, we have to develop it and be able to point to established RP to show that we did. It is, I think, "gaming the game" to be able to do that in things like ABU, but then claim that nobody knew about it at all until I decided to make it public, and say nobody the entire time had any way to respond to it, but then turn around and say that your "established RP" is fully contained in ABU which we treat as OOC knowledge, not IC knowledge. How can I IG acknowledge something I am not allowed to know about, but then be forced to accept something that I had no way to do anything about, but would have if I could have? That kinda feels like power gaming, like I am forced to accept something horrific, or I can't even RP a response.
This tends to suggest, based on the mechanics of the game, that nukes should be completely banned.
Plus: It kills any potential for military RP I think. We already have the power to say "No, I don't want to do military RP, therefore I don't consent to a war." We can do that with or without nukes. But if we have to accept being nuked as a consequence of a war RP, then there is literally no incentive for the war RP. But there is also no way for the international community, such as it exists IG, and for the game community OOC to sanction behavior that violates community norms. We just have to put up with it. In reality, war is the ultimate tool people have to force compliance. In our game we have to rely on community spirit to so do, but what happens when that community spirit is not present? Adding nukes to that conversation just muddies that all up completely.
This tends to suggest to me that nukes should be completely banned from the game.
I don't necessarily feel that all this applies to other WMDs. It is possible to build a mustard gas factory, for example, just normally. I have an industrial chemical factory, and in the corner over there, we also make mustard gas. If its not perfect, so what? We aren't detonating whole square miles if we screw up like we would if we had a nuclear accident. I can easily acquire the chemicals to do so. If one player one day says he has mustard gas, its way more believable to just say that. I don't like it, but I could even take a mustard gas hit on a battlefield and be relatively ok. Same with biological weapons: I can walk around in a field in South Dakota and kick up some anthrax. No problem. Its natural, and its easy to acquire and refine and even weaponize. And it doesn't stop me from engaging in a war RP to know that the other player might have weaponized anthrax. I just bring gas masks and mopp gear, bing bang boom, bob's somebody's uncle, and its on. Even getting sneak attacked by white phosphorous at night caused damage and mass death, but ultimately, it was over in a few days and gave us some stuff to RP.
Nuclear weapons, especially hydrogen bombs, (which is what a nuclear weapon is) are a different breed all together, and I think because of these factors they should be completely outlawed. I would draw the line at nuclear weapons, atomic weapons and "dirty bombs". I wouldn't outlaw peaceful nuclear energy, because you can theoretically proliferate that infinitely. I would NOT outlaw nuclear powered weapons, like subs or Aircraft carriers, just on the basis of their power source. Nuclear power I would argue should be easily obtainable, perhaps as Wu says, universally obtainable. Just tactical and strategic nuclear and atomic weaponry, and "dirty bombs". If you really want to blow pop machines up, just use three, instead of one...
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-
Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-