Nuclear Weapons RP

[TheNick]

Dear PT Legacy community,

In the past days, the Mod team was made aware of the Nuclear Weapon Development RP carried out by some nations. What we found by engaging in talks, is that the current regulations on this matter, based mostly on precedents, are perceived as murky and unclear - also potentially extending to WMDs and Bio-Weapons.

Therefore, we would like to start a public feedback period on this matter, specifically to the end of updating once and for all the rules on the matter, in order to bring clarity for everyone. We feel that since this is a delicate issue, it would be best for everyone interested to weigh in their opinions instead of choosing a top-down approach which would leave some unsatisfied.

In this forum thread, for the next week, everyone will be able to have their say, and then based on public feedback, we will reach a final decision.

Thank you

[imperialpearl]

First and foremost, I think that it was an amazing idea to open the discussion up to the community once more. I know that the issue of nuclear weapons has always been a point of contention within the community, as I note at least three (3) times when the mod team throughout the years have had to offer a conclusive statement of the nature of its development and use within the game. 

I personally have no problem with players fielding nuclear weapons. I have always maintained that it adds "something" or that extra "sauce" to the game with respect to the potential implications for geopolitics, diplomacy and warfare. Although I have traditionally shied away from RPing such weapons, my apprehension towards it has primarily been from the perspective that there needs to be a criterion through which it would be undeniable that a nation could/would possess nuclear weapons. 

In the past, I have noted how players were able to make lofty claims towards the development of this sort of RP via a handful of new posts. Most of these posts were ring-fenced against speculation and involvement from the broader community. Whether it was players flat-out denying persons to speculate on the very matter of their nation possessing the capabilities to do so or attempting to wipe away clear holes in their arguments, there has always been an OOC-level which has come into play in this sort of RP, and we're seeing it again. 

My proposal/idea for how this criterion should be developed follows this line of thought. 

1. Nations must be able to demonstrate technical know-how with respect to being able to "master" nuclear technology. 
This can either come in the form of a proven history of atomic/nuclear energy RP or cooperation with other states who are already established in this area. The argument that persons could seemingly understand the inner workings of nuclear technology, particularly with respect to WMD production/proliferation, is absurd, especially in those instances where the nation doesn't have a history of nuclear RP (civilian and/or otherwise). 

2. Nations must be able to demonstrate how they acquired the materials necessary. 
It is often easy for persons to claim they have already possess all the inputs necessary for nuclear weapons proliferation. Here, they often claim to possess sizeable quantities of of uranium deposits, yellow cake, heavy water etc. It is for this very reason that I have long championed a moderation-approved and recognised resources index. It would add an additional layer to the RP because nations can't simply stated that in their self-contained RP that they possess ALL the inserts. (e.g.) your nation wants to make a nuclear weapon but you don't possess uranium deposits. There is room for you to negotiate with one of the nations that do to secure a reliable supply. 

3. Nations must be able to demonstrate how they kept the program from being public. 
Some players may choose to let the development of their program be overt or covert. This could be done via a series of news posts or a combination of ABUs, news articles and informal news. Either way, it is wholly up to the players. However, I think that RP should take into consideration the environment in which it exists. Future RP involving nuclear weapons exists in the post-Beiteynu/Xsampa nuclear blast world, where Greek rightfully noted that there was an enhanced vigilance among nations against nuclear weapons proliferation. I am not saying that if Country B is making nukes, then Country A could launch some sort of ABU spy RP where they find evidence of nukes from an underground facility without (1) the consent of the player or (2) atleast a plausible chain of events which make the discovery of that evidence possible. I can see that in this sense, players may block others from interacting with their RP. I think that we have to be balanced, personally, I am not going to claim that I could detect ALL nuclear destinations but at the same time, I think it's reasonable to say that persons can't claim that some aspect of their nuclear weapons development is not known to the public. 

I don't think that managing this sort of RP (from the Moderator perspective) would be difficult. I like to think we have a self-managing community wherein we aren't afraid to hold people accountable. I think once a proper criterion is laid out, players can do that "monitoring" part on their own.

I think this is also an opportunity for the World Congress, particularly its subordinate agencies/structures, to be reactivated. I can't remember the exact name of the agency, but I know that the WC has an agency responsible for nuclear weapons investigations similar to the IAEA in real life. I'm just spitballing ideas here as to how we can (1) make nuclear RP work realistically and (2) put existing RP to use. Based on the contributions after, I'll add more in the future, but this sort of sums up my musings on the whole nuclear RP debate. Can't wait to read everyone else's thoughts.

[Wu Han]

I don’t really have a horse in this race, so to speak, as I don’t particularly enjoy military/war RP and have engaged in it maybe 2 or 3 times in my entire history in the game. I personally began to detest having to participate in military RP in my early period of the game due to the requirements of those who are deeply invested in military stuff for players to provide detailed development of everything from small arms to airplanes; that which didn’t comply with their standards was ruled unrealistic and unreasonable. This was frustrating and ultimately served to gatekeep the status of “great military powers” among nations with players of similar interests and degrees of pedantry. I raise this, as I think a similar dynamic is, and has always been present concerning the status of nuclear arms in the game. That said, I recognize military RP is a very core component of the game for other players.

In my opinion, nuclear weapons should either:

1. Be completely banned from the game, to provide a more level playing field for all players, or;
2. Be accessible to anyone, without depending on a subjective determination about the RP lead up to their procurement. 

I know that my second recommendation is likely to be the more controversial so let me explain:

• Allowing self-selecting players to determine what RP they deem to meet the standard for nuclear procurement is, and has been, problematic. 
  
• All military RP in the game must be planned and agreed to out of character. If I don’t accept that your country could use nuclear weapons against mine, then that’s the end of it. This is the case even if the mods/community/whoever else has affirmed you as having nuclear weapons. Thus, making a determination about whether or not a state has nuclear arms is relatively moot. 
  
• Countries always seem to be able to build massive infrastructure projects (high speed rail, hydroelectric dams, advanced power plants, skyscrapers, and so on) without ever having to explain how they've acquired the technical know-how, materials and resources to do so. To force some RP to meet a certain standard of realism, and not other forms, privileges one form over the other. 
  

If nuclear weapons are to be permitted, under a system where they can only be developed and possessed by a player whose RP has met a certain standard, then I think it is incumbent on those who will be making that determination to provide, in very clear, explicit terms, what steps a player must take to meet that standard, without any room for ambiguity.

[Mbites]

I don’t really have a horse in this race, so to speak, as I don’t particularly enjoy military/war RP and have engaged in it maybe 2 or 3 times in my entire history in the game. I personally began to detest having to participate in military RP in my early period of the game due to the requirements of those who are deeply invested in military stuff for players to provide detailed development of everything from small arms to airplanes; that which didn’t comply with their standards was ruled unrealistic and unreasonable. This was frustrating and ultimately served to gatekeep the status of “great military powers” among nations with players of similar interests and degrees of pedantry. I raise this, as I think a similar dynamic is, and has always been present concerning the status of nuclear arms in the game. That said, I recognize military RP is a very core component of the game for other players.

In my opinion, nuclear weapons should either:

1. Be completely banned from the game, to provide a more level playing field for all players, or;
2. Be accessible to anyone, without depending on a subjective determination about the RP lead up to their procurement. 

I know that my second recommendation is likely to be the more controversial so let me explain:

• Allowing self-selecting players to determine what RP they deem to meet the standard for nuclear procurement is, and has been, problematic. 
  
• All military RP in the game must be planned and agreed to out of character. If I don’t accept that your country could use nuclear weapons against mine, then that’s the end of it. This is the case even if the mods/community/whoever else has affirmed you as having nuclear weapons. Thus, making a determination about whether or not a state has nuclear arms is relatively moot. 
  
• Countries always seem to be able to build massive infrastructure projects (high speed rail, hydroelectric dams, advanced power plants, skyscrapers, and so on) without ever having to explain how they've acquired the technical know-how, materials and resources to do so. To force some RP to meet a certain standard of realism, and not other forms, privileges one form over the other. 
  

If nuclear weapons are to be permitted, under a system where they can only be developed and possessed by a player whose RP has met a certain standard, then I think it is incumbent on those who will be making that determination to provide, in very clear, explicit terms, what steps a player must take to meet that standard, without any room for ambiguity.

What follows is my personal opinion, not the opinion of the mod team or the administrators.

I find myself in great agreement with what Wu wrote here. Especially the first paragraph also resonated with me as someone who has very limited interest or rather just episodic interest for military matters. 

Personally as most of you know I adhere to a very free-spirited philosophy of this game, where the RP you do will reflect onto you and then others may judge if they want to engage or not. I think this is a proven concept but certainly not without its faults hence I agree with the latter of Wu's proposals, I personally disagree with banning things outright, I dont think it sets a good precedent nor does it help the game or the community in a meaningful way. 

What I personally could agree to, similar to what Wu said is a clear rule on what standards have to be fulfilled to acquire 'nuclear' or for that matter any weapon of mass destruction. I dont see the absolute necessity for it since the principle of consent-based rp holds true regardless but if it has to be, so be it.

[GreekIdiot]

Being the one who brought this thing back recently, I suggest:

1. Players/nations who choose to RP the development of nuclear weapons, auto-consent to the RP being discoverable - which means it's now an IC public relations game and not an OOC debate of cat and mouse game
   
2. Consequently, they also auto-consent to the actions of the international community on the subject - which also means it's now an IC public relations game, just like in real-life, think N. Korea, Iran vs Russia / USA
   
3. Players/nations in possession of nuclear weapons cannot use them unless the "victim" player/nation asks for it - which means it's an RP vehicle that has nothing to do with power gaming
   

On the 1st point, most of you have probably avoided acknowledging recent WMD RP out of fear of the 2nd point and the players developing WMD skewing and avoiding any of the consequences of being a N. Korea developing nuclear weapons, which ultimately leads to the 3rd point.

WMD RPers are never going to use their nuclear weapons, anyway, unless a victim agrees to being nuked. And since points 1 and 2 are already problematic in terms of OOC consent and agreement, the likelihood of any result kinda proves imperialpearl's self-management counter-point.

[Zanz]

What follows is my personal opinion, not the opinion of the mod team or the administrators.

I think we should just ban weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, and chemical. Any subjective case-by-case rule here is just going to be unworkably complex from an OOC perspective, and will lead to unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

Imp:

1. Nations must be able to demonstrate technical know-how with respect to being able to "master" nuclear technology.

We simply do not have the OOC knowledge on the mod team (and cannot expect to have it) to make these determinations.

2. Nations must be able to demonstrate how they acquired the materials necessary.

We do not today have, and do not plan to have, an enforced resource index. Without that, this point cannot be ensured and will easily be the subject of argument.

[...] we have a self-managing community wherein we aren't afraid to hold people accountable. I think once a proper criterion is laid out, players can do that "monitoring" part on their own.

This state is not working now, and shouldn't be our aim. Players in both Kundrati and Hutori have spent significant real life effort writing IC posts trying to justify WMDs in the recent past. Because no one in the community has actively voiced complaints to them, they might reasonably expect when they try to RP with others that those must be recognized. When and if the other player chooses NOT to recognize them, those players will be understandably frustrated and upset at the effort they spent not having paid off. I would much rather make this a flat out ban (nobody can use these, so don't waste your time) instead of a case-by-case "well, Vesica gets the benefit of the doubt because he's been here longer, but Dredd can't have them even though he spent several posts RPing building them because he's new and too edgy for my taste." Put more simply - I do not want vigilantism, I do not want community monitoring, I want clear up front rules that make it easy for all players to know where there's a line.

Wu:

2. Be accessible to anyone, without depending on a subjective determination about the RP lead up to their procurement.

This extreme option is obviously no more tenable than allowing no one nukes, in my opinion. It will similarly lead to frustration for players who will just end up ignored because they built a tool that is allowed to everyone but then used it badly.

Mbites:
I believe my response to Wu applies here too. NOT acting in this case means accepting that both Hutori and Kundrati are OK to proceed with the RP they have done, and that if players don't like it they can just opt to not consent. Do we actually think that that is going to lead to anything but frustration at some future date when it's not just "building a nuke" RP but becomes "using a nuke" RP? I think that's the obvious place we're heading.

Greek:

1. Players/nations who choose to RP the development of nuclear weapons, auto-consent to the RP being discoverable - which means it's now an IC public relations game and not an OOC debate of cat and mouse game

2.Consequently, they also auto-consent to the actions of the international community on the subject - which also means it's now an IC public relations game, just like in real-life, think N. Korea, Iran vs Russia / USA

IMO these are just restatements of rules against powergaming, which already exist. If a player is RPing something that is undetectable and refusing to face any realistic roleplay consequences of the story, they aren't even playing Particracy, they're just writing a book on their own. On point two in particular I also wonder - what exactly does this mean? If the entire world decides tomorrow that they're going to invade Dredd's Kundrati to stop the nukes, and he doesn't consent, what then? I think you're saying he could ignore it, but to do so he'd have to not have nukes - which is why I think it's just simpler to ban nukes in the first place and not leave it up to mob justice, threats of ignores, etc.

3. Players/nations in possession of nuclear weapons cannot use them unless the "victim" player/nation asks for it - which means it's an RP vehicle that has nothing to do with power gaming

And IMO this is just a restatement of the already-existing rule that RP requires consent.

To me it reads as if you're just arguing that we should apply rules that already exist. That's fine and I agree that we should - but how, both in these cases and in general cases should we do so, when everything I have said above applies? Your approach here would leave much to community enforcement and subjective interpretations of intent. These can work fine on most things, as we have seen, but on weapons of this caliber (and particularly insofar as they are seen as means to international relevance), it's just going to be easier for everyone - mods, community, and players, if we say "nope, nobody has those". It's fair, it's impartial, it's easy to understand, and it's enforceable.

[Doc]

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...

[GreekIdiot]

@Zanz,

And IMO this is just a restatement of the already-existing rule that RP requires consent.

To me it reads as if you're just arguing that we should apply rules that already exist. That's fine and I agree that we should - but how, both in these cases and in general cases should we do so, when everything I have said above applies? Your approach here would leave much to community enforcement and subjective interpretations of intent. These can work fine on most things, as we have seen, but on weapons of this caliber (and particularly insofar as they are seen as means to international relevance), it's just going to be easier for everyone - mods, community, and players, if we say "nope, nobody has those". It's fair, it's impartial, it's easy to understand, and it's enforceable.

Agreed, I also believe that everything needed is already available on the current game rules and community guidelines. However, as nuclear weapons seem to be this super hot point of contention, what harm is there for a special sub-section repeating the general rules, specifically for nukes?

You've known me for a while now, I'm basically against bans of any sort. Banning an RP vehicle, at least to me, feels like that last resort in the face of general community failure. Players just can't handle nukes properly in RP, so let's ban em. Where do we stop, considering?

However, I'm no longer the active player I once was, I'll grant you that.

If a player is RPing something that is undetectable and refusing to face any realistic roleplay consequences of the story, they aren't even playing Particracy, they're just writing a book on their own.

Precisely.

[Louis]

I remember the days when simply making nuclear technology and ICBMS took weeks if not months to complete. Because I think in part, we upheld the community to realism standards and made sure that those who engaged in nuke RP did it "the right way".

But we come to the issue: "what is the right way?".

I think there are multiple layers here we need to talk about: from community standards, to OOC issues, IC issues/consent, and the acknowledgement of realism. I, for one, have NEVER RPed nukes in my time in PT. I have found the RP strenuous and futile. I don't think the presence of nukes in the game actually adds anything useful--except give players and nations a military ego boost. Could it be used to end a decades long arc that involved multiple players? Yes, but that's not what's always happening.

I'm on the fence here. Do I think this game would be fine without nukes? Absolutely. Do I think this game can somehow adapt to somehow allow nukes? Yes. But I lean towards the former. I just don't think we need nukes. It needs time, management, accountability, and constant checks to ensure the RP is realistic, but that's where we run into problems: who is going to actually do that? It seems like there's going to be more management and regulation by allowing them, than just banning them altogether.

I am open to seeing suggestions on how to keep nukes. I think chemical weapons are not an issue tbh. I see them differently than nukes. But I don't think I want to accept a nation going inactive for 500 years, coming back and saying, we have nukes. Y'know? It's going to need a lot of management and ideas to get something stable going, but as of right now, I'm not fully convinced of their usefulness in the game.

[Mbites]

@Zanz

I dont necessarily think that it will lead to frustration, players have to be aware that RP functions on the principle of mutual consent, if you want to use a nuke willy-nilly the other party will simply not agree to it; To avoid frustration we maybe oughta guide more toward clear structuring and pre-planning for military conflicts. The rest from my POV regulates itself.