 |
|  |
 |
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001 time: 15:24
|
|
Oh, and another question about your manifesto:
quote: We will never sanction the use of Planet Busters. |
Would you approve their use to prevent PBs from being used against us? Say, for example, that Yang had five PBs in one of his bases, all pointed at us, and we could expect him to launch at any time. Would you approve of us launching first, to eliminate the threat? The total ecodamage inflicted would be only 1/5th of what it would be if he launched, and the overall damage and loss of life would undoubtedly be less.
(note that I am ignoring, here, the diplomatic repercussions; if need be, we could always repeal the charter immediately efore we launched)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
Personally I would say no. I know the practicalities, but from an idealistic point of view that would be striking first. To be honest, I don't think I would ever sanction PBs, but that's an interesting point for the party. I'm sure we'll have much debate on that.
It would also depend if we believed he would use them against us (as in, has he a previous record, are we a particular thorn in his side, is there anyone closer he may want to use them on etc.). If I believed that he would use them against us, and that we are at war, and he has a record, and there was no other way of taking the base of otherwise preventing him using them, then I could personally condone it. It would take quite a bit though 
Last edited by Drogue on 16-12-2002 at 14:32
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
I agree, I count having them 'just-in-case' as a defensive measure. However I would only use them if there was no other way of destroying someone else's PBs, that we believed were to be used against us. If using one stops them using 5, we must consider it, but I would still be against it in most cases, especially as a first strike, it results in way to much damage, both humanitarian and ecological.
I would be very against removing the atrocity prohibition. We must punish any faction that commits an atrocity. And we will have little mercy for any faction that uses PBs against any faction. It is an atrocity, which must be (or at least be seen to be) punished, so as to discourage others from trying it.
BTW, what's MAD?
Last edited by Drogue on 17-12-2002 at 00:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Voltaire
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001 time: 22:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drogue
I agree, I count having them 'just-in-case' as a defensive measure. However I would only use them if there was no other way of destroying someone else's PBs, that we believed were to be used against us. If using one stops them using 5, we must consider it, but I would still be against it in most cases, especially as a first strike, it results in way to much damage, both humanitarian and ecological.
I would be very against removing the atrocity prohibition. We must punish any faction that commits an atrocity. And we will have little mercy for any faction that uses PBs against any faction. It is an atrocity, which must be (or at least be seen to be) punished, so as to discourage others from trying it.
BTW, what's MAD? |
MAD= Mutually Assured Destruction
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Voltaire
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Aug 2001 time: 22:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drogue
Great in theory, and in real life, practically useless IMHO in SMAC. I've had Yang use PBs with me having them, and not using them when I don't. I don't think MAD particularly affects Yang (though many people would sleep safer knowing we can retaliate probably). |
I agree, Yang will use them even if we have the capability to retaliate. The option of retaliation should still be on the table. After all, are we to allow Yang (assuming he does use planet busters on us or anyone else) go unpunished?
We should, before even resorting to constructing a planet buster, attempt to ensure that Yang never has the capability to build one. If this can be done, though conventional warfare, then we will not need to face the issue of either the construction or use of planet busters.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
I would rather sabotage his production and research than use force, but yes we need to remove the capability to have PBs from him. No it shouldn't go unpunished, it should be punished with little mercy, but not by our own atrocity.
However, 'An eye for an eye' is not the way, we must rise above it. If he uses PBs I would condone a war, but a war of conventional means. IMHO, it is so unlikely that all the conditions for me to sanction the use of PBs (as mentioned above) will be met, that the manifesto still stands. STEP will never support the use of Planet Busters against anyone (to the extent that I would try to physically disarm it myself).
We are more civilised than that, and we will rise above it. We must rise above it. If not, we are no better than Yang.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
STEP has now changed region to Akiria, and, with Herc's agreement, will now reside in the Capital of Akiria: Aurora.
Herc: I was hoping, if you wish to, that you become Major of Aurora. It is almost purely an RP task though. Please visit the new region page, and see what you think. Pictures and comments/ideas are much appreciated.
Last edited by Drogue on 17-01-2003 at 17:48
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|